Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Post-Meeting Agenda Package - CoW_Jan16_2024 2
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE POST-MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, January 16, 2024, 8:30 a.m. 1600 2nd Street NE Three Hills, AB T0M 2A0 https://www.youtube.com/@kneehillcounty48 Pages 1. Call to Order 1.1 Approval of Agenda 1.2 Approval of Minutes 1.2.1 Approval of the December 5, 2023 COW Meeting Minutes 2 2. New Business 2.1 Growing Kneehill Event Options 5 2.2 Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)30 2.3 Bylaw 1889 Amendment to Land Use Bylaw Public Hearing Discussion 42 2.4 RMA Resolution Proposal Regarding Renewable Energy and Grid Stability 132 2.5 BDO Audit Planning Meeting 133 Presenter: Alan Litster, Mitchell Kennedy & Taylor Axelson Time: 9:30 a.m. 3. Closed Session 3.1 Privileged Information (FOIP-Section 27) 4. Adjournment 1 Committee of the Whole Minutes December 5, 2023, 8:30 a.m. 1600 2nd Street NE Three Hills, AB T0M 2A0 Council Present: Faye McGhee, Councillor Debbie Penner, Councillor Jerry Wittstock, Deputy Reeve Carrie Fobes, Councillor Laura Lee Machell-Cunningham, Councillor Kenneth King, Reeve Council Absent: Wade Christie, Councillor Staff Present: Mike Haugen, Chief Administrative Officer Mike Ziehr, Director of Infrastructure Kevin Gannon, Director of Community Services Barb Hazelton, Manager of Planning and Development Carolyn Van der Kuil, Legislative Services Coordinator _____________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order Reeve King called the meeting to order at 8:37 a.m. 1.1 Approval of Agenda No additions were made to the agenda. Resolution: CW061 Moved by: Councillor Cunningham That the Committee of the Whole approve the agenda as presented. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 1.2 Approval of Minutes 1.2.1 Approval of the November 21, 2023, Committee of the Whole Meeting Minutes Resolution: CW062 Moved by: Councillor McGhee Page 2 of 152 December 5, 2023 2 That the Committee of the Whole approves the adoption of the minutes of the November 21, 2023, Committee of the Whole meeting, as presented. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 2. New Business 2.1 Economic Development Portfolio Resolution: CW063 Moved by: Councillor Cunningham That the Committee of the Whole receive for information the Economic Development Porfolio Report. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 2.2 Unsightly Premises Process The Chair called for a recess at 9:15 a.m. and called the meeting back to order at 9:29 a.m. with all previously mentioned members present. Resolution: CW064 Moved by: Councillor Fobes That the Committee of the Whole recommend to Council to request Administration to provide further information on Unsightly Premises Bylaw. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 3. Closed Session Resolution: CW065 Moved by: Councillor Penner That this meeting goes into closed session at 10:02 a.m. for the following reason(s): Confidential Evaluations (FOIP- Section 19) CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Resolution: CW066 Moved by: Councillor Fobes That Council return to open meeting at 11:58 a.m. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Page 3 of 152 December 5, 2023 3 11:58 a.m. - meeting recessed to allow return of public. 12:02 p.m. - meeting resumed. 4. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 12:03 p.m. Kenneth King, Deputy Reeve Mike Haugen, CAO Page 4 of 152 Committee of the Whole Discussion Report Page 1 of 2 Version: 2023-01 Subject: Growing Kneehill Event Options Meeting Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2024 Prepared By: Fallon Sherlock, Acting Manager of Parks and Agriculture Services Jenna Kester, Economic Development Intern Presented By: Fallon Sherlock, Acting Manager of Parks and Agriculture Services Jenna Kester, Economic Development Intern Kevin Gannon, Director of Community Services RECOMMENDATION: That the Committee of the Whole request Administration to bring the chosen event option(s) to Council for approval. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: (Check all that apply) ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ High Quality Infrastructure Economic Resilience Quality of Life Effective Leadership Level of Service RELEVANT LEGISLATION: Provincial (cite)- None Council Bylaw/Policy (cite)- None BACKGROUND/PROPOSAL: Since its inception in 2017, the Growing Kneehill Event has undergone significant changes. Initially, the primary focus was on showcasing the best management practices and agricultural programs in Kneehill County for the benefit of local farmers and community members. Over time, the event evolved, shifting its emphasis towards agri-tourism and tourism development. This transition involved adopting a more comprehensive approach that integrated networking and marketing for entrepreneurs and local vendors. In its current state, the event has transformed into a promotional platform, spotlighting and celebrating the diverse products cultivated and crafted in the region for both dignitaries and the general public. Recently, there has been a perceived shift towards promoting and celebrating local agriculture and food to a wider audience. During the November COW meeting, council members shared diverse perspectives and preferences regarding the future direction of the event. Some of the feedback received by the administration suggested continuing the country market in some capacity, supporti ng open farm days and agriculture promotion, expanding the event's reach, and exploring options for activities that contribute to the growth of Horseshoe Canyon and overall economic development in the County which may include continuing with a form of a long table event. DISCUSSION/OPTIONS/BENEFITS/DISADVANTAGES/OTHER CONSIDERATIONS: Administration would like to take this opportunity to explore potential alternatives and gain a clearer understanding of council's objectives and purpose for this event. The aim is to align it effectively with Councils' strategic direction and identify the key indicators of success. Page 5 of 152 Committee of the Whole Discussion Report Page 2 of 2 Version: 2023-01 Contained within Table 1, labeled "Future Event Options," are diverse events organized by their purpose, stakeholders, audience, and strategic conn ections. These alternatives offer flexibility in combining them to achieve the council's desired outcome. The table's structure aims to provide a comprehensive perspective, assisting administration in understanding the council's intentions for this event. Table 2 outlines potential public locations in Kneehill County suitable for events, along with a non- exhaustive list of previous public events held at these venues. FINANCIAL & STAFFING IMPLICATIONS: It's crucial to emphasize that the financial figures and resource allocations, including staff time, outlined in this proposal are initial high-level estimates. These estimates are expected to undergo adjustments as further details and components are explored, and the event's scope is finalized. ATTACHMENTS: Future of Growing Kneehill Event Discussion Presentation Table 1: Future Event Options Table 2: Kneehill County Locations APPROVAL(S): Mike Haugen, Chief Administrative Officer Approved- ☒ Kevin Gannon, Director of Community Services Approved- ☒ Page 6 of 152 Page 7 of 152 Page 8 of 152 Page 9 of 152 Page 10 of 152 Page 11 of 152 Page 12 of 152 Page 13 of 152 Page 14 of 152 Page 15 of 152 Page 16 of 152 Page 17 of 152 Page 18 of 152 Page 19 of 152 Page 20 of 152 Page 21 of 152 Page 22 of 152 Page 23 of 152 Page 24 of 152 Page 25 of 152 Page 26 of 152 Page 27 of 152 Future Event Options Category Purpose Stakeholders Audience Link to Strategic Plan Option Event Options Resources Estimated cost Success Lead 1 Continued Development of Horseshoe Canyon as a destination through Market estabishment Local Business Partners Visitors to the site (local and outside) Level of Service; High Quality Infastructure; Economic Resilience A Country Market single market Planning & Development time (Staff or contractor) Facility support (meet AHS requirments) Marketing Entertainment/attractions Infastructure $15,000 Some cost recovery avaliable Number of Visitors Vendor sales Number of Vendors Vendor satisfaction Parks & Ag, Ec Dev 1 Continued Development of Horseshoe Canyon as a destination through Market estabishment Local Business Partners Visitors to the site (local and outside) Level of Service; High Quality Infastructure; Economic Resilience B Country Market Multiple markets (June, July, Aug) Planning & Development time (Staff or contractor) Facility support (meet AHS requirments) Marketing Entertainment/attractions Infastructure (upgrade option: power $30,000) $40,000 Some cost recovery avaliable Number of Visitors Vendor sales Number of Vendors Vendor satisfaction Parks & Ag, Ec Dev 2 Promote Agriculture via Open Farm Days Local Agriculture Non-Farm Locals and Visitors Level of Service; Economic Resilience A OFD: Cluster Development Events Promote locations, events and tours in our area Marketing Training $ 2,000 Number of Farms Participating Number of Visitors Ag 2 Promote Agriculture via Open Farm Days Local Agriculture Non-Farm Locals and Visitors Level of Service; Economic Resilience B OFD: Cluster Development Events Provide grant funding to farms for participation Marketing Finacial Support (variable options, RDC provides $500/farm) $ 10,000 Number of Farms Participating Number of Visitors Ag 2 Promote Agriculture via Open Farm Days Local Agriculture Non-Farm Locals and Visitors Level of Service; Economic Resilience C OFD: Cluster Development Events Create a tour to various Open Farm Day locations. Marketing Planning & Development Time Facilitation Resources $30,000 Some cost recovery avaliable Number of Farms Participating Number of Participants Ag 3 Promote and Celebrate Local Agriculture Local Agriculture and Local Communities Local Residents and Visitors Level of Service; Economic Resilience A Aggie Day Event Rotating event featuring representatives from commodity groups, ag retailers, ag processors and ag clubs to interact with attendees and present on their part in agriculture and food development. Rocky View County and Mountain View County both participate in similar events as booths/sponsors. Planning & Development time Marketing Entertainment/attractions BBQ Facility Rentals $ 15,000 Number of Commodity Participants Number of Attendees Ag 4 Community Celebration Local Communities Local Residents Level of Service A Community Event Trailer for use by both the county and local community groups for events BBQ & stage/sound system wrapped in Kneehill County branding and avaliable for community groups to use for events. Capital equipment Rental coordinating and upkeep time Maintenance and repairs $125,000 Some cost recovery may be avaliable Number of events used at Number of meals served Operations Department/ Economic Development 4 Community Celebration Local Communities Local Residents Effective Leadership B Existing Local Event Participation Host BBQ meal(s) at local community events in support of charity Planning & coordination time BBQ Supplies dependent on the number of events. Approximately $5000/event Number of meals served Community Services 4 Community Celebration Local Communities Local Residents Effective Leadership C Existing Local Event Participation Participate as a sponsor or booth at local community events such as markets Booth Supplies SWAG Sponsorship/Registration $$ event dependent Number of events participated in Community Services 4 Community Celebration Local Communities Local Residents Quality of Life D Resident Invitational Event Rotational event for residents/ratepayers to come together in a new location for a meal and music Planning & Development time Marketing Entertainment/attractions Meal supplies Facility Rentals $20,000-$50,000 Number of Attendees Community Services 5 Local Economic Development local tourism businesses Political reps, developers, enreprenuers, local tourism businesses Political reps, developers, enreprenuers Economic Resilience A Showcase Event/Dinner Singular event to bring in interested parties and showcase what HSC and Kneehill County have to offer Planning & Development time Facility support (meet AHS requirments) Marketing Entertainment/attractions Infastructure (upgrade option: pavillion $350,000- $400,000) $ 60,000 number of attendees, development investment results Ec Dev Page 28 of 152 Location Facility Pros Cons Current Events at Location Bigelow Dam Day use area ~Picturesque ~Limited parking ~No facilities or utilities ~ACA owned Fall Pheasant hunting Braconnier Dam 8 Campsites outhouse ~Less campers than Keivers lake ~Limited parking ~Small area ~No utilities ~Outdoor venue (weather dependent) None Dry Island Buffalo Jump Lookout ~Picturesque ~Tourism Site ~Provincially Owned ~Steep road down to river ~No facilities or utilities ~Outdoor venue (weather dependent) None but close to DNA Gardens which hosts their own various events Huxley Community Center Ball Diamond ~Lots of parking ~Sheltered facility (not weather dependant) ~Smaller facility ~Low tourism traffic Ball tournament Curling all-nighter Community Dinner Horseshoe Canyon Outhouse Market space Lookout Trails ~Natural landscape ~Major Tourism Site ~Along major tourism route ~Promotion of county owned destination ~Lots of avaliable parking ~Small outhouse ~Limited facilities ~Outdoor venue (weather dependent)Growing Kneehill Event Weddings Keivers Lake 42 campsites 3 Outhouses & Washhouse Outdoor Camp Kitchen Ball Diamond ~Utilities avaliable ~Busy on weekends with campers ~Limited parking ~Outdoor venue (weather dependent) Summer camping customers different private groups host events utilizing the facilities Orkney Viewpoint Lookout ~Picturesque ~Small area ~Limited parking ~No facilities or utilities ~Outdoor venue (weather dependent) None Sunnyslope Community Center ~Sheltered facility (not weather dependant) ~Smaller facility ~Low tourism traffic Unknown Swalwell 6 Campsites & outhouse Ball Diamond Community Center ~Sheltered facility (not weather dependant) ~Smaller facility ~Low tourism traffic ~Competing with other events local community groups may be hosting Community Dinner Ladies Night Curling Bonspeil Community Garage Sale Entertainment Events Torrington Community Center Ball Diamond Campground with 5 sites & Outhouse Arena ~Lots of parking ~Sheltered facility (not weather dependant) ~local tourism location (Gopher Hole Museum) ~Competing with other events local community groups may be hosting ~Moderate tourism traffic Local Markets May Long Garage Sale Gun Show Community Dinner Skating Curling Bonspeil Wimborne Community Center Ball Diamond ~Sheltered facility (not weather dependant) ~Smaller facility ~Low tourism traffic ~Competing with other events local community groups may be hosting Canada Day tractor races & Games Winter Festivel Christmas market Fish & Game Association Dinner Kneehill County Locations Page 29 of 152 Committee of the Whole Discussion Report Page 1 of 2 Version: 2023-01 Subject: Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Meeting Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2024 Prepared By: John McKiernan, Environmental Services Manager Presented By: John McKiernan, Environmental Services Manager RECOMMENDATION: That the Committee of the Whole accept the report on Extended Producer Responsibility for information, as presented. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: (Check all that apply) ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ ☒ High Quality Infrastructure Economic Resilience Quality of Life Effective Leadership Level of Service RELEVANT LEGISLATION: Provincial (cite)- Mandated through the Provincial Government Council Bylaw/Policy (cite)- N/A BACKGROUND/PROPOSAL: The Provincial Government has mandated the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) for recycling of single-use products, packaging, and paper products (PPP) as well as hazardous and special products (HSP) The Provincial Government has tasked Alberta Recycling Management Authority (ARMA) to oversee the program and develop the bylaws and policies. DISCUSSION/OPTIONS/BENEFITS/DISADVANTAGES/OTHER CONSIDERATIONS: Communities are encouraged to register for the program but are not required to if they intend to continue funding and operating their own recycling programs. The program is intended to shift the financial and operational burdens from communities and onto the producers of the materials identified as either PPP or HSP. FINANCIAL & STAFFING IMPLICATIONS: Currently, the financial burden for recycling programs fall onto the communities, this program if registered will shift that financial burden onto the producers. ATTACHMENTS: EPR PowerPoint Page 30 of 152 Committee of the Whole Discussion Report Page 2 of 2 Version: 2023-01 APPROVAL(S): Mike Haugen, Chief Administrative Officer Approved- ☒ Mike Ziehr, Director of Infrastructure Approved- ☒ Page 31 of 152 Extended Producer Responsibilty EPR Page 32 of 152 EPR Overview New framework for Alberta where producers will assume the responsibility of recycling materials like packaging, paper, single-use plastics, and hazardous and special products. The framework shifts the physical and financial burden of collecting, sorting, processing and recycling waste to the producer and away from local governments and taxpayers. Page 33 of 152 Government of Alberta •Determine goals, outcomes and direction •Maintain legislative EPR framework (Act, Regulation) and broad policy direction •Oversee performance of ARMA in its oversight mandate •Consult/engage with ARMA as necessary •Enforce contraventions against the Act or Regulation Alberta Recycling Management Authority (ARMA) •Developed and maintain By-laws and policies •Implement policies and procedures to deliver a level playing field and ensure compliance •Develop and maintain a registry system •Engage with stakeholders •Design measures to monitor and assess performance •Establish processes and escalation measures to compel compliance, referring to Ministry for enforcement being a last resort •Report on system health against outcomes set in regulation and keep the Ministry informed of issues Who’s Involved Page 34 of 152 Who’s Involved Communities Communities are defined by the EPR Regulation and include: •cities, •towns, •villages (including summer villages), •municipal districts, •specialized municipalities, •improvement districts (as per the Municipal Government Act), •special areas (as per the Special Areas Act), •settlements (as per the Metis Settlements Act), and •Indian reserves (as per the Municipal Government Act). Benefits: The Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) program presents a substantial benefit for communities across Alberta. •For Communities with Existing Recycling Services the operational cost of these services will be transferred to producers under the EPR program. This shift is expected to alleviate the financial burden on your community, potentially reducing utility or tax levies associated with waste management. The funds saved could then be redirected to other valuable community initiatives. •For Communities without Existing Recycling Services EPR will introduce the advantage of recycling services in communities currently without them including: •Waste reduction –recycling lowers the volume of waste that ends up in landfills. •Economic benefit –recycling can create jobs in the recycling industry and can reduce the cost of waste management. •Conservation of resources –by recycling materials like paper, plastic and metal, communities can conserve valuable resources. Page 35 of 152 Who’s Involved Producer Responsibility Organizations (PROs) In the context of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), a Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) is a business entity established to collaborate with producers, aiding them in fulfilling their regulatory obligations under the EPR Regulation. This regulation mandates that producers take on specific responsibilities concerning the collection, management, and promotion and education related to the designated materials they produce. HOW PROS ASSIST PRODUCERS: PROs play a crucial role in helping producers meet their regulatory obligations. They achieve this by: 1.Establishing Collection and Management Systems:PROs may arrange, establish, or operate collection and management systems, streamlining the recycling process for designated materials. 2.Promotion and Education:PROs also arrange, establish, or operate promotion and education systems. They inform residents in Alberta about changes to recycling programs and educate them on the proper disposal of designated materials. 3.Reporting: PROs prepare and submit the necessary reports on behalf of the producers, ensuring compliance with reporting requirements. 4.Representation:PROs represent the producers for various purposes under the EPR regulation. Page 36 of 152 Who’s Involved Producers A PPP (packaging, paper producers or packaging-like products) producer supplies material comprised of paper, glass, metal or plastic, or a combination of these materials to consumers. This includes both products and the packaging for products A HSP producer is an entity that supplies hazardous and special products into Alberta. All PPP Producers, unless exempt under section 9.1 of the Extended Producer Responsibility Single-use Products, Packaging and Paper Products Bylaws, must register with Alberta Recycling Management Authority (ARMA), at least thirty (30) calendar days prior to the date the Producer intends to supply PPP Designated Materials into Alberta. PPP Producers are defined within the regulation as: 1.The brand holder of the designated material, if the brand holder is resident in Canada, 2.If there is no person described in clause(a), the importer of the designated material, if the importer is a resident in Alberta, or 3.If there is no person described in clause(a) or (b), the retailer who supplied the designated material to the consumer. 4.consumer. Producer Responsibility Organizations (PROs) with delegation of authority can report on behalf of the Producers they represent. However, each Producer must register separately. Alberta’s new Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) legislation places full responsibility on producers of hazardous and special products (HSP) to collect and manage the materials they supply to Alberta residents. While communities may continue to play an important role in collecting and managing these materials, they are not required to do so.Page 37 of 152 Single-use Products, Packaging, and Paper Products (PPP) Includes materials from the residential sector such as: •Newspaper, packaging, cardboard, printed paper and magazines •Plastics (both rigid and flexible) •Metal and Glass Alberta’s EPR framework does not include PPP from the industrial, commercial and institutional sectors. PPP materials regulated under existing regulated stewardship programs (beverage containers, electronics, paint, tires, and used oil materials) are not included in EPR PPP to avoid duplicating requirements. Page 38 of 152 Hazardous and Special Products (HSP) HSP products include: •Consumer-sized solid, liquid, and gaseous products that are flammable, corrosive, and toxic •Batteries •Pesticides The system does not include HSP products sold in industrial sizes. HSP materials regulated under existing regulated stewardship programs (beverage containers, electronics, paint, tires, and used oil materials) are not included in EPR HSP to avoid duplicating requirements Page 39 of 152 Kneehill County Kneehill County has registered for the EPR program as a community. The County may need to also register as a producer as we exceed the revenue threshold but do not exceed the minimum requirements for material threshold. Revenue threshold is set at $1.5 million per. Material thresholds are: a. Paper –9 tonnes b. Rigid Plastic –2 tonnesc. Flexible Plastic –2 tonnesd. Metal –1 tonnee. Glass –1 tonne Current recycling done solely by Kneehill County that is encompassed in this program (as of Nov. 30, 2022): Recycle bin at Three Hills transfer station Annual household round-up (although not all material) Current recycling at our transfer sites administered by Drumheller and District Solid Waste: Cardboard Newsprint There is a potential for enhanced service beginning Oct. 1, 2026. Page 40 of 152 Questions? The ARMA website is a great source for information on the EPR program www.albertarecycling.ca/epr-oversight/ Page 41 of 152 Committee of the Whole Discussion Report Page 1 of 2 Version: 2023-01 Subject: Bylaw 1889 Amendment to Land Use Bylaw Public Hearing Discussion Meeting Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2024 Prepared By: Barb Hazelton, Manager of Planning & Development Presented By: Barb Hazelton, Manager of Planning & Development RECOMMENDATION: That the Committee of the Whole recommend to Council that administration bring back Bylaw 1889 with amendments for third reading at the February 13, 2024, Council meeting. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: (Check all that apply) ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ High Quality Infrastructure Economic Resilience Quality of Life Effective Leadership Level of Service RELEVANT LEGISLATION: Provincial (cite)- Municipal Government Act, Renewable Energy Act, Alberta Utilities Commission Council Bylaw/Policy (cite)- Bylaw 1829, Municipal Development Plan, Land Use Bylaw 1808 BACKGROUND/PROPOSAL: Council initiated an amendment to the Land Use Bylaw specific to the sections relating to renewable energy. These amendments are seeking to protect the amount of high classification agricultural land that is being taken out of production to accommodate these projects. Currently the MGA empowers the Province with greater authority in approving these projects. However, changes may be made to the existing process due to an inquiry that has been required by the Province which will specifically look at current policies and procedures for the development of renewable electricity generation. This i nquiry has also triggered a pause on any approvals for these projects until March 1, 2024. Council also requested that the bylaw be reformatted to clarify the requirements for each category size projects for both wind and solar. This has been completed and is attached for your review. No content has been changed from the previous draft. DISCUSSION/OPTIONS/BENEFITS/DISADVANTAGES/OTHER CONSIDERATIONS: Revisions to this bylaw have continued over the last several months, and a public hearing was held on December 12, 2023. Council wanted to schedule an opportunity to discuss the feedback that was received during the hearing. Specifically, Council wanted to discuss the following: setbacks to an urban that would not allow a brownfield site to be utilized, setbacks to residences setbacks to waterbodies human and livestock health Regarding the livestock health question, administration has reached out to Jayson Galbraith, PhD, P.Ag., who is the Acting Manager for the Office of the Chief Provincial Veterinarian for Alberta Agriculture and Page 42 of 152 Committee of the Whole Discussion Report Page 2 of 2 Version: 2023-01 Irrigation. He has provided several studies which have been attached for your information. Two of his studies relate to human health. Administration has also reached out as a general inquiry to the Government of Alberta health minister to see whether or not there are any Alberta based scientific studies that have researched the effects of solar and wind facilities on human health. Administration wanted to further discuss the stormwater requirement under solar section 6(c). Discussions with an Industrial Approvals Engineer and a Water Approvals Engi neer with Alberta Environment noted the following: They do not require an EPEA approval for these sites. However, if there are impacts to any water body, they would be subject to the Water Act. There would be no oversite otherwise. If we require them to either retain or test water prior to release, it would be the responsibility of the municipality to oversee this. Since there is no Water Act approval required, the trigger would be a complaint. Alberta Environment would determine whether or not the applicant needs to demonstrate they are not impacting. Administration is proposing the following wording for this section. “The applicant must submit a Stormwater Management Plan that outlines how they will mitigate offsite impacts to adjacent lands, roads or waterbodies (either permanent or intermittent), located in proximity to the site. This plan will be reviewed by municipal engineers to ensure that it meets the protection necessary for these adjacent lands.” Administration will incorporate any amendments Council chooses to make to Bylaw 1889 prior to third reading taking place. Administration proposes to have the revised document ready for the February 13, 2024 Council meeting. FINANCIAL & STAFFING IMPLICATIONS: This bylaw has been drafted in house so there were minimal financial implications beyond staff time, however, we did have a legal review done of an earlier draft so some cost was incurred for that review. Due to the legislated requirements to make changes to Land Use Bylaws, and the enhanced engagement for the Municipal Development Plan, staff have not been able to proceed with some of the Intermunicipal Development Plan reviews that were proposed to be done in this fiscal year. ATTACHMENTS: Reformatted draft of Bylaw 1889 A preliminary investigation of the effect of solar panels and rotation frequency on the grazing behaviour of sheep. Wind turbines and adverse health effects: Applying Bradford Hill’s criteria for causation. Ontario’s Experience of Wind Energy Development as Seen through the Lens of Human Health and Environmental Justice. APPROVAL(S): Mike Haugen, Chief Administrative Officer Approved- ☒ Kevin Gannon, Director of Community Services Approved- ☒ Page 43 of 152 Page | 1 Kneehill County Bylaw 1889 WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEMS (WECS) Amendment to Bylaw 1808 1. DEFINITIONS The following definitions apply to this part: Blade – A part of a WECS rotor which acts as a single airfoil, to extract kinetic energy directly from the wind. Blade Clearance – The distance from grade to the bottom of the rotor’s arc. Horizontal Axis Rotor – A wind energy conversion system, typical of conventional or traditional windmills. Operator means, for the purposes of this Bylaw, the holder of a license, approval or permit issued by the Alberta Utilities Commission for the purposes related to the carrying on of activity on or in respect to a specified land. Parcel Boundary, External – The property boundary for the subject lands which refers to the boundary adjacent to a road allowance. Parcel Boundary, Internal – The side and rear property boundary for the subject lands. Project Footprint means all the lands which are part of an approved application as well as any residual lands within a titled parcel, whether or not the lands are leased by an operator. Rotor’s Arc – The largest circumferential path travelled by a WECS’ blade. Shadow or Flicker means the repetitive moving shadows or reflection cast from the rotor blades as they pass through the sunlight. Total Height – The height from grade to the highest vertical extension of a WECS. In the case of a WECS with a horizontal axis rotor, total height includes the distance from grade to the top of the tower, plus the distance from the top of the tower to the highest point of the rotor’s arc. Towers – The structure which supports the rotor above grade. Vertical Axis Rotor – A wind energy conversion system where the rotor is mounted on an axis perpendicular to the earth’s surface. Visual Impact Analysis means a visual representation depicting the WECS from: I. no further than 5 km (3.1-miles) away; II. each accessible residence within 3.2 km (2-miles) of the WECS boundaries; III. any significant sites as determined by the Development Authority; IV. scale elevations Page 44 of 152 Page | 2 Kneehill County Bylaw 1889 V. photographs and/or digital information of the proposed WECS showing total height, tower height, rotor diameter, colour, and the existing topography vs. proposed grade changes, and VI. visual representation of the entire project both day and night, and VII. photographs and/or digital information modeled on ideal visual conditions both day and night; VIII. an analysis of the visual impact of above ground transmission lines to and from the property or parcel if above ground transmission lines are proposed for the development. Wind Energy Conversion System (WECS) Small Scale, (Category 1) – A wind energy conversion system less than 6.1 m (20 feet) in height consisting of a single structure with the capacity to generate electricity only for the property owner’s use on the site it is located, and not supplying power to the grid. Wind Energy Conversion System (WECS) (Category 2) – A wind energy conversion system of one or more structures designed primarily for the property owner’s use but capable of producing excess power supplying the provincial grid system. Wind Energy Conversion System (WECS) (Category3) – A wind energy conversion system of one or more structures designed to convert wind energy into mechanical or electrical energy on one or more parcels of land for commercial purposes. Page 45 of 152 Page | 3 Kneehill County Bylaw 1889 2. INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS All development applications for a WECS, depending on category, shall be required to be accompanied by the following: WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEM (WECS) SMALL SCALE, (CATEGORY 1) CATEGORY 1 (a) a site plan showing and labeling the information outlined in this bylaw, and the location of overhead utilities on or abutting the subject lot or parcel; (d) scale elevations or photographs of the proposed WECS showing total height, tower height, rotor diameter, and colour; (e) the manufacturer’s specifications indicating: • the WECS rated output in kilowatts; • the safety features and sound characteristics; • the type of material used in the tower, blade, and/or rotor construction; (g) specifications on the foundations and/or anchor design, including location and anchoring of any guy wires; (i) information regarding general public safety, including methods to secure towers from vandalism or unauthorized access; NUMBER OF WECS (CATEGORY 1 ) (1) A Private wind energy conversion system may be considered as a discretionary use in any Land Use District (except the Manufactured Home District). They will be subject to the height restrictions of the district; they cannot exceed one and a half times the height restrictions. (2) Two or more WECS, (Category 1) on a parcel or lot will be considered a multiple WECS for the purposes of this bylaw. (3) The Municipal Planning Commission may approve multiple WECS, (Category 1) on a case-by-case basis having regard for: (a) proximity to other immediate land uses, (b) density of WECS, (c) underlying utilities, (d) information received through the circulation process and at the planning commission meeting regarding the development. Page 46 of 152 Page | 4 Kneehill County Bylaw 1889 WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEM (WECS) (CATEGORY 2) CATEGORY 2 (a) a site plan showing and labeling the information outlined in this bylaw, and the location of overhead utilities on or abutting the subject lot or parcel; (d) scale elevations or photographs of the proposed WECS showing total height, tower height, rotor diameter, and colour; (e) the manufacturer’s specifications indicating: • the WECS rated output in kilowatts; • the safety features and sound characteristics; • the type of material used in the tower, blade, and/or rotor construction; (f) a noise analysis at the site of the installation and the boundary of the property containing the development, to ensure consistency with AUC Rule 12 (g) specifications on the foundations and/or anchor design, including location and anchoring of any guy wires; (h) proof of the applicant’s circulation to required regulatory agencies and government departments; (i) information regarding general public safety, including methods to secure towers from vandalism or unauthorized access; (j) impacts to the local road system including required approaches from public roads & roads to be used to bring construction materials & equipment to the property; (l) a description of potential impacts on existing or nearby WECS and wind infrastructure on adjacent properties. NUMBER OF WECS (CATEGORY 2) (1) A Private wind energy conversion system may be considered as a discretionary use in any Land Use District (except the Manufactured Home District). They will be subject to the height restrictions of the district; they cannot exceed one and a half times the height restrictions. (2) Two or more WECS, (Category 2) on a parcel or lot will be considered a multiple WECS for the purposes of this bylaw. (3) The Municipal Planning Commission may approve multiple WECS, (Category 2) on a case-by-case basis having regard for: (e) proximity to other immediate land uses, (f) density of WECS, (g) underlying utilities, (h) information received through the circulation process and at the planning commission meeting regarding the development. Page 47 of 152 Page | 5 Kneehill County Bylaw 1889 WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEM (WECS) (CATEGORY 3) CATEGORY 3 (a) a site plan showing and labeling the information outlined in this bylaw, and the location of overhead utilities on or abutting the subject lot or parcel; (b) a detailed public consultation process, complete with a summary report; (c) an analysis of the visual impact of the project with respect to the scenic qualities of the municipal landscape, including the cumulative impact of other WECS in the area and the impact of overhead collection lines; (d) scale elevations or photographs of the proposed WECS showing total height, tower height, rotor diameter, and colour; (e) the manufacturer’s specifications indicating: • the WECS rated output in kilowatts; • the safety features and sound characteristics; • the type of material used in the tower, blade, and/or rotor construction; (f) a noise analysis at the site of the installation and the boundary of the property containing the development, to ensure consistency with AUC Rule 12 (g) specifications on the foundations and/or anchor design, including location and anchoring of any guy wires; (h) proof of the applicant’s circulation to required regulatory agencies and government departments; (i) information regarding general public safety, including methods to secure towers from vandalism or unauthorized access; (j) impacts to the local road system including required approaches from public roads & roads to be used to bring construction materials & equipment to the property; (k) a plan outlining site decommissioning and reclamation; (l) a description of potential impacts on existing or nearby WECS and wind infrastructure on adjacent properties. (m) a copy of the AUC approval for the project 3. REFERRALS Prior to making a decision on a development application for a WECS (Category 3), Administration will refer the application to the adjacent landowners within a 2-mile radius of each turbine as well as the agencies noted below. Due to the site-specific nature of each development, the list noted below is not exhaustive and ministry names are subject to Page 48 of 152 Page | 6 Kneehill County Bylaw 1889 change from time to time. The Municipal Planning Commission will consider all information received as part of the decision process. • Alberta Arts, Culture and Status of Women – Historic Resources, • Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO), • Alberta Environment and Protected Areas, • Alberta Transportation and Economic Corridors, • Alberta Utilities Commission, • Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, • NAV Canada, and • Alberta Air Ambulance • Alberta Health Services 4. WECS (CATEGORY 3) SETBACK REQUIREMENTS (1) A WECS shall be located a minimum distance of 1.6 km (1 mile) from any dwelling not belonging to the owner of the land on which the WECS is located or at the distance established by the ‘AUC Rule 12: Noise Control’ whichever is greater. • The current owner of a dwelling or subdivided residential property not belonging to the owner of the land on which a proposed WECS is located may waive the 1.6 km (1 mile) required setback by providing notice in writing to the Development Authority. (2) A WECS shall be located so that the setback is a minimum of 100 metres (328 feet) from any side and rear property lines. (3) The setback for a WECS shall be a minimum of 400m (1312 feet) from a municipal road allowance. (4) A WECS shall be setback a minimum of 3.2 km (2-miles) from the boundary of a village, town or hamlet that falls within the borders of Kneehill County. (5) A WECS adjacent to a provincial highway must have the approval of Alberta Transportation and the developer/applicant will be required to meet whichever setback requirements are greater whether from Alberta Transportation or Kneehill County. (6) No WECS shall be located within the flight path of an existing airport as recognized by NAV Canada, a private runway, helipad, or other aviation-related use. (7) In order to protect habitat for birds of prey and waterfowl, no WECS shall be located within two miles of the following significant water bodies: • Red Deer River • Keiver’s Lake – (Lake No. 2) • Bigelow Dam • Lake 19 – (Ducks Unlimited Loc 840434) • Kneehills Creek • Three Hills Creek • Ghostpine Creek Page 49 of 152 Page | 7 Kneehill County Bylaw 1889 • Lonepine Creek • Rosebud River • Swalwell Dam • Braconnier Dam 5. MINIMUM BLADE CLEARANCE The minimum vertical blade clearance from grade shall be 7.6 m (25 feet) for a WECS employing a horizontal axis rotor unless otherwise required by the Municipal Planning Commission. 6. COLOUR AND FINISH (1) A WECS shall be finished in a non-reflective matte and colour which minimizes the obtrusive impact of a WECS, to the satisfaction of the Municipal Planning Commission. (2) The wind turbines may display the developer’s and/or manufacturer’s logos and identification lettering on the structure but cannot be used for other advertising purposes. 7. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR WECS, (CATEGORY 3) (1) During construction all equipment that moves from field to field will be required to be thoroughly cleaned prior to entering a new field in order to reduce or eliminate weed and/or disease transference. (2) The applicant to provide proof of insurance. (3) An analysis of the potential for electromagnetic interference to other WECS, radio, telephone, wireless, satellite, micro-wave, radar, or other electronic communication systems; (4) If a non-tubular design is proposed, the anchor design, location of any guy wire anchors, and how the tower is to be secured from unauthorized access or use. (5) A foundation plan with specifications. (6) An Emergency Response Plan prepared by a qualified professional and approved by the County’s Emergency Management Department prior to the project commencement. (7) If the WECS is to be developed in stages, a phasing plan. (8) The Applicant/Developer will be required to enter into a Road Use Agreement and a Development Agreement with the Municipality. (9) A security deposit shall be posted during the construction period in a form and amount determined to be appropriate by the Development Authority. Any damage to roads and/or other infrastructure during this period that is not rectified by the Applicant/Developer, will be remedied by the Municipality and the damage deposit (or a portion thereof) will be forfeit. (10)“As Built” plans will be required to be submitted to the municipality once the project is complete. The project will be required to register with Utility Safety Partners (previously First Call) in order to ensure the lines can be located when work is being done in the area. (11)A post construction and decommissioning plan detailing removal of all WECS structures and the reclamation of the land back to its natural state or equivalent land capability as Page 50 of 152 Page | 8 Kneehill County Bylaw 1889 required by the Conservation and Reclamation Directive for Renewable Energy Operations (Alberta Environment 2018/09/14) i. A cost estimate prepared by a qualified professional that details the costs of decommissioning the full installation and reclamation of the entire subject lands. Proof of security must be submitted to the satisfaction of the Municipality and may be subject to third party review completed by a qualified professional, at the cost of the Applicant. ii. If the WECS is out of service or not producing energy for a period of two-years, it will be deemed non-operational and decommissioning, removal, and reclamation will need to commence in accordance with the decommission and reclamation plan submitted with the application. 8. PUBLIC CONSULTATION (1) The applicant, or agent, for a WECS, (Category 3) shall advertise and host at least one open house or public meeting, in the general area of the site proposed for development and provide proof of the meeting with a summary of the findings, to the municipality prior to the Municipal Planning Commission meeting, where the application will be heard. 9. CHANGES TO WECS (1) Any upgrades to an existing WECS that trigger an amendment or a new permit from the AUC will also require a new development permit from Kneehill County. (2) Any significant changes to the approved site plan will require a new development permit from Kneehill County. Page 51 of 152 Page | 9 Kneehill County Bylaw 1889 SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS 1. DEFINITIONS The following definitions apply to this part: Healthy Forage Stand as taken from The Rangeland Health Assessment Manual Developed by Alberta Agriculture, which means the following criteria have been achieved: Soil: a. 10% or less human-caused bare soil, b. No erosion beyond the natural extent for the site. Vegetation: c. Minimum 75% or more of the live vegetation cover must be from the introduced forage species listed in the vegetation management plan. d. Maximum of 25% of the live vegetation cover from weedy and disturbance induced species, e. Less than 1% of the live vegetation cover from regulated noxious weeds with control management actions in place, Final range health assessment should indicate “healthy” according to the final score sheet. Figure 1 Rangeland Health Assessment for Grassland, Forest and Tame Pasture Field Workbook p. 36 Operator means, for the purposes of this Bylaw, the holder of a license, approval or permit issued by the Alberta Utilities Commission for the purposes related to the carrying on of an activity on or in respect of a specified land. Parcel Boundary, External means the property boundary for the subject lands and refers to the parcel boundary adjacent to a municipal road allowance. Page 52 of 152 Page | 10 Kneehill County Bylaw 1889 Parcel Boundary, Internal means the side and rear property boundaries of the subject lands. Project Footprint means all the lands which are a part of an approved application as well as any residual lands within a titled parcel, whether or not the lands are leased by an operator. Page 53 of 152 Page | 11 Kneehill County Bylaw 1889 CATEGORY 1 Solar Energy System, Private (Category 1), is a system using solar panels to collect solar energy from the sun and convert it to energy to be used for a single landowner, resident, business, or occupant of a site, for personal, domestic, and/or business use(s), onsite. Annual electricity produced for the site is generally expected to be equal to consumption. 1.SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM, PRIVATE APPLICATIONS (CATEGORY 1) (1) Applications for a private use solar energy system with ground-mounted arrays may be considered in any district except the Manufactured Home District (MHD). (2) Solar energy systems with ground-mounted arrays and associated equipment will require a development permit and will need to meet setbacks for the district. (3) Solar arrays may be installed on the roof of any building or may be ground-mounted in a rear or side yard. Private use roof installed solar arrays will not require a development permit but will still require the appropriate Safety Code Permits. (4) If a solar array is being mounted on a tower/pole, the applicant will have to adhere to the height requirements of the applicable district as stated in the Bylaw. (5) There shall be no aboveground portion of an alternative energy structure located in a front yard of a residential district. A solar array may be ground-mounted in a side yard, provided the structure complies with the minimum side yard setback requirements of the district. (6) A Roadside Development permit may be required to be submitted to Alberta Transportation. (7) Development and/or Safety Code Permit applications for a Solar Energy System, Private, shall be accompanied by the following information: (a) Documentation showing the system is designed to produce energy for the onsite sole use and consumption by the landowner, resident, or occupant. (b) Manufacturer’s specifications for system design, installation, and output capacity. (c) Orientation and placement of solar panels on the site including setbacks from property lines. (d) Manufacturer’s specification and design drawings for panels mounted to the roof or walls of a building or accessory structure, including how the panels are to be affixed, maximum projection from the roof or wall, and structural capacity of the roof or wall to support the proposed development. (e) For free-standing solar panels, a description of the proposed ground mount design and maximum height from the existing grade; and (f) Documentation showing all systems for mounting and securing meet Safety Code requirements this will include engineering for roof-mounted systems on both new and existing buildings. (8) Solar Energy System, Private, shall adhere to the following: Page 54 of 152 Page | 12 Kneehill County Bylaw 1889 (a) Panels shall be located so they do not create a glare on or impact neighbouring parcels or public roadways, or unduly affect the amenities of the neighbourhood, or present a danger to the travelling public. (b) Panels mounted to a roof of a building or accessory structure shall not extend beyond the outermost edge of the roof. (c) Panels mounted to a roof or wall of a building or accessory structure shall not project more than 0.45 m (1.5 feet) from the surface. (d) The maximum height of a free-standing solar panel shall not exceed 2.44 m (8 feet). (e) Setbacks prescribed in the land use district, or those setbacks established by a condition applied to a development permit shall prevail; and (f) The maximum number of panels per parcel shall be regulated by the Development Authority, subject to the existing use of the parcel and the current use of adjacent parcels. CATEGORY 2 Solar Energy System, Agricultural (Category 2), is a system using solar panels to collect solar energy from the sun and convert it to energy to be used for on-farm purposes, agricultural production or processing and on-site consumption. These energy systems are connected to the power grid and may augment the grid from time to time. 2. SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM, AGRICULTURAL APPLICATIONS (CATEGORY 2) (1) Applications for a solar energy system, agricultural with ground-mounted arrays may be considered in any district except the Manufactured Home District (MHD). (2) Solar energy systems with ground-mounted arrays and associated equipment will require a development permit and will need to meet setbacks for the district. (3) Solar arrays may be installed on the roof of any building or may be ground-mounted in a rear or side yard. Private use roof installed solar arrays will not require a development permit but will still require the appropriate Safety Code Permits. (4) If a solar array is being mounted on a tower/pole, the applicant will have to adhere to the height requirements of the applicable district as stated in the Bylaw. (5) There shall be no aboveground portion of an alternative energy structure located in a front yard of a residential district. A solar array may be ground-mounted in a side yard, provided the structure complies with the minimum side yard setback requirements of the district. (6) A Roadside Development permit may be required to be submitted to Alberta Transportation. (7) Development and/or Safety Code Permit applications for a Solar Energy System, Agricultural, shall be accompanied by the following information: (a) Documentation showing the system is designed to produce energy for the onsite sole use and consumption by the landowner, resident, or occupant. Page 55 of 152 Page | 13 Kneehill County Bylaw 1889 (b) Manufacturer’s specifications for system design, installation, and output capacity. (c) Orientation and placement of solar panels on the site including setbacks from property lines. (d) Manufacturer’s specification and design drawings for panels mounted to the roof or walls of a building or accessory structure, including how the panels are to be affixed, maximum projection from the roof or wall, and structural capacity of the roof or wall to support the proposed development. (e) For free-standing solar panels, a description of the proposed ground mount design and maximum height from the existing grade; and (f) Documentation showing all systems for mounting and securing meet Safety Code requirements this will include engineering for roof-mounted systems on both new and existing buildings. (8) Solar Energy System, Agricultural, shall adhere to the following: (a) Panels shall be located so they do not create a glare on or impact neighbouring parcels or public roadways, or unduly affect the amenities of the neighbourhood, or present a danger to the travelling public. (b) Panels mounted to a roof of a building or accessory structure shall not extend beyond the outermost edge of the roof. (c) Panels mounted to a roof or wall of a building or accessory structure shall not project more than 0.45 m (1.5 feet) from the surface. (d) The maximum height of a free-standing solar panel shall not exceed 2.44 m (8 feet). (e) Setbacks prescribed in the land use district, or those setbacks established by a condition applied to a development permit shall prevail; and (f) The maximum number of panels per parcel shall be regulated by the Development Authority, subject to the existing use of the parcel and the current use of adjacent parcels. CATEGORY 3 Solar Energy System, Commercial/Industrial (Category 3), is a system using solar technology to collect energy from the sun and convert it to energy to be used for off-site consumption, distribution to the marketplace, or a solar energy system not meeting the definition of solar energy systems, private 3. SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM, COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL APPLICATIONS (CATEGORY 3) Solar Energy Systems, Commercial/Industrial are those developments that feed power back into the general provincial power grid, are distributing to other properties, or are selling power for a profit at an industrial scale. Projects must be approved by the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) prior to submitting an application to the county. The AUC approval must be included with your application package. Page 56 of 152 Page | 14 Kneehill County Bylaw 1889 Development applications for a Solar Energy System, Commercial/Industrial, shall be accompanied by the following information: 4. SITE INFORMATION (a) A detailed site plan including elevations, and accessibility to a road, showing the titled parcel(s) location of the solar energy system, required setbacks, existing structures, distance from adjacent land and road allowance. (b) Location of overhead utilities on or adjacent to the subject parcel. (c) Location and identification of environmentally sensitive areas on the parcel where the panels are to be located. (d) Solar Energy System, Commercial/Industrial shall be setback a minimum of 3.2 km (2- miles) from the boundary of a village, town or hamlet that falls within the borders of Kneehill County. (e) In order to protect habitat for birds of prey and waterfowl, no Solar Energy System, Commercial/Industrial shall be located within two miles of the following significant water bodies: • Red Deer River • Keiver’s Lake – (Lake No. 2) • Bigelow Dam • Lake 19 – (Ducks Unlimited Loc 840434) • Rosebud River • Swalwell Dam • Braconnier Dam (f) A landscaping and screening plan showing how the installation will be visually screened from neighbouring parcels and adjacent roadways is to be submitted to the satisfaction of the County and will include sufficient construction details, plant lists and minimum sizes. 5. SPECIFIC TO DEVELOPMENT (a) Details regarding the system type, number of structures, height of structures, energy process, grid connection and rated output. (b) Details regarding signage, public safety, and security measures. 6. SPECIFIC TO LAND (a) Site suitability analysis, including but not limited to, topography, soils characteristics and classification, storm water drainage collection and management for a 1:50 year storm event, road accessibility, grading and drainage plan, availability of water supply, sewage disposal and solid waste disposal if required, compatibility with surrounding land uses, potential impacts on agricultural land, potential visual impacts, and consistency with the Municipal Development Plan. (b) Environmental impact assessment prepared by a qualified professional demonstrating site suitability, impact mitigation reclamation requirements. (c) Stormwater cannot be released into a natural drainage system thus the applicant should have alternative management options. Page 57 of 152 Page | 15 Kneehill County Bylaw 1889 7. SPECIFIC TO CONSTRUCTION (a) Impacts on the proposed access roads including approaches. (b) A soils erosion, topsoil and soil stockpile management plan to address: • Any proposal to strip and stockpile topsoil during the construction/erection period and the rationale or need for doing so, and • The details on proposed soil management practices and erosion control due to both wind and water; for the period of both construction and post-construction. • Surface drainage and erosion control must also adequately address and account for impacts associated with the impervious nature of the collectors. (c) Detailed information regarding a construction traffic management plan including estimated number of trips, parking and staging areas and any potential impacts to public roads. A Road Use Agreement will be required, and the County must approve any haul route as well as any staging areas that fall outside of the proposed site and utilizes our road network. (d) The Applicant shall provide proof of insurance. (e) During construction all equipment that moves from field to field will be required to be thoroughly cleaned prior to entering a new field in order to reduce or eliminate weed and/or disease transference. (f) A security deposit shall be posted during the construction period in a form and amount determined to be appropriate by the Development Authority. Any damage to roads and/or other infrastructure during this period that is not rectified by the Applicant/Developer, will be remedied by the Municipality and the damage deposit (or a portion thereof) will be forfeit. 8. POST CONSTRUCTION (a) Post construction and decommissioning plan detailing removal of all solar energy structures and the reclamation of the land back to its natural state or equivalent land capability as required by the Conservation and Reclamation Directive for Renewable Energy Operations (Alberta Environment (2018/09/14). i. A cost estimate prepared by a qualified professional that details the costs of decommissioning the full installation and reclamation of the entire subject lands. Proof of security must be submitted to the satisfaction of the Municipality and may be subject to third party review completed by a qualified professional, at the cost of the applicant. ii. If the solar power system is out of service or not producing energy for a period of two-years it will be deemed non-operational and decommissioning, removal, and reclamation will need to commence in accordance with the decommission and reclamation plan submitted with the application. (b) A Vegetation, Weed and Pest Management Plan that addresses how invasive plants, weeds, and pests such as Richardson Ground Squirrels will be controlled during the construction period and the projected lifespan of the development, to be submitted for review and approval by the Kneehill County Agricultural Fieldman. (c) A standardized methodology for assessment of vegetation stands for renewable energy sites will utilize the standard for a “Healthy Forage Stand” as defined in this section. Page 58 of 152 Page | 16 Kneehill County Bylaw 1889 i. The site will be assessed by Agricultural Services staff during the growing season at a minimum of 4 plot points on the site to create an average site evaluation. Staff will utilize the “Tame Pasture” Health assessment score sheet disregarding the scoring for “Woody Regrowth” as per the Rangeland Health Assessment Manual.” ii. Any score less than healthy will require immediate action by the landowner/developer according to Agricultural Services recommendations to remedy the issue (i.e., mowing, spraying, reseeding, etc.) iii. Additionally, nuisance species such as Richardson Ground Squirrels will be kept below threshold levels of one active mound per metre in a 100 metre by 2 metre assessment strip. (Standard pulled from Alberta Agriculture’s Agri-Facts Sheet on Managing Richardson’s Ground Squirrels) 9. FIRE & EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT FOR A SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM, COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL (CATEGORY 3) (a) A Fire Safety Plan submitted with the application for review and approval by the Fire Safety Codes Officer prior to project commencement. (b) A Fire Mitigation Strategy submitted for review and approval by the Kneehill County Fire Services Department (KCFS). Any changes to the fire mitigation plan, the solar installation layout, spacing between solar collectors, the screening plan or any other aspect of the project as requested by the KCFS must be undertaken and resubmitted to the satisfaction of KCFS prior to project commencement. (c) An Emergency Response Plan prepared by a qualified professional and approved by the County’s Emergency Management Department prior to project commencement. 10. PUBLIC CONSULTATION (1) The applicant, or agent, for a Commercial/Industrial site shall advertise and host at least one open house or public meeting, in the general area of the site proposed for development and provide proof of the meeting with a summary of the findings, to the municipality prior to the Municipal Planning Commission meeting, where the application will be heard. 11 . ADDITIONAL APPROVALS (1) Copies of regulatory approvals, utility permits and any other approvals required by the federal and/or provincial government shall be provided to the municipality. 12. PROTECTION OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS (1) In order to minimize the impact on agricultural lands, for Solar Energy Systems, Commercial/Industrial, the: (a) Siting of Solar Energy Systems, Commercial/Industrial should take place on lands considered to be poor agricultural land with a Canada Land Inventory (CLI) soil classification of 4 through 7. Page 59 of 152 Page | 17 Kneehill County Bylaw 1889 (b) Use of native prairie grassland, and high-quality agricultural soils with a Canada Land Inventory (CLI) soils classification of 1 through 3, shall be prohibited. These lands are defined on the attached map noted as “Schedule A”. (c) Topsoil must remain on the property it originated on and may be stockpiled but must be managed in a way that it can be utilized for reclamation. Stockpiles are to be kept under suitable weed free vegetative cover (minimum 80%) to prevent soil erosion. The vegetative cover must be established immediately upon completion of stockpiling and maintained for the life of the stockpile. 13. NOTIFICATION (1) Development applications for Solar Energy Systems, Commercial/Industrial shall be referred to: (a) Provincial and Federal agencies, the list noted below is not exhaustive and ministry names are subject to change from time to time: • Alberta Agriculture and Forestry • Alberta Arts, Culture and Status of Women – Historical Resources • Alberta Energy Systems Operator (AESO) • Alberta Environment and Protected Areas • Alberta Transportation and Economic Corridors Alberta Utilities Commission • Innovation, Science & Economic Development Canada • NAV Canada • Transport Canada (b) Adjacent municipalities if required in an Intermunicipal Development Plan. (c) Landowners within 3.2 km (2 miles) of the proposed site or in accordance with an existing Intermunicipal Development Plan. 14. ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS FOR SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS, COMMERCIAL/ INDUSTRIAL (CATEGORY 3) (1) Depending on the size, type and site of the project being proposed, the designated officer or Municipal Planning Commission may require the applicant to comply with any or all of the following standards or conditions: (a) A Road Use Agreement will be required to be entered into with Kneehill County during the construction period of the project. (b) A Development Agreement shall be entered into and registered on the title of the lands where the project is sited. Page 60 of 152 TWP 31 RNG 22TWP 31 RNG 24 TWP 31 RNG 23TWP 31 RNG 25 TWP 32 RNG 24 TWP 32 RNG 25 TWP 33 RNG 23 TWP 32 RNG 23 TWP 33 RNG 24 TWP 32 RNG 26 TWP 33 RNG 25 TWP 29 RNG 24 TWP 33 RNG 26 TWP 29 RNG 26 TWP 32 RNG 22 TWP 30 RNG 26 TWP 29 RNG 25 TWP 29 RNG 23 TWP 30 RNG 24 TWP 30 RNG 22 TWP 29 RNG 22 TWP 30 RNG 23 TWP 30 RNG 25 TWP 34 RNG 23 TWP 34 RNG 24 TWP 34 RNG 22 TWP 34 RNG 25 TWP 28 RNG 20 TWP 29 RNG 21 TWP 28 RNG 21 TWP 33 RNG 22 TWP 31 RNG 26 TWP 28 RNG 24 TWP 28 RNG 23 TWP 28 RNG 22 TWP 30 RNG 21 TWP 31 RNG 21 TWP 27 RNG 21 TWP 34 RNG 21 TWP 27 RNG 20 TWP 29 RNG 20 TO MORRIN TWP RD 340 TWP RD 334 TWP RD 332 TWP RD 330 TWP RD 324 TWP RD 322 TWP RD 320 TWP RD 314 TWP RD 310 TWP RD 304 TWP RD 302 TWP RD 300 TWP RD 292 TWP RD 290 TWP RD 284 TWP RD 282 TWP RD 280 RGE RD 210 RGE RD 211 TWP RD 280 RGE RD 222 RGE RD 215 RGE RD 214 RGE RD 250 RGE RD 245 RGE RD 244 RGE RD 242 RGE RD 235 RGE RD 234 RGE RD 231 RGE RD 230 RGE RD 224 TWP RD 284 RGE RD 265 RGE RD 264 RGE RD 262 RGE RD 255 RGE RD 253 RGE RD 252 RGE RD 270 TWP RD 292 TWP RD 300 TWP RD 302 TWP RD 304 TWP RD 310 TWP RD 314 TWP RD 320 TWP RD 322 TWP RD 332 TWP RD 334 TWP RD 340 TWP RD 344 TWP RD 342 RGE RD 240 RGE RD 234 RGE RD 233 RGE RD 232 RGE RD 231 RGE RD 230 RGE RD 225 RGE RD 224 RGE RD 223 RGE RD 222 RGE RD 221 RGE RD 220 RGE RD 215 RGE RD 214 TWP RD 342 TWP RD 344 TWP RD 350 RGE RD 264 RGE RD 263 RGE RD 261 RGE RD 252 RGE RD 251 RGE RD 250 RGE RD 245 RGE RD 244 RGE RD 243 RGE RD 242 RGE RD 241 RGE RD 240 RGE RD 263 RGE RD 254 RGE RD 261 RGE RD 251 RGE RD 243 RGE RD 241 RGE RD 233 RGE RD 225 RGE RD 223 RGE RD 221 RGE RD 220 RGE RD 212 RGE RD 213 RGE RD 205 TWP RD350 RGE RD 260 RGE RD 255 RGE RD 254 806 583 582 587 805 836 806 837 585 841 838 836 836 806 575 575 21 9 21 21 27 27 9 THREE HILLS ACME LINDEN CARBON TROCHU Wind Energy Conversion System Setbacks to Water Courses 0 10 205 Kilometers Kneehill County makes no representations or warranties regarding the information contained in this document including, without limitation, whether said information is accurate or complete. Persons using this document do so solely at their own risk, and Kneehill County shall have no liability to such persons for any loss or damage whatsoever. This document shall not be copied or distributed to any person without the express written consent of Kneehill County.©2022 Kneehill County. All rights reserved. Project Name : KC_0093 2- Mile SetbackPage 61 of 152 TWP 31 RNG 22TWP 31 RNG 24 TWP 31 RNG 23TWP 31 RNG 25 TWP 32 RNG 24 TWP 32 RNG 25 TWP 33 RNG 23 TWP 32 RNG 23 TWP 33 RNG 24 TWP 32 RNG 26 TWP 33 RNG 25 TWP 29 RNG 24 TWP 33 RNG 26 TWP 29 RNG 26 TWP 32 RNG 22 TWP 30 RNG 26 TWP 29 RNG 25 TWP 29 RNG 23 TWP 30 RNG 24 TWP 30 RNG 22 TWP 29 RNG 22 TWP 30 RNG 23 TWP 30 RNG 25 TWP 34 RNG 23 TWP 34 RNG 24 TWP 34 RNG 22 TWP 34 RNG 25 TWP 28 RNG 20 TWP 29 RNG 21 TWP 28 RNG 21 TWP 33 RNG 22 TWP 31 RNG 26 TWP 28 RNG 24 TWP 28 RNG 23 TWP 28 RNG 22 TWP 30 RNG 21 TWP 31 RNG 21 TWP 27 RNG 21 TWP 34 RNG 21 TWP 27 RNG 20 TWP 29 RNG 20 TO MORRIN TWP RD 340 TWP RD 334 TWP RD 332 TWP RD 330 TWP RD 324 TWP RD 322 TWP RD 320 TWP RD 314 TWP RD 310 TWP RD 304 TWP RD 302 TWP RD 300 TWP RD 292 TWP RD 290 TWP RD 284 TWP RD 282 TWP RD 280 RGE RD 210 RGE RD 211 TWP RD 280 RGE RD 222 RGE RD 215 RGE RD 214 RGE RD 250 RGE RD 245 RGE RD 244 RGE RD 242 RGE RD 235 RGE RD 234 RGE RD 231 RGE RD 230 RGE RD 224 TWP RD 284 RGE RD 265 RGE RD 264 RGE RD 262 RGE RD 255 RGE RD 253 RGE RD 252 RGE RD 270 TWP RD 292 TWP RD 300 TWP RD 302 TWP RD 304 TWP RD 310 TWP RD 314 TWP RD 320 TWP RD 322 TWP RD 332 TWP RD 334 TWP RD 340 TWP RD 344 TWP RD 342 RGE RD 240 RGE RD 234 RGE RD 233 RGE RD 232 RGE RD 231 RGE RD 230 RGE RD 225 RGE RD 224 RGE RD 223 RGE RD 222 RGE RD 221 RGE RD 220 RGE RD 215 RGE RD 214 TWP RD 342 TWP RD 344 TWP RD 350 RGE RD 264 RGE RD 263 RGE RD 261 RGE RD 252 RGE RD 251 RGE RD 250 RGE RD 245 RGE RD 244 RGE RD 243 RGE RD 242 RGE RD 241 RGE RD 240 RGE RD 263 RGE RD 254 RGE RD 261 RGE RD 251 RGE RD 243 RGE RD 241 RGE RD 233 RGE RD 225 RGE RD 223 RGE RD 221 RGE RD 220 RGE RD 212 RGE RD 213 RGE RD 205 TWP RD350 RGE RD 260 RGE RD 255 RGE RD 254 806 583 582 587 805 836 806 837 585 841 838 836 836 806 575 575 21 9 21 21 27 27 9 THREE HILLS ACME LINDEN CARBON TROCHU Wind Energy Conversion System Setbacks to Water Courses 0 10 205 Kilometers Kneehill County makes no representations or warranties regarding the information contained in this document including, without limitation, whether said information is accurate or complete. Persons using this document do so solely at their own risk, and Kneehill County shall have no liability to such persons for any loss or damage whatsoever. This document shall not be copied or distributed to any person without the express written consent of Kneehill County.©2022 Kneehill County. All rights reserved. Project Name : KC_0093 Legend 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 O CLI Soil Classification 2-Mile Setback Class Area(ac) 1 97945 2 62728 3 144058 4 22390 5 53499 6 26907 7 34743 8 2 Page 62 of 152 TWP 31 RNG 22TWP 31 RNG 24 TWP 31 RNG 23TWP 31 RNG 25 TWP 32 RNG 24 TWP 32 RNG 25 TWP 33 RNG 23 TWP 32 RNG 23 TWP 33 RNG 24 TWP 32 RNG 26 TWP 33 RNG 25 TWP 29 RNG 24 TWP 33 RNG 26 TWP 29 RNG 26 TWP 32 RNG 22 TWP 30 RNG 26 TWP 29 RNG 25 TWP 29 RNG 23 TWP 30 RNG 24 TWP 30 RNG 22 TWP 29 RNG 22 TWP 30 RNG 23 TWP 30 RNG 25 TWP 34 RNG 23 TWP 34 RNG 24 TWP 34 RNG 22 TWP 34 RNG 25 TWP 28 RNG 20 TWP 29 RNG 21 TWP 28 RNG 21 TWP 33 RNG 22 TWP 31 RNG 26 TWP 28 RNG 24 TWP 28 RNG 23 TWP 28 RNG 22 TWP 30 RNG 21 TWP 31 RNG 21 TWP 27 RNG 21 TWP 34 RNG 21 TWP 27 RNG 20 TWP 29 RNG 20 TO MORRIN TWP RD 340 TWP RD 334 TWP RD 332 TWP RD 330 TWP RD 324 TWP RD 322 TWP RD 320 TWP RD 314 TWP RD 310 TWP RD 304 TWP RD 302 TWP RD 300 TWP RD 292 TWP RD 290 TWP RD 284 TWP RD 282 TWP RD 280 RGE RD 210 RGE RD 211 TWP RD 280 RGE RD 222 RGE RD 215 RGE RD 214 RGE RD 250 RGE RD 245 RGE RD 244 RGE RD 242 RGE RD 235 RGE RD 234 RGE RD 231 RGE RD 230 RGE RD 224 TWP RD 284 RGE RD 265 RGE RD 264 RGE RD 262 RGE RD 255 RGE RD 253 RGE RD 252 RGE RD 270 TWP RD 292 TWP RD 300 TWP RD 302 TWP RD 304 TWP RD 310 TWP RD 314 TWP RD 320 TWP RD 322 TWP RD 332 TWP RD 334 TWP RD 340 TWP RD 344 TWP RD 342 RGE RD 240 RGE RD 234 RGE RD 233 RGE RD 232 RGE RD 231 RGE RD 230 RGE RD 225 RGE RD 224 RGE RD 223 RGE RD 222 RGE RD 221 RGE RD 220 RGE RD 215 RGE RD 214 TWP RD 342 TWP RD 344 TWP RD 350 RGE RD 264 RGE RD 263 RGE RD 261 RGE RD 252 RGE RD 251 RGE RD 250 RGE RD 245 RGE RD 244 RGE RD 243 RGE RD 242 RGE RD 241 RGE RD 240 RGE RD 263 RGE RD 254 RGE RD 261 RGE RD 251 RGE RD 243 RGE RD 241 RGE RD 233 RGE RD 225 RGE RD 223 RGE RD 221 RGE RD 220 RGE RD 212 RGE RD 213 RGE RD 205 TWP RD350 RGE RD 260 RGE RD 255 RGE RD 254 806 583 582 587 805 836 806 837 585 841 838 836 836 806 575 575 21 9 21 21 27 27 9 THREE HILLS ACME LINDEN CARBON TROCHU Solar Energy and Wind Energy Urban Setbacks 0 10 205 Kilometers Kneehill County makes no representations or warranties regarding the information contained in this document including, without limitation, whether said information is accurate or complete. Persons using this document do so solely at their own risk, and Kneehill County shall have no liability to such persons for any loss or damage whatsoever. This document shall not be copied or distributed to any person without the express written consent of Kneehill County.©2022 Kneehill County. All rights reserved. Project Name : KC_0093 2-mile Setback Swalwell Torrington Wimborne Huxley Page 63 of 152 TWP 31 RNG 22TWP 31 RNG 24 TWP 31 RNG 23TWP 31 RNG 25 TWP 32 RNG 24 TWP 32 RNG 25 TWP 33 RNG 23 TWP 32 RNG 23 TWP 33 RNG 24 TWP 32 RNG 26 TWP 33 RNG 25 TWP 29 RNG 24 TWP 33 RNG 26 TWP 29 RNG 26 TWP 32 RNG 22 TWP 30 RNG 26 TWP 29 RNG 25 TWP 29 RNG 23 TWP 30 RNG 24 TWP 30 RNG 22 TWP 29 RNG 22 TWP 30 RNG 23 TWP 30 RNG 25 TWP 34 RNG 23 TWP 34 RNG 24 TWP 34 RNG 22 TWP 34 RNG 25 TWP 28 RNG 20 TWP 29 RNG 21 TWP 28 RNG 21 TWP 33 RNG 22 TWP 31 RNG 26 TWP 28 RNG 24 TWP 28 RNG 23 TWP 28 RNG 22 TWP 30 RNG 21 TWP 31 RNG 21 TWP 27 RNG 21 TWP 34 RNG 21 TWP 27 RNG 20 TWP 29 RNG 20 TO MORRIN TWP RD 340 TWP RD 334 TWP RD 332 TWP RD 330 TWP RD 324 TWP RD 322 TWP RD 320 TWP RD 314 TWP RD 310 TWP RD 304 TWP RD 302 TWP RD 300 TWP RD 292 TWP RD 290 TWP RD 284 TWP RD 282 TWP RD 280 RGE RD 210 RGE RD 211 TWP RD 280 RGE RD 222 RGE RD 215 RGE RD 214 RGE RD 250 RGE RD 245 RGE RD 244 RGE RD 242 RGE RD 235 RGE RD 234 RGE RD 231 RGE RD 230 RGE RD 224 TWP RD 284 RGE RD 265 RGE RD 264 RGE RD 262 RGE RD 255 RGE RD 253 RGE RD 252 RGE RD 270 TWP RD 292 TWP RD 300 TWP RD 302 TWP RD 304 TWP RD 310 TWP RD 314 TWP RD 320 TWP RD 322 TWP RD 332 TWP RD 334 TWP RD 340 TWP RD 344 TWP RD 342 RGE RD 240 RGE RD 234 RGE RD 233 RGE RD 232 RGE RD 231 RGE RD 230 RGE RD 225 RGE RD 224 RGE RD 223 RGE RD 222 RGE RD 221 RGE RD 220 RGE RD 215 RGE RD 214 TWP RD 342 TWP RD 344 TWP RD 350 RGE RD 264 RGE RD 263 RGE RD 261 RGE RD 252 RGE RD 251 RGE RD 250 RGE RD 245 RGE RD 244 RGE RD 243 RGE RD 242 RGE RD 241 RGE RD 240 RGE RD 263 RGE RD 254 RGE RD 261 RGE RD 251 RGE RD 243 RGE RD 241 RGE RD 233 RGE RD 225 RGE RD 223 RGE RD 221 RGE RD 220 RGE RD 212 RGE RD 213 RGE RD 205 TWP RD350 RGE RD 260 RGE RD 255 RGE RD 254 806 583 582 587 805 836 806 837 585 841 838 836 836 806 575 575 21 9 21 21 27 27 9 THREE HILLS ACME LINDEN CARBON TROCHU Solar Generation Setbacks to Water Bodies 0 10 205 Kilometers Kneehill County makes no representations or warranties regarding the information contained in this document including, without limitation, whether said information is accurate or complete. Persons using this document do so solely at their own risk, and Kneehill County shall have no liability to such persons for any loss or damage whatsoever. This document shall not be copied or distributed to any person without the express written consent of Kneehill County.©2022 Kneehill County. All rights reserved. Project Name : KC_0093 Legend 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 O CLI Soil Classification 2-Mile Setback Class Area (ac) 1 16134 2 12767 3 44316 4 9856 5 6764 6 6844 7 24408 Page 64 of 152 TO MORRIN TWP RD 340 TWP RD 334 TWP RD 332 TWP RD 330 TWP RD 324 TWP RD 322 TWP RD 320 TWP RD 314 TWP RD 310 TWP RD 304 TWP RD 302 TWP RD 300 TWP RD 292 TWP RD 290 TWP RD 284 TWP RD 282 TWP RD 280 RG E R D 21 0 RG E R D 21 1 TWP RD 280 RG E R D 22 2 RG E R D 21 5 RG E R D 21 4 RG E R D 25 0 RG E R D 24 5 RG E R D 24 4 RG E R D 24 2 RG E R D 23 5 RG E R D 23 4 RG E R D 23 1 RG E R D 23 0 RG E R D 22 4 TWP RD 284 RG E R D 26 5 RG E R D 26 4 RG E R D 26 2 RG E R D 25 5 RG E R D 25 3 RG E R D 25 2 RG E R D 27 0 TWP RD 292 TWP RD 300 TWP RD 302 TWP RD 304 TWP RD 310 TWP RD 314 TWP RD 320 TWP RD 322 TWP RD 332 TWP RD 334 TWP RD 340 TWP RD 344 TWP RD 342 RG E R D 24 0 RG E R D 23 4 RG E R D 2 3 3 RG E R D 2 3 2 RG E R D 2 3 1 RG E R D 23 0 RG E R D 22 5 RG E R D 22 4 RG E R D 22 3 RG E R D 2 2 2 RG E R D 2 2 1 RG E R D 22 0 RG E R D 21 5 RG E R D 21 4 TWP RD 342 TWP RD 344 TWP RD 350 RG E R D 26 4 RG E R D 26 3 RG E R D 26 1 RG E R D 25 2 RG E R D 25 1 RG E R D 25 0 RG E R D 24 5 RG E R D 24 4 RG E R D 2 4 3 RG E R D 24 2 RG E R D 24 1 RG E R D 24 0 RG E R D 26 3 RG E R D 2 5 4 RG E R D 2 6 1 RG E R D 25 1 RG E R D 24 3 RG E R D 24 1 RG E R D 23 3 RG E R D 22 5 RG E R D 22 3 RG E R D 22 1 RG E R D 22 0 RG E R D 21 2 RG E R D 21 3 RG E R D 20 5 TWP RD350 RG E R D 26 0 RG E R D 25 5 RG E R D 25 4 806 583 582 587 805 836 806 837 585 841 838 836 836 806 575 575 21 9 21 21 27 27 9 THREE HILLS TROCHU ACME CARBON LINDEN Solar Generation and Wind Energy Setbacks ¯ 0 8.5 174.25 km Legend Hamlets Wind 2-Mile Setback Solar 2-Mile Setback Communities 2-Mile Setback Kneehill County makes no representations or warranties regarding the information contained in this document including, without limitation, whether said information is accurate or complete. Persons using this document do so solely at their own risk, and Kneehill County shall have no liability to such persons for any loss or damage whatsoever. This document shall not be copied or distributed to any person without the express written consent of Kneehill County. ©2023 Kneehill County. All rights reserved. Soil Classification 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 O CLASS Area(Ac) 1 102,725 2 77,873 3 156,849 4 27,468 5 54,371 6 26,517 7 34,744 Page 65 of 152 Applied Animal Behaviour Science 258 (2023) 105799 Available online 23 November 20220168-1591/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by- nc-nd/4.0/). A preliminary investigation of the effect of solar panels and rotation frequency on the grazing behavior of sheep (Ovis aries) grazing dormant pasture Emma W. Kampherbeek a, Laura E. Webb a, Beth J. Reynolds b, Seeta A. Sistla c, Marc R. Horney b, Raimon Ripoll-Bosch a, Jason P. Dubowsky b, Zachary D. McFarlane b,* a Animal Production Systems Group, Department of Animal Sciences, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, the Netherlands b Animal Science Department, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA, United States c Natural Resources Management & Environmental Sciences Department, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA, United States ARTICLE INFO Keywords: Solar farm Agrivoltaics Vegetation management Grazing behavior Sheep HOBO Pendant G data logger ABSTRACT Vegetation management on solar farms can be accomplished through targeted grazing with sheep. To the au- thors’ knowledge, no research has been conducted to date on sheep grazing behavior on solar farms, yet such research is crucial to inform grazing management practices for contract grazers on solar farms. The objectives of this study were to investigate both the effects of solar panels on sheep grazing behavior and the grazing man- agement strategy (intensive rotational grazing (1-day rotations (1d))) or rotational grazing (4-day rotations (4d))) best suited for vegetation management on a solar farm. Data were collected on Gold Tree Solar Farm in San Luis Obispo, CA, USA. Sheep with predominantly Dorper genetics (over 99%; n =80) were stratified by body weight (BW) and age in a crossover design across treatment grazing locations, solar farm (S) or native rangeland (NR), and grazing managements, intensive rotational (1d) or rotational (4d). Grazing location treatments (S or NR) were randomly assigned a grazing management, 4d (paddock size =0.405 ha, 4 days/paddock), or 1d (paddock size =0.101 ha, 1 day/paddock, 4 paddocks), resulting in a 2 �2 factorial design. All sheep were equipped with a HOBO Pendant G data logger (Onset Computer Corporation, Bourne, MA, USA) in a medial- dorsal position on their necks using vet wrap (Dura-Tech), to record ‘grazing’ behavior, defined as standing or walking slowly with the head down. The sensitivity, accuracy, and precision were >90% for ‘grazing’ behavior with 2-minute intervals. ‘Grazing’ behavior exhibited a treatment �management (<0.01) interaction. Both solar (S-4d and S-1d) groups spent more time (<0.01) ‘grazing’ than both NR (NR-4d and NR-1d) groups. The presence of solar panels may have provided sheep relief from heat, wind, and rain, which could increase grazing activity. During the study, forage was senescent and low-quality in terms of nutritive value. Both forage di- gestibility and protein content were higher in the S than in the NR paddocks. Sheep spent less time ‘grazing’ under intensive rotational management (1d) when compared with rotational management (4d) (<0.001). The use of sheep for vegetation management on solar farms has great potential. Sheep are effective grazers, easily able to maneuver between solar panels and can graze on steep slopes utilizing the panels to provide shade and protection from climatic conditions. In conclusion, utilizing a mix of intensive rotational and rotational grazing according to forage conditions – rotational 4d grazing management types being most effective for grazing behavior with senescent forage conditions – may be the most effective grazing management strategy on solar farms. Abbreviations: ADG, Average Daily Gain; AMP, Adaptive Multi-Paddock; BCS, Body Condition Score; BW, Body Weight; DM, Dry Matter; DMI, Dry Matter Intake; GLMM, Generalized Linear Mixed Model; IACUC, Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee; 1d, Intensive Rotational; M, Mean; MP, Multi-paddock; MW, Megawatt; NRP or M, Native Rangeland(Pilot study or Main study); 4d, Rotational; SP or M, Solar(Pilot study or Main study); SEM, Standard Error of the Mean. *Correspondence to: Animal Science Department, California Polytechnic State University, 1 Grand Avenue, San Luis Obispo, CA 93407, United States. E-mail address: zmcfarla@calpoly.edu (Z.D. McFarlane). Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Applied Animal Behaviour Science fkqnj]hf dkial]ca6f sss*ahoarean*_ki+hk_]pa+]llh]jeif https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2022.105799 Received 21 April 2022; Received in revised form 19 November 2022; Accepted 22 November 2022 Page 66 of 152 Applied Animal Behaviour Science 258 (2023) 105799 2 1.Introduction 1.1.Solar farms In locations with many sun hours year-round, such as California (3201 solar hours yearly in San Luis Obispo, CA (Average monthly hours of sunshine in San Luis Obispo (California) [WWW Document], 2022)), solar energy shows great potential as a renewable energy source. Recent literature suggests the dual purpose use of land, in which solar photo- voltaics (the conversion of light into electricity using solar panels (Kippelen and Br´edas, 2009)) farms are combined with agriculture and/or grazing ruminants and vice versa (Willockx et al., 2020). This diversifies the outputs of the system (energy and agricultural products), keeps the land in agricultural use, reduces vegetation maintenance ex- penses and labor associated with managing plant growth, reduces wildfire risk potential and is compatible with pollinator projects such as the creation of habitats for wild pollinators or placement of beehives (Agrivoltaic Solutions, 2020; Kochendoerfer et al., 2019; Montag et al., 2016). The abundance of standing biomass on solar farms must be managed to mitigate wildfires as well as the obstruction of the panels and subsequent reduction in solar energy harvest (Starns et al., 2019). Furthermore, solar farms can provide shelter and protection for wildlife such as mammals and birds (Montag et al., 2016; Phillips and Cypher, 2019; Sinha et al., 2018; Wilbert et al., 2015). Panels provide for varying degrees of shade, leading to differences in soil moisture retention and different microclimates, which support botanical, invertebrate and bird diversity and abundance (Sinha et al., 2018). Grazing management is currently being viewed as a service that animal managers can provide. This service includes an ecological service that meets the nutritional needs of the sheep and the forage management needs of the solar farm owners. 1.2.Vegetation management Targeted grazing is the use of ruminants for landscape management, including land health improvement, wildfire prevention, weed control, and ecosystem enhancement (Frost et al., 2012). As opposed to cattle and goats, sheep are the most appropriate ruminant species when it comes to vegetation management on solar farms because they are too small to damage the panels when rubbing against them, and they are not predisposed to chewing on wires or jumping on the panels, as goats would (Agrivoltaic Solutions, 2020). Additionally, sheep are effective grazers, easily able to maneuver between panels and able to graze on steep slopes that are harder to reach for mowers. Sheep eat a large va- riety of weeds and graze grasses and forbs that would otherwise end up shading the panels (Olson and Lacey, 1994). When using sheep instead of mowers for vegetation management, fewer fossil fuels are used and costs associated to labor are reduced (Kochendoerfer et al., 2019; Pickerel, 2016). 1.3.Heat stress Annually, $3 billion on average are lost to heat stress in livestock in the United States due to reduced weight gains, reproductive success and death or illness (Maia et al., 2020). Sheep lose a large part of excessive heat through their legs and ears, but when the environmental temper- ature increases to 36 �C or higher, the physiological mechanisms to reduce excess heat fail, leading to an increase in rectal temperature (Marai et al., 2007). Simultaneously, heat stress causes large changes in biological functions, such as decreasing feed intake efficiency and uti- lization, as well as disturbances in balances of water, protein, energy and minerals and in blood metabolites, secretions of hormones and enzy- matic reactions (Marai et al., 2007). Therefore, contract grazers and their sheep also benefit from solar farms by reducing heat stress and protection from other harsh weather conditions and solar radiation, subsequently improving feed efficiency and water use, as well as reduced predation due to stronger and taller fencing (Bhattacharya and Hussain, 1974; Kochendoerfer and Thonney, 2021). 1.4.Grazing management Sheep grazing behavior is dependent on the structure of the pasture, which is a combination of many factors, such as forage density and length, forage species, nutritional quality of the forage, plant vegetative stages, the presence of barriers to defoliation (e.g. stems and sheaths), and leaf blade fibrousness (Animut et al., 2005; Dias-Silva and Filho, 2020). The sheep try to optimize their forage intake, which affects their behavioral activities, such as selectivity (Dias-Silva and Filho, 2020). Sheep will eat forages of lower or higher nutritive quality, depending on the degree of selectivity (Dias-Silva and Filho, 2020). Several factors, like management, regional climatic conditions, animal activity in the group, and the nutritive value and availability of the forage influence duration and intensity of the activities that sheep perform during the day (such as grazing, resting, and ruminating) (Dias-Silva and Filho, 2020). This study focuses on management. Sheep can be grazed continu- ously, covering the entire year or grazing season on the same pasture, or rotationally. Rotational grazing or multi-paddock (MP) grazing is diffi- cult to define as it tends to differ between systems, with the paddock size and grazing and rest periods depending on the needs and challenges faced by the farmer (Heady, 1961). Rotational grazing using separate pastures was introduced in Californian grazing systems around 1900, as a range improvement practice (Heady, 1961; Smith, 1895). Adaptive multi-paddock (AMP) grazing is a form of rotational grazing with short grazing periods, high stocking density, long recovery periods, and as conditions change, animal numbers, recovery periods, and other man- agement elements are also adapted (Mosier et al., 2021; Teague and Barnes, 2017). AMP grazing is more labor intensive than continuous or less intensive rotational grazing, but resource use and forage nutritive value is often higher when a pasture is rotationally grazed than when it is continuously grazed (Paine et al., 1999; Teague et al., 2013). Multi-paddock (MP) or rotational grazing with short grazing periods and adequate recovery periods has a consistent advantage over continuous grazing for forage production and livestock weight gain (Teague et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2018). However, Briske et al. (2008) and Heady (1961) report no differences between rotational and continuous grazing management and in some instances higher stocking densities, often associated with MP grazing, can in fact reduce individual ADG compared to continuous grazing (Savian et al., 2014). 1.5.Preliminary exploratory study This preliminary exploratory study addresses how solar panels and grazing management strategy affect the grazing behavior of sheep on a solar farm. While this multifunctional use of land – also referred to as agrivoltaics – has great potential, because the environmental impact from raising sheep and producing energy separately is reduced (Handler and Pearce, 2022), no research has yet been published on the impact of solar panels and grazing management on the grazing behavior of sheep. No scientific data hence exist informing contract grazers on how to manage sheep effectively on solar farms. The aim of this preliminary exploratory study was to investigate both the effects of solar panels (presence or absence of panels) and the grazing management strategy (i. e., intensive rotational grazing (1-day rotations) or rotational grazing (4-day rotations)) on the grazing behavior of sheep, with the aim of finding the best suited strategy for vegetation management on a solar farm through evidence-based grazing management techniques. We tested two hypotheses. Our first hypothesis was that solar panels would increase the total number of grazing hours per day as a result of pro- tection from climatic conditions. We base this hypothesis on the fact that, in cattle, time spent grazing reduces with solar and heat exposure, as a behavioral response to increased heat load (air temperature >30 ºC) (Schütz et al., 2009). Our second hypothesis was that rotational grazing E.W. Kampherbeek et al. Page 67 of 152 Applied Animal Behaviour Science 258 (2023) 105799 3 (4-day rotations) would increase the total number of grazing hours per day compared with intensive rotational grazing (1-day rotations) because animals that rotate less often can spend more time browsing or selecting preferred plant species. Data loggers placed dorsally on the sheep’s necks registered the upward and downward movements of the animals’ neck. We assumed that an animal that was standing or walking slowly with their head down, was grazing/browsing. Because ‘grazing’ was not actually observed, but is a behavioral category estimated by data parameters that have an error component, where any variation of ‘grazing’ is given in quotes in this article, it will refer to behaviors identified as grazing from the HOBO Pendant G dataloggers (standing still or walking slowly with head down). With a higher stocking density, which is the number of animals per unit of land at a specific time, the pasture will be grazed more evenly because animal distribution im- proves with higher stocking densities, and selective grazing will be reduced, which increases the number of plant species grazed, weeds included (Olson and Lacey, 1994). When grazing intensity increases, there is less standing forage available per animal, which makes the an- imals less selective (Matches, 1992). 2.Methods All procedures were approved by the IACUC (Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee) of California Polytechnic State University (IACUC approval #2009). Data were collected at Gold Tree Solar Farm in San Luis Obispo County, California, USA. The facility is a 4.5 MW solar photovoltaics power project and has ground-mounted, single-axis tracking solar panels which automatically orient towards the sun (Cal- ifornia Polytechnic State University, 2020). This means that the panels have long shades in the early mornings and late afternoons, a rectan- gular shade right under the solar panels between noon and 13:00 h, and shades going from long to short in the morning and from short to long in the afternoon. The solar farm is constructed on 7.5 ha of sheep pasture owned by Cal Poly (California Polytechnic State University, 2020). Fig. 1.A Solar arrays 1–7 of Gold Tree Solar Farm. B Paddocks for the pilot study (black lines) and the main study (white lines). The chain-link perimeter fence around the solar farm is shown in black. (a) Source: Google Earth Pro (2020). (b) Source: Google Earth Pro (2020). E.W. Kampherbeek et al. Page 68 of 152 Applied Animal Behaviour Science 258 (2023) 105799 4 Usually, the sheep from Cal Poly’s flock (n =82) are used for grazing management on Cal Poly’s rangelands and on Gold Tree Solar Farm. Thus, the management conditions for the current study when compared with normal management conditions were very similar. Two experiments were conducted to investigate the effects of solar panels on sheep grazing behavior (time spent grazing) and which grazing management strategy is best suited for vegetation management on a solar facility. A pilot study was conducted in November 2020 to inform the design of the main study, which was conducted in January 2021. The sheep used in the pilot study (n =42) were also used in the main study (n =80). The sheep used in the main study were divided into four groups based on their weight, so the average sheep weight was similar between the four groups. The study was a systems comparison between the solar grazing sys- tem (S) and the grazing system in native rangelands (NR), under rota- tional (4d) or intensive rotational (1d) grazing. This preliminary exploratory study provides valuable information for future studies. 2.1.Pilot study – testing the effect of solar panel presence on grazing behavior to inform the design of the main study Sheep (over 99% Dorper-based genetics; n =42) were stratified by body weight (BW) (mean �SEM =78.3 kg �0.97) and age (range 1–8 years old) into two groups of equal size to one of the respective treat- ment grazing locations, solar farm (S), or native rangeland (NR) (Fig. 1B). The average weights ( �SEM) of group SP and NRP were 78.5 kg �1.55 and 78.6 kg �1.55, respectively. The pilot study was con- ducted over a 4-day period during the third week of November 2020 on solar array 7 (Fig. 1A) of Gold Tree Solar Farm. Array 7 had not been grazed as often as the other arrays on the solar farm, so observed forage species diversity was limited and was therefore no suitable replicate for the main study, which is why this array was selected for the pilot study. Via visual observation of the pasture (forage length and forage mass for 20 ewes per 0.101 ha per day), it was determined that there was insufficient forage to support 20 ewes fully in terms of nutrition. All sheep were managed in an intensive rotational grazing system, whereby the sheep were moved to a fresh paddock at the start of each new day of the study (four paddocks in four days, sheep were moved between 10:00 h and 10:30 h each day; paddock size =0.101 ha). The design of the pilot study was a repeated measures design. All eight paddocks were only grazed once. The sheep in both treatment groups were fed one bucket of almond hulls every morning between 07:00 h and 07:30 h and had ad libitum access to water. The main (�SEM) temperature during manual observation during daytime (10:45 h - 17:30 h) was 17.5 �C (�0.16), with main wind speed (�SEM) being 8.0 km/h (�0.38). There was no precipitation. 2.1.1.Pilot study results and discussion For the automated data collection using the HOBO Pendant G data logger, grazing behavior was expressed in both proportions of total time daily and in proportions of eleven set time periods of 2 h each for the pilot study. Because the sheep were moved to a new paddock between 10:00 h and 10:30 h every morning, the time period 09:00 h - 10:58 h was not considered in that analysis (Fig. 3). Logger data from the pilot study were not analyzed with a statistical test because the 20 sheep per group in the two treatment groups (NRP & SP) could not be assumed as behaving independently from each other. Because the dataset for the pilot study was not large enough, the model did not converge. Therefore, only descriptive statistical results were reported. Most of the ‘grazing’ behavior (averaged over all sheep per treatment group and over all four days) was performed during daytime, between 07:00 h and 19:00 h, regardless of whether solar panels were present (Fig. 3). At night (19:00 h - 07:00 h), ‘grazing’ was still performed, but less than during daytime. Sheep increased ‘grazing’ activity in the period from 07:00 h to 8:58 h in both the SP and the NRP treatments. Both groups ‘grazed’ more at the end of the day, during the time period from 15:00 h to 16:58 h, just before sunset at 16:50 h. Logger data from the pilot study suggested that sheep ‘grazed’ more in the NRP treatments than in the SP treatments. The pilot study, however, ran for 4 days only, while the main study ran for a total of 16 days, and was performed with twice the number of animals than used in the pilot study, resulting in four replicates. For the manual data collection, scan sampling was practiced in the pilot study, informing the scan sampling procedures for the main study. 2.2.Main study Sheep (over 99% Dorper-based genetics; n =80) were stratified by body weight (BW) (M �SEM =78.3 kg �0.97) and age (range 1–8 years old) to the respective treatment grazing locations, i.e. solar farm (S) or native rangeland (NR) (Fig. 1B), leading to a systems comparison. Grazing location treatments were then randomly assigned to the grazing management styles of rotational grazing management (4d; paddock size =0.405 ha) or intensive rotational grazing management (1d; paddock size =0.101 ha), resulting in a 2 �2 factorial arrangement of treat- ments: Solar Rotational (S-4d), Solar Intensive Rotational (S-1d), Native Rangeland Rotational (NR-4d), and Native Rangeland Intensive Rota- tional (NR-1d). The mean weights (�SEM) at the start of the study of group 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 77.8 �2.31 kg, 78.0 �1.83 kg, 78.4 �1.81 kg, and 78.3 �1.95 kg, respectively. All sheep were mated with the ram in September 2020 and 76 out of 80 sheep conceived and delivered in February 2021. During the main study in January, sheep were in the final trimester of gestation. In all four groups, one sheep did not conceive. Sheep from group 1 gave birth to 26 lambs, group 2 to 28 lambs, group 3 to 30 lambs, and group 4 to 29 lambs. Data were collected during a period of 16 consecutive days in January 2021. All four treatments were applied to all four groups in a pseudo-randomized order (to control carry-over effects) across a period of 4 weeks (Fig. 1B), with 4 days per treatment. Every treatment was applied to each of the four experimental units (study flocks) in the order shown in Table 1. Due to drought causing the forage to be senescent, a management decision was made to supplement the sheep in the solar treatments with approximately 23 kg of alfalfa hay per treatment group (n =20) on all treatment days except for the first day of every treatment period. The sheep in all treatment groups were fed one bucket of almond hulls every morning between 07:00 h and 07:30 h. All sheep had ad libitum access to water. The sheep in the intensive rotational treatments (S-1d and NR- 1d) were moved to a new paddock between 08:30 h and 10:30 h every day, and the sheep in the rotational treatments (S-4d and NR-4d) were moved every 4 days to their next treatment period. For the 1d treatments this means that 20 sheep grazed 0.101 ha per day for a period of four days. For the 4d treatments, 20 sheep grazed 0.405 ha for a period of four days. This means that all sheep, regardless of their treatment, had Table 1 Rotation schedule of sheep groups through the paddocks. (S =Solar; NR = Native Rangeland; 4d =Rotational; 1d =Intensive Rotational). Paddock Week 1 (Jan. 3–6) Week 2 (Jan. 7–10) Week 3 (Jan. 11–14) Week 4 (Jan. 15–18) 1 S-4d Group 1 2 S-4d Group 2 3 S-4d Group 3 4 S-4d Group 4 1 S-1d Group 2 2 S-1d Group 4 3 S-1d Group 1 4 S-1d Group 3 1 NR-4d Group 3 2 NR-4d Group 1 3 NR-4d Group 4 4 NR-4d Group 2 1 NR-1d Group 4 2 NR-1d Group 3 3 NR-1d Group 2 4 NR-1d Group 1 E.W. Kampherbeek et al. Page 69 of 152 Applied Animal Behaviour Science 258 (2023) 105799 5 access to the same amount of space during their treatment period. 2.3.The HOBO Pendant G data loggers (Onset Computer Corporation, Bourne, MA, USA) All sheep (both in the pilot and the main studies) were equipped with a tri-axial accelerometer, the HOBO Pendant G data logger (hereafter data logger; Onset Computer Corporation, Bourne, MA, USA), attached dorsally on their necks using vet wrap bandages (Fig. 2). The X-axis of the device was aligned in the dorsoventral or vertical direction, the Y- axis was aligned with the mediolateral or transverse direction, and the Z- axis was approximately aligned with the craniocaudal direction (Hu et al., 2020), similar to how the data loggers were attached to the goats in the study of Moreau et al. (2009). 2.4.Validation of the HOBO Pendant G data loggers In order to calibrate the data loggers (Moreau et al., 2009), manual observation was conducted by three trained observers over a period of four days for 30.5 h total. Ten sheep were placed in a pasture of approximately 0.101 ha in size. The behavior of three of these randomly chosen sheep, each one equipped with a data logger, was recorded with 2-minute intervals for 3 h per day over a 4-day period. Data logger output was combined with the manual observation data. Observations that were made were: lying, standing, grazing while standing, grazing while walking, and walking. Interobserver reliability was 100% between the three observers for an observation of 120 min using scan sampling at a 2-minute interval. 2.5.Automated data collection on grazing behavior The grazing status (grazing behavior: grazing/non-grazing) of the sheep was determined with the use of the HOBO data loggers. Guo et al. (2018) reported consistency of observable behaviors attributed with grazing and non-grazing even before analyzing data from an acceler- ometer and gyroscope. During grazing, sheep kept their heads down to gather, bite, and swallow grass, while simultaneously walking at a slow pace or remaining at the same location (Guo et al., 2018). Data in the form of X/Y/Z-axis readings at a 2-minute interval, were translated into grazing and non-grazing behavior by reading the X-axis. A positive value was associated with non-grazing behavior (head up), while a negative value was attributed to grazing behavior (head down) with an accuracy of 90.25% (M. Weller, Scientific Programmer, University of G¨ottingen, personal communication, January 29, 2021; Moreau et al., 2009). Grazing behavior was expressed in proportions of total time daily. 2.6.Manual data collection Manual observation data were acquired through scan sampling of all treatment groups during the grazing event, where the behavior of all sheep in each group was recorded at regular intervals (Gilby et al., 2011). All behaviors from the five categories (Table 2) were individually scored for all sheep by counting the number of sheep exhibiting the associated behaviors. The scan sampling data were, therefore, not at individual level, but at group level. The observations on location (i.e., whether the sheep were under the solar panels or in the alley between the solar panels) could only be done for the solar groups as the NR groups did not have access to solar panels. Behavior was recorded in scan samplings at a 30-min interval, from 11:00 h to 15:50 h (10 times per day per group), for 16 consecutive days during the main study. Scan sampling started every morning at 11:00 h for the S-4d group, at 11:05 h for the S-1d group, at 11:15 h for the NR-4d group and at 11:20 h for the NR-1d group. 2.7.Pasture biomass sampling 2.7.1.Quantitative analysis The forage intake of the sheep (i.e., the change in forage mass) per individual paddock was estimated through pasture biomass sampling using the clipping technique as described by Voelkel et al. (2018). The pasture biomass was sampled before and after the grazing event in each paddock. Biomass sampling was done through randomly selecting 12 locations per 0.405 ha rotationally (4d) grazed plot and three locations per 0.101 ha intensively rotationally (1d) grazed plot (adding up to 12 locations per four intensively rotationally grazed plots). According to Voelkel et al. (2018), a minimum of 12 clipped biomass samples representative for the plot should be taken per pasture. A 0.305 m2 quadrat was randomly distributed in the pasture. The plant biomass at the location where the quadrat was dropped was clipped to 2.5 cm above the soil. Each sample was oven dried in an open paper bag for a minimum of 48 h at 55 ºC. After drying, the samples were weighed on a scale with 1 g precision. 2.7.2.Forage proximate analysis Forage samples were ground using a Wiley mill (Thomas Scientific, Swedesboro, NJ). Biomass from all samples was homogenized and the homogenized ground samples were analyzed using an Ankom machine (ANKOM Technology Corp., Fairport, NY) to determine Neutral Deter- gent Fiber (NDF) content. The percentage of N and C in all samples, as well as the C/N ratio, were measured using an elemental analyzer (Elementar VarioMax, Langenselbold, Germany). 2.8.Statistical analysis 2.8.1.Validation of the HOBO Pendant G data loggers According to Moreau et al. (2009), the data loggers can, through measurements of acceleration and tilt, determine four mutually exclu- sive behaviors; grazing, lying, standing and walking. Due to low accu- racy (<50%) for other behaviors measured during the validation trials Fig. 2.Position of the HOBO Pendant G Data logger dorsally on the neck of the sheep. Picture derived from the article of Moreau et al. (2009). The X-axis of the data logger registers up to 90º (1 g) change deviated from the horizontal po- sition, with head down position being a negative value between 0 and -1 g and head up position being a positive value between 0 and 1 g. E.W. Kampherbeek et al. Page 70 of 152 Applied Animal Behaviour Science 258 (2023) 105799 6 of the data loggers, only grazing behavior was further analyzed. Because ‘grazing’ was not actually observed, but is a behavior category estimated by data parameters that have an error component, where any variation of ‘grazing’ is given in quotes in this article, it will refer to behaviors identified as grazing from the HOBO Pendant G dataloggers (standing still or walking slowly with head down). To validate the data loggers, the outputs of the data loggers were compared to the outcomes of 30.5 h, 2-min interval scan sampling ob- servations of five sheep with three observers. One sheep was observed for a period of 2 h by all three observers to test interobserver reliability. The precision (the likelihood that grazing behavior recorded by the data loggers was also recorded through manual observation; formula 1), sensitivity (ability of the data loggers to correctly determine if a sheep was grazing; formula 2), specificity (the likelihood that non-grazing behaviors that were recorded by the data loggers were also recorded through manual observation; formula 3), and the accuracy (the ability of the data loggers to correctly differentiate between grazing and non- grazing behavior; formula 4) for grazing behavior were calculated for a 2-min recording interval. Precision =True Negative (True Negative +False Negative)(1) Sensitivity =True Positive (True Posivite +False Negative)(2) Specificity =True Negative (True Negative +False Positive)(3) Accuracy =(True Positive +True Negative) (True Positive +True Negative +False Positive +False Negative) (4) Eight data loggers had either shifted or fallen off due to sheep rub- bing themselves against the metal poles on the solar farm. The data these loggers did not record were registered as missing values, which were excluded from the analysis. 2.8.2.Automated data collection Grazing data (proportions of total time) recorded by the data loggers were analyzed using a general linear mixed model (GLMM) in R (version 4.0.2, R Core Team, 2020; model glmmPQL from the MASS package) specifying a binomial distribution with a logit link function. The family used was quasibinomial, which automatically estimates overdispersion. Fixed effects included treatment (S/NR), management (4d/1d), and group (1 4). Sheep ID was introduced as a random effect to account for the repeated measures on the individual sheep. Results of the GLMM were given on the log odds ratio scale. Outputs were considered sig- nificant when α <0.05. 2.9.Manual data collection Behavior data from direct observations were at group level and could, therefore, not be statistically analyzed, with only 4 groups exposed to all treatments. However, the summary values (M �SEM) are provided for discussion. Sheep whose data loggers fell off or shifted during the study were omitted from the data logger results, but these sheep were, nonetheless, still included in the manual data collection results. 2.10.Pasture biomass sampling Pasture biomass data before and after the grazing event were re- ported in mean (�SEM) of the dry matter (DM) weight of forage Fig. 3.Bar graphs showing the mean (�SEM) of the total percentage of time spent grazing per treatment (left: NR & right: S) during the pilot study, averaged over the grazing period of four days. Each bar entails a period of two hours. The dashed line indicates the sheep being moved to a different paddock every morning between 09:00 h and 11:00 h. The two groups of 20 sheep per group were all fed a bucket of almond hulls at 07:00 h. Sunrise and sunset took place at 06:40 h and 16:50 h, respectively. (S =Solar; NR =Native Rangeland). Table 2 Behaviors scored during manual observation every day of the main grazing event from 11:00 h until 16:00 h. The behaviors in each category are mutually exclusive. Category/behavior Definition Location Panels Percentage of sheep are with 1/2 or more of their body under the solar panels. Alley Sheep are with less than 1/2 of their body under the solar panels. Posture Lying Sheep are touching the ground with the entire bottom surface of their body. Walking Sheep are moving faster than 0 km/h. Standing Sheep are standing in the pasture without moving in any direction. Activity Grazing Sheep are standing or walking in the pasture with their heads down, while pulling grass from the pasture with their mouths. Non-grazing Sheep are not moving their heads down and are not pulling grass from the pasture with their mouths. Proximity of sheep to each other >5 sheep-lengths away from each other Sheep are more than five sheep-lengths away from all other sheep. <5 sheep-lengths away from each other Sheep are less than five sheep-lengths away from all other sheep. E.W. Kampherbeek et al. Page 71 of 152 Applied Animal Behaviour Science 258 (2023) 105799 7 samples taken in the 16 different paddocks from all four treatment groups. Weight of all forage samples in DM was averaged per treatment. An ANOVA was performed for both the forage quantitative (forage DM weight) and forage qualitative data. 3.Results 3.1.Validation of the HOBO Pendant G data loggers The X-axis values from the data loggers (M. Weller, Scientific Pro- grammer, University of G¨ottingen, personal communication, January 29, 2021) were compared to the behaviors obtained during manual observation. The data loggers assigned 93.5% of the behaviors correctly and were therefore deemed sufficiently valid. The precision for ‘grazing’ behavior was 96.7%, sensitivity 96.6%, specificity 90.6%, and accuracy 93.5% for a 2-min recording interval. 3.2.Environmental data The main (�SEM) temperature during daytime manual observa- tions (11:00 h - 16:00 h) over the entire data collection period was 20.1 �C (�0.40) with variability in temperature among weeks: week 1 =18.7 �C (�0.17); week 2 =22.1 �C (�0.52); week 3 =22.8 �C (�0.33); and week 4 =16.9 �C (�0.59). In the first 3 weeks there was no rainfall, but during the last 2 days of week 4 there was some rain in the mornings, with a total 12.4 mm of rain on 22 January and 2.0 mm of rain on 23 January. The mean wind speed was 10.1 km/h (�0.45) in week 1; 8.9 km/h (�0.48) in week 2; 13.2 km/h (�0.42) in week 3; and 7.6 km/h (�0.39) in week 4, with the largest wind speeds often being in the mornings and evenings. 3.3.Grazing behavior ‘Grazing’ behavior, recorded by the data loggers, exhibited a treat- ment �management (P <0.01) interaction (Fig. 4A). Sheep in S treat- ments (S-4d: Mean �SEM =45.65 �0.35% of total time and S-1d: 43.30 �0.46% of total time) spent more time ‘grazing’ than sheep in NR treatments (NR-4d: 44.02 �0.47% of total time and NR-1d: 39.95 �0.39% of total time). Similarly, sheep in both 4d management treat- ments (NR-4d and S-4d) spent more time ‘grazing’ compared to sheep in 1d management treatments (NR-1d and S-1d). An analysis of the ‘grazing’ behavior from only the first day of all treatments (sheep in the solar treatments did not receive alfalfa sup- plementation on the first day of each treatment, while they did receive alfalfa supplementation on days 2, 3 and 4 of the solar treatments), shows that sheep ‘grazed’ more on day one in the S-4d treatments (47.50 �0.55) than in the NR-4d treatments (44.60 �1.04; P <0.05), and more in the S-1d treatments (45.67 �1.29) than in the NR-1d treatments (38.39 �0.84; P <0.001). Within the NR treatments, sheep ‘grazed’ more under 4d management than under 1d management (P <0.001). No differences were observed in time spent ‘grazing’ be- tween the 4d and 1d grazed sheep within the S treatments (P =0.18) on the first day. These results are similar to the average results from all treatment days combined. 3.4.Scan sampling data Means (�SEM) of repeated scan sampling data for all treatments are shown in Table 3. Treatment effects could not be tested due to insuffi- cient replication. Walking, which was a short-term event behavior, was very rarely observed at our rate of scan sampling. Qualitative observations of environmental influences: On dry days with an average temperature lower than 23 �C, but with a minimum average temperature of 12 �C, sheep spent 70.4% (�3.87) of their time under the solar panels. However, on days with an average temperature above 23 �C, sheep spent 76.1% (�2.70) of time under the solar panels and increased up to 91.7% (�6.41) of the time under the solar panels during rainfall (�1.0 mm in a 15-minute period). 3.5.Forage data 3.5.1.Forage quantitative data Forage mass was expected to be different between the S and NR pastures. A Shapiro-Wilk test showed that the data were approximately normal, W (377) =0.844, P <0.001. An ANOVA test indicated a dif- ference in forage quantity between treatment groups. The NR sites produced 147% of the biomass measured in the solar sites (S (Mean �SEM =345.63 �224.13 g/ha) and NR (508.03 �229.67 g/ha), P <0.001). Forage disappearance under grazing was 17% ((467.04 g/ ha - 386.61 g/ha)/ 467.04 g/ha *100), indicating that our sampling captured changes resulting from forage consumption (Fig. 5A). No dif- ferences were detected in forage mass between the 4d (412.57 �302.26 g/ha) and 1d (441.09 �248.04 g/ha) grazed pastures (P =0.087). 3.5.2.Forage quality data There were no differences in forage digestibility (NDF content, %C, %N, C/N ratio) between the 4d and 1d pastures. There were, however, Fig. 4.Bar graphs showing the mean (�SEM) of the total percentage of time spent grazing during the main study over the total period of sixteen days of both treatment groups (NR & S) and both management types (4d & 1d). A Data from all treatment days. B Data from the first days of all four treatment weeks (when sheep were not supplemented with alfalfa hay). *P <0.0001, ** P =0.0015, ***P =0.031. (S =Solar; NR =Native Ran- geland; 4d =Rotational; 1d =Intensive Rotational). E.W. Kampherbeek et al. Page 72 of 152 Applied Animal Behaviour Science 258 (2023) 105799 8 differences between forage digestibility between S and NR pastures. NDF content (Fig. 5B) in the forage DM was not significantly higher in the NR pastures (M �SEM =76.33 �1.57) than in the S pastures (74.11 �4.17, P =0.059). Nitrogen (Fig. 5D), used to estimate protein content (Fig. 5F), was 172% higher in the forage in the S pastures (1.12 �0.18%) than in the NR pastures (0.65 �0.13%). Carbon (Fig. 5C) was only 103% higher in the forage in the NR pastures (40.26 �0.24%) than in the S pastures (39.07 �1.60%; P <0.05), while the C:N (carbon to nitrogen) ratio (Fig. 5E) was 180% higher in the forage in the NR pas- tures (64.20 �13.30) than in the S pastures (35.64 �5.70; P <0.001). The high NDF content of the forage in both S and NR pastures indicates that the forage was senescent and of low quality. However, protein content of the forage was higher and both %C and C:N ratio were lower in the S pastures than in the NR pastures, indicating that the S pastures had a higher forage quality and digestibility than the NR pastures. 4.Discussion The aim of our study was to explore the effects of solar panels and grazing management strategy on the behavior of sheep. Photovoltaics is considered one of the most promising renewable energy sources due to the continuous technological developments and efficiency gains (Shubbak, 2019), the relatively low cost and adoption in a quickly growing number of regions around the world (Breyer et al., 2017; Shahabuddin et al., 2021), and the low environmental footprint compared to other renewable energy technologies (Creutzig et al., 2017). However, large utility-scale solar farms, which typically produce >1 Megawatt (MW) and are placed outside of urban areas (Hernandez et al., 2014), are controversial because they could potentially threaten natural ecosystems through fragmentation of habitats or displace other human land-uses (Cameron et al., 2012). For instance, they are often built on existing agricultural grassland and marginal lands (Montag et al., 2016), but the actual use of these lands is highly debated (Muscat et al., 2022). Agrivoltaics is the multifunctional use of land for both energy production through solar panels and agricultural production, for example through grazing. Most of these agrivoltaic sites have specific demands for grazing outcomes that are dependent on the site manage- ment. The novelty of this work relates to different grazing strategies that meet the demands of the agrivoltaic site managers and animal managers. Vegetation management through grazing on solar farms serves a dual purpose: providing nutrients to the sheep as well as providing a service to the electrical company. One of our main objectives was to use an evidence-based approach to grazing management to meet the needs of both parties. We found that sheep spent more time ‘grazing’ in the S treatments than in the NR treatments and that sheep in the 4d treatments spent more time ‘grazing’ than sheep in the 1d treatments during se- nescent forage conditions. 4.1.The effects of solar panels on sheep grazing behavior We hypothesized that solar panels would increase the total number of grazing hours per day as a result of the protection from sun, wind, and rain the solar panels provide the sheep. Evidence supporting this hy- pothesis was provided by data logger results. Direct scan sampling data indicate that sheep in the NR treatments grazed more, which suggests that the results are sensitive to the method, indicating that differences in time spent grazing are relatively small between treatments. Logger data, and the corresponding statistical analysis, show that sheep in the S (S-4d and S-1d) paddocks spent more time ‘grazing’ than sheep in the open fields (NR-4d and NR-1d; Fig. 1), which confirm our initial hypothesis. This difference can be explained by four factors: forage availability, forage quality, time, and weather. 4.1.1.Forage availability There was a lower forage availability in the S paddocks than in the NR paddocks (Fig. 5A), which could have caused the sheep to search for longer periods to find sufficient forage. Total daily foraging time of large herbivores correlates with total daily intake (Iason et al., 1999; Newman et al., 1995). When forage availability decreases, sheep have been shown to increase their daily foraging time to compensate (Allden and McDWhittaker, 1970; Arnold and Birrell, 1977; Penning, 1986; Penning et al., 1991). The study was originally planned for the forage growing season. However, due to drought, the rainfall started during the last 2 days of the data collection period, causing the forage to be in a senescent condition leading to insufficient forage availability on the solar farm. The solar pastures had also been grazed regularly, while the NR area had not been grazed as intensively in previous grazing periods. A management deci- sion was made to supplement the sheep in the solar treatments with alfalfa hay. Hence, all treatment groups on the solar farm (S-4d and S- 1d) were fed approximately 23 kg of alfalfa hay between 17:30 h and 18:30 h on the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th day of the 4-day treatment week because of a lack of forage availability on the solar farm. The alfalfa hay provided approximately 50% of the sheep’s DMI. Some S paddocks contained more forage than other, but all S paddocks received the same alfalfa supplementation. The sheep in the NR treatments did not have to be fed alfalfa hay since there was enough accumulated residue vegeta- tion from previous years available in the open pastures. The consump- tion of hay was recorded by the data loggers as grazing and the hay was consumed very quickly (in �30 min from the time of feeding all hay fed was consumed). Results of ‘grazing’ behaviors recorded only on the first day of every new treatment week (none of the sheep received alfalfa supplementation on the first day of every week; Fig. 4B), produced similar results to the average of all treatment days (Fig. 4A), indicating that the management decision to supplement the sheep in the solar treatments with alfalfa hay did not significantly impact sheep ‘grazing’ behavior in this research. 4.1.2.Forage quality Botanical composition of the sward may have impacted the nutritive value of the forage (Graham et al., 2021) and, therefore, influenced the time spent grazing between the sheep in the S paddocks and the sheep in the NR paddocks. Solar panels can create micro-climates, in part because they provide shade, promoting higher soil moisture levels, and in part Table 3 Percentage of sheep (M �SEM) out of 20 sheep per group that perform a certain (mutually exclusive per category) behavior as observed through manual obser- vation every day of the main grazing event from 11:00 h until 16:00 h. (S = Solar; NR =Native Rangeland; 4d =Rotational; 1d =Intensive Rotational). Category/behavior S NR 4d M �SEM 1d M �SEM 4d M �SEM 1d M �SEM Location Panels 71.5 �1.28 72.8 �1.29 – – Alley 27.6 �1.20 26.0 �1.14 – – Posture Lying 24.3 �2.21 26.3 �2.17 15.1 �1.85 15.4 �1.74 Walking 1.1 �0.33 1.8 �0.51 0.7 �0.21 0.4 �0.19 Standing 73.6 �2.28 71.1 �2.24 84.5 �1.85 84.2 �1.74 Activity Grazing 71.5 �2.48 67.9 �2.44 82.0 �2.05 82.0 �1.87 Non-grazing 27.2 �2.41 31.3 �2.34 17.9 �2.06 17.9 �1.88 Proximity of sheep to each other <5 sheep- lengths away from each other 70.2 �1.49 85.0 �1.01 87.8 �0.67 94.0 �0.44 >5 sheep- lengths away from each other 28.7 �1.37 13.8 �0.68 12.3 �0.67 6.0 �0.44 E.W. Kampherbeek et al. Page 73 of 152 Applied Animal Behaviour Science 258 (2023) 105799 9 because during the night, dew accumulates on the solar panel surfaces, which drips down the edge and creates moist soil beneath the panels in which fresh, more protein-rich vegetation grows (Armstrong et al., 2016; Marrou et al., 2013; Santra et al., 2017). Qualitative forage data showed that %N was higher in the standing forage in the S pastures than in the NR pastures, while %C and C/N content were higher in the NR pastures than in the S pastures. This indicates a higher forage di- gestibility in the S pastures, which caused the sheep to be able to ingest more forage, which may have caused the sheep to be able to spend more time grazing. 4.1.3.Time Sheep in the pilot study in the SP paddocks ‘grazed’ more than the sheep in the NRP paddocks in the morning after the sheep in the IRP treatments were moved to a new paddock (the period from 11:00 h to 12:58 h; Fig. 3). Sheep in the NRP paddocks, on the other hand, ‘grazed’ more in the afternoon in the period from 15:00 h to 16:58 h before sunset. This could also be influenced by the difference in intensity of the solar radiation between the morning and the afternoon (Cedar Lake Ventures Inc, 2022). Sheep in the NRP treatments grazed more just before sunset, potentially because the temperature went down by 1 ºC on Fig. 5.Bar graphs showing the mean (�SEM) of A Forage quantity, B Neutral detergent % fiber, C Forage %C, D Forage %N, E Forage C/N, and F % Protein in forage, in forage dry matter. (S =Solar; NR =Native Rangeland; 4c =Rotational; 1d =Intensive Rotational). E.W. Kampherbeek et al. Page 74 of 152 Applied Animal Behaviour Science 258 (2023) 105799 10 average during the time period 2 h before sunset (between 15:00 h and 16:45 h) compared to the temperature during the 2-hour period before (13:00 h – 14:45 h), making it easier for the sheep to regulate their body temperature and therefore be able to spend more energy on grazing (Bhattacharya and Hussain, 1974). Likewise, in the main study, sheep in the S paddocks possibly grazed more in the morning and ruminated more in the afternoon. 4.1.4.Weather Approximately 60% of the surface area in the paddocks was covered by solar panels and 40% was exposed (Grading and Drainage Plans for Cal Poly Solar Farm, 2018), which means that the random chance of the sheep being under the solar panels was higher than the random chance of the sheep being in the alley between the panels. However, according to means comparison of the scan sampling data, sheep in the S treat- ments spent most of their time (>70%) under the solar panels, sug- gesting that the sheep preferred being under the solar panels as opposed to being in the alley between the panels. Data also indicate that sheep prefer being beneath the solar panels under unfavorable weather con- ditions of heat and rain. The presence of solar panels may have provided relief from heat (Sharpe et al., 2021), wind, and rain to the sheep, which could have caused the sheep in the S groups to graze more. Solar panels provide protection from poor weather, and therefore most sheep will be found under the solar panels in circumstances of intense solar radiation or heavy rain. Because this study was conducted in January, the solar radiation was likely much less intense than in the spring and summer months. This may have influenced the amount of time that the sheep sought refuge under the solar panels. Additionally, there were more fresh weeds under the solar panels than in the alleys, which may also have caused sheep to spend more time under the solar panels. However, during visual observations, sheep were observed to also spend a lot of lying time under the solar panels (Table 3), during which they poten- tially ruminated, suggesting that the sheep preferred resting under the panels. Sheep in the S treatments (4d: 24.3 �2.21, 1d: 26.3 �2.17) spent more time lying/ruminating than sheep in NR treatments (4d: 15.1 �1.85, 1d: 15.4 �1.74), while sheep in NR treatments (4d: 84.5 �1.85, 1d: 84.2 �1.74) spent more time standing idle than sheep in S treatments (4d: 73.6 �2.28, 1d: 71.1 �2.24; Table 3). Standing idle has been suggested as an indicator of reduced welfare as inactivity could be a strategy to cope with sub-optimal conditions (Webb et al., 2017). 4.2.The effects of grazing management strategy on sheep grazing behavior Intensive rotational grazing typically increases grazing pressure and therefore alleviates undesirable selective grazing (Bailey and Brown, 2011). We expected that the number of ‘grazing’ hours per day would increase when the animals were grazed 4d compared with 1d. Animals that rotate less often can spend more time browsing or selecting preferred plant species, which they will do with their head down, which is picked up by the data loggers as ‘grazing’. Sheep under 1d grazing management (NR-1d: 39.95%�0.39% and S-1d: 43.30%�0.46%), spent respectively approximately 4% and 2.3% less time ‘grazing’ when compared with the 4d management strategy (NR-4d: 44.02%�0.47% and S-4d: 45.65%�0.35%; Fig. 4A). This difference between the ‘grazing’ results of the 1d and 4d treatments may partially be in response to the sheep in the 1d treatments being moved to a new paddock with fresh forage every morning, likely stimulating grazing for a short period of time in anticipation of movement. Sheep in the 1d treatments may have ingested most of the forage material with high nutritive value in the morning, leaving the less palatable materials for the rest of the day (Penning et al., 1994). This may have caused them to be more satiated for the rest of the day and, therefore, causing them to rest/ruminate more. Another reason why sheep in the 4d management strategy ‘grazed’ more than sheep in the 1d strategy could be that because sheep in the 4d management strategy stayed in the same paddock for four consecutive days, the sheep had consumed the plant material with grater nutritive value on the first day, leaving forage with lower protein con- tent. Sheep in the 4d grazed groups likely had to graze more on the other three days of the treatment to satisfy their nutrient needs, possibly distributing grazing behavior over those three entire days. There were no differences in forage mass and forage digestibility (NDF content, %C, %N, C/N ratio) between the 4d and 1d pastures. 4.3.Vegetation management strategies in solar farms Different parties have different aims for solar grazing. Solar system managers need to prevent shading on their panels. Contract grazers are hired to prevent vegetation from doing this. Therefore, their aim is also to keep biomass low, while simultaneously fattening their sheep to sell the lambs for meat. Having sheep graze on solar farms could be a beneficial opportunity for both contract grazers and solar developers (Kochendoerfer and Thonney, 2021). We found that sheep grazed well on a solar farm and that they spent most of their time under the solar panels, protected from climatic conditions. Solar developers, on the other hand, are benefitted by the grazing efficiency of sheep. Further- more, a reduction in maintenance expenses can be accomplished via the use of sheep for vegetation management instead of mowers that have to maneuver between the panels and in some cases on steep hills (Agri- voltaic Solutions, 2020; Kochendoerfer et al., 2019; Pascaris et al., 2021). Using sheep for vegetation maintenance on solar farms can also assist in improving biodiversity and soil activity if grazing pressure is not too high. Sheep can create micro-climates with their hooves in the soil, spread seeds with their wool, and spread diaspores from some plants with their hooves and feces (Peschel et al., 2019). Thus, there needs to be a balance between biomass management and stocking rate. Sharrow (1983) mentions that during the dry-feed period (inten- sively) rotationally grazed sheep have less opportunity for dietary selectivity than continuously grazed sheep, and, therefore, have a lower quality diet. The current study was conducted when forage was senes- cent, which could have led to the sheep in the 1d treatments having a lower quality diet than sheep in the 4d treatment. On solar farms and other native rangelands with climate conditions similar to those at the Central Coastal region in California, i.e., Mediterranean climates, the current study indicates that sheep graze most when they are grazed in less intensive rotational management systems during the senescent stages of forage growth. However, future studies must be conducted over longer periods of time, during different stages of forage growth. 4.4.Research agenda To draw clearer conclusions about vegetation management strategies on solar farms, the study should be repeated across different climates, over longer periods of time, and during different stages of forage growth. The study should be repeated in every season of the year in order to assess seasonal variation in sheep grazing behavior. Behavioral in- dicators of thermal stress between groups should be recorded, as well as air temperature under the solar panels, in the alleys between the panels, and in the native rangeland. With further research we may be able to identify further grazing management practices considering season, breeding cycle of the sheep, and growth stage of the forage. The forage in the treatments should be prepared well in advance. The S treatment will always have intensive weed management and the sward will not be above a certain height, to prevent shading of the solar panels. Therefore, the NR paddocks should be managed in the same way as the S paddocks in preparation of the study in order to limit systematic error. If all treatments are managed in the same way before the start of the study, the sheep should not have to be supplemented with alfalfa hay. Soil and forage health should be analyzed in both 1d and 4d treatments on solar farms to determine if management influences soil health and pasture production on solar farms. The difference in sheep weight was not measured in this study E.W. Kampherbeek et al. Page 75 of 152 Applied Animal Behaviour Science 258 (2023) 105799 11 because most of the sheep were approaching the final trimester of gestation and started lambing in February. These sheep put on extra weight that was not due to grazing over the course of the grazing period. The average number of lambs per grazing group was similar, while the number of lambs per sheep ranged from 0 to 3. A future study should be done that looks at the differences in weight in sheep having 1, 2, or 3 lambs. To estimate the forage intake of the sheep, both the difference in forage DM mass and their body condition score (BCS) should be measured before and after treatment. When using lambs for vegetation management, the difference in sheep weight before and after each treatment (i.e. average daily gain (ADG)) should be measured. BCS for adult sheep and ADG for lambs would be valuable information for future studies if sheep can be weighed in a manner that does not cause much stress for the sheep. Future work could also include research into how the use of sheep for vegetation management on solar farms impacts the public image and acceptance of solar farms. Moreover, the impact of solar grazing on environmental sustainability (greenhouse gas mitigation (life cycle assessment (LCA)), and opportunities for biodiversity) should be eval- uated, as well as other animal welfare benefits that solar grazing prac- tices may provide, like sheep being able to scratch themselves against the poles on which the solar panels are mounted. Lastly, socio-economic aspects of solar grazing in the sense of labor and profitability, for both sheep farmers and solar farm owners, should be investigated. 5.Conclusions In this preliminary exploratory study, we hypothesized that sheep spend more time grazing in solar treatments than in natural rangeland pastures without solar panels or any other form of shade and the results of the experiment confirmed this. The second hypothesis was that sheep in 1-day intensive rotational treatments spend more time grazing than sheep in 4-day rotational treatments. Sheep in the 1d treatments spent less time ‘grazing’ than sheep in the 4d treatments. This may be caused by the grazing pressure in the 1d treatments being higher than in the 4d treatments, which decreases the amount of time animals can spend browsing or selecting preferred plant species (Lin et al., 2011). 4d grazing may therefore be most effective during the senescent stages of the forage, which was the case during the experiment. We carefully conclude based on this preliminary systems comparison that solar panels may lead to an increase in time spent grazing in sheep. This study is a preliminary systems comparison and further experimental research with control treatments is warranted to pinpoint precisely which factors led to our specific findings. The limitations of this project relate to grazing behavior in specific climate conditions (drought, senescent forage, al- falfa hay supplementation). Therefore, future research should assess sheep grazing behavior in solar farms in different seasons and in different climates to draw conclusions that are applicable to solar farms established in open rangelands across the globe. We recommend that soil and forage health, environmental sustainability, animal welfare, potential facility infrastructure, public image and acceptance, and socio-economic aspects of solar grazing be part of this work. Declaration of Competing Interest The authors report no known or perceived conflicts of interest. Acknowledgements Great appreciation is expressed to Dr. Stefan Siebert and Malte Weller from the University of G¨ottingen for their help in translating the output of the HOBO Pendant G Data Loggers into grazing behavior; to the sheep unit managers Katie Bayer, Rachael Stucke, and Sam Valliere, who made sure that the sheep were well taken care of, and that the experiment went smoothly, and to Miranda Ford, Avery De Mello, and Jason Dubowsky, the Cal Poly undergrad students who helped with data collection. References Agrivoltaic Solutions, 2020. Agricultural Integration Plan: Managed Sheep Grazing & Beekeeping. Allden, W.G., McDWhittaker, I.A., 1970. The determinants of herbage intake by grazing sheep: the interrelationship of factors influencing herbage intake and availability. Aust. J. Agric. Res 21, 755–766. https://doi.org/10.1071/AR9700755. Animut, G., Goetsch, A.L., Aiken, G.E., Puchala, R., Detweiler, G., Krehbiel, C.R., Merkel, R.C., Sahlu, T., Dawson, L.J., Johnson, Z.B., Gipson, T.A., 2005. Grazing behavior and energy expenditure by sheep and goats co-grazing grass/forb pastures at three stocking rates. Small Rumin. Res. 59, 191–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. SMALLRUMRES.2005.05.014. Armstrong, A., Ostle, N.J., Whitaker, J., 2016. Solar park microclimate and vegetation management effects on grassland carbon cycling. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 074016 https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/7/074016. Arnold, G.W., Birrell, H.A., 1977. Food intake and grazing behaviour of sheep varying in body condition. Anim. Sci. 24, 343–353. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0003356100011855. Average monthly hours of sunshine in San Luis Obispo (California) [WWW Document], 2022. World Weather Clim. Inf. URL https://weather-and-climate.com/average- monthly-hours-Sunshine,san-luis-obispo-california-us,United-States-of-America (accessed 10.14.22). Bailey, D.W., Brown, J.R., 2011. Rotational grazing systems and livestock grazing behavior in shrub-dominated semi-arid and arid rangelands. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 64, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.2111/REM-D-09-00184.1. Bhattacharya, A.N., Hussain, F., 1974. Intake and utilization of nutrients in sheep fed different levels of roughage under heat stress. J. Anim. Sci. 38, 877–886. https://doi. org/10.2527/JAS1974.384877X. Breyer, C., Bogdanov, D., Gulagi, A., Aghahosseini, A., Barbosa, L.S.N.S., Koskinen, O., Barasa, M., Caldera, U., Afanasyeva, S., Child, M., Farfan, J., Vainikka, P., 2017. On the role of solar photovoltaics in global energy transition scenarios. Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 25, 727–745. https://doi.org/10.1002/pip.2885. Briske, D.D., Derner, J.D., Brown, J.R., Fuhlendorf, S.D., Teague, W.R., Havstad, K.M., Gillen, R.L., Ash, A.J., Willms, W.D., 2008. Rotational grazing on rangelands: reconciliation of perception and experimental evidence. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 61, 3–17. https://doi.org/10.2111/06-159R.1. California Polytechnic State University, 2020. Cal Poly Dedicates 4.5 Megawatt (AC) Solar Farm [WWW Document]. URL https://calpolynews.calpoly.edu/news_ releases/2017/January/Solar (accessed 3.17.21). Cameron, D.R., Cohen, B.S., Morrison, S.A., 2012. An approach to enhance the conservation-compatibility of solar energy development. PLoS One 7. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0038437. Cedar Lake Ventures Inc., 2022. January 2021 Weather History in San Luis Obispo [WWW Document]. URL https://weatherspark.com/h/m/1286/2021/1/Historical- Weather-in-January-2021-in-San-Luis-Obispo-California-United-States (accessed 2.20.21). Creutzig, F., Agoston, P., Goldschmidt, J.C., Luderer, G., Nemet, G., Pietzcker, R.C., 2017. The underestimated potential of solar energy to mitigate climate change. Nat. Energy. https://doi.org/10.1038/nenergy.2017.140. Dias-Silva, T.P., Filho, A.L.A., 2020. Sheep and goat feeding behavior profile in grazing systems. Acta Sci. Anim. Sci. 43, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.4025/ACTASCIANIMSCI. V43I1.51265. Frost, R., Walker, J., Madsen, C., Holes, R., Lehfeldt, J., Cunningham, J., Voth, K., Welling, B., Davis, T.Z., Bradford, D., Malot, J., Sullivan, J., 2012. Targeted Grazing: Applying the Research to the Land. https://doi-org.ezproxy.library.wur.nl/10.2111/ 1551–501X-34.1.2 34, 2–10. https://doi.org/10.2111/1551–501X-34.1.2. Gilby, I.C., Pokempner, A.A., Wrangham, R.W., 2011. A direct comparison of scan and focal sampling methods for measuring wild chimpanzee feeding behaviour. Folia Prima 81, 254–264. https://doi.org/10.1159/000322354. 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 floral abundance during the late-season for pollinators in a dryland, agrivoltaic ecosystem, 11 Sci. Rep. 2021 (111), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-86756-4. Guo, L., Welch, M., Dobos, R., Kwan, P., Wang, W., 2018. Comparison of grazing behaviour of sheep on pasture with different sward surface heights using an inertial measurement unit sensor. Comput. Electron. Agric. 150, 394–401. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.compag.2018.05.004. Handler, R., Pearce, J.M., 2022. Greener sheep: Life cycle analysis of integrated sheep agrivoltaic systems. Clean. Energy Syst. 3, 100036 https://doi.org/10.1016/J. CLES.2022.100036. Heady, H.F., 1961. Continuous vs. specialized grazing systems: a review and application to the california annual type. rangel. ecol. manag. range manag. Arch 14, 182–193. Hernandez, R.R., Easter, S.B., Murphy-Mariscal, M.L., Maestre, F.T., Tavassoli, M., Allen, E.B., Barrows, C.W., Belnap, J., Ochoa-Hueso, R., Ravi, S., Allen, M.F., 2014. Environmental impacts of utility-scale solar energy. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 29, 766–779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.08.041. Hu, S., Ingham, A., Schmoelzl, S., McNally, J., Little, B., Smith, D., Bishop-Hurley, G., Wang, Y.G., Li, Y., 2020. Inclusion of features derived from a mixture of time window sizes improved classification accuracy of machine learning algorithms for sheep grazing behaviours. Comput. Electron. Agric. 179, 105857 https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.compag.2020.105857. Iason, G.R., Mantecon, A.R., Sim, D.A., Gonzalez, J., Foreman, E., Bermudez, F.F., Elston, D.A., 1999. Can grazing sheep compensate for a daily foraging time E.W. Kampherbeek et al. Page 76 of 152 Applied Animal Behaviour Science 258 (2023) 105799 12 constraint. ? J. Anim. Ecol. 68, 87–93. https://doi.org/10.1046/J.1365- 2656.1999.00264.X. Kippelen, B., Br´edas, J.L., 2009. Organic photovoltaics. Energy Environ. Sci. 2, 251–261. https://doi.org/10.1039/B812502N. Kochendoerfer, N., Thonney, M.L., 2021. Grazing Sheep on Solar Sites in New York State: Opportunities and Challenges. Scope and scaling-up of the NYS sheep industry to graze ground-mounted photovoltaic arrays for vegetation management [White paper]. Kochendoerfer, N., Thonney, M.L., Hain, L., 2019. The agricultural, economic and environmental potential of co-locating utility scale solar with grazing sheep. Lin, L., Dickhoefer, U., Müller, K., Wurina, Susenbeth, A., 2011. Grazing behavior of sheep at different stocking rates in the Inner Mongolian steppe, China. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 129, 36–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APPLANIM.2010.11.002. Maia, A.S.C., Culhari, E., de, A., Fonsˆeca, V., de, F.C., Milan, H.F.M., Gebremedhin, K.G., 2020. Photovoltaic panels as shading resources for livestock. J. Clean. Prod. 258, 120551 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120551. Marai, I.F.M., El-Darawany, A.A., Fadiel, A., Abdel-Hafez, M.A.M., 2007. Physiological traits as affected by heat stress in sheep—a review. Small Rumin. Res. 71, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2006.10.003. Marrou, H., Guilioni, L., Dufour, L., Dupraz, C., Wery, J., 2013. Microclimate under agrivoltaic systems: Is crop growth rate affected in the partial shade of solar panels. Agric. for. Meteorol. 177, 117–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. agrformet.2013.04.012. Matches, A.G., 1992. Plant response to grazing: a review. J. Prod. Agric. 5, 1–7. https:// doi.org/10.2134/JPA1992.0001. Montag, H., Parker, G., Clarkson, T., 2016. The Effects of Solar Farms on Local Biodiversity: A Comparative Study. Moreau, M., Siebert, S., Buerkert, A., Schlecht, E., 2009. Use of a tri-axial accelerometer for automated recording and classification of goats’ grazing behaviour. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 119, 158–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2009.04.008. Mosier, S., Apfelbaum, S., Byck, P., Calderon, F., Teague, R., Thompson, R., Cotrufo, M. F., 2021. Adaptive multi-paddock grazing enhances soil carbon and nitrogen stocks and stabilization through mineral association in southeastern U.S. grazing lands. J. Environ. Manag. 288, 112409 https://doi.org/10.1016/J. JENVMAN.2021.112409. Muscat, A., de Olde, E.M., Candel, J.J.L., de Boer, I.J.M., Ripoll-Bosch, R., 2022. The Promised Land: Contrasting frames of marginal land in the European Union. Land Use Policy 112, 105860. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2021.105860. Newman, J.A., Parsons, A.J., Thornley, J.H.M., Penning, P.D., Krebs, J.R., 1995. Optimal Diet Selection by a Generalist Grazing Herbivore. Funct. Ecol. 9, 255. https://doi. org/10.2307/2390572. Olson, B.E., Lacey, J.R., 1994. Sheep: a method for controlling rangeland weeds. Sheep Res. J. 105–112. Paine, L.K., Undersander, D., Casler, M.D., 1999. Pasture growth, production, and quality under rotational and continuous grazing management. J. Prod. Agric. 12, 569–577. https://doi.org/10.2134/jpa1999.0569. 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 Res. Soc. Sci. 75, 102023 https://doi.org/ 10.1016/J.ERSS.2021.102023. Penning, P.D., 1986. Some effects of sward conditions on grazing behaviour and intake by sheep. NATO Adv. Sci. institutes Ser. Ser. A Life Sci. 108, 219–226. Penning, P.D., Parsons, A.J., Orr, R.J., Treacher, T.T., 1991. Intake and behaviour responses by sheep to changes in sward characteristics under continuous stocking. Grass Forage Sci. 46, 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1365-2494.1991.TB02204. X. Penning, P.D., Parsons, A.J., Orr, R.J., Hooper, G.E., 1994. Intake and behaviour responses by sheep to changes in sward characteristics under rotational grazing. Grass Forage Sci. 49, 476–486. Peschel, R., Peschel, T., Marchand, M., Hauke, J., 2019. Solar parks - profits for biodiversity, Association of Energy Market Innovators (bne/Bundesverband Neue Energiewirtschaft e.V.). Phillips, S.E., Cypher, B.L., 2019. Solar energy development and endangered species in the san joaquin valley. West. Wildl. Identification of Conflict Zones,, California, pp. 29–44. Pickerel, K., 2016. Don’t eat your solar O&M costs — leave it to those with four legs [WWW Document]. Sol. Power World. URL https://www.solarpowerworldonline. com/2016/08/dont-eat-solar-om-costs-leave-four-legs/ (accessed 7.18.21). R Core Team, 2020. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Santra, P., Pande, P., Kumar, S., Mishra, D., Singh, R., 2017. Agri-voltaics or Solar farming: the Concept of Integrating Solar PV Based Electricity Generation and Crop Production in a Single Land use System 7. Savian, J.V., Neto, A.B., de David, D.B., Bremm, C., Schons, R.M.T., Genro, T.C.M., do Amaral, G.A., Gere, J., McManus, C.M., Bayer, C., de Faccio Carvalho, P.C., 2014. Grazing intensity and stocking methods on animal production and methane emission by grazing sheep: Implications for integrated crop–livestock system. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 190, 112–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AGEE.2014.02.008. Schütz, K.E., Rogers, A.R., Cox, N.R., Tucker, C.B., 2009. Dairy cows prefer shade that offers greater protection against solar radiation in summer: shade use, behaviour, and body temperature. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 116, 28–34. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/J.APPLANIM.2008.07.005. Shahabuddin, M., Alim, M.A., Alam, T., Mofijur, M., Ahmed, S.F., Perkins, G., 2021. A critical review on the development and challenges of concentrated solar power technologies. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 47, 101434 https://doi.org/10.1016/ J.SETA.2021.101434. Sharpe, K.T., Heins, B.J., Buchanan, E.S., Reese, M.H., 2021. Evaluation of solar photovoltaic systems to shade cows in a pasture-based dairy herd. J. Dairy Sci. 104. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-18821. Sharrow, S.H., 1983. Forage standing crop and animal diets under rotational vs. continuous grazing. Soc. Range Manag. 36, 447–450. https://doi.org/10.2307/ 3897937. Shubbak, M.H., 2019. Advances in solar photovoltaics: technology review and patent trends. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 115. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. RSER.2019.109383. Sinha, P., Hoffman, B., Sakers, J., Althouse, L., 2018. Best practices in responsible land use for improving biodiversity at a utility-scale solar facility, 16-12 Case Stud. Environ. 2 (1). https://doi.org/10.1525/cse.2018.001123. Smith, J.G., 1895. Forage conditions of the prairie region. USDA Publ. Starns, H.D., Fuhlendorf, S.D., Elmore, R.D., Twidwell, D., Thacker, E.T., Hovick, T.J., Luttbeg, B., 2019. Recoupling fire and grazing reduces wildland fuel loads on rangelands. Ecosphere 10. https://doi.org/10.1002/ECS2.2578. Teague, R., Barnes, M., 2017. Grazing management that regenerates ecosystem function and grazingland livelihoods. https://doi.org/10.2989/10220119.2017.1334706 34, 77–86. https://doi.org/10.2989/10220119.2017.1334706. Teague, R., Provenza, F., Kreuter, U., Steffens, T., Barnes, M., 2013. Multi-paddock grazing on rangelands: why the perceptual dichotomy between research results and rancher experience? J. Environ. Manag. 128, 699–717. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. JENVMAN.2013.05.064. Voelkel, B., Marshall, M., Lund, A., Gobeli, A., Lopez, R., 2018. A Simple Method for Estimating Plant Biomass Used in Grazing Management. College Station, Texas, USA. Wang, T., Richard Teague, W., Park, S.C., Bevers, S., 2018. Evaluating long-term economic and ecological consequences of continuous and multi-paddock grazing - a modeling approach. Agric. Syst. 165, 197–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. AGSY.2018.06.012. Webb, L.E., Engel, B., van Reenen, K., Bokkers, E.A.M., 2017. Barren diets increase wakeful inactivity in calves. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 197, 9–14. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/J.APPLANIM.2017.08.005. Wilbert, T.R., Woollett, D.A.S., Whitelaw, A., Dart, J., Hoyt, J.R., Galen, S., Ralls, K., Meade, D.E., Maldonado, J.E., 2015. Non-invasive baseline genetic monitoring of the endangered San Joaquin kit fox on a photovoltaic solar facility. Endanger. Species Res 27, 31–41. https://doi.org/10.3354/ESR00649. Willockx, B., Uytterhaegen, B., Ronsijn, B., Herteleer, B., Cappelle, J., 2020. A Standardized Classification and Performance Indicators of Agrivoltaic Systems, EU PVSEC Proceedings. Gent, Belgium. https://doi.org/10.4229/ EUPVSEC20202020–6CV.2.47. E.W. Kampherbeek et al. Page 77 of 152 Ann. Anim. Sci., Vol. 15, No. 4 (2015) 1043–1054 DOI: 10.1515/aoas-2015-0051 The effecT of varying disTances from The wind Turbine on meaT qualiTy of growing-finishing pigs* * Małgorzata Karwowska1♦, Jan Mikołajczak2, Zbigniew Józef Dolatowski1, Sylwester Borowski3 1Department of Meat Technology and Food Quality, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, Skromna 8, 20-704 Lublin, Poland 2Faculty of Animal Breeding and Biology, University of Technology and Life Sciences in Bydgoszcz, Kordeckiego 20, 85-225 Bydgoszcz, Poland 3Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Technology and Life Sciences in Bydgoszcz, Kordeckiego 20, 85-225 Bydgoszcz, Poland ♦Corresponding author: malgorzata.karwowska@up.lublin.pl abstract This study was conducted to assess the effect of rearing pigs at three different distances from a wind turbine (50, 500 and 1000 m) on the physicochemical properties and fatty acid composition of loin and neck muscles. The experiment was carried out on 30 growing-finishing pigs, derived from polish landrace × polish large white sows mated to a duroc × pietrain boar. The results obtained during the noise measurement showed that the highest level of noise in the audible and infrasound range was recorded 50 m from the wind turbine. rearing pigs in close proximity to the wind turbine (50 m) resulted in decreased muscle ph, total heme pigments and heme iron as well as reduced content of c18:3n-3 fatty acid in the loin muscle. loins of pigs reared 50 m from the wind turbine were characterized by significantly lower iron content (6.7 ppm g–1) compared to the loins of pigs reared 500 and 1000 m from the wind turbine (10.0–10.5 ppm g–1). The concentration of α-linolenic acid (C18:3n-3) in loin and neck muscles decreased as the distance from the wind turbine increased. Avoiding noise-induced stress is important not only for maintaining meat qual- ity but also for improving animal welfare. Key words: pigs, noise-induced stress, muscles, physicochemical properties, fatty acid composition Farm animals experience some level of stress during the fattening period and pri- or to slaughter and this may have detrimental effects on meat quality. The magnitude of the effect is generally thought to be a function of the type, duration and intensity of the individual stressors and the susceptibility of the animal to stress (Ferguson et al., 2001). As reported by Ognik and Sembratowicz (2012), intensified and long- lasting stress induces disorders in a daily rhythm of hormones secretion, physiologi- *Work funded from DS VKM-DS-1 University of Life Sciences in Lublin. Page 78 of 152 M. Karwowska et al.1044 cal and morphological changes. These, in turn, are manifested mainly in changes of blood composition, changes in muscle tissue and formation of meat defects. The study performed by Wojtas et al. (2014) demonstrated that heat stress leads to serious changes in physiological and blood parameters in sheep. Yang et al. (2014) indicated that constant heat stress disrupted the pro/antioxidant balance in longissimus dorsi muscle with higher malondialdehyde (MDA) content and lower antioxidant capacity. Noise as a stress factor has been shown to reduce the quality of farm animals life (Chai et al., 2010; De la Fuente et al., 2007; Voslarova et al., 2011). There is ex- perimental evidence that noise exposure may be a potential stressor in farm animal husbandry. The results of the study performed by Kanitz et al. (2005) indicated that exposure of domestic pigs to repeated noise stress caused changes in neuroendocrine regulations, which are characterized by temporal alterations in the responsiveness of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) system. They concluded that repeated exposure of pigs to noise levels of 90 dB affected HPA function and resulted in a state of chronic stress that may have negative implications on animal productivity and welfare. Chloupek et al. (2009) also determined a significant negative influence of noise exposure (80 and 100 dB) on the stress and fearfulness of broiler chick- ens. According to a study performed by Otten et al. (2004) pigs exposed to 90 dB prolonged or intermittent noise increased cortisol, noradrenaline to adrenaline ratio. Pigs are very sensitive to noise and they should not be exposed to constant or sudden noise. Therefore, noise levels above 85 dB must be avoided in buildings where pigs are kept (Fottrell, 2009). However, there has been little examination of the consequences of the exposure to noise generated by wind turbine on animal health and consequently meat quality. Wind turbines generate audible noise and infrasound which may affect the level of stress in animals, and consequently meat quality (Mikołajczak et al., 2013). Pre- liminary studies on the reaction of growing geese to the proximity of wind turbines indicated the negative impact of the immediate vicinity of wind turbines on feed con- sumption, weight gain and cortisol concentration in blood (Mikołajczak et al., 2013). Results of their study suggested a negative effect of the immediate vicinity of a wind turbine on the stress parameters of geese and their productivity. Many previous stud- ies (Choi et al., 2012; De Weerth and Buitelaar, 2005; Kalra et al., 2007) have shown the relationship between cortisol levels and meat quality and generally considered as the primary biomarker of stress (Russell et al., 2012). In addition, our previous research indicated that noise generated by the wind turbine affected the quality of muscles and the fatty acid profile of abdominal fat of geese (Karwowska et al., 2014). The results showed that the muscles of geese reared at a distance of 50 meters from the wind turbine were characterized by higher pH and TBARS values compared to those reared at a distance greater than 50 m from the wind turbine. This point seems to be particularly important, as wind energy sector has shown strong growth in the world. By the year 2020, wind turbine installations in the Euro- pean Union will increase 64% compared to 2013 levels (The European Wind Energy Association, 2014). In this scenario, livestock is expected to be increasingly exposed to factors generated by the wind turbine. Page 79 of 152 Pig meat quality as related to distance from the wind turbine 1045 Avoiding stress is important not only for maintaining meat quality but also for improving animal welfare. Animal welfare is defined as providing environmental conditions in which animals can display all their natural behaviors and has been very important in animal production (Koknaroglu and Arkunal, 2013). It is believed that wind energy development may affect animal welfare. Due to the lack of regulations in Poland, wind turbines are often built in close proximity to residential areas and livestock buildings. Thus, animals are exposed to long-lasting stressors generated by wind turbines. In view of this evidence, we hypothesized that the muscles derived from pigs reared near a wind turbine can be characterized by altered properties determining its suitability for processing. The aim of our research was to assess the effect of rearing pigs at three different distances from the wind turbine (50, 500 and 1000 m) on the physicochemical properties and fatty acid composition of loin and neck muscles. material and methods animals and their treatment The experiment was performed on 30 growing-finishing pigs derived from Pol- ish Landrace × Polish Large White sows mated to a Duroc × Pietrain boar. Animals were allotted to 3 experimental groups, each comprising 10 pigs (5 gilts and 5 boars). Animals of each group were reared at varying distances from the wind turbine (with a capacity of 2 MW) in Rapałki near Rypin (Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodeship, Poland). Pigs of group I (G-I) were reared at the distance of 50 meters from the wind turbine; group II (G-II) – at the distance of 500 meters from the wind turbine; group III (G-III) – at the distance of 1000 meters from the wind turbine (Figure 1). The same fattening conditions were applied in each experimental group. During the experiment, animals were kept in specially adapted metal sheds that provide protec- tion from external weather conditions such as rain, wind, direct sunlight. Pigs of each group were kept in identical straw bedded pens and were fed identically twice daily, with a commercial complete diet. The fatteners received the same amount of feed, subject to body weight. During the trial, animals had free access to water. The Local Ethic Committee for Experiments with Animals approved all of the experimental procedures relating to the use of live animals. At the end of the fattening period which lasted from about 30 to 80–90 kg body weight (group I – 80.3±2.2; group II – 82.5±3.2, group III – 90.0±3.1) all pigs were slaughtered. At the abattoir, animals were allowed a 3-hour rest period with full access to water but not to feed. Then, pigs were slaughtered according to standard commer- cial procedures and split down the midline. The carcass sides were refrigerated in line processing at 2°C. At approximately 1 hour postmortem, two primal cuts: loin (m. longissimus dorsi from the area of the last thoracic and first lumbar vertebrae) and the top of the neck (m. biventer cervicis, m. splenius) were excised from five car- casses of each experimental group (3 gilts and 2 boars). The primal cuts were packed individually into high density polyethylene bags (HDPE) and subjected to evaluation after 3 days of postmortem ageing at +4°C. Page 80 of 152 M. Karwowska et al.1046 Figure 1. Schematic representation of the experimental design measurement of noise generated by wind turbine During the experiment, the measurements of noise generated by wind turbine were carried out. The noise has been measured inside the sheds. Measurements were taken during the resting phase in order to eliminate the noise generated by animals. Both audible sound and infrasound were measured using a class I sound and vibra- tion analyzer (Svantek SVAN 912 AE).Two different scales were used to weigh all frequencies that are emitted by wind turbine: most audible noises were weighed with the A scale, dB (A), infrasound was weighed with the G scale, dB (G). The noise was measured in each pen in 5 replicates. Raw meat quality analysis Measurement of pH To measure pH, 10 g of minced meat was homogenized with 100 mL of distilled water for 1 min using a homogenizer (IKA Ultra-Turrax T25 Basic, Germany). The pH was measured with a digital pH-meter CPC-501 (Elmetron, Poland) equipped with a pH electrode (ERH-111, Hydromet, Poland). The pH-meter was calibrated with buffer solutions at pH 4.0, 7.0 and 9.0, before pH measurements. Determination of water holding capacity (WHC) Measurement of WHC was performed using a centrifugation method (Wierbicki et al., 1962). 50 g of minced meat samples was homogenized with 50 ml of distilled water for 1 min using a homogenizer (IKA Ultra-Turrax T25 Basic, Germany). The homogenates were then centrifuged at 1500 g for 20 min using a MPW-350R cen- Page 81 of 152 Pig meat quality as related to distance from the wind turbine 1047 trifuge (MPW Med-Instruments, Poland). Water holding capacity was calculated as: WHC=(M1−M2)/M3×100%, where: M1 – weight of added water (g); M2 – weight of supernatant after centrifugation; M3 – weight of meat in homogenate (g). Total heme pigments and heme iron determination A chemical analysis of the total heme pigments from a minced sample of the muscles was carried out to determine the parts per million of hematin per gram of muscle using the method described by Hornsey (1956), with spectrophotometer readings (Nicolet Evolution 300, Thermo Electron Corporation) of absorbance at 640λ. The heme iron content was calculated as described by Clark et al. (1997): Heme iron (ppm g–1 meat) = total pigment (ppm g–1 meat) × 8.82/100. Color measurements Color (L* a* b*) was assessed on the freshly cut surface of meat samples using an XRite Color® Premiere 8200 colorimeter (X-Rite Incorporated, Michigan, USA) with a D65 illuminant and a 10° standard observer (AMSA, 1991). Samples for color measurements were 5 cm thick and excited at the depth of 20 mm. Before color determination, meat samples were wrapped in an oxygen permeable polyethylene film. Every time before use, the instrument was calibrated against a white ceramic calibration tile with the specification of L* = 95.87, a* = –0.49, b* = 2.39 that was wrapped in the same polyethylene film used for the muscle samples, and a light trap. Fatty acid analysis Fatty acid profile of meat samples was determined by gas chromatography after conversion of the fats to fatty acids methyl esters (AOCS, 1997). The method of Folch et al. (1957) was used for the extraction of lipids from samples. The fatty acids methyl esters (FAME) were quantified by gas chromatograph method using a fused silica capillary column (Select TM Biodiesel for FAME, Varian, USA) (30 m × 0.32 mm × 0.25µm film thickness) and flame-ionization detector Varian 450-GC (Varian, USA) at injection volume of 1 mL/min and split ratio 1/50, respectively. Helium was used as the carrier gas. The detector and injector temperatures were chosen as 300°C and 250°C, respectively. The initial column temperature of 150ºC was held for 1 min, increased to 200ºC at 3ºC/min and held for 10 min. Then, it was increased to 240ºC at the rate of 3ºC/min and maintained for 4 min. Quantification of lipid FAMEs was carried out using nonadecanoic acid (C19:0) as an internal standard. Heat-treated meat quality analysis Heat-treated meat sample preparation The loin and neck muscle samples (about 200±10 g) were cured using 2.0% cur- ing mixture (99.5% NaCl, 0.5% sodium nitrite) at 4°C for 24 hours. The samples were individually wrapped in aluminium foil and placed in the oven for roasting at 180°C to an internal temperature of 72°C. The temperature was monitored by chromium-aluminium thermocouples. The muscle samples were cooled and blotted dry. After that, the heat-treated muscle samples were packed individually into the HDPE bags and stored at 4°C overnight. Page 82 of 152 M. Karwowska et al.1048 Shear force measurements Cylindrical cores (1.25 cm diameter) were cut from the heat-treated muscles, parallel to the longitudinal orientation of the muscle fibers. Warner-Bratzler shear force was determined using a texture analyzer TA-XT plus (Stable Micro Systems Ltd. Surrey, UK) equipped with a V-shaped Warner-Bratzler device (0.9 mm thick). Samples were shorn at a crosshead speed of 100 mm min–1. Data were collected with Texture Expert Exceed Software (Stable Micro Systems). statistical analysis The data were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the effect of distance from the wind turbine. Measurements were carried out in at least three repetitions for each of the five loins/necks within each group. The results were presented in tables as mean values and standard error (SE). The signifi- cance of differences between means for the investigated parameter within muscle types was determined (at the significance level P<0.05) by Tukey’s multiple range test. results noise emission in the audible and infrasound range The results obtained during the noise measurement are presented in Table 1. The average noise values (both audible noise and infrasound) obtained in pen located 50 m from the wind turbine were the highest of all measured pens. When the distance from the turbine was greater, the intensity of recorded sounds was lower. Measure- ments of noise emitted by the wind turbine, which is audible for humans (A scale), gave the values in the range of 46.1–53.6. Noise measurements in the infrasound range (G scale) generated by the wind turbine allowed determination of the intensity of sound in the range of 56.2–71.0. Table 1. The mean values obtained during the noise measurement Distance from wind turbine (m)Noise level dB (A)Noise level dB (G) 50 53.6 71.0 500 52.9 68.5 1000 46.1 56.2 Effect of the distance of the wind turbine on pig meat quality The results of loin and neck pH measurements for each experimental group are shown in Table 2. In the case of loin muscle, the examination of the pH values indi- cated no statistically significant differences between growing-finishing pigs reared at varying distances from the wind turbine. Neck muscles of animals reared at the distance of 50 m from the wind turbine were characterized by lower pH values com- pared to those reared 500 m and 1000 m from the wind turbine. Page 83 of 152 Pig meat quality as related to distance from the wind turbine 1049 Table 2. pH, water holding capacity (WHC) and shear force values of meat from growing-finishing pigs reared at three different distances from the wind turbine (mean ± SE) pH WHC (%)Shear force (N) Loin G-I G-II G-III 5.39±0.06 5.41±0.04 5.41±0.05 37.8±4.8 35.7±6.8 38.3±9.6 50.6±4.2 b 34.8±5.3 a 39.7±4.8 a Neck G-I G-II G-III 5.87±0.06 a 5.90±0.07 ab 6.04±0.06 b 20.3±4.4 16.6±5.7 16.0±2.4 26.8±5.1 28.2±8.2 27.2±7.8 a, b – different letters in the same column (within each muscle) represent significant differences (P<0.05). Regarding water holding capacity (WHC) of loin and neck muscles, there was no statistically significant effect of the distance from the wind turbine. Results of shear force measurements revealed that loin muscle of G-I was characterized by higher shear force compared to those of G-II and G-III (Table 2). For the neck muscles, no statistical differences were observed in shear force values across groups. Table 3 shows results of L*a*b* color coordinate measurements taken for the loin and neck muscles. It was indicated that the close proximity to the wind turbine did not result in significant changes in color coordinate L*. Results obtained for redness were more differentiated. Loins of G-I had significantly lower values of co- ordinate a* than the samples of G-II and G-III. In the case of the neck, no statistical differences were observed in redness values across groups. The results of total heme pigments and iron content confirmed the results of physical determination of meat color (Table 3). Loins of G-I were characterized the lowest total heme pigments and iron content among all experimental groups. Table 3. Color coordinates (L*a*b*), total heme pigments and heme iron content of meat from growing-finishing pigs reared at three different distances from the wind turbine (mean±SE) Lightness (L*) Redness (a*) Yellowness (b*) Total heme pigments (ppm g–1) Heme iron (ppm g–1) Loin G-I G-II G-III 54.1±1.2 53.5±1.5 56.1±1.7 –1.0±0.3 a 1.2±1.0 b 0.2±0.5 b 8.5±0.6 8.2±0.8 8.2±1.1 85.9±5.6 a 119.2±11.2 b 112.2±18.7 b 6.7±0.5 a 10.5±1.0 b 10.0±1.7 b Neck G-I G-II G-III 51.4±2.8 49.3±1.0 49.4±1.0 5.0±2.2 6.9±0.9 8.8±1.9 9.3±1.1 9.9±1.4 10.9±0.8 150.8±5.8 160.6±18.2 148.3±9.8 13.4±0.5 14.3±1.6 13.1±0.9 a, b – different letters in the same column (within each muscle) represent significant differences (P<0.05). effect of the distance from the wind turbine on the fatty acid composition of growing-finishing pig meat The effect of the distance from the wind turbine on fatty acid composition of growing-finishing pig loin and neck is shown in Table 4. Page 84 of 152 M. Karwowska et al.1050 Table 4. Fatty acid composition (%) of meat from growing-finishing pigs reared at varying distances from the wind turbine Fatty acid Loin Neck G-I G-II G-III G-I G-II G-III C10:0 C12:0 C14:0 C15:0 C16:0 C16:1 C17:0 C17:1 C18:0 C18:1n9c+C18:1n9t C18:2n-6 C18:3n-3 C20:0 C20:1 0.08 0.10 1.35 0.05 24.32 3.19 0.32 0.31 13.76 47.24 c 8.38 a 0.68 a 0.20 0.00 0.08 0.11 1.45 0.06 23.70 2.79 0.34 0.30 14.33 44.28 b 11.43 b 0.85 b 0.25 0.13 0.08 0.13 1.48 0.09 23.52 2.53 0.57 0.42 14.93 41.21 a 13.77 c 1.09 c 0.22 0.00 0.09 0.14 1.52 b 0.08 24.51 b 3.06 0.42 0.38 13.69 a 42.63 b 12.28 a 0.97 0.21 0.00 0.09 0.12 1.30 a 0.05 22.89 a 2.07 0.38 0.27 17.98 b 39.89 a 13.66 b 1.04 0.24 0.00 0.08 0.13 1.35 a 0.07 22.79 a 2.76 0.44 0.34 13.49 a 44.03 b 13.28 b 1.03 0.18 0.00 SFA MUFA PUFA n-6 n-3 n-6/n-3 PUFA/SFA 40.16 50.73 c 9.05 a 8.38 a 0.68 a 12.32 0.22 a 40.30 47.48 b 12.28 b 11.43 b 0.85 b 13.45 0.30 b 41.01 44.16 a 14.86 c 13.77 c 1.09 c 12.63 0.36 c 40.65 b 46.06 b 13.25 a 12.28 a 0.97 12.66 0.32 a 43.03 c 44.22 a 14.69 b 13.66 b 1.04 13.13 0.34 ab 38.52 a 47.12 b 14.31 b 13.28 b 1.03 12.89 0.37 b a, b, c – different letters in the same row (within each muscle) represent significant differences (P<0.05). In three experimental groups of growing-finishing pigs, SFA and MUFA were the predominant components in lipids of loin and neck muscles, whereas the concentra- tion of PUFA was relatively lower. The concentration of C14:0 as well as C16:0 was higher for neck of G-I, but there was no statistical difference for loins. Differences among groups were also found in the concentration of C18:1(n9c+C18:1n9t). With increasing distance from the wind turbine, C18:1(n9c+C18:1n9t) content in loin muscles decreased. The significantly lower content of this fatty acid in neck muscles was observed in the case of growing-finishing pigs from group II. Conversely, the concentration of linoleic acid (C18:2n-6) was lower in loin and neck from G-I than from G-II and G-III. The concentration of α-linolenic acid (C18:3n-3) in loin and neck muscles decreased as the distance from the place of pig rearing to wind turbine increased. The content of saturated fatty acids (SFA) in loin muscles was similar for all experimental groups. In the case of neck muscles, SFA was lowest in G-III. Differ- ences among groups were found in the concentration of monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA). Loins of G-III and neck muscles of G-II had the lowest content of MUFA. The content of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) was higher for loin and neck muscles of pigs from G-II and G-III than those of G-I. In loin muscles, the content of n-3 and n-6 fatty acids was significantly lower for G-I compared to G-II and G-III. No significant differences were observed for the ratio of n-6/n-3 fatty acids in loin and neck muscles while the effect of the distance from the wind turbine on the Page 85 of 152 Pig meat quality as related to distance from the wind turbine 1051 ratio of PUFA/MUFA in muscles was noted. When animals were reared in the close proximity to the wind turbine the ratio of PUFA/MUFA was lower in the muscles. discussion Handling at the farm, genetics, the season and preslaughter handling are very important aspects that influence the stress level of the animal and thus are responsi- ble for the development of aberrant meat quality (Van de Perre et al., 2010). While consumers continue to consider sensory and technological quality of meat important issues, they are increasingly concerned with welfare of animals during rearing and at slaughter. Although increasing emphasis has recently been put on ensuring the conditions of animal welfare and stress elimination during the fattening period, only minimal attention has been devoted to examine impact of stress associated with the exposure to noise, in particular generated by wind turbine. Wind turbines generate noise containing infrasound components. On the basis of the results obtained, it can be concluded that the highest level of noise in the audible and infrasound range was recorded 50 m from the wind turbine where growing-finishing pigs of group I (G-I) were reared. When the distance from the turbine increased, the intensity of record- ed sounds decreases. Our results are in accordance with those obtained by Pawlas (2009). As reported by Pawlas (2009) the level of noise emitted by wind turbines is in the range of 100 to 107 dB(A) and decreases as the distance from the turbine increases. This has been confirmed also in the studies of Mikołajczak et al. (2013). Their results indicated that when the distance from the wind turbine increased, the intensity of infrasound decreased greatly, and at the distance of 1000 m the intensity was 40 dB. However, the noise values obtained in pens do not exceed the level re- quired by law. According to the Regulation of the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development dated 15 February 2010, in areas where pigs are kept the noise should not be permanent or induced suddenly, and its intensity should not exceed 85 dB. On the basis of the results obtained, it can be concluded that rearing pigs in close proximity to a wind turbine (with a capacity of 2 MW) impacts on pH and shear force of muscles. However, the effects observed were dependent on the type of muscle. Neck muscles of pigs reared at the distance of 50 m from the wind turbine were char- acterized by significantly lower pH values compared to those reared 500 m and 1000 m from the wind turbine while no statistically significant differences between loins were detected. The results are in accordance with our previous research (Karwowska et al., 2014). Noise-induced stress reaction may increase stress hormones that exac- erbate the effects of muscular activity on antemortem and postmortem metabolism, consequently affecting rate and extent of glycogen depletion, lactate formation, and pH decline postmortem (Terlouw, 2005). As reported by Aguilera (1994), animals under condition of chronic stress may show rapid postmortem glycolysis, which in turn results in a rapid decline in muscle pH. The previous and current results sug- gested that the differences in muscle fiber type could result in differences in combat- ing stress and result in alterations in postmortem metabolism between two fiber types affecting the quality of muscles. Page 86 of 152 M. Karwowska et al.1052 The results confirmed no statistical differences in water holding capacity (WHC) between experimental groups. The ability to retain inherent and added water is an important property of meat as it affects both the yield and the quality of the end product. As reported by Andres et al. (2007) water holding capacity is the result of biochemical and physical changes occurring in muscle tissues postmortem and is largely influenced by animal stress, genetics, preslaughter handling conditions and carcass cooling. In contrast, the results of our study did not confirm the effect of noise as a stress factor generated by the wind turbine on the ability to retain inherent and added water by the loin and neck muscles. L*a*b* color parameters were generally similar across experimental groups, with the exception of differences between a* values for loin muscles. Loins of G-I (50 m from the wind turbine) had significantly lower values of coordinate a* than the samples of G-II and G-III. The results of total heme pigments and iron content con- firmed the results of physical determination of meat color. Loins with lower redness were characterized by the lowest total heme pigments and iron content among all ex- perimental groups. Lower contents of heme iron reduce the nutritional value of meat because heme-iron is more available than non-heme iron (Estevez and Cava, 2004). According to the results of our observations, rearing pigs in close proximity to a wind turbine causes a significant change of fatty acid profile of loin and neck mus- cles. Fatty acid composition is an important factor in the nutritional quality of muscle and as such has long been a subject of study in meat science receiving considerable attention due to its important role in human health (Raes et al., 2004). Generally, rearing pigs in close proximity to a wind turbine impacts polyunsaturated fatty acids content, in particular C18:3n-3 fatty acid content of loin muscles. This is in agree- ment with our previous results (Karwowska et al., 2014) which showed that rearing geese in close proximity to a wind turbine impacts C18:3n-3 fatty acid content of abdominal fat. The concentration of α-linolenic acid (C18:3n-3) decreased as the distance from the place of growing-finishing pig rearing to wind turbine increased. As is evident from the literature, environmental stress – heat stress in particular – induces the oxidative stress, the term used to describe the condition of oxidative damage as a result of an unfavorable critical balance between free radical generation and anti- oxidant defenses (Chulayo et al., 2012; Falowo et al., 2014). The condition of oxi- dative stress results in the degradation of unsaponifiable and polyunsaturated fatty acid fraction of meat lipids and the conversion of oxymyoglobin to oxidized form (metmyoglobin) (Falowo et al., 2014). Thus, the essential α-linolenic acid may be preferentially oxidized, leading to a diminished incorporation into muscles. In human nutrition, both the content of PUFA and the ratio between n-6 and n-3 fatty acids are important (Wood et al., 2008). A high n-6 PUFA intake can negatively impact human health. The proportion of n-3 PUFA was significantly lower in the loin muscles of growing-finishing pigs reared 50 m from the wind turbine. However, the n-6:n-3 PUFA ratio did not differ among the groups. The ratio of n-6:n-3 PUFA in all the groups was higher than recommended (4:1) (Wood et al., 2008). In summary, a significant negative influence of noise generated by the wind tur- bine with a capacity of 2 MW on the quality of growing-finishing pig loin muscles Page 87 of 152 Pig meat quality as related to distance from the wind turbine 1053 was determined. Rearing growing-finishing pigs in close proximity to the wind tur- bine resulted in lower pH, total heme pigments and heme iron as well as lower con- tent of C18:3n-3 fatty acid of loin muscles. In this sense, it is crucial to reduce the exposure of animals to noise generated by wind turbines in order to avoid negative effects on meat quality. references A guilera G. (1994). Regulation of pituitary ACTH secretion during chronic stress. Front. Neur., 15: 321–350. AMSA (1991). Guidelines for meat color evaluation. Proc. 44th Annual Reciprocal Meat Conference, National Livestock and Meat Board, and American Meat Science Association, Manhattan, USA, pp. 232–249. AOCS (1997). Official Methods and Recommended Practices of the American Oil Chemist’s Society, AOACS Press, Champaign, USA, pp. 1–2. Andres S., Murray I., Navajas E.A., Fisher A.V., Lambe N.R., Bunger L. (2007). Pre- diction of sensory characteristics of lamb meat samples by near infrared reflectance spectroscopy. Meat Sci., 76: 509–516. Chai J., Xiong Q., Zhang C.X., Miao W., Li F.E., Zheng R., Peng J., Jiang S.W. (2010). Effect of pre-slaughter transport plant on blood constituents and meat quality in halothane genotype of NN Large White×Landrace pigs. Livest. Sci., 127: 211–217. Chloupek P., Voslářová E., Chloupek J., Bedáňová I., Pištěková V., Večerek V. (2009). Stress in broiler chickens due to acute noise exposure. Acta Vet. Brno, 78: 93–98. Choi Y.M., J ung K.C., Choe J.H., K im B.C. (2012). Effects of muscle cortisol concentration on muscle fiber characteristics, pork quality, and sensory quality of cooked pork. Meat Sci., 91: 490–498. Chulayo A.Y., Tada O., M uchenje V. (2012). Research on pre-slaughter stress and meat qua- lity: A review of challenges faced under practical conditions. App. Anim. Husb. Rural Dev., 43: 137–142. Clark E.M., M ahoney A.W., Carpenter C.E. (1997). Heme and total iron in ready-to-eat chick- en. J. Agric. Food Chem., 45: 124–126. De la Fuente J., Díaz M.T., Ibáñez M., González de Chavarri E. (2007). Physiologi- cal response of rabbits to heat, cold, noise and mixing in the context of transport. Anim. Welfare, 16: 41–47. D e Weerth C., Buitelaar J.K. (2005). Physiological stress reactivity in human pregnancy – A review. Neurosci. Biobehav. R., 29: 295–312. Es tevez M., Cava R. (2004). Lipid and protein oxidation, release of iron from heme molecule and colour deterioration during refrigerated storage of liver pate. Meat Sci., 68: 551–558. F alow o A.B., F ayemi P.O., M uchenje V. (2014). Natural antioxidants against lipid-protein oxi- dative deterioration in meat and meat products: A review. Food Res. Int., 64: 171–181. Ferguson D.M., Bruce H.L., Thompson J.M., Egan A.F., Perry D., Shorthose W.R. (2001). Factors affecting beef palatability – Farm gate to chilled carcass. Aust. J. Exp. Agric., 41: 879–891. F o lch J., Lees M., S tanley G.H. (1957). A simple method for the isolation and purification of total lipids from animal tissues. J. Biol. Chem., 226: 497–509. F o ttrell P. (2009). Code of Practice for the Welfare of Pigs. Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Council, Animal Health and Welfare Division, Agriculture House, Kildare Street, Dublin. H orns ey H.C. (1956). The color of cooked cured pork, I. Estimation of the nitric oxide-heme pig- ments. J. Sci. Food Agric., 7: 534–540. K alr a S., Einars on A., K aras kov T., U um S.V., K oren G. (2007). The relationship between stress and hair cortisol in healthy pregnant women. Clin. Pharmacol. Therap., 30: 103–107. K anitz E., O tten W., Tuchs cherer M. (2005). Central and peripheral effects of repeated noise stress on hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical axis in pigs. Livest. Prod. Sci., 94: 21–224. Page 88 of 152 M. Karwowska et al.1054 Karwowska M., Mikołajczak J., Borowski S., Dolatowski Z.J., Marć- -P ieńkow s ka J., Budziński W. (2014). Effect of noise generated by the wind turbine on the quality of goose muscles and abdominal fat. Ann. Anim. Sci., 14: 441–451. K oknaroglu H., A rkunal T. (2013). Animal welfare: An animal science approach. Meat Sci., 95: 821–827. Mikołajczak J., Borowski S., Marć-Pieńkowska J., Odrowąż-Sypniewska G., Bern acki Z., S iódmiak J., S zterk P. (2013). Preliminary studies on the reaction of grow- ing geese (Anser anser f. domestica) to the proximity of wind turbines. Pol. J. Vet. Sci., 16: 679–686. O gnik K., S embratow icz I. (2012). Stress as a factor modifying the metabolism in poultry. Ann. UMCS Zoot., 30: 34–43. Ordinance of the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, 15 February 2010 on the requirements and how to proceed while maintaning livestock species for which protection standards are provi- sions of the European Union. Otten W., Kanitz A.E., Puppe B., Tuchscherer M., Brüssow K.P., Nürnberg G., S tabenow B. (2004). Acute and long term effects of chronic intermittent noise stress on hy- pothamic-pituitary-adrenocortical and sympatho-adrenomedullary axis in pigs. Anim. Sci., 78: 271–284. P aw las K. (2009). The influence of infra- and low- frequency sound on human – a review of the li- terature (in Polish). Podst. Met. Ocen. Środ. Pracy, 2: 27–64. Raes K., D e S met K., D emeyer D. (2004). Effect of dietary fatty acid on incorporation of long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids and conjugated linoleic acid in lamb, beef and pork meat: a review. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 113: 199–221. Rus s ell E., K oren G., Rieder M., van U um S. (2012). Hair cortisol as a biological marker of chronic stress: current status, future directions and unanswered questions. Psychoneuroendocrinol., 37: 589–601. Terlouw C. (2005). Stress reactions at slaughter and meat quality in pigs: Genetic background and prior experience: A brief review of recent findings. Livest. Prod. Sci., 94: 125–135. The European Wind Energy Association (2014). Wind energy scenarios for 2020 (http://www.ewea.org/ fileadmin/files/library/publications/scenarios/EWEA-Wind-energy-scenarios-2020.pdf) Van de Perre V., Permentier L., De Bie S., Verbeke G., Geers, R. (2010). Effect of unloading, lairage, pig handling, stunning and season on pH of pork. Meat Sci., 86: 931–937. Voslarova E., Chloupek P., Chloupek J., Bedanova I., Pistekova V., Vecerek V. (2011). The effects of chronic intermittent noise exposure on broiler chicken performance. Anim. Sci. J., 82: 601–606. Wierbicki E., Tiede M.G., Burr ell R.C. (1962). Die Bestimmung der Fleischquellung als Methode zur Untersuchung der Wasserbindungskapazität von Muskelproteinen mit geringem Salthaltevermögen. Fleischwirtschaft, 10: 948–951. Wojtas K., Cw ynar P., K ołacz R. (2014). Effect of thermal stress on physiological and blood parameters in merino sheep. Bull. Vet. Inst. Puławy, 58: 283–288. Wood J.D., Enser M., Fisher A.V., Nute G.R., Sheard P.R., Richardson R.I., Hu- ges S.I., Whittington F.M. (2008). Fat deposition, fatty acid composition and meat quality: A review. Meat Sci., 78: 343–58. Yang P., H ao Y., F eng J., Lin H., Wu X., Yang X., G u X. (2014). The expression of carnosine and its effect on the antioxidant capacity of Longissimus dorsi muscle in finishing pigs exposed to constant heat stress. Asian Austral. J. Anim. Sci., 12: 1763–1772. Received: 26 II 2015 Accepted: 17 VII 2015 Page 89 of 152 5.4 Ontario’s Experience of Wind Energy Development as Seen through the Lens of Human Health and Environmental Justice Emmanuel Songsore and Michael Buzzelli Special Issue Environmental Justice Research: Contemporary Issues and Emerging Topics Edited by Prof. Dr. Jayajit Chakraborty, Dr. Sara E. Grineski and Prof. Dr. Timothy W. Collins Article https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13070684 Page 90 of 152 International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health Article Ontario’s Experience of Wind Energy Development as Seen through the Lens of Human Health and Environmental Justice Emmanuel Songsore and Michael Buzzelli * Department of Geography, Social Science Centre, Western University, London, ON N6A5C2, Canada; esongsor@uwo.ca *Correspondence: mbuzzel@uwo.ca; Tel.: +1-519-661-3423 Academic Editors: Jayajit Chakraborty, Sara E. Grineski and Timothy W. Collins Received: 10 May 2016; Accepted: 28 June 2016; Published: 6 July 2016 Abstract:The province of Ontario has shown great commitment towards the development of renewable energy and, specifically, wind power. Fuelled by the Green Energy Act (GEA) of 2009, the Province has emerged as Canada’s leader in wind energy development (WED). Nonetheless, Ontario’s WED trajectory is characterized by social conflicts, particularly around environmental health. Utilizing the Social Amplification of Risk Framework, this paper presents an eight-year longitudinal media content analysis conducted to understand the role Ontario’s media may be playing in both reflecting and shaping public perceptions of wind turbine health risks. We find that before and after the GEA, instances of health risk amplification were far greater than attenuations in both quantity and quality. Discourses that amplified turbine health risks often simultaneously highlighted injustices in the WED process, especially after the GEA. Based on these findings, we suggest that Ontario’s media may be amplifying perceptions of wind turbine health risks within the public domain. We conclude with policy recommendations around public engagement for more just WED. Keywords:wind energy; health risk; environmental justice; Ontario; newspapers 1. Introduction The growth of alternative energy in recent times has been driven by concerns over energy insecurity and sovereignty, climate change and pollution from carbon-based infrastructure. Ontario, Canada, is among the most ambitious jurisdictions pursuing wind energy development (WED) as indicated by rapid growth after the Province’s Green Energy and Green Economy Act of 2009. Since then, developers in Ontario have taken advantage of WED’s cost effectiveness, deployability and low emissions to install 4361 MW of turbines [1]. This is currently about 40% of Canada’s total installed capacity and nearly 10% of Ontario’s energy mix [1]. In contrast to the aforementioned merits, the technology faces some challenges within certain deployment contexts, a few of which include grid integration and variability [2,3] and concerns over wildlife [4].. Despite the promises of the GEA and WED to deliver clean energy and green jobs, development is fraught with conflict across technical, economic, social and, our focus here, health issues. The issue of wind turbines and human health in particular presents a complicated and multifaceted case of environmental (in)justice. On the one hand, the Ontario government’s justification for WED rests on its health benefits. For example, the province boasts of being the first North American jurisdiction to phase out coal-generated energy with wind power [1]. On the other hand, the technology continues to be perceived as a public health risk, a subject that remains extremely controversial even within the scientific community. This paradox creates multiple understandings of what might constitute “just” WED. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016,13, 684; doi:10.3390/ijerph13070684 www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph Page 91 of 152 Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016,13, 684 2 of 18 We recognize the roles played by the media in both reflecting and shaping public perceptions around wind turbines and health [5,6]. Through the lens of the Social Amplification of Risk Framework and newly-emerging theories of energy justice, we conduct a longitudinal media content analysis to: (1) understand how wind energy is portrayed as a health risk or benefit and (2) understand the nature of justice discourses in the context of WED and health. Based on the significant role played by the Green Energy and Green Economy Act (GEA) as a driver of WED, we seek to understand how these discourses have evolved relative to the policy. This research finds that policy could benefit by understanding and incorporating the perspectives of key stakeholders (particularly local communities), often presumed as defiant for opposing projects [7]. We conclude with a discussion of justice-informed policy alternatives that may offer a more consensus-based path to renewable energy development. 2. Emerging Literature on (Wind) Energy Justice and Wind Turbine Health Effects WED and environmental justice (EJ) have only recently begun to appear together in the research literature, yet they offerinterestingpoints of analysisand mutualexchange. Development controversies grow out of a fundamental conundrum in the sector: that generally-accepted and lauded societal goals of renewable and clean energy often run counter to local community concerns. Accordingly, we are presented with fruitful conceptual and empirical research paths [8], including: policy conflicts between environment and health goals and priorities; global versus local priorities within development; the ways in which sustainable development might falter when policy (theory) meets implementation (practice). Community concerns around health issues, we argue, provide a new path through which to define and analyse WED. In the context of this paper, we contextualize health as including turbine impacts on “physical, metal and social wellbeing” [9]. Two major conflicting non-academic publications that have been impactful in shaping discourses around WED in Ontario include “Wind Turbine Sound and Health Effects: An Expert Panel Review” [10] and “Wind Turbine Syndrome: A Report on a Natural Experiment” [11]. While the former was funded jointly by American and Canadian Wind Energy Associations, the latter was conducted by Nina Pierpont, a New York-based physician. These publications have suggested the existence and nonexistence of health impacts, respectively. Despite a range of health concerns around WED, peer-reviewed academic research has pointed to turbines causing annoyance and sleep disturbance associated with proximate turbines’ vibration and noise (“swoosh”) [12,13]. In a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature on turbine health effects, it was concluded that “there is some evidence that exposure to wind turbine noise is associated with increased odds of annoyance and sleep problems” [14], which constitute a direct measure of health [15]. Given the environmental health nature of these issues, WED lends itself naturally to analysis from the perspective and priorities of EJ. ‘Process’ EJ studies, those concerned with the histories and policies that generate unjust community outcomes, provide a broad context for us here. Whereas scientific or epidemiologic studies focus on annoyance and sleep disturbance (outcomes), our aim is to understand how health-related EJ tensions arise within the WED process. This conceptualisation of EJ was captured by the U.S. EPA when it referred to just development as “...fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people ...achieved when everyone enjoys the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards and equal access to the decision making process to have a healthy environment in which to live, learn, and work” [16]. ThisbroadconceptualisationofEJhasbeenappliedtoanumberofissuesandcontexts[17], though only very recently, and in particular ways, in the emergent so-called “energy justice” movement [18,19]. Broadly speaking, energy affordability and the politics of infrastructure are the leading equity themes in the energy studies literature [20]. We see these priorities, for instance, in case studies of the historical development of energy infrastructure and energy poverty in North Carolina [21] and in aboriginal land claims against internal colonisation in Sweden [22]. Cowell and colleagues point out that the concepts of fairness and justice used in research on WED have tended to focus on the distribution of economic benefits and/or public engagement in the development process [23]. Thus, we have studies Page 92 of 152 Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016,13, 684 3 of 18 on supply chain impacts of more just energy development [24], what this might mean for ethical energy consumption [25] and the tools that may facilitate the problems imbued in planning in more equitable ways [26]. Present, but never a principal focus of this emergent literature, we argue, is the environmental health lens. Given both its saliency within EJ and its importance to communities within the WED process, we seek to develop this further dimension of energy justice. 3. WED and Health: A Theoretical Frame Given the contested nature of wind turbine health effects and associated issues of environmental justice that have arisen in Ontario [6,27–29], we utilize the Social Amplification of Risk Framework (SARF) to understand how these discourses manifest within media coverage. SARF permits insights into the potential role of media discourse in magnifying or minimizing public perceptions of wind turbine health effects and, in turn, perceptions of justices or injustices in the context of WED. SARF was developed to aid in coherent and integrated understanding of risk perception and communication [30]. The theory posits that “risks, risk events and the characteristics of both become portrayed through various risks signals (e.g., images, signs and symbols) which in turn interact with a wide range of psychological, social and institutional, or cultural processes in ways that intensify or attenuate perceptions of risk and its manageability” [31]. The theory further argues that the experience of risks transcends physical harm and includes the mechanisms through which communities learn about them. Thus, central to this theory is the role played by the mass media in communicating risks to the general public [32]. Figure 1 provides a conceptual summary of SARF as it relates to the current study. Considering conflicting accounts surrounding wind turbine health effects, we set out to understand how the media acts as a communicative channel that amplifies or attenuates the saliency of turbine health impacts. Specifically, we pay attention to how these health impacts are legitimized through the processes of authorization and normalization. Central to the SARF is the idea that communication from experts usually triggers significant public concerns [30]. Through authorization, we therefore seek to understand how reference to authority within media coverage may act to amplify or attenuate perceptions of turbine health risks [33]. Since turbine health risks remain an uncertainty, our second goal is to understand how exemplarity plays out within the media coverage. With exemplarity, we are interested in understanding how tangible testimonies from individuals and communities living near turbines play out in the media to heighten or minimize wind turbine health effects [34]. Equally importantly, we seek to understand if and how justice- and injustice-based discourses emerge within broader discourses, which tend to amplify and attenuate turbine health risks. Figure 1.Social Amplification of Risk Framework in the context of wind energy development. Adopted and simplified from Kasperson et al. [30]. Although the impacts of media discourse on public opinions remains complex and multifaceted, decades of media effects research have identified agenda setting and framing as the main mechanisms through which public discourse and opinions may be impacted by the media. While agenda setting suggests a positive correlation between the amounts of coverage and the importance audiences Page 93 of 152 Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016,13, 684 4 of 18 attribute to issues [35], framing refers to the mode of communication used to present issues [36]. By assessing the quantity (i.e., relative occurrence of amplifications and attenuations) and quality (i.e., mechanisms of legitimation and the nature of justice-based discourses), the current study provides some opportunity for understanding the potential impacts of media coverage on public perceptions. 4. Methods This section details the methods that were employed in the study. First, we outline the procedures for sampling news articles and their associated rationale, after which the analytical methods (content analysis and thematization) are discussed. 4.1. Newspaper Selection and Sampling The preliminary sampling procedure involved locating all wind energy projects within Ontario and their respective host communities. Through a search conducted on the website of Ontario’s Ministry of Energy [37], we found 41 projects located in approximately 23 communities. Since we were interested in understanding media coverage within turbine communities, we set out to document all digitally-accessible local newspapers circulated within host communities in order to obtain a large and representative sample of articles. In total, 13 local newspapers circulated in host communities were accessible via the LexisNexis news database. The next step involved selecting a date range for sampling. Prior to 2005, we found several inconsistencies within the database (e.g., missing news articles). We therefore decided to sample articles published between January 2005 and June 2013 (the search month). Since we wanted to understand variations in wind energy health effects and justice discourses relative to Ontario’s GEA, articles were sampled into two broad clusters: both 4 years prior to the policy (1 January 2005–31 January 2009) and 4 years after its implementation (14 May 2009–13 June 2013). Figure 2 summarises the procedures used to retrieve articles from LexisNexis. The total number of articles retrieved before and after the GEA was 621 and 1297, respectively. Within almost all newspaper sources, there was a substantial increase in wind energy coverage following the GEA. Specifically, stories on WED were likely to appear 3 and 6 times a week pre- and post-GEA, respectively, indicating that coverage doubled following the implementation of the policy. The list of newspaper sources and the frequency of articles published within each sources relative to the GEA is displayed in Figure 3. Media Database (LexisNexis) Key Search Terms Utilized Within Database Wind farm(s) OR wind energy OR wind power OR wind turbine(s) or windmill(s) Search Periods Pre-GEA (1 January 2005–31 January 2009) AND Post-GEA (14 May 2009–13 June 2013) Search limited to Headline and Lead Paragraph Search Outcomes Pre-GEA Articles (N = 621) AND Post-GEA Articles (N = 1297) Total number of articles retrieved for analysis = 1918 Figure 2.Summary of sampling protocol in LexisNexis. GEA, Green Energy Act. Page 94 of 152 Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016,13, 684 5 of 18 π 53 56 6 80 38 20 67 65 8 26 89 52 61 63 194 131 133 73 74 75 74 123 88 168 48 53 0 50 100 150 200 Chatham This Week Orangeville Banner Sarnia This Week Shoreline Beacon Dunville Chronicle Hanover Post Kincardine News Kingston Whig Standard Lindsay Post Niagara Falls Review Owen Sound Sun Times Sault Star St Catharines Standard Frequency of articles retrieved Ne w s p a p e r s Post-GEA Pre-GEA Figure 3.Frequency of sampled articles by newspaper source. 4.2. Data Analysis The large newspaper article sample necessitated a method that allows for scrupulous and efficient data reduction and analysis. We therefore utilized content analysis, which in the words of Patton [38], is “a qualitative data reduction and sense making effort that takes a volume of qualitative material and attempts to identify core and consistent meanings”. We also relied on content analysis because the methodology aims for systemization, objectivity and reliability, all of which increase rigor [39–41]. Thus, it requires that data be sampled and analyzed using a “step by step protocol” [41] with “explicitly formulated rules and procedures” [42]. The analysis was preceded by the development of an analytical codebook, which provided explicit article content coding instructions [43]. Based on the study goals, we had two major categories for the coding, i.e., amplification and attenuation of wind energy health risk. While the former represented claims that wind turbines were a health risk, the latter involved suggestions of the non-existence of health risks or the minimization of health risks associated with wind power [31]. In order to be coded, attenuations and amplifications had to be legitimized through authorization or exemplification. An intercoder reliability test was then performed between two researchers who coded a sample of 50 purposefully-selected articles. Intercoder reliability tests enhance the reliability of coded content by measuring the “extent to which independent judges make the same coding decisions in evaluating the characteristics of messages” [44]. A Scott’s Pi (1 >> 0) test revealed a satisfactory reliability score of 0.83 [45]. All articles were then imported into NVivo 9 for analysis. A total of 889 instances of health risk amplifications and attenuations in the context of WED were coded. While the content analysis captured the instances of risk amplification and attenuation, the major themes discussed within news articles had to be documented. We therefore conducted a secondary thematic analysis to identify these common themes and patterns that were evident in amplifications and attenuations, as well as the occurrence of justice- and injustice-based discourses amidst risk coverage [46]. 5. Results The results of the study are presented in three broad clusters. We start by briefly discussing the prominence of amplifications and attenuations coded before and after the GEA. In Section 5.1, we report the analysis of the amplifications and attenuations of turbine health risks through the mechanisms of normalization and exemplification. In Section 5.2, we present the occurrence of justice- Page 95 of 152 Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016,13, 684 6 of 18 and injustice-based discourses amidst amplifications and attenuations of wind turbine health effects. What we see through media content is both community anxiety around turbines and perceived health effects, as well as a process-based discourse around the planning and implementation of wind energy; both issues that speak directly to environmental injustice. Figure 4 shows the frequency of health risk amplifications and attenuations that were coded before and after the GEA, respectively. The amplification of health risks was substantially higher than instances of risk attenuation both before and after the GEA, respectively. Specifically, instances of amplification were more than twice the frequency of attenuations within both time periods. Based on the media theory of agenda setting, which purports a direct relationship between media coverage and issue saliency [47], public perceptions of wind turbines in the context of health are therefore likely to be more negative than positive. Accordingly, the next section digs deeper into the nature and characteristics of these amplifications and attenuations in order to understand the potential impacts of media coverage on public perceptions. √√√√ √√√ √√√√ √√√ 205 82 433 169 Amplification Attenuation Post-GEA Pre-GEA Figure 4.Prominence of reported amplifications and attenuations pre- and post-GEA. 5.1. Amplification and Attenuation of Health-Based Discourse before and after the GEA Table 1 provides a summary of all of the legitimation mechanisms that were adopted before and after the GEA. Although amplifications and attenuations were evident before and after the GEA, there were major variations in the nature and characteristics of accompanying legitimations. The use of authorization to amplify and attenuate wind turbine health risks generally occurred in two major forms: (1) though statements directly advanced by health experts and (2) through studies conducted by various experts. Exemplification instead occurred via direct statements advanced by individuals who were living within the vicinity of turbines or those who came in close contact with turbines. Pre- and post-GEA discourses pertaining to justice and fairness were predominantly advanced in the contexts where wind turbine health risks were being amplified. In this context, the focus was mainly on the negative treatment of citizens regarding concerns around the negative impacts of turbines. Table 1.Legitimation of wind turbine health effects. Time Period Individual Experiences Scientific Evidence Justice/Injustice DiscourseStudies Health Expert Voices Pre-GEA Attenuation ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ Pre-GEA Amplification ‘ ‘ ‘ ˆ Post-GEA Attenuation ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ Post-GEA Amplification ‘ ‘ ‘ ˆ Page 96 of 152 Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016,13, 684 7 of 18 5.1.1. Pre- and Post-GEA Attenuation The attenuation of wind turbine health effects both before and after the GEA took different forms, which included individual testimonies, health expert claims and evidence rooted in scientific research. These attenuations tended to curtail the idea that turbines were harmful by suggesting the nonexistence of negative health effects. Prior to and after the GEA in both time periods, testimonies of individuals tended to suggest that wind turbines were harmless. A majority of these legitimations were carried out by Ontarians who were exposed to turbines over short periods (e.g., individuals visiting and/or touring wind farms). This is exemplified in the following excerpts from news reports, which highlight the perspectives of some Ontario residents before and after the GEA, respectively: Joyce and Tom Hunter have checked out AIM’s (AIM PowerGen Corporation) 66-turbine wind farm in Norfolk and Elgin Counties, mills on Scottish hills and a wind power plant in Prince Edward Island. Joyce said ...they are so quiet you can stand at the base of one of those towers and carry on a normal voice conversation with no problem. The only sound you hear is a swish as the blade passes overhead. [48] Nichols says he purposely parked beneath a turbine and found the noise to be minimal and no worse than background noise heard every day. “Certain people just do not want change,” he says. “We do not like coal and we are afraid of nuclear. Do we want to go back to chopping wood?” [49] Both of the above quotes demonstrate testimonies of individuals attenuating the health effects of noise from wind turbines before and after the GEA, respectively. Evident in the second quote is another thread that was common within individual attenuations: the comparison of wind turbines to other energy generation, such as coal, which were often described as a greater evil. In another similar instance, a resident who was reported to have claimed that turbines were safer than other energy generation technologies was quoted as posing the following questions “Which is more harmful to you and your children, energy produced from coal burning smokestacks, energy from a nuclear power plant or energy produced from a 400-foot wind tower?” [50]. Also noteworthy is the fact that individual attenuations often acknowledged the existence of turbine noise, an issue that has generated controversy to present day. In the post-GEA period, there started to emerge reports of occasional attenuations via testimonies of individuals living within the vicinity of turbines. This is captured in the following report about a family who lived within the vicinity of turbines: The majority of people living near the local turbines don’t appear to suffer the symptoms experienced by some nearby residents. “We’re having no problems at all,” says Melancthon’s Randy Nielsen, speaking for his wife and two teenage children. “We're surrounded by turbines. ... We’ve had people come to visit and they all like them.” [51] Within the media coverage, there was also evidence of health risk attenuations, which took the form of studies and the direct voices of experts within the scientific community. Regarding the former, expert reports in the Canadian context were used to legitimize the nonexistence of negative health impacts from turbines both before and after the GEA. The Expert Panel Report sponsored by the American and Canadian Wind Energy Associations (AWEA and CANWEA respectively) was often cited. Based on a review of the literature on the health effects of wind turbines, the panel was said to have come to the following conclusions: In a report released last month, CANWEA states, “Surveys of peer-reviewed scientific literature have consistently found no evidence linking wind turbines to human health concerns. It is important to note that all wind energy projects are required to undertake environmentalassessmentsthatassessthepotentialimpactsofwindturbinesonecosystems and human health...” [52] Page 97 of 152 Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016,13, 684 8 of 18 Similarly, before the implementation of the GEA, the Natural Resource Department of Canada was also said to have released a report, which “found no problems with low-frequency noise, also known as infrasound” with measurements indicating that “sound at infrasonic frequencies below typical thresholds of perception; infrasound is not an issue” [53]. Unique to post-GEA media coverage, the attenuation of health risks was further intensified through the citing of studies conducted by international experts. For example, the Massachusetts Department of Environment Protection was said to have released a report that found “no scientific evidence to support most claims about ‘Wind Turbine Syndrome’, infrasound effects and harm blamed on wind power such as pain and stiffness, diabetes, high blood pressure, tinnitus, hearing impairment, cardiovascular disease and headache/migraine” [54]. A final strategy that was evident in the attenuation of turbine health risks was explicit voices of various health experts within Ontario. Prior to the GEA being implemented, a major voice that was dominant in all the newspaper sources was that of David Colby, the health officer of Chatham-Kent, Ontario. This quote captures the broad range of claims that were advanced by Colby: Chatham-Kent’s acting health officer is reiterating his position that wind turbines planned for the community pose no real health threats...Colby cited turbine failure, icing in northern climates, sound emissions and noise concerns, shadow flicker and construction injuries as the key areas of concern ....He also says the noise produced by the wind turbines should not cause a problem to humans. Colby also states that shadow flicker, which some believe could trigger epileptic symptoms in susceptible people, is well below the threshold at which that would happen....Colby states that “... opposition to wind farms on the basis of potential adverse health consequences is not justified by the evidence.” [55] Similar claims by Colby continued to emerge after the GEA. For example, on one occasion, it was reported that while Colby did not claim to be an expert on the subject of wind turbine health effects, his conclusion about the nonexistence of a scientific link was based on a review of “existing scientific reports and medical journals” [56]. Similar claims were reportedly made by Warren Mabee, a professor and renewable energy researcher at Queens University who was quoted as saying “there have been studies that have been done in Canada and elsewhere. None of them have come back conclusively saying that wind turbines are the cause of this type of health issue” [57]. Following the GEA, it was reported that Loren Knopper, an environment and health consultant in Ontario, stated that around the world, government agencies have found that, properly cited turbines do not impact human health negatively [58]. Similar to individuals, the attenuation of wind turbine health effects by Canadian-based experts occasionallyinvolvedcomparingtherelativerisksassociatedwithotherenergygenerationtechnologies to wind power. This was evident only after the GEA was passed into law and is exemplified in an excerpt from an article that highlighted potential health benefits of wind power: On the other hand, we know that using fossil fuels for energy has profound effects on human health—and on the economy. The Canadian Medical Association reports that in 2008 air pollution in Canada was responsible for 21,000 premature deaths, 92,000 emergency room visits and 620,000 visits to a doctor s office. [59] 5.1.2. Pre- and Post-GEA Amplification The amplification of wind turbine health risks took very diverse forms, including testimonies from individuals, expert perspectives (both local and international) and a broad range of studies conducted in different jurisdictional contexts. Unlike the attenuation of wind turbine health effects by individuals who often had sporadic experiences with turbines, testimonies amplifying health risks before and after the GEA were almost exclusively advanced by individuals who lived within the vicinity of turbines. Health impacts reported pre- and post-GEA included sleep deprivation, headaches, nausea, heart palpitations, ear problems, breathing impairments, dizziness, migraines and a host of Page 98 of 152 Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016,13, 684 9 of 18 others. It was often reported that, based on these impacts, some families had to abandon their homes. These testimonies were documented both within and outside Ontario. After the GEA, a resident of Kincardine, Ontario, was for instance reported to have been suffering negative turbine health effects as follows: Norma Schmidt, who lives in the midst of 110 turbines in Kincardine, said she’s suffered severe migraines, sleep deprivation, weight loss, dizziness, and nauseousness as well as cognitive impairment and ear pressure in the past 22 months. She says there are 14 wind turbines within a two-mile radius of her home west of Underwood. “I have three to five migraines a week and those just continue to increase with the introduction of more turbines ... ” [60] Another common story reported repeatedly prior to the GEA was that of a family who lived in the province of Nova Scotia, Canada. This family’s experience is captured in the following excerpt: The d’Entremonts literally fled the home they had built in Pubnico Point ...a year after a wind turbine was installed 1000 feet away, one of 17 within 1.6 km of their home. During that period, the d’Entremonts say they and their six children suffered a variety of afflictions ....From sleep disruptions to vision and skin problems and increased aggressiveness in several of their children, the d’Entremonts believe the maladies were caused by an acute sensitivity to the vibrations produced by the turbine. They say the majority of the ailments disappeared once the family left their home. [61] It is noteworthy that this turbine setback far exceeds the 550-m standard in Ontario. Similar to the above quote, several individual-based amplifications of wind turbine health risks stressed the negative impacts turbines were having on children. For example, a family living in the township of Melancthon, Ontario, were reported to have claimed that “with four small children, two under the age of four, this noise has made for many sleepless nights” [62], while in another article, it was reported that “little children are now experiencing terrible earaches and headaches that they didn’t have prior to the start-up of the wind farm” [63]. Similar to risk attenuation, the amplification of health risks before and after the GEA was dominated by the voices of local experts in Ontario and Canada. However, pre- and post-GEA, the amplification of health risks via the voices of international-based health experts was significantly more pronounced. This trend was even more evident after the policy was passed into law. For example, post-GEA amplifications were dominated by expert voices drawn from all over Europe, the United States and Australia in particular. Two dominant expert voices evident in these amplifications were Nina Pierpont, a New York-based physician, and Robert McMurtry, a former dean of medicine at Western University in Ontario. Pierpont’s concept of wind turbine syndrome is captured here: Pierpont followed families living within 2 km of wind turbines and describes symptoms such as difficulties with concentration, balance, headaches, nausea, dizziness, irritability, fast heart rate, feelings of panic and ringing in the ears. People most likely to be affected include those prone to migraines, motion sensitivity, inner ear damage as well as extremes of age. As a specialist in behavioral pediatrics, she also expressed concerns with children’s attention, cognition and ability to learn when living in close proximity to wind turbines. [64] Once again, we read about health concerns at distances that exceed Ontario’s current setback standard. In a different article, McMurtry was reported to have claimed that some individuals were leaving their homes due to negative impacts from turbines, while others were developing hypertensive symptoms. Stressing the fact that turbines were a problem, he went on to claim that “all the victims have one thing in common. When they go back home, or near the wind farms, they're worse and when they get away, they're better” [65]. Page 99 of 152 Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016,13, 684 10 of 18 In comparison to risk attenuation pre- and post-GEA, reported studies that tended to amplify wind turbine health risks within the news articles were far more diverse. For example, studies in France, Denmark, New Zealand and the United States were used to amplify turbine health risks. Following the GEA’s implementation, a study conducted by Jeffery Armini, a health consultant in Guelph, Ontario, Christopher Hanning from Leicester University’s hospital in the U.K. and Michael Nissenbaum, a medical doctor from Fort Kent in the United States, was cited as follows: we conclude that the noise emissions of iWts (industrial wind turbines) disturbed the sleep and caused daytime sleepiness and impaired mental health in residents living within 1.4 km of the two iWt installations studied. Industrial wind turbine noise is a further source of environmental noise, with the potential to harm human health [66] Prior to the policy, a collection of studies by different experts was also cited as follows: the European Society of Cardiology issued in November 2005, a press release stating “Major study links chronic noise exposure to risk of heart attacks.” In March 2006, the French Academy of Medicine, at the request of their Ministry of Health, issued a report which in translation states, “true risks of the operation of the wind mills are related to the possibility of a chronic sound traumatism, whose physiopathological parameters are well known ... ” [67] Based on the results presented, the amplification of turbine health risks was generally more profound in comparison to risk attenuations. At the individual level, for instance, a majority of attenuations were advanced by people who claimed to have visited wind farms, while amplifications were often advanced by individuals who lived close to wind farms reporting various symptoms and often claiming that they were forced to leave their homes. These experiences together rendered amplifications more tangible in comparison to attenuations. Individual discourses that attenuated wind turbine health risks often acknowledged some controversial characteristics of the technology, such as sounds and noises. On the other hand, individual amplifications predominantly placed explicit emphasis on negative health impacts associated with the technology. Finally, individual attenuations were generally Ontario-based, while amplifications contained testimonies within and outside Ontario. This paints the picture that negative health impacts of turbines are more widespread. Similar to individual testimonies, the amplification of wind turbine health risks by experts (i.e., scientific voices and studies) painted a more acute picture than risk attenuations. Expert voices and studies that tended to attenuate health risks were mainly Canadian and specifically Ontario-based, with the exception of the post-GEA period, which included non-Ontario-based experts being cited. The credibility of these local sources that tended to attenuate turbine health risks tended to be questioned within the media coverage. For example, although the joint CANWEA-AWEA expert panel review tended to attenuate turbine health effects within pre- and post-GEA coverage, it was often questioned within news reports. In one case, it was stated that the report was produced by a “panel picked and paid for by the wind industry” and further stated that “It’s not a health study. What it’s doing is reviewing the literature. It says over and over again what’s needed is further studies” [68]. Contrary to this trend, amplifications were generally rooted in voices and studies by experts in Ontario and abroad. These sources together painted the picture that the negative health impacts of turbines are a global phenomenon. Additionally, most of the impacts reported by these experts were in contexts where wind turbine setbacks far surpassed those established by the government of Ontario. In a jurisdictional context that is relatively new to WED (i.e., Ontario), the media contents analysed tend to present a more holistic and profound picture that supports the existence of health risks associated with wind turbines. 5.2. Justice and Fairness amidst Health Risk Amplification and Attenuation Within the media contents analysed, justice-based discourses were interwoven with broader discourses amplifying wind turbine health effect before and after the GEA, respectively. Page 100 of 152 Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016,13, 684 11 of 18 These discourses together highlighted procedural injustices pertaining to WED and health in Ontario. These procedural issues had a number of foci: the lack of public participation in turbine deployment decisions; Ontario’s neglect of community health concerns; Ontario’s prioritization of wind energy business over human wellbeing; the lack of municipal planning control in turbine decisions and unfair siting of turbines in ways that compromise the health of Ontarians. The main variation between these injustice-based discourses pre- and post-GEA was that they became more intense and directed specifically at the GEA after the policy was passed into law. Prior to the implementation of the GEA, major procedural injustices that were discussed amidst the amplification of wind turbine health risks included the perception that wind turbines were being forced on communities. As well, there were several suggestions that host communities were being taken for granted and treated as experimental subjects. For example, in one instance, it was stated that “a very real danger exists that, in the haste to embrace clean technology, legitimate concerns about noise are being brushed aside” [69]. Other occurrences in this context are demonstrated in the following quotes: The rapid development of these farms across our province is alarming. We are all guinea pigs .....We need to look long and hard at concerns reported by homeowners who have been forced to live near wind farms. There are limitless sources of testimonials reporting serious health problems ....noise intrusion, vibration intrusion as well as a constellation of other symptoms experienced by many who live near the wind turbines. [70] Wind turbines are today’s version of a threatening monster being jammed down the throats of neighbours and localities ....Turbines erode freedom of the human mind hour after hour, night after day, virtually forever, like a cellphone ringing incessantly that no one can turn off. To many people, this intrusion into their physical and physiological space has a mental effect analogous to the physical effects of a heavy smoker sitting next to you essentially for life. [71] Another major discourse of injustice advanced prior to the GEA was the idea that Ontarians did not have a voice in WED. For instance, Harrington and Fraser, members of Wind Concerns Ontario, were reported to have stated that “we are contacted on a daily basis by people in rural Ontario who are living near wind instillations who are suffering greatly. They feel that they have no voice ....setbacks aren’t far enough—that’s the whole thing” [52]. In conjunction with these aforementioned injustice-based discourses pre-GEA, a number of lawsuits by residents living within host communities and calls for moratoriums by various municipalities were reported. The period after the GEA was enacted saw more intense discourses pertaining to the perceived unjust nature of WED amidst the amplification of wind turbine health risks. These discourses of injustice tended to speak more directly to Ontario’s GEA. Similar to pre-GEA reports, these injustice-based discourses highlighted the fact that Ontarians were being taken for granted, experimented with and ignored in discussions around wind turbine health impacts. A unique recurring theme within these injustice-based discourses amidst the amplification of health risks was the disabling of municipal powers to take control of planning and siting decisions pertaining to wind power, a key feature of the GEA. The following quote demonstrates the amplification of turbine health risks by a resident of Orangeville, Ontario, interlaced with discourses of injustice: Ashbee, has had firsthand knowledge of the negative effects after having had to abandon her house, uproot her family and relocate.... after being forced out by excessive noise, low frequency vibration, and electrical problems. She agreed .....that there is nothing in the Green Energy Act that offers any protection for the health of the residents. Ashbee noted there are more than 100 known and reported cases of the detrimental health effects in the province, and not one of the families are being taken care of. “Little children are now experiencing terrible earaches and headaches that they didn’t have prior to the start-up of Page 101 of 152 Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016,13, 684 12 of 18 the wind farm,” she said. She said that these residents are “genuinely suffering” and the government is well aware, and will not work to alleviate the problems. [63] In a similar reported instance, a resident who was mounting a legal battle against Suncor Energy (a wind energy company in Ontario) based on health problems being experienced by her and her family stressed that plans to install wind turbines were “nothing but evil”. Describing these injustices, she stated that “we are refugees of the Green Energy Act” [72]. A member of a family in a similar situation (Nicholls) was also reported to have stated that “the failed Green Energy Act of this Liberal government continues to punish Ontarians” [73]. Another key recurrent theme within these injustice-based discourses is the opinion that the province of Ontario was not prioritizing the health of citizens. This is further illustrated in the following quote from the Mayor of Amaranth, Ontario: Amaranth Mayor Don MacIver certainly didn’t welcome news of the Whittington Wind Project's approval ...“The province doesn't seem to want to listen,” MacIver said. “Where is the priority in this government? Pieces of metal or people?”....With residents in his municipality living near turbines already reportedly experiencing adverse health effects, MacIver is wary of even larger ones .... “We’re having problems at 1.5 MW,” he said. “Now, we’re watching the bigger ones come in.” [74] Within the context of health risk amplification post-GEA, various regulations, such as wind turbine setbacks, were challenged and claimed to be unfair. Calls for more sufficient setbacks and regulations were backed by regulations from other jurisdictions with greater setbacks, as well as perspectives of various health experts and evidence from research studies. This is exemplified in the following excerpt from a news article: Across Ontario there are complaints of turbine noise causing annoyance, sleep disturbance and consequent health problems. Medical and other authorities recommend setbacks from homes of 1.5 to 2 km. This advice has been ignored by the wind energy industry and the Ontario government. [75] The above quote challenges setbacks for WED in Ontario, which were set at 550 m away from the nearest homes by appealing to the claims of medical professionals. Similar to the pre-GEA era, these news reports amplifying wind turbine health risks and issues of injustices often reported law suits and calls for moratoriums by municipalities and other stakeholder groups across the province. Some municipalities were reported to have passed bylaws that were more protective than those established under the GEA. For example, it was reported in one instance that “38,000 farmers across Ontario just called on the Liberal government for a moratorium on new wind turbine start-ups until health issues are resolved” [76]. Another instance is shown in the following quote: Plympton-Wyoming council was concerned about that distance, saying there are reports of people becoming ill from the sounds and shadow flicker so close to the turbines. It passed its own bylaw under the Ontario Municipal Act to have the turbines two kilometres away from homes. Mayor Lonny Napper says the bylaw was passed to protect residents’ health—which is a duty of politicians under the act. [77] In the quote above, the council in Plympton-Wyoming expressed distrust in setbacks established under the GEA, claiming that the health of communities were still being impacted negatively. Hence, to protect their citizens, they established more stringent setbacks of two kilometres in opposition to setbacks of 550 m established under the GEA. 6. Discussion Utilizing SARF, the current study conducts an eight-year longitudinal media content analysis to understand the dynamics that underlie the amplification and attenuation of wind turbine health risks within Ontario-based media coverage. The analysis is conducted relative to Ontario’s GEA, a landmark Page 102 of 152 Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016,13, 684 13 of 18 policy change that was aimed at accelerating WED in the province. Further, the study digs deeper into the nature of process justice-based discourses as they occur simultaneously with the amplification and attenuation of wind turbine health effects. Before summarising the results and discussing the policy and research contributions, we should acknowledge the limitations of the methods used. First, the study relies on local print and online newspapers to discern the dominant forms of information reaching Ontarians in existing and potential wind turbine host communities. Other forms of media would augment and further texture the picture presented here and could include: radio, Internet blogs, Facebook, resistance group websites and television. Additionally, we acknowledge that not all members of these communities may be reading these newspapers. Hence, the issues discussed in the paper may not apply homogeneously across these localities. Despite using content analysis to ensure rigor and reliability in the coding of news articles, the fact that news articles were coded by the primary researcher could have resulted in some oversights and minor errors. Nevertheless, as a key source of information, local newspapers still mirror and mold community sensibilities around WED and offer insights both for health, EJ research and policy. In the current study, we find that the amplification of wind turbine health risks far exceeded risk attenuations before and after the GEA, respectively. Additionally, relative to attenuated health risks in the media, the framing of amplified health risks painted a more holistic picture concerning the existence of wind turbine health effects. Based on the agenda setting theory, these characteristics of the quantity and quality of the media coverage together suggest that the media in Ontario is playing a major role in advancing negative perceptions about the health effects of wind turbines among Ontarians. It is also noteworthy that the amplification of turbine health risk became more profound following the enactment of the GEA. The current study provides support for a study by Deignan et al. [78], who, through a study of fright factors in the communication of wind turbine health effects in Ontario’s media, concluded that Ontario newspapers may heighten anxiety and fear among readers. This study builds upon research in Ontario that points to health and its social mediation as a particularly salient issue and source of conflict in WED [27,29,79]. According to the website of Wind Concerns Ontario (WCO), which acts as an umbrella for a number of citizen groups, the province is currently home to approximately 48 local concerned citizen groups. As many as 70 municipalities have also declared their unwillingness to host wind energy projects [80]. A major driver for these concerns has been health. For instance, among a wide array of issues triggering social conflicts in the context of WED, the only concern explicitly featured on the homepage of WCO’s website is health [71]. Amidst contentions about wind turbine health effects even within the scientific community, this paper shows that local newspapers in Ontario are likely acting as a driver of negative perceptions about the potential impacts of turbines on public health. Through the mechanisms of authorization and exemplification, the current study reveals that Ontario’s local media continuously tells two dominant stories about wind energy and health: (1) the fact that scientific experts all over the world attribute a broad array of negative health impacts to turbines and (2) the idea that individuals all over the world are, in fact, stuffing from the negative health effects caused by turbines. These aforementioned stories likely provide some explanation for the contentious nature of wind turbine health effects, which continues to be witnessed within the province. Through an analytical focus on the occurrence of justice-based discourses amidst the amplification and attenuation of wind turbine health effects, we find that such discourses occur often amidst risk-based discourses. Specifically, these discourses highlight procedural injustices in the wind energy development process and governments’ handling of public concerns. As shown here, discourses of injustice emerged prior to the GEA. However, by attempting to streamline the development process through disabling municipal-level power over planning decisions [28], the policy triggered more radical injustice-based discourses. Thus, the media discourse analysed reveals that the GEA acted as a confounder of already existing concerns of injustice. While studies in Ontario have suggested that perceptions of injustice act as a trigger of social conflicts in the context of WED [6,28], this study Page 103 of 152 Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016,13, 684 14 of 18 further highlights that these injustices are likely tied to broader issues. Specific to this study, we find that injustices that have emerged in Ontario are likely rooted in broader perceived health concerns. How do these research findings speak to wider questions of energy/environmental justice and related research paths going forward? We can answer this first with respect to Ontario’s current approach, which may nonetheless hold lessons for other jurisdiction. For instance, Ontario has replaced its feed-in tariff program that accompanied the GEA with the Large Renewable Procurement program (LRP) [28]. Among the goals of this program are the quest to involve municipalities and ensure that developers engage communities more meaningfully in the development process. Thus, the LRP programs aims in part to address issues of injustice in Ontario’s WED process. The LRP creates a competitive points systems for companies that apply for projects. Among other criteria, developers may earn points for demonstrating quality community engagement prior to being offered contracts. While this will likely promote better community engagement, as has been witnessed so far, it does not address the complexities that emerge within this study. We suggest that the complexity of mixed reports on wind turbine health effects within the media alone seems adequate enough to trigger psychosocial stress and uncertainty among host or potential host communities. To date, there are no mechanisms in place to address concerns and/or coping mechanisms within communities hosting projects. Regarding the policy process, communities could benefit from ongoing engagement with various scientific experts and government officials based on emerging concerns around health. Such a process may minimize perceptions of injustices that stem from communities feeling their concerns are being ignored. As well, it could help address actual health impacts that may be felt within host communities. Another issue that may arise with the LRP is that, in cases where communities are reluctant to embracing projects, developers may decide to pursue other points to the detriment of community engagement. More generally, we can answer the above question by reflecting on some of the fundamental issues that may impede societal transitions toward renewables or indeed be overrun in ways that citizens and communities broadly deem unjust. This may manifest in myriad ways: via high-level policy conflict between progressive energy development and health policy; global energy development goals versus local concerns around implementation; and relatedly, between policy goals and policy processes. If health is an important theme in the nascent energy justice movement, then development will benefit from meaningful inclusion of community health concerns. Sitting as we do on the cusp of significant transitions toward new energy infrastructures, we suggest that more just transitions can be made “right” more easily now than once investments are put in place. As we consider alternative avenues forward, further research can build upon the empirical insights of this paper. First, the broad range of themes that occur within the media contents analysed could act as material for designing questionnaires and/or interview instruments for further exploration of community-level risk perceptions pertaining to WED. Future studies of this sort could also utilize alternative media sources, such as resistance group websites, blogs and social media sites, to provide complementary insights on the potential impacts of media discourse on public perceptions of wind turbine health effects and issues of justice. Finally, studies on the construction of news pertaining to environment and health remain nascent (e.g., [81]). Future research on journalistic practices that result in the amplification and attenuation of wind turbine health effects could provide insights on imbalances in media coverage and provide recommendations for more balanced reporting. Sørensen [82] has drawn attention to the need for technological policy discourse that transcends the themes of “deployment” and “innovation”, acknowledging the major role played by the media as a socialisation agent in the context of WED. It is noteworthy that the impact of media discourse on energy transition has not only been limited to wind power. For example, Skjølsvold [83] in finding that the media presents varying perspectives on bioenergy, suggested that the media may be indeed impacting public perceptions. As well, smart grid media discourse in Irish print media has been found to be problematic by failing to pay attention to crucial issues, such as ownership and scale [84]. The current Page 104 of 152 Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016,13, 684 15 of 18 paper contributes to this broader emerging literature by highlighting the role media discourse may be having on public perceptions of wind power. 7. Conclusions Local newspapers circulated within Ontario have tended to be dominated by the amplification of health risks when reporting on WED and health. These amplifications are often backed by discourses highlighting injustices in the development process. The findings of the current study correspond with the emergence of concerned citizen groups battling wind power within Ontario based on health concerns and perceptions of injustice. We speculate that among Ontario’s populations who rely on local newspapers for information in WED, discourses around health effects and justice are likely to be dominated by negative perspectives. Studies of risk communication in the context of health have often revealed that the media play a significant role in shaping public perceptions. For example, in a study of the media and genetically-modified foods, Frewer et al. [85] found that “perceptions of negative reporting was associated with higher perceived risks” within the public sphere. The current study thus paves a way to understanding the role Ontario’s media might be playing in shaping public perceptions of wind turbine health effects and, consequently, issues of justice. Acknowledgments:We will like to thank the Editors at International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health and the reviewers for their valuable and detailed feedback. Author Contributions:Emmanuel Songsore and Michael Buzzelli conceived and designed the experiments; Emmanuel Songsore performed the experiments; and Emmanuel Songsore analyzed the data; Emmanuel Songsore contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools; Emmanuel Songsore and Michael Buzzelli wrote the paper. Conflicts of Interest:The authors declare no conflict of interest. References 1.Canadian Wind Energy Association. 2016. Available online: http://canwea.ca/wind-energy/installed- capacity/ (accessed on 15 February 2016). 2.Steinbach, A. Barriers and solutions for expansion of electricity grids—The German experience.Energy Policy 2013,63, 224–229. [CrossRef] 3.Whitehouse, G.R.; Sibilia, M.J.; Bilanin, A.J.; Veers, P. Variable geometry wind turbine for performance enhancement, improved survivability and reduced cost of energy.Wind Energy 2015,18, 1303–1311. [CrossRef] 4.Cryan, P.M.; Jameson, J.W.; Baerwald, E.F.; Willis, C.K.; Barclay, R.M.; Snider, E.A.; Crichton, E.G. Evidence of late-summer mating readiness and early sexual maturation in migratory tree-roosting bats found dead at wind turbines.PLoS ONE 2012,7, e47586. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 5.Stephens, J.C.; Rand, G.M.; Melnick, L.L. Wind energy in US media: A comparative state-level analysis of a critical climate change mitigation technology.Environ. Commun.2009,3, 168–190. [CrossRef] 6.Songsore, E.; Buzzelli, M. Wind energy development in Ontario: A process/product paradox.Local Environ. 2015,20, 1428–1451. [CrossRef] 7. Aitken, M. Why we still don’t understand the social aspects of wind power: A critique of key assumptions within the literature.Energy Policy 2010,38, 1834–1841. [CrossRef] 8.Goldthau, A.; Sovacool, B.K. The uniqueness of the energy security, justice, and governance problem. Energy Policy 2012,41, 232–240. [CrossRef] 9.World Health Organization (WHO). A State of Complete Physical Mental and Social Well-Being and Not Merely the Absence of Disease or Infirmity. Available online: http://www.who.int/about/definition/en/ print.html (accessed on 20 June 2016). 10.Colby, D.; Dobie, R.; Leventhall, G.; Lipscomb, D.M.; McCunney, R.J.; Seilo, M.T.; Sondergaard, B. Wind Turbine Sound and Health Effects: An Expert Panel Review. Available online: http://canwea.ca/pdf/ talkwind/Wind_Turbine_Sound_and_Health_Effects.pdf (accessed on 15 February 2016). 11.Pierpont, N.Wind Turbine Syndrome: A Report on a Natural Experiment; K-Selected Books: Santa Fe, NM, USA, 2009. Page 105 of 152 Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016,13, 684 16 of 18 12.Pedersen, E.; Waye, K.P. Perception and annoyance due to wind turbine noise—A dose–response relationship. J. Acoust. Soc. Am.2004,116, 3460–3470. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 13.Pedersen, E.; Waye, K.P. Wind turbine noise, annoyance and self-reported health and well-being in different living environments.Occup. Environ. Med.2007,64, 480–486. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 14.Onakpoya, I.J.; O’Sullivan, J.; Thompson, M.J.; Heneghan, C.J. The effect of wind turbine noise on sleep and quality of life: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.Environ. Int.2015,82, 1–9. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 15.Salomon, J.A.; Mathers, C.D.; Chatterji, S.; Sadana, R.; Ustun, T.B.; Murray, C.J. Quantifying individual levels of health: Definitions, concepts and measurement issues. In Health Systems Performance Assessment: Debates, Methods and Empiricism; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2003; pp. 301–318. 16.United States Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Justice. Available online: https://www3. epa.gov/air/ej/basic.html ( accessed on 15 February 2016). 17.Agyeman, J.; Cole, P.; Haluza-DeLay, R.; O’Riley, P.Speaking for Ourselves: Environmental Justice in Canada; UBC Press: Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2010. 18. Guruswamy, L. Energy justice and sustainable development.Colo. J. Int. Environ. Law Poliy 2010,21, 231. 19. McCauley, D.A.; Heffron, R.J.; Stephan, H.; Jenkins, K. Advancing energy justice: The triumvirate of tenets. Int. Energy Law Rev.2013,32, 107–110. 20.Fuller, S.; Mccauley, D. Framing energy justice: Perspectives from activism and advocacy.Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2016,11, 1–8. [CrossRef] 21.Harrison, C. The historical-geographical construction of power: Electricity in Eastern North Carolina. Local Environ.2013,18, 469–486. [CrossRef] 22.Lawrence, R. Internal colonisation and Indigenous resource sovereignty: Wind power developments on traditional Saami lands.Environ. Plan. D 2014,32, 1036–1053. [CrossRef] 23.Cowell, R.; Bristow, G.; Munday, M. Acceptance, acceptability and environmental justice: The role of community benefits in wind energy development.J. Environ. Plan. Manag.2011,54, 539–557. [CrossRef] 24.Heffron, R.J.; Mccauley, D. Achieving sustainable supply chains through energy justice.Appl. Energy 2014, 123, 435–437. [CrossRef] 25.Hall, S.M. Energy justice and ethical consumption: Comparison, synthesis and lesson drawing.Local Environ. 2013,18, 422–437. [CrossRef] 26.Heffron, R.J.; McCauley, D.; Sovacool, B.K. Resolving society’s energy trilemma through the Energy Justice Metric.Energy Policy 2015,87, 168–176. [CrossRef] 27.Baxter, J.; Morzaria, R.; Hirsch, R. A case-control study of support/opposition to wind turbines: Perceptions of health risk, economic benefits, and community conflict.Energy Policy 2013,61, 931–943. [CrossRef] 28.Hill, S.D.; Knott, J.D. Too close for comfort: Social controversies surrounding wind farm noise setback policies in Ontario.Renew. Energy L. Poliy Rev.2010,2, 153. 29.Fast, S.; Mabee, W.; Baxter, J.; Christidis, T.; Driver, L.; Hill, S.; Tomkow, M. Lessons learned from Ontario wind energy disputes.Nat. Energy 2016,1, 15028. [CrossRef] 30.Kasperson, R.E.; Renn, O.; Slovic, P.; Brown, H.S.; Emel, J.; Goble, R.; Ratick, S. The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework.Risk Anal.1988,8, 177–187. [CrossRef] 31.Kasperson, J.X.; Kasperson, R.E.; Pidgeon, N.; Slovic, P. The social amplification of risk: Assessing fifteen years of research and theory.Soc. Amplif. Risk 2003,1, 13–46. 32.Bakir, V. Greenpeace v. Shell: Media exploitation and the Social Amplification of Risk Framework (SARF). J. Risk Res.2005,8, 679–691. [CrossRef] 33.Van Leeuwen, T. Legitimation in discourse and communication.Discourse Commun.2007,1, 91–112. [CrossRef] 34.Vaara, E.; Tienari, J.; Laurila, J. Pulp and paper fiction: On the discursive legitimation of global industrial restructuring.Org. Stud.2006,27, 789–813. [CrossRef] 35.Scheufele, D.A.; Tewksbury, D. Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models.J. Commun.2007,57, 9–20. [CrossRef] 36.Entman, R.M.Projections of Power: Framing News, Public Opinion, and US Foreign Policy; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2004. Page 106 of 152 Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016,13, 684 17 of 18 37.Ontario Ministry of Energy. 2013. Available online: http://www.energy.gov.on.ca/en/renewable- energy-development-in-ontario-a-guide-for-municipalities/large-renewable-procurement/ (accessed on 15 March 2013). 38. Patton, M.Q.Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2002. 39. Neuendorf, K.A.The Content Analysis Guidebook; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2002. 40. Krippendorff, K.Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology; Sage: London, UK, 2004. 41.Riffe, D.; Lacy, S.; Fico, F.G.Analyzing Media Messages. Using Quantitative Content Analysis in Research; Mawah: London, UK, 1998. 42.Holsti, O.R.Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities; Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA, USA, 1969. 43.Holdford, D. Content analysis methods for conducting research in social and administrative pharmacy. Res. Soc. Adm. Pharm.2008,4, 173–181. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 44.Lombard, M.; Snyder-Duch, J.; Bracken, C.C. Content analysis in mass communication: Assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability.Hum. Commun. Res.2002,28, 587–604. [CrossRef] 45.Scott, W.A. Reliability of content analysis: The case of nominal scale coding.Public Opin. Q.1955,19, 321–325. [CrossRef] 46.Vaismoradi, M.; Turunen, H.; Bondas, T. Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study.Nurs. Health Sci.2013,15, 398–405. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 47.McCombs, M.E.; Shaw, D.L. The agenda-setting function of mass media.Public Opin. Q.1972,36, 176–187. [CrossRef] 48.Best, K. Twelve Turbines to Be Built on Lakeshore Areas of Lowbanks and Dunn.Dunnville Chronicle, 28 February 2007, p. A1. 49. Maxewell, K. Turbines Causing Turbulence in Thamesville.Chatham This Week, 16 Februrary 2011, p. 24. 50.Cryderman, J. After Reviewing the Draft Zoning Bylaw (Number 4.11.1) Regarding Wind Farms.Chatham This Week, 6 February 2008, p. 9. 51.Vivian, R. No proven link exists between wind turbines, health problems.Orangeville Banner, 16 November 2009. 52.Vivian, R. Provincial gov’t urged to “stop and think”—Group Asks for Turbines Health Impact Study. Orangeville Banner, 26 February 2009. 53.Owen Sound Sun Times. Family Disputes Study Results on Noise From Wind Farms.Owen Sound Sun Times, 14 November 2006, p. A2. 54.Suzuki, D. Wind Power Opponents may be Blowing Hot Air on Health Warnings.The Sault Star, 22 April 2013, p. A7. 55. Robinet, K. Colby reiterates wind turbine position.Chatham This Week, 23 July 2008, p. 12. 56. Chatham This Week. Birds and the bees.Chatham This Week, 20 May 2009, p. 6. 57. Shouldice, A. Feds launch wind farm study.The Kingston Whig-Standard, 11 July 2012, p. 1. 58. Tremblay, B. Wind Power Resistance Forms in Melancthon.Orangeville Banner, 25 July 2012, p. 1. 59. Suzuki, D. Wind power opponents might be blowing hot air.Sarnia This Week, 2 May 2013, p. A30. 60. Crosby, D. Turbines blow an ill wind, say activists.Shoreline Beacon, 5 October 2010, p. 7. 61. Robinet, K. Council ponders wind farm plans.Chatham This Week, 26 March 2008, p. A1. 62. Brownell, R. Writers Experience with Turbines is Negative.The Kincardine News, 17 January 2007, p. 7. 63. Sloan, S. Anti-Turbine Winds Blowing in Saugeen Shores.Shoreline Beacon, 1 June 2010, p. 3. 64. Desrochers, N. Why the rush for wind turbines?The Dunnville Chronicle, 30 March 2011, p. A4. 65. Vivian, R. MOE pledges ongoing research on turbines, health.Orangeville Banner, 19 November 2009. 66. Goldstein, L. An ill wind lies ahead for McGuinty.The Niagara Falls Review, 6 November 2012, p. A4. 67. Palmer, B. No support for wind farms.Shoreline Beacon, 13 September 2006, p. 25. 68. Schliesmann, P. Wind turbine debate swirls.The Kingston Whig-Standard, 2 January 2010, p. 1. 69. McCarrel, K. Wind farm meeting tonight at the Plex.The Owen Sound Sun Times, 30 August 2006, p. A4. 70.Gillis, L. Benefits may not outweigh negatives for wind farms.The Owen Sound Sun Times, 14 October 2008, p. A5. 71.Vermont, R. Developers should pay for wind turbine vandalism.The Kingston Whig-Standard, 13 August 2008, p. 6. 72. Wright, H. Wind warnings.Sarnia This Week, 8 August 2012, p. 3. 73. Chatham This Week. Nicholls wants turbine moratorium.Chatham This Week, 24 October 2012, p. 38. Page 107 of 152 Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016,13, 684 18 of 18 74. Orangeville Banner. Provincial approval given for Whittington wind farm.Orangeville Banner, 21 February 2013, p. 1. 75. Harrison, J. Wind turbines hurt homes’ resale value.The Kingston Whig-Standard, 17 September 2010, p. 4. 76. Trumble, D. STOP and CAW common ground.Shoreline Beacon, 7 February 2012, p. 13. 77.Wright, H. Plympton-Wyoming eyes changes to turbine bylaw; meets with Suncor.Sarnia This Week, 25 April 2013, p. A9. 78.Deignan, B.; Harvey, E.; Hoffman-Goetz, L. Fright factors about wind turbines and health in Ontario newspapers before and after the Green Energy Act.Health Risk Soc.2013,15, 234–250. [CrossRef] 79.Walker, C.; Baxter, J.; Ouellette, D. Adding insult to injury: The development of psychosocial stress in Ontario Wind Turbine communities.Soc. Sci. Med.2015,133, 358–365. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 80.Wind Concerns Ontario. Available online: http://www.windconcernsontario.ca/ (accessed on 20 June 2016). 81.Wakefield, S.E.; Elliott, S.J. Constructing the news: The role of local newspapers in environmental risk communication.Prof. Geogr.2003,55, 216–226. 82.Sørensen, K.H. Beyond innovation. Towards an extended framework for analysing technology policy.Nord. J. Sci. Technol.2013,1, 12–23. 83.Skjølsvold, T.M. Curb your enthusiasm: On media communication of bioenergy and the role of the news media in technology diffusion.Environ. Commun. J. Nat. Cult.2012,6, 512–531. [CrossRef] 84.Mullally, G.; Byrne, E. A tale of three transitions: A year in the life of electricity system transformation narratives in the Irish media.Energy Sustain. Soc.2016,6, 1. [CrossRef] 85.Frewer, L.J.; Miles, S.; Marsh, R. The media and genetically modified foods: Evidence in support of social amplification of risk.Risk Anal.2002,22, 701–711. [CrossRef] [PubMed] ©2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Page 108 of 152 © 2021 Environmental Disease | Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 65 Wind turbines and adverse health effects: Applying Bradford Hill’s criteria for causation Anne Dumbrille, Robert Y. McMurtry1,2,3, Carmen Marie Krogh4 Independent Health Researcher, 1Department of Medicine and Dentistry, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, 2Department of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, 3Prince Edward County Family Health Team, Picton, ON, 4Magentica Research Group, Member of the Board of Directors, Canada INTRODUCTION Proof of causation typically requires the rigor of a scientific standard. Consequently, the evidence required to make a scientific determination about causality has a higher standard than the Precautionary Principle that is recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO).[1] The Bradford Hill (BH) criteria, sometimes referred to as Hill’s criteria for causation, are a set of nine criteria that have become a frequently cited framework for establishing epidemiologic evidence of a causal relationship between a presumed cause and an observed effect. They were established by Sir Austin Bradford Hill[2] and have been The weight of evidence indicates occurrences of adverse health effects (AHEs) from living and working near industrial wind turbines (IWTs). Descriptions of the AHEs being reported by those living or working near the turbines are similar. While these occurrences have been associated with exposure to audible and inaudible noise annoyance, the causation of reported wind turbine‑associated health effects remains controversial. Establishing an argument of causation of adverse health outcomes has important clinical, scientific, and societal implications. Bradford Hill (BH) criteria have been widely used to establish causality between an environmental agent and risk of disease or disability, but have not previously been used to evaluate the relationship between IWTs and AHEs. The objective was to apply the BH criteria to evaluate the relationship between IWTs and AHEs. The nine criteria include the strength of the association, consistency, specificity, temporal sequence, biological gradient, plausibility, coherence, experimental evidence, and analogous evidence. These nine criteria have been applied to IWT exposure and reported AHEs using peer‑reviewed and other published literature that describes clinical, animal, and laboratory studies, testimony and reported experiences, and internet sources. Applying the BH criteria to the IWT‑related clinical, biological, and experimental data demonstrates that the exposure to IWTs is associated with an increased risk of AHEs. This analysis concludes that living or working near IWTs can result in AHEs in both people and animals. Our findings provide compelling evidence that the risk of AHEs should be considered before the approval of wind energy projects and during the assessment of setback distances of proposed and operational projects. Keywords: Adverse health effects, Bradford Hill criteria, evidence of causation, industrial wind turbines Review Article Abstract Address for correspondence: Dr. Anne Dumbrille, 538 Morrison Point Road, Milford, ON K0K 2P0, Canada. E‑mail: anne.dumbrille@gmail.com Submitted: 06‑Aug‑2021, Revised: 22‑Sep‑2021, Accepted: 24‑Sep‑2021, Published: 23‑Oct‑2021 Access this article online Quick Response Code:Website: www.environmentmed.org DOI: 10.4103/ed.ed_16_21 How to cite this article: Dumbrille A, McMurtry RY, Krogh CM. Wind turbines and adverse health effects: Applying Bradford Hill’s criteria for causation. Environ Dis 2021;6:65-87. This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‑NonCommercial‑ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non‑commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms. For reprints contact: WKHLRPMedknow_reprints@wolterskluwer.com Do w n l o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / j o u r n a l s . l w w . c o m / e n d i b y B h D M f 5 e P H K a v 1 z E o u m 1 t Q f N 4 a + k J L h E Z g b s I H o 4 X M i 0 h C y w C X 1 A W nY Q p / I l Q r H D 3 i 3 D 0 O d R y i 7 T v S F l 4 C f 3 V C 4 / O A V p D D a 8 K K G K V 0 Y m y + 7 8 = o n 1 2 / 1 4 / 2 0 2 3 Page 109 of 152 Dumbrille, et al.: Wind turbines: Applying Bradford Hill’s criteria for causation 66 Environmental Disease | Volume 6 | Issue 3 | July‑September 2021 reviewed in numerous articles and presentations.[3,4] Researchers have applied Hill’s criteria in examining the evidence of causality of environmental and other exposures on health, for example, connections between smoking and asbestos and cancer, ultraviolet B radiation, Vitamin D and cancer, Vitamin D and pregnancy and neonatal outcomes, alcohol and cardiovascular disease outcomes, infections and risk of stroke, nutrition and biomarkers related to disease outcomes, and sugar‑sweetened beverage consumption, and the prevalence of obesity and obesity‑related diseases.[4‑12] The nine criteria described by Hill are strength of association, consistency, specificity, temporal relationship, biological gradient, plausibility, coherence, experimental evidence, and analogous evidence. Three recent additional approaches that have been used to evaluate potential outcomes are (i) directed acyclic graphs, (ii) sufficient‑component cause models, and (iii) the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation methodology. The criteria that have been examined using these approaches are consistent with the BH criteria: strength of association (including analysis of plausible confounding); temporality; and plausibility and experiments (including implications of study design on exchangeability).[3,4] The overlap between the BH viewpoints and the other approaches substantiates the ongoing influence and the application of BH criteria in causal assessments. There have been a number of public hearings/inquiries and publications addressing and interpreting the adverse health effects (AHEs) of industrial wind turbines (IWTs). Some qualified experts have testified under oath during judicial proceedings that the causality of indirect effects on health by turbines cannot be assessed using BH criteria because of insufficient information and/or available measurements. Such statements can impact the outcome of legal cases and affect consideration of the potential risks of exposure. It is important to apply the BH criteria to this environmental exposure in a scientifically rigorous manner. Evidence gathered at multiple public hearings/inquiries and reported in peer‑reviewed articles and conference papers,[13‑29] by a 6‑month investigation by le Coz and Sherman 2017,[30] and through social media sites,[31‑35] supports the position that emissions associated with operating IWTs can cause serious harm to the health of a proportion of individuals in the vicinity of the turbines. Effects such as emotional/psychological and sleep disturbances/disruptions, headaches, fatigue, difficulty concentrating, and effects on quality of life have been reported to occur from living near wind energy facilities.[16,17,26,35‑40] It has been proposed that the contributing emissions are electromagnetic/radio frequency (EMF/RF) energy,[22] audible and inaudible noise (infrasound and/ or low‑frequency sound), and vibration.[41‑49] While a decision of a judicial proceeding determined that IWT‑related adverse effects could occur through the direct/causal and indirect pathways,[50] some witnesses testified that the literature/evidence was insufficient to determine causality that the noise produced is not enough to cause AHEs.[51‑54] Both direct and indirect effects of IWTs on health have been assessed. Indirect measures include noise annoyance, recurring sleep disturbance, anxiety and stress, and related physiological measures. In comparison, direct effects are recorded through anatomical and physiological measures and generally refer only to hearing loss.[1] Purpose The purpose of this paper is to utilize the nine BH criteria to determine the degree of confidence of causality between exposure to IWTs and AHE, and to explore whether there is a high probability some people who live and/or work near IWTs will experience significant harm to health on exposure to IWTs, through critical examination of the scientific literature and other evidence on this topic METHODS The nine BH criteria were applied and are presented in the descending order of importance according to that described in the literature.[55‑57] Examples related to the application of each criterion to IWTs are described. Table 1 provides a brief explanation of each criterion[2,58] with a list of the references described in this paper that are associated with each criterion. In some cases, more than one criterion will apply to a study. Evidence relating to adverse events experienced by individuals living and/or working in the proximity of IWTs was gathered from multiple sources including peer‑reviewed references, other published literature, case reports, government‑sponsored hearings/inquiries, records related to judicial processes such as transcripts from testimony by expert witnesses and decisions from judicial processes, government records including those obtained through Freedom of Information requests, and health surveys. The evidence relating to IWTs and health effects was then evaluated by applying the BH criteria.[2] Causality and proposed contributing factors toward the reported AHEs were then assessed. RESULTS Applying the BH criteria to the IWT‑related clinical, biological, and experimental data gives evidence that Do w n l o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / j o u r n a l s . l w w . c o m / e n d i b y B h D M f 5 e P H K a v 1 z E o u m 1 t Q f N 4 a + k J L h E Z g b s I H o 4 X M i 0 h C y w C X 1 A W nY Q p / I l Q r H D 3 i 3 D 0 O d R y i 7 T v S F l 4 C f 3 V C 4 / O A V p D D a 8 K K G K V 0 Y m y + 7 8 = o n 1 2 / 1 4 / 2 0 2 3 Page 110 of 152 Dumbrille, et al.: Wind turbines: Applying Bradford Hill’s criteria for causation Environmental Disease | Volume 6 | Issue 3 | July‑September 2021 67 exposure to IWTs is associated with an increased risk of AHEs. Criteria 1: Strength of the association The bulk of scientific evidence associated with AHEs due to IWT installations comes from individual exposure information from both those living near IWTs and from industrial workers. Evidence includes thousands of case reports and incident reports that have been submitted to the Government of Ontario, Canada,[23,35] and international reports that are available through government inquiries, judicial proceedings, and from the Internet.[15‑17,19,20,31‑34,37] Some individuals have testified under oath during judicial proceedings and described the occurrence of AHEs when living near IWTs.[60,61] Some have gone so far as vacating/ abandoning their homes while others have contemplated doing so.[30,61‑71] Case studies such as testimony during government hearings in the USA, Australia, Northern Ireland, and Canada have described serious adverse effects with exposure to wind turbines.[15‑17,19,37,72,73] Several reviews and research results propose that there is an association between exposure to wind turbine noise and annoyance,[46,74‑76] distress,[77] sleep problems, and effects on quality of life.[27,78,79] A meta‑analysis by Onokpoya et al. of six cross‑sectional studies with a total of 2364 participants found a statistically significant risk of annoyance (odds ratio [OR] = 4.08) and sleep disturbance (OR = 2.94) as well as increased probability of AHEs (P < 0.05) in individuals with greater exposure to wind turbine noise.[78] Those working in the vicinity of IWTs, including those employed by a turbine company, have reported AHEs that are similar to those described by those living near wind energy facilities,[42,80‑86] indicating that IWTs represent a potential occupational health hazard (See Criteria 2: Consistency). As early as 1985, complaints had been received from about a dozen families living within a 3‑km radius of a US DOD/NASA (2 MW) turbine. Under the auspices of the United States Department of Energy and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Kelley et al. investigated the physical mechanisms and human response/ noise complaints and vibrations related to operation of the turbine. Physical measurements of the characteristics of the Table 1: Summary of current literature relevant to the application of the Bradford Hill’s criteria to adverse health effects in individuals associated with exposure to industrial wind turbines Criterion Description Primary related references Strength of the association A small association does not mean that there is not a causal effect, though the larger the association, the more likely that it is causal Krogh et al., 2019, Wind Concerns Ontario, 2021 (Canada)[23,35] Nissenbaum et al., 2012 (USA)[24] Thorne 2011, 2012 (Australia)[88,89] Health Canada 2014 (Canada)[90] Consistency Consistent findings observed by different persons, or measured, in different locations with different samples/ exposures strengthens the likelihood of an effect Abbasi et al., 2015, 2016 (Iran)[80,81] Ambrose et al., 2012 (USA)[42] Swinbanks, 2015 (UK)[86] Specificity Causation is likely if a very specific population at a specific site and disease/morbidity with no other likely explanation Krogh et al., 2011, 2019 (Canada)[23,68] Wind Concerns Ontario, 2021 (Canada)[35] Thorne, 2013 (Australia)[118] Temporality The effect has to occur after the cause (and if there is an expected delay between the cause and expected effect, then the effect must occur after that delay) Pierpont, 2009 (USA)[26] Hansen et al., 2014 (Australia)[119] The Acoustic Group, 2014 (Australia)[47] Krogh et al., 2020a, b, 2021 (Canada)[69‑71] Biological gradient (dose‑response effect) Greater exposure should generally lead to greater incidence or severity of the effect Pedersen and Waye, 2004 (Sweden)[102] Bakker et al., 2012 (Sweden)[135] Yano et al., 2013 (Japan)[136] Palmer, 2020 (Canada)[137] Nissenbaum et al., 2012 (USA)[24] Plausibility A plausible mechanism between cause and effect is helpful but knowledge of the mechanism can be limited by current knowledge Qibai and Shi, 2004 (China)[141] Alves‑Pereira and Castelo Branco, 2007, Alves‑Pereira et al., 2019 (Portugal)[41,142] Salt and Hullar, 2010 (USA)[143] Kelley et al., NASA, 1982 (USA)[178] Cooperative Measurement Survey, 2012 (USA); Schomer et al., 2015 (USA)[43,146] Coherence Coherence between epidemiological and laboratory findings increases the likelihood of an effect Echteler et al., 1994, Escaler. et al., 2013 (USA)[151,154] Salt and Hullar, 2010 (USA)[143] West, 1985 (USA)[152] Haneke et al., 2001 (USA)[150] Schofield, 2001 (USA)[153] Experimental evidence Occasionally, it is possible to appeal to experimental evidence Ambrose and Rand, 2011, Ambrose et al., 2012 (USA)[42,82] The Acoustic Group, 2014 (Australia)[47] Inagaki and Nishi, 2015 (Japan)[83] Verzini et al., 1999 (Argentina)[155] Analogous evidence The effect of similar factors may be considered Weichenberger et al., 2020 (Germany)[160] Do w n l o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / j o u r n a l s . l w w . c o m / e n d i b y B h D M f 5 e P H K a v 1 z E o u m 1 t Q f N 4 a + k J L h E Z g b s I H o 4 X M i 0 h C y w C X 1 A W nY Q p / I l Q r H D 3 i 3 D 0 O d R y i 7 T v S F l 4 C f 3 V C 4 / O A V p D D a 8 K K G K V 0 Y m y + 7 8 = o n 1 2 / 1 4 / 2 0 2 3 Page 111 of 152 Dumbrille, et al.: Wind turbines: Applying Bradford Hill’s criteria for causation 68 Environmental Disease | Volume 6 | Issue 3 | July‑September 2021 acoustic emissions, the internal acoustic pressure variations, and other measurements of two of the affected homes were obtained through a series of field surveys. The authors noted that the annoyance reported by nearby residents was attributable to the wind turbine‑generated impulsive low‑ frequency acoustic impulses propagated into the structures in which they lived. Another conclusion of this study was that the threshold levels of emissions measured in a home that caused sensitivities were consistent with documented cases of human annoyance known to be associated with industrial sources of low‑frequency noise (LFN)[87] (See also Criteria 6: Plausibility). In addition to case reports and the formal filing to government of incident reports/complaints by residents, controlled studies have been performed that documented findings of sleep disturbance, noise annoyance, negative effects on quality of life, and other adverse effects with proximity to IWTs. Several of these studies are described below. • A study by Nissenbaum et al. in Maine USA described and compared sleep and general health outcomes between participants living closer to (375 m to 1.4 km, N = 38) or farther from (3.3–6.6 km, N = 41) IWTs in a stratified cross‑sectional study involving two rural sites. Validated questionnaires were used to collect data on sleep quality (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index [PSQI]), daytime sleepiness (Epworth Sleepiness Score [ESS]), and general health (SF36V2), together with information on psychiatric disorders, both prescription and nonprescription medications, attitude, and demographics. Analysis of the results indicated that the IWTs negatively impacted sleep and the SF36 mental component scores. Significant dose‑response relationships between the SF36, PSQI, ESS and log‑ distance to the nearest IWTs were identified. There was an increased use of psychotropic medications by those living near IWTs as compared to those who were further away[24] (See below Criteria 5: Biological Gradient, for description of the effect of distance to the IWTs on various health outcome measures). • Similarly, an Australian study by Thorne (2011, 2012) examined the potential for adverse health due to wind turbines by comparing the WHO quality of life measures, full audible and infrasound measurements, and health/annoyance measures in 23 individuals living between 700 m and 3.5 km from two Australian wind facilities and two from a locale that did not have wind turbine activity. Twenty‑one (84%) of the exposed participants reported severe‑to‑moderate AHE. Thus, the data demonstrated significantly disturbed sleep using the PSQI sleep quality questionnaire in residents exposed to wind turbines. Other AHEs included headaches, noise sensitivity, irritability, anxiety, pressure on eardrums, sinus problems, panic attacks, vertigo/balance problems, erratic/high blood pressure, tightened scalp/forehead, eye strain, and nausea. Nausea attacks were cited as being common, with some residents having to leave their home to sleep away from turbine emissions.[88,89] Those affected by the wind energy facility appeared to fall into two distinct groups: those affected almost as soon as the wind farm started operating and those affected 6–8 months later. Self‑reporting health surveys in Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the USA have also been conducted. Individuals residing up to 7.5 km from IWTs reported similar AHEs in the different countries, as shown in Table 2. Table 2 briefly summarizes some of the self‑reporting health surveys that have been conducted in various countries. In collaboration with Statistics Canada, Health Canada conducted a cross‑sectional study – one that measures the outcomes and the exposures of the study participants at the same time – and published the results between 2014 and 2018.[76,90‑98] Survey data were collected from adults aged 18–79 years (606 males and 632 females) randomly selected from households between 250 m and 11.22 km from operational wind turbines. The study consisted of three primary components: in‑person questionnaire administered to randomly selected participants living at varying distances from wind turbine installations; collection of objectively measured outcomes that assess hair cortisol, blood pressure, and sleep quality; and recording wind turbine noise levels at residences. While their analyses indicated that some of the self‑reported symptoms commonly described by those living near wind turbines were not related to levels of wind turbine noise, it was also reported that high levels of annoyance toward several wind turbine features, including noise, blinking lights, shadow flicker, visual impacts, and vibrations increased proportionally and significantly with increasing wind turbine noise levels. Overall, however, it was concluded that, beyond annoyance, the data to didnot support an association between exposure to wind turbine noise up to 46 A‑weighted decibels (dBA) and the evaluated adverse health‑related end points.[94] Krogh et al. reviewed and discussed limitations regarding the methods, findings, and conclusions of the Health Do w n l o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / j o u r n a l s . l w w . c o m / e n d i b y B h D M f 5 e P H K a v 1 z E o u m 1 t Q f N 4 a + k J L h E Z g b s I H o 4 X M i 0 h C y w C X 1 A W nY Q p / I l Q r H D 3 i 3 D 0 O d R y i 7 T v S F l 4 C f 3 V C 4 / O A V p D D a 8 K K G K V 0 Y m y + 7 8 = o n 1 2 / 1 4 / 2 0 2 3 Page 112 of 152 Dumbrille, et al.: Wind turbines: Applying Bradford Hill’s criteria for causation Environmental Disease | Volume 6 | Issue 3 | July‑September 2021 69 Canada cross‑sectional study described above. The appraisal supported Health Canada’s advisories that its study design did not permit any conclusions about causality and proposed that the identified gaps and limitations should Table 2: Self‑reporting health surveys Author, year (country) [reference] Subjects participating Distance from IWTs Measure Results Harry et al., 2007 (UK)[100] n=42 Aged 18 or over 300 m to 2 km Contacted either by telephone or in writing The survey results indicated: All were suffering from health‑related problems that they felt were caused by their proximity to the turbines 76% had seen a physician about their problems The most common general complaints were fatigue, lack of sleep, headache, stress, and anxiety (incidence approximately 78%, 72%, 70%, 58%, and 51%, respectively); specific events were migraine, depression, tinnitus, hearing loss, and palpitations (incidence approximately 26%, 23%, 21%, 18%, and 16%, respectively) Van den Berg et al., 2008 (Netherlands)[40] n=725 17 m to 2.1 km wind turbine noise 24‑54 dBA Postal survey, based on that used by Pedersen et al. (2005, 2007) Included “perceived health” consisted of the validated GHQ. Annoyance was analyzed in 5 dBA‑intervals of sound levels Participants heard more sound the closer to the turbines they resided: 80% noticed noise at sound levels 40 dBA or higher Of respondents in the 40‑45 dBA group, 19% were rather or very annoyed, and 12% were very annoyed Those receiving economic benefits from the turbine installations reported almost no annoyance. When excluding participants benefitting financially, 66% reported being rather or very annoyed, and 28% were very annoyed in the 40‑45 dBA group Annoyance from wind turbine sound was related to difficulties with falling asleep and to higher stress scores Respondents (4%‑13%) were also annoyed by vibrations, the movement of rotor blades, or their shadows in‑ or outdoors Pierpont 2009 (USA)[26] n=38 from 10 affected families Age: Infant to 75 years 305 m‑1.5 km Documented case histories of symptoms pre, during, and post exposure (when away from home) to operating IWTs Adults and older teens completed a detailed clinical interview about their own (and their children’s, if applicable) symptoms, sensations, and medical conditions A pattern of symptoms associated with those living near a wind energy facility was identified. Symptoms included an internal pulsation, quivering, or jitteriness, accompanied by nervousness, anxiety, fear, a compulsion to flee or check the environment for safety, nausea, chest tightness, and tachycardia; headache/migraine; tinnitus, ear popping, pressure, and pain; effects on balance; nausea; motion sickness; sleep disorders; cognitive effects; and mood disorders were also described by participants Families vacated their homes because of the severity of the AHEs. (See below Criteria 4: Temporality for additional details) Shepherd et al., 2011 (New Zealand)[27] (i) n=39 or (ii) n=158 (i) <2 km (ii) Over 8 km Cross‑sectional study A nonequivalent comparison group posttest‑only design Questionnaires delivered included the brief version of the WHO QOL scale Participants were also asked to identify annoying noises and to indicate their degree of noise sensitivity Statistically significant differences were noted in some HRQOL domain scores Those closer to IWTs reported significantly lower overall QOL, physical QOL, and environmental QOL as well as significantly lower sleep quality and self‑reported energy levels Study participants who cited wind turbine noise as more annoying also scored lower on sleep satisfaction ratings No differences were found in terms of psychological and social HRQOL, or in self‑rated health Krogh et al., 2011 (Canada)[68] n=109 350 m to 2.4 km The survey contact flyer was distributed in five areas Survey design, based on that of Harry, was to collect demographics and information on any new AHE and changes to QOL since the start of the IWT projects “Altered Health” or “Altered QOL” was reported by 102 (93.6%) of respondents; sleep disturbance was reported by 69% >50% reported headaches, tinnitus, and anxiety, and impaired QOL with an apparent inverse correlation between a number of adverse health outcomes and distance to the turbines When the study was expanded to include 170 participants, a similar relationship between AHE and distance from turbines was observed (present study) Australia (Waterloo Wind Farm) Morris 2012[101] 93 households Within 10 km Survey to establish the percentage of people disturbed by noise, shadow flicker or TV/radio interference and the distance from the turbines the occurred What were perceived to be turbine impacts disturbed 49% of households, including noise, visual flicker or television reception Overall, 39% reported daytime noise disturbance, 40% reported night time noise disturbance, and 29% reported sleep disturbance For those living within 5 km of the turbines, 56% were disturbed by daytime noise, 56% by nighttime noise, and 39% experienced sleep disturbanceAustralia (Cullerin Range Wind Farm) Schneider, 2012[181] 100 households 19 were up to 5 km of IWTs, 40 were up to 7.5 km, 41 were 10 km or more away The study was in response to residents complaining about IWT noise and impacts Hand delivered the same self‑reporting survey as that of Morris[101] Of those households out to 5 km, 85.7% heard noise generated by the IWTs at their residence and property during the day and/or night, and 78.5% reported sleep disturbance from the noise Of the residences out to 7.5 km, 82.4% of households indicated turbine‑related noise was present at their residence and property during the day and/or night, and 76% reported sleep disturbance dBA, A‑weighted decibels are an expression of the relative loudness of sounds in air as perceived by the human ear. IWTs: Industrial wind turbines, GHQ: General health questionnaire, AHEs: Adverse health effects, WHO: World Health Organization, QOL: Quality of life, HRQOL: Health‑related QOL Do w n l o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / j o u r n a l s . l w w . c o m / e n d i b y B h D M f 5 e P H K a v 1 z E o u m 1 t Q f N 4 a + k J L h E Z g b s I H o 4 X M i 0 h C y w C X 1 A W nY Q p / I l Q r H D 3 i 3 D 0 O d R y i 7 T v S F l 4 C f 3 V C 4 / O A V p D D a 8 K K G K V 0 Y m y + 7 8 = o n 1 2 / 1 4 / 2 0 2 3 Page 113 of 152 Dumbrille, et al.: Wind turbines: Applying Bradford Hill’s criteria for causation 70 Environmental Disease | Volume 6 | Issue 3 | July‑September 2021 be carefully considered when the results of the Health Canada study are used to predict or protect from health risks of wind turbine noise.[99] Despite the thousands of records supporting an association of causality, it has been argued by proponents and some regulators that the evidence establishing a causal relationship between exposure to wind turbine noise and sleep disturbance is limited.[75] At the same time, the cited studies and exposure information (such as the high volume of formal incident reports/complaints, the finding of wind turbine noise annoyance, outcomes of field work, and testimony under oath during judicial proceedings) demonstrate an association between exposure to IWTs and AHE. Criteria 2: Consistency Compelling information is derived from the consistency of effects as described in published case reports and thousands of adverse event reports of those affected living near IWTs. These effects occur despite the range of international locations and the language spoken in the country in which these events originate. The descriptions of effects reported in different countries are consistent; the common factor is the siting of IWTs near family homes or in occupational settings.[24‑27,46,49,70,72,80‑89,100‑102] Epidemiological studies, reviews, and reports describe proximity to IWTs as being most commonly associated with annoyance/human distress, sleep disorders, headaches, mood disorders, inability to concentrate, tinnitus, and vestibular problems. Some describe effects from nonauditory pathways such as vibratory sensations, heart palpitations, or pressure changes.[15,16,19,26,47,87,89,103] While Poulsen et al. found no conclusive evidence of an association between wind turbine noise and myocardial infarction or stroke,[104] it was suggested that indoor low‑frequency wind turbine noise at night may trigger cardiovascular events.[103] Some witnesses testifying during hearings have described occurrences of increased blood pressure and palpitations.[16,60] Research related to occupational workers exposed to IWTs also reveals the occurrence of AHEs consistent with those described by people who are living near IWTs. The following four studies support consistency of findings in different locations. • At the Manjil wind facility in Iran that has more than 170 IWTs ranging from 0.3 to 0.66 MW, all 53 workers participated in a study by Abbasi et al. The impact of wind turbine noise on sleep quality of employees who worked close to wind turbines and exposed to high levels of noise was examined. The authors reported that sleep disturbance increased by 26% per each 1 dB increase in equivalent sound level. They concluded that “this technology has health risks for all those exposed to its sound.”[80] In the same population of workers, Abbasi et al. assessed the noise effect of wind turbine on the general health of staff using the 28‑item general health questionnaire. Workers were divided into three groups: maintenance, security, and office staff (N = 22, 17, and 14, respectively). Analysis of the results showed that noise exposure up to 83 dBA is statistically significantly correlated to all subscales of general health, except for depression. They concluded that wind turbine noise has negative impacts on the health of directly exposed people. They also indicated that long‑term noise exposure was a psychological stressor that can cause mentally abnormal responses and AHE, likely through interactions between the autonomic nervous system, neuroendocrine system, and the immune system period. [81] • In Massachusetts USA, neighbors living near wind turbines (NOTUS energy) complained for months that they “could not adjust to the fluctuating sound, the endless swish and thumps,” and that the noise was “intrusive and disruptive to normal at home activities.” Two acoustical consultants who were investigating these complaints reported experiencing similar adverse events that included sleep problems, nausea, dizziness, irritability, headaches, reduced appetite, concentration issues, desire to leave the environment, anxiety, feeling miserable, performing tasks at a reduced pace and a preference for being outdoors rather than indoors. The onset of adverse health symptoms was gradual while near the IWT. Detailed sound measurements taken during the investigation correlated with the negative effects experienced by the consultants. It was determined that dynamically modulated low‑frequency and infrasonic energy was produced by NOTUS turbines.[42] • A case study in the UK documented that while installing acoustical equipment in a home, acoustical consultant Swinbanks experienced a significant sense of lethargy within 3–5 h which progressed to difficulty in concentrating, nausea, and feeling unwell. These symptoms worsened to feeling extremely ill, with the same symptoms as seasickness in a rough sea, including balance and co‑ordination completely compromised. Detailed measurements were taken during the time of exposure. The adverse effects were attributed to “be due entirely to wind‑turbine infrasound yet manifest under superficially benign conditions where no such adverse effects were anticipated.”[86] Globally, some physicians[15,17,21,26,36,46,72,73,100,105‑110] and physician groups and specialists[111‑115] have conducted research and/or commented on the potential health risks of siting IWTs near family homes. The descriptions of Do w n l o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / j o u r n a l s . l w w . c o m / e n d i b y B h D M f 5 e P H K a v 1 z E o u m 1 t Q f N 4 a + k J L h E Z g b s I H o 4 X M i 0 h C y w C X 1 A W nY Q p / I l Q r H D 3 i 3 D 0 O d R y i 7 T v S F l 4 C f 3 V C 4 / O A V p D D a 8 K K G K V 0 Y m y + 7 8 = o n 1 2 / 1 4 / 2 0 2 3 Page 114 of 152 Dumbrille, et al.: Wind turbines: Applying Bradford Hill’s criteria for causation Environmental Disease | Volume 6 | Issue 3 | July‑September 2021 71 these symptoms are consistent with the diagnostic criteria described by McMurtry and Krogh.[116] There is strong evidence supporting consistency of an association between documented AHEs and proximity to IWTs based on incident reports/complaints, case reports, results of clinical studies, testimony during judicial and other proceedings by experts, people living near the turbines, and occupational workers from a variety of countries. Criteria 3: Specificity Exposure to a risk factor does not necessarily result in a uniform incidence rate of AHE. For example, not all smokers develop lung cancer. The same is true of AHE resulting from IWTs where a nontrivial percentage, but not all, of the exposed population reports adverse events.[25] Incident reports/complaints can serve as a valuable resource and a form of public health surveillance during the introduction of IWTs – a new noise source – into quiet rural communities.[23] In Ontario, government records obtained by Freedom of Information requests revealed that the environment ministry received more than 5,800 incident reports/complaints associated with IWT‑related noise, vibration, and sound pressure for the period between 2006 and 2018. Requests for reports received during 2019 and 2020 remain outstanding:[35] In New Zealand, 906 IWT noise complaints were made to a local council between April 2009 and end of March 2010 by residents who were reporting AHEs period.[118] The large number of AHE formally reported to governments, the self‑published reports on social media and Internet websites, and those collected systematically, such as the WindVOiCe collection from Ontario by Krogh et al., 2011,[68] and the investigations by physicians such as Harry and Pierpont[26,100] indicate that the AHEs associated with IWT exposure go well beyond a few rare individuals who are extremely susceptible. In 2014, McMurtry and Krogh proposed a case definition and a model for a study to establish a confirmed diagnosis associated with living near IWTs. A detailed inventory of the symptoms commonly reported was provided. It was recommended that a “uniform” approach be used to assist in the patient diagnoses. The report concluded that “If the criteria for probable diagnosis are satisfied and investigation reveals no logical alternative to explain the health effects, a presumed diagnosis of AHE/IWT may be made.”[116] Criteria 4: Temporality A case‑crossover study provides one of the most compelling sources of epidemiologic data. In a study of this type, subjects are exposed to a substance or environmental factor of perceived threat and exhibit symptoms, followed by a reduction of their exposure to that substance or factor and then followed once more by re‑exposure. To date, only limited case‑crossover safety studies have been performed on exposure to IWTs. Three such studies are described below. • A case series crossover study by Pierpont in the USA included families from Canada, the United States of America, Ireland/United Kingdom, and Italy. Data documenting health status and medical problems for residents were collected: (1) before exposure to operating wind turbines, (2) during exposure, and (3) when people reduced their exposure to operating wind turbines by leaving their homes or spending a prolonged period away. The study involved 38 people from ten affected families (aged infant to 75 years), living 305 m to 1.5 km from IWTs. Adults and older teens completed a detailed clinical interview about their own and their children’s symptoms, sensations, and medical conditions. A clear pattern of symptoms relating to exposure to operating wind turbines was documented. Symptoms developed are described in Criteria 1: Strength of Association. Symptoms developed after the turbines started operating near their homes and went away when the subjects temporarily and/or permanently vacated/abandoned their homes. The symptoms returned when the affected people went back to their homes. Eventually, 8 of the 10 families moved away with some abandoning their homes.[26] • An Australian case series crossover study was conducted and reported by Hansen et al. Hansen et al. documented symptoms correlating with the intermittent shut down of turbines. Full spectrum acoustic monitoring was conducted at six locations at distances from 1.3 km to 7.6 km from the Waterloo Wind Energy facility. The study compared the effects on the residents when the wind turbines were operating, then not operating for a week, and then when again operating. The authors documented symptoms in the residents that correlated with the intermittent shut down of the turbines. The acoustic survey report confirmed that sleep disturbance correlated with exposure to wind turbines at a distance of up to 8 km. The range in the overall A‑weighted levels was noticeably larger indoors and ranged from 5 dB(A) to 38 dB(A). There was a direct correlation between LFN events and complaints registered in noise diaries. The Danish LFN guidelines were exceeded on a number of occasions, generally in downwind conditions and when hub height wind speeds were greater than 8 m/s. Based on these observations, the authors concluded that “there is a LFN problem associated with the Waterloo wind farm.”[119] Do w n l o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / j o u r n a l s . l w w . c o m / e n d i b y B h D M f 5 e P H K a v 1 z E o u m 1 t Q f N 4 a + k J L h E Z g b s I H o 4 X M i 0 h C y w C X 1 A W nY Q p / I l Q r H D 3 i 3 D 0 O d R y i 7 T v S F l 4 C f 3 V C 4 / O A V p D D a 8 K K G K V 0 Y m y + 7 8 = o n 1 2 / 1 4 / 2 0 2 3 Page 115 of 152 Dumbrille, et al.: Wind turbines: Applying Bradford Hill’s criteria for causation 72 Environmental Disease | Volume 6 | Issue 3 | July‑September 2021 A comprehensive acoustic survey was conducted at the Cape Bridgewater Wind Development in Australia by Cooper, an independent acoustical consultant, with The Acoustic Group (2014), where turbines were temporarily shut off and on. The study was commissioned by the wind energy developer to address several years of noise complaints received since the project was put in service in 2008. Tests, including measuring noise emissions, were performed inside three homes (6 occupants) located between 650 m and 1.6 km of the wind facility over 8 weeks. At the end of the 2nd week of the test program, the wind turbines were shut down daily for 10–12 h per day for 2 weeks. Residents were asked to record in a diary perceived impacts of noise, vibration, and other disturbances, on a 1–2 hourly basis. The study did not include any testing in relation to sleep disturbance. The results obtained showed a trend toward an association between the high‑level “Sensations” disturbance and the operating power of the turbines. Sensation measured included headache, pressure in head, ears, or chest, ringing in ears, heart racing, or a sensation of heaviness. Participants recorded a significant sensation disturbance occurring when the turbines were about to start up, with a change in power output of 20%, and when the turbine had reached maximum power. No correlation of sensation disturbance with the dB(A) noise levels or impacts that residents identified as coming from the turbines was detected, indicating that emissions outside the hearing range were likely causing the sensations.[47] In addition, before and after impact studies have reported that residents were symptom free before the start‑up of an adjacent wind turbine project, and developed symptoms subsequent to the onset of wind turbine operation.[26,69,70] Another means of assessing a temporal impact is to document a significant change in owner’s use of a property pre‑ and post‑IWT installation, for example, their choice to vacate a property. • A Canadian study by Krogh et al. explored the events that influenced families who were living or had lived within 10 km from wind energy facilities to contemplate or actually vacate/abandon their homes. The study used a qualitative, grounded theory methodology and audio recorded interviews. All 67 individuals associated occurrences of AHE, or the potential occurrence for such effects, with IWTs. Of the 67 interviewees, 28 had permanently vacated/abandoned their home, 31 were contemplating to do so, 4 pre‑emptively left before the initiation of the IWT operations, and 4 intended to remain in their homes. With respect to that last category, two intended to remain in their home unless adverse effects occurred; and the other two expressed a preference to live in a rural environment. Before permanently vacating their homes, 24 of the 28 study participants had temporarily and intermittently left their homes during the day and/or night to alleviate AHE. At the time of the interviews, 12 of the 31 participants considering permanently vacating their homes were also temporarily and intermittently leaving during the day and/or night for similar reasons. Overall, of the 67 interviewees, a total of 36 reported taking these steps to obtain temporary and/or partial relief from AHE.[69‑71] Reports of adverse effects on animals located near IWTs indicate that there may be a temporal relationship between proximity to wind turbines and stress‑related reactions and adverse effects on fertility, development, and reproduction. AHEs in animals that have been attributed to proximity of IWTs include reproduction and teratogenic effects in the USA,[120,121] Canada,[122,123] Denmark,[124] and Japan;[125] deformities in Portugal;[65] mortalities in Canada, France,[126‑129] and Taiwan;[130,131] stress in the UK;[132] and other effects[133] [Appendix 1 for further details]. In summary, both examination of effects of IWTs when intermittently shutdown and pre‑ and post‑exposure in humans and animals indicate a temporal relationship between exposure to IWTs and AHEs. Criteria 5: Biological gradient (dose–response effect) The process of quantitatively assessing the dose received and response by a biological entity produces a dose– response relationship. This is recognized as an important part of the process in assessing health risk associated with exposure to various contaminants in the environment.[134] A correlation has been documented between distance to IWTs and/or the associated noise energy and reported AHE. Below, five studies are described: Four examined the association between AHE and noise levels, followed by one examining the effect of distance. • To evaluate the prevalence of annoyance due to wind turbine noise and to investigate a dose– response relationship, a cross‑sectional study was conducted in Sweden by Pedersen and Persson Waye. Respondents (N = 351; response rate 68.4%) from five areas totaling 22 km2 were exposed to a total of 16 turbines. Doses were calculated as A‑weighted sound pressure levels (SPLs) for each respondent’s dwelling. Subjective responses were obtained through questionnaires delivered at each household and collected a week later. Interrelationships were assessed between noise annoyance and sound characteristics, Do w n l o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / j o u r n a l s . l w w . c o m / e n d i b y B h D M f 5 e P H K a v 1 z E o u m 1 t Q f N 4 a + k J L h E Z g b s I H o 4 X M i 0 h C y w C X 1 A W nY Q p / I l Q r H D 3 i 3 D 0 O d R y i 7 T v S F l 4 C f 3 V C 4 / O A V p D D a 8 K K G K V 0 Y m y + 7 8 = o n 1 2 / 1 4 / 2 0 2 3 Page 116 of 152 Dumbrille, et al.: Wind turbines: Applying Bradford Hill’s criteria for causation Environmental Disease | Volume 6 | Issue 3 | July‑September 2021 73 as well as the influence of subjective variables such as attitude and noise sensitivity. A statistically significant dose–response relationship was found between A‑weighted SPLs and levels of annoyance. A higher proportion of people reported annoyance than expected from the dose–response relationships for transportation noise. Sound exposure was also related to sleep disturbance and psychological distress among those who reported that they could hear the sound. Individuals living in an area with a sound level of 45 dBA reported three times more sleep disturbance than those living in an area with noise levels of less than 30 dBA, establishing a correlation between noise level and annoyance. In addition, 23% were slightly, rather or very annoyed while outdoors. It was suggested that some of the additional annoyance might have been due to the sound characteristics and visual interference related to the IWTs.[102] • Bakker et al. conducted another cross‑sectional study in seven areas of Sweden located in the vicinity of IWTs with dissimilar terrain and different degrees of urbanization. Data regarding living conditions including response to wind turbine noise were gathered from questionnaires that were sent by mail and completed by 754 subjects. These data were complemented by the determination of outdoor A‑weighted SPLs which were calculated for each respondent. Perception and annoyance attributed to wind turbine noise in relation to sound pressure levels were analyzed with respect to physical dissimilarities in the areas. The study revealed a dose–response relationship between emission levels of wind turbine sound and self‑reported noise annoyance. That is, as sound emissions increased, so did the noise annoyance reported.[135] • A socio‑acoustic survey was carried out by Yano et al., 2013 throughout Japan over a 3‑year period. Noise and annoyance were examined to obtain a baseline for a wind turbine noise policy. The study involved 36 sites with turbines and 16 control sites away from turbines, with a sample size between 3 and 42 subjects per site. In total, 747 and 332 subjects at turbine sites and nonturbine sites, respectively, were surveyed; the response rates were 49% and 45% for the two sites, respectively. Face‑to‑face interviews were performed, with annoyance evaluated by ICBEN 5‑point verbal scale. The wind turbine noise was measured at several points in each site for successive 5 days with the average SPL at regular turbine operation during the nighttime taken as noise exposure. In total, 651 noise exposures at residences were recorded, ranging from 26 to 50 dB. Analysis based on all data demonstrated a correlation between noise and annoyance a period.[136] • A dose/response relationship of AHE with noise was also confirmed in Ontario by Palmer, 2020. Two families who lived near an array of 140 IWTs and had experienced AHEs for 5 years, collected data by two independent methods: the first a continuously recording system, and the second by triggering audio recordings while experiencing annoyance. The recorded data were analyzed to ascertain any correlation of AHE with wind turbine operational performance, and for tonality, Analysis of the sound files confirmed high correlation between times the residents described as tonal and the presence of tonality by a graphical method of comparing the tonal peak to the magnitude of the sound outside the critical bandwidth centered on the tonal peak. There was a correlation of over 84% between complaints and tonality from 5 dB to over 20 dB. This tonal condition was described by the residents as irritating and annoying, resulting in loss of sleep and in loss of enjoyment of normal use of their property.[137] • A stratified cross‑sectional study by Nissenbaum et al. was performed in the USA to compare sleep and general health outcomes of participants living close to IWTs with those living further away from them. As described in Criteria 1: Strength of Association, enrolled participants lived between 375 m and 1.4 km (N = 38) and 3.3 km and 6.6 km (N = 41) from IWTs. Validated questionnaires were used to collect information on sleep quality (PSQI), daytime sleepiness (ESS), and general health (SF36v2), together with psychiatric disorders, attitude, and demographics. Descriptive and multivariate analyses were performed to determine if the distance to the nearest IWT had any effects on various health outcome measures. Analyses showed that participants living within 1.4 km of an IWT had worse sleep, were sleepier during the day, and had worse SF36 mental component scores compared to those living further than 1.4 km away. Significant dose–response relationships between PSQI, ESS, SF36 mental component score, and the log distance to the nearest IWT were identified after controlling for gender, age, and household clustering.[24] Taken together, the above studies demonstrate that dose–response relationships exist between exposure to IWTs and AHEs, as determined either with “dose” calculated as the distance to the turbines or SPLs. The responses (i.e., the AHEs) observed include annoyance, effects on sleep, and effects on mental health score. It is of importance to note that noise annoyance, including that associated with operational IWTs, has been acknowledged as a health/AHE by Health Canada (2005), quoting the WHO and by others.[37,39,44,138,139] Do w n l o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / j o u r n a l s . l w w . c o m / e n d i b y B h D M f 5 e P H K a v 1 z E o u m 1 t Q f N 4 a + k J L h E Z g b s I H o 4 X M i 0 h C y w C X 1 A W nY Q p / I l Q r H D 3 i 3 D 0 O d R y i 7 T v S F l 4 C f 3 V C 4 / O A V p D D a 8 K K G K V 0 Y m y + 7 8 = o n 1 2 / 1 4 / 2 0 2 3 Page 117 of 152 Dumbrille, et al.: Wind turbines: Applying Bradford Hill’s criteria for causation 74 Environmental Disease | Volume 6 | Issue 3 | July‑September 2021 Criteria 6: Plausibility Research, incident reports/complaints, and reports by people living near IWTs indicate that wind turbines impact people’s senses, resulting in adverse health symptoms. There may be more than one factor contributing to the effects. Evidence suggests that a plausible mechanism involves responses to audible and inaudible noise, including infrasound and LFN. In addition, evidence is emerging indicating that EMF and RF energy[16,22,36,38,140] and shadow flicker[76,88,101] contribute to turbine‑associated AHE. The precise noise and vibration frequencies which are causing the reported symptoms in people near IWTs are not fully elucidated. Indeed, the safe exposure cumulative dose (short and long term) of noise and vibration frequencies has not yet been defined for any age group. The general physiological effects of LFN/infrasound are illustrated in the following study summaries. • In an investigation of the physiological and psychological effects of infrasound by Qibai and Shi, ten students were exposed to infrasound below the audible perception threshold (2.14 Hz 110 dB and 4.1 Hz 1200 dB). After 1 h, students experienced physiological changes (blood pressure elevation and increase in heart rate) and symptoms such as nausea, tiredness, headache, and fretfulness. Although these levels were well above those emitted by IWTs, the study demonstrated that even short‑term exposure to inaudible infrasound can cause AHEs, and that perception thresholds of infrasound are not necessarily the most relevant measure.[141] • Alvez‑Pereira et al.[41,142] summarized studies that investigated the impact of infrasonic emissions, selecting those that focused on the cellular and tissue changes observed in laboratory, occupational, and residential settings, using light and electron microscopy. Most of the studies were concerned with occupational exposures to infrasound and did not consider continuous exposures at less than 90 dB. Collectively, the data indicated that exposure to infrasound could result in widespread vascular changes and changes to organs of the reproductive and auditory systems. The authors concluded that exposure to infrasonic and lower frequency airborne pressure waves can cause damage to a variety of cell and tissue types depending on frequency, dB level, and length of time of exposure. There is evidence that exposure to the infrasound component of wind turbine noise can influence the physiology of the ear. • An analysis by Salt and Hullar showed that, although hearing perception mediated by the inner hair cells of the cochlea is insensitive to infrasound, other sensory cells or structures in the inner ear such as the outer hair cells are more sensitive and can be stimulated by low frequency sounds at levels below those that are audible.[143] Such changes in the vestibular system could potentially contribute to some turbine‑related AHE. Dysfunctions in the vestibular system can cause disequilibrium, nausea, vertigo, anxiety, and panic attacks. These symptoms have been reported in individuals located near IWT facilities, and those with highest risk factors for the symptoms include having a pre‑existing problem with inner ear pathology.[26] As noted previously, evidence that IWTs produce perceptible levels of infrasound as well as audible LFN above 20 Hz has been available since the 1980s.[45,87,144] Moreover, contemporary wind turbines have markedly increased in size, power output, and emissions from earlier models. An analysis of 48 wind turbines by Møller and Pedersen determined that the relative amount of LFN emission is significantly higher for large turbines (2.3–3.6 MW) than for small turbines (≤2 MW).[145] Van den Berg et al., 2008 commented, “There is increasing evidence that the local impact of wind turbines may be more negative than expected. The experience gained in the 1980s and 1990s may not apply to the tall, modern onshore wind turbines with peak electric power outputs up to 3 MW and tower heights of 80–100 m.”[40] Two studies that examined the effects of exposure to the infrasound component of wind turbine noise on complaints and AHE are described. • In 1985, complaints had been received from about a dozen families living within a 3‑km radius of a 2 MW wind turbine. Under the auspices of NASA, Kelley et al. investigated the possible physical mechanisms responsible for the generation, propagation, and human response/noise complaints and vibrations related to the DOE/NASA MOD‑l (2 MW) turbine. Through a series of field surveys, physical measurements documented the characteristics of the following: acoustic emissions, the vertical structure of the atmospheric velocity and thermal fields controlling the sound propagation, and the internal acoustic pressure variations and structural vibrations of two of the affected homes. The results indicated that the reported annoyance was caused from impulsive infrasound and LFN generated by the single wind turbine. Noise propagated both upwind and downwind caused complaints. The authors concluded that the sensitivity Do w n l o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / j o u r n a l s . l w w . c o m / e n d i b y B h D M f 5 e P H K a v 1 z E o u m 1 t Q f N 4 a + k J L h E Z g b s I H o 4 X M i 0 h C y w C X 1 A W nY Q p / I l Q r H D 3 i 3 D 0 O d R y i 7 T v S F l 4 C f 3 V C 4 / O A V p D D a 8 K K G K V 0 Y m y + 7 8 = o n 1 2 / 1 4 / 2 0 2 3 Page 118 of 152 Dumbrille, et al.: Wind turbines: Applying Bradford Hill’s criteria for causation Environmental Disease | Volume 6 | Issue 3 | July‑September 2021 75 of threshold levels measured in a home was consistent with documented cases of human annoyance known to be associated with industrial sources of LFN[87] (See Criteria 1: Strength of Association for discussion of the AHE). • Evidence of the role of infrasound at frequencies between 0 and 10 Hz in causing symptoms such as nausea and headaches was shown in an acoustic survey of LFN and infrasound at the Shirley wind project in Wisconsin, USA.[43,146] Four independent firms of acousticians including those working for wind developers and those working for sick residents authored a common report. The acousticians met with residents reporting problems with the wind turbine acoustic emissions, including members of three families who had abandoned their homes. They reported that (i) at most locations where symptoms occurred, the wind turbines were generally not audible; (ii) some residents reported that they could sense when the turbines were turned on and off without hearing or seeing the turbines; and (iii) the residents who reported motion sickness‑like symptoms as major adverse effects associated with the wind turbines were also sensitive to motion sickness. The authors concluded that to induce major effects, the noise source must be at a very low frequency, approximately 0.8 Hz or below, with maximum effects at approximately 0.2 Hz. Moreover, they suggested that as the same organs in the inner ear, the otoliths, may be central to the two similar symptoms (motion sickness and turbine‑induced nausea), the wind turbine acoustic emissions may induce motion sickness in those prone to this condition. The authors concluded with their opinion that LFN and infrasound from turbines could be a sufficiently serious issue to pose a threat to the industry.[43] International reviews of studies involving LFN reveal that some of the symptoms described by complainants associated with IWT noise are similar to those caused by LFN. The literature indicates that it has been known for decades that LFN and/or infrasound in general[147,148], including that produced by wind turbines, can result in noise annoyance and other AHEs.[45,144,149,150] The vast majority of studies of sound from wind turbines do not accurately measure the presence of LFN or infrasound.[99] This failure of public health authorities and governments to monitor the impact of LFN and infrasound on exposed individuals impedes the proper interpretation of results and is not consistent with the WHO report “Guidelines for Community Noise” that states: “When prominent low‑frequency components are present, noise measures based on A‑weighting are inappropriate” and “It should be noted that a large proportion of low‑frequency components in noise may increase considerably the adverse effects on health.”[1] See also Criteria 8: Experimental Evidence for further evidence that those exposed to infrasound display adverse events similar to those experienced by those near IWTs. Criteria 7: Coherence In describing his criteria for causality, Bradford Hill noted that “... lack of such [laboratory] evidence cannot nullify the epidemiological effect on associations.”[2] However, as described above, in experiments during which people were exposed to infrasound, similar symptoms are reported by those living and working near turbines. Although low‑frequency hearing sensitivity depends on many factors including the mechanical properties of the middle ear, it is known to be correlated with cochlear length for many species with nonspecialized cochleae, including humans and guinea pigs.[143,151,152] The thresholds of guinea pig hearing have been measured with stimulus frequencies as low as 50 Hz; the average sensitivity recorded in four studies at 125 Hz was SPL of 37.9 dB, which is 17.6 dB less sensitive than the sensitivity of humans at the same frequency and is consistent with the shorter cochlea of guinea pigs. It is therefore reasonable to assume that if responses are present in the guinea pig at a specified level of low‑frequency sound, then they will be present in the human at a similar or lower stimulus level. Thus, the guinea pig may represent a valid experimental model which is likely to under‑estimate the effect in humans. Haneke et al., of the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, summarized studies identified in the literature where humans or various species of animals (rats, mice, guinea pigs, and chinchillas) had been exposed to infrasound in the laboratory. Most studies reported some health effects attributed to infrasound exposure, including stress response. Generally, the doses of infrasound were higher but of much shorter duration than the limited data sets of full spectrum acoustic measurements inside and outside homes at existing wind developments. The report identified that there are significant knowledge gaps with respect to chronic exposure to infrasound and low‑frequency sound at lower “doses.” Although the authors did not comment on IWTs, they did note that many of the human subjects exposed to infrasound reported the same AHEs = fatigue, sleeplessness, nausea, and heart disorders = that afflict those living near wind turbines.[150] Do w n l o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / j o u r n a l s . l w w . c o m / e n d i b y B h D M f 5 e P H K a v 1 z E o u m 1 t Q f N 4 a + k J L h E Z g b s I H o 4 X M i 0 h C y w C X 1 A W nY Q p / I l Q r H D 3 i 3 D 0 O d R y i 7 T v S F l 4 C f 3 V C 4 / O A V p D D a 8 K K G K V 0 Y m y + 7 8 = o n 1 2 / 1 4 / 2 0 2 3 Page 119 of 152 Dumbrille, et al.: Wind turbines: Applying Bradford Hill’s criteria for causation 76 Environmental Disease | Volume 6 | Issue 3 | July‑September 2021 Consistent with AHEs being reported several kilometers from IWTs, Schofield measured vibration signals at the Stateline wind farm in Oregon (US) that consisted of 399 wind turbines, each with a rated power of 0.66 MW. The study found that the propagation of a 4.3 Hz vibration signal was measurable at distances up to approximately 18 km from the turbines.[153] Escaler and Mebarki demonstrated that vibrations measured in full‑scale wind turbines were highest at less than 1 Hz.[154] Criteria 8: Experimental Evidence While large‑scale controlled clinical studies have not been performed, there is increasing evidence that the adverse events reported by those living at least 10 km from IWTs could in part be the result of infrasound emitted by the turbines. In experiments where people have been exposed to infrasound, similar symptoms are reported as by those living and those working near turbines. Three clinical studies investigating adverse effects of IWTs are described below. • A study by Ambrose et al.,[42] known as the Bruce McPherson infrasound and LFN study,[82] was commissioned to investigate and confirm or deny the presence of infrasonic and LFN emissions at a home, to determine why there were so many strong complaints about the loss of well‑being and hardships experienced by people living near large IWTs operating in Falmouth, Massachusetts. The investigators experienced the same symptoms described by those living at this location and living at other large IWT sites, such as dysfunctions in the vestibular system/balance, nausea, vertigo, anxiety, and panic attacks. Sleep was disturbed during the study when the wind turbine operated with hub height wind speeds above 10 m/s. The onset of AHEs was within 20 min and persisted for some time after leaving the study area. It took about a week to recover from the AHEs experienced during the study, with lingering recurring nausea and vertigo for almost 7 weeks for one of the investigators. Measurements of dBA, dBC, and dBG were made. dBA is most commonly used for environmental noise measurement and has emphasis on noise with frequencies over 60 Hz; dBC measures have less attenuation of LFN; and dBG measures frequency range up to 315 Hz with emphasis on noise below 20 Hz (low‑frequency and infrasound). The dBA and dBC levels and modulations did not correlate to the health effects experienced; the strength and modulation of the un‑weighted and dBG‑weighted levels increased indoors consistent with worsened health effects experienced indoors. The dBG‑weighted level appeared to be controlled by in‑flow turbulence and exceeded physiological thresholds for response to low‑frequency and infrasonic acoustic energy. Health effects moderated when dBG levels fell well below the 60 dBG guideline when the wind turbine was off. This study revealed that people can experience, within a few minutes, the same debilitating health effects described and testified to by neighbors living near the wind turbines, even when they do not have a pre‑existing sleep deprivation condition and are neither tied to the location nor invested in the property. This was not seen in other studies as A‑weighting and sound‑level averaging do not reveal this low‑frequency information period. • A small acoustic survey was initiated by Pacific Hydro, conducted at its Cape Bridgewater Wind Development in Australia.[47] Six occupants of three households located between 650 m and 1,600 m of the wind facility were surveyed over 8 weeks. This included a 2‑week shutdown of the turbines. No audible infrasound was found in any of the houses when 85 dB(G) was taken as the hearing threshold of infrasound. The residents suffered from sleep disturbance, headache, ear pressure, tinnitus, and elevated pulse rate. The onset of most symptoms correlated with changes in the turbine output power. There was a positive correlation between the power level of wind turbines and the dB(A) LF level determined inside residential dwellings. There was no correlation with the dB(A) noise levels or impacts that residents identified as coming from the turbines (See Criteria 4: Temporality for study details). • In a Japanese study by Inagaki and Nishi (2015), aerodynamic noise generated from a modern large‑scale wind turbine (including the infrasound with extremely low‑frequency band) was measured and analyzed. To verify the physiological impact of such amplitude modulation, 15 healthy adults aged 21–24 years received various sound stimuli, including the recorded aerodynamic noise and a synthetic periodical sound, and brain waves were examined with an electroencephalography. The authors found that the study subjects generally could not be relaxed or concentrate when listening to the infrasound noise and that “infrasound (e.g., low frequency and inaudible for human hearing) would be considered to be an annoyance to any technicians who work in proximity to a modern large‑scale wind turbine.”[83] • Verzini et al. conducted a study of health effects of low‑frequency sound using a pressure chamber in Argentina. Twenty‑two college students (18–25 years) performed the same tasks in three randomized Do w n l o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / j o u r n a l s . l w w . c o m / e n d i b y B h D M f 5 e P H K a v 1 z E o u m 1 t Q f N 4 a + k J L h E Z g b s I H o 4 X M i 0 h C y w C X 1 A W nY Q p / I l Q r H D 3 i 3 D 0 O d R y i 7 T v S F l 4 C f 3 V C 4 / O A V p D D a 8 K K G K V 0 Y m y + 7 8 = o n 1 2 / 1 4 / 2 0 2 3 Page 120 of 152 Dumbrille, et al.: Wind turbines: Applying Bradford Hill’s criteria for causation Environmental Disease | Volume 6 | Issue 3 | July‑September 2021 77 experimental conditions, with a 1‑week interval between experiments. Test conditions were 30 min exposure to either 110 dB tone, a boiler noise filtered in 1/3 octave band centered on 10 Hz at 105 dB, or no sound stimulus. There were significant increases in anxiety measures in the 110 dB tone group and an increase in body vibration (especially head, ears, and neck) and annoyance. The boiler group experienced similar sensations. There were no significant differences in physiological variables between the control or test groups.[155] Additional examples of clinical studies are included in Appendix 2. They include examination of effects of noise with the acoustical characteristics of wind turbine noise on sleep disturbance,[156,157] annoyance,[158] and other AHE.[159,160] Some studies found no association with complaints and proximity to wind turbines. For example, a Polish study by Mroczek et al. found that proximity of wind farms did not result in the worsening of the quality of life using the Norwegian version of the SF‑36 general health questionnaire and the visual analog scale. The authors commented that the results may indicate the influence of other contributors such as economic factors that were not taken into consideration during the analysis.[161] There is experimental evidence that exposure to LFN/infrasound can lead to adverse events in animals as well as in people. Animal studies have demonstrated serious health effects from proximity to IWTs: geese,[162] pigs;[163] LFN: chick embryo;[164] and high‑frequency vibration: rats[165] [Appendix 2 for additional AHE in animals and details]. There is clear experimental evidence that exposure to IWTs cause adverse events in animals and people. LFN/ infrasound such as that emitted by IWTs can lead to adverse events similar to those reported by people living near IWTs. This suggests that the infrasound emitted by turbines contributes toward the adverse events reports by those living within 10 km or more of IWTs. Criteria 9: Analogous evidence Stimuli that are not perceived by the senses, such as ionizing radiation and carbon monoxide, can be pathogenic. The claim that noise must be audible to be considered significant is not a defensible conclusion by analogy or by virtue of the literature on LFN, infrasound, vibration, and other potential contributors. AHEs reported in people living and working near IWTs, the effects on animals, and the correlation between LFN and effects when turbines are turned off and on (described above) reveal an association between AHEs and IWTs. DISCUSSION The BH criteria represent an important tool for determining cause between an environmental exposure and a health outcome (i.e., disease or disability) in a scientifically rigorous manner. The criteria are far more stringent than the Precautionary Principle, which the WHO (1999) provides as the environmental management principles on which government policies, including noise management policies, can be based.[1] The WHO document states that: “When there is a reasonable possibility that the public health will be endangered, even though scientific proof may be lacking, action should be taken to protect the public health, without awaiting the full scientific proof.”[1] The application of the stringent BH criteria gives compelling evidence that IWTs cause significant health problems in a nontrivial fraction of residents living and working near them. Despite the resources available to Health Canada for the Wind Turbine Noise and Health study, the public was advised that the study would not determine causality. At the same time, the Erickson v. MOE ERT decision states: “This case has successfully shown that the debate should not be simplified to one about whether wind turbines can cause harm to humans. The evidence presented to the Tribunal demonstrates that they can, if facilities are placed too close to residents. The debate has now evolved to one of degree.” [44] And the results of a review commissioned by the Ministry of Environment in Ontario, Canada stated that the audible sound from wind turbines is expected to result in a nontrivial percentage of persons being highly annoyed, and that the annoyance can be expected to contribute to stress‑related health impacts.[117] Global research published in peer reviewed journals and conference papers, reports from exposed neighbors, case reports, government hearings, testimony during various judicial and other proceedings, and the almost 6,000 incident reports/complaints documented by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment support the determination of causality. These findings have been repeatedly observed by different persons, in different places, and under different circumstances and times. The thousands of adverse event reports by residents, alone, provide strong evidence for a causal relationship and acknowledgment of the seriousness of the problems. It has been argued that the adverse event reports are under‑appreciated as a source of evidence and are more compelling than the formal studies because of the following: sheer volume, the similarity of health problems across reports and countries, the fact that individuals are capable of recognizing both the exposure and outcomes, and the fact that relief occurs upon relocating or when staying somewhere other than the subject’s own home.[25,26,69‑71,166] The reports are consistent with controlled Do w n l o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / j o u r n a l s . l w w . c o m / e n d i b y B h D M f 5 e P H K a v 1 z E o u m 1 t Q f N 4 a + k J L h E Z g b s I H o 4 X M i 0 h C y w C X 1 A W nY Q p / I l Q r H D 3 i 3 D 0 O d R y i 7 T v S F l 4 C f 3 V C 4 / O A V p D D a 8 K K G K V 0 Y m y + 7 8 = o n 1 2 / 1 4 / 2 0 2 3 Page 121 of 152 Dumbrille, et al.: Wind turbines: Applying Bradford Hill’s criteria for causation 78 Environmental Disease | Volume 6 | Issue 3 | July‑September 2021 studies and other systematically‑gathered data. Many of the published adverse event reports include those with rigorously documented case crossover observations and experiments. These factors move the collective evidence beyond plausible doubt. Most reports describe a core list of symptoms, such as those observed by Harry, 2007 and Pierpont, 2009.[26,100] The range of symptoms commonly reported by individuals is consistent globally, and includes sleep disorders, headaches, mood disorders, inability to concentrate, tinnitus, effects on vestibular (balance) and heart, and vibratory sensations. In some cases, there is variable expression and latency of symptoms in different people. A number of plausible causes have been proposed such as amplitude modulation; lack of night time abatement; audible LFN; inaudible LFN/infrasound; tonal noise; electrical pollution/stray voltage; and visual impacts such as shadow flicker and flashing lights. People with vestibular sensitivities may have a predisposition to AHE, but the effects go beyond a few rare individuals who are extremely susceptible. Neither the frequency of events nor the safe distance from turbines can be defined with certainty. Case reports are not all publically available and typically do not provide information regarding how many people experienced events but did not report them. Studies indicate that serious health effects occur in between 5% and 10%[118,167] and up to 20% of exposed individuals.[168] Most studies report an even greater number of individuals suffer from the health effects of noise annoyance and sleep disturbance. Typically, there is an increase in the number of incident reports from those living nearer to the IWTs. Although some may consider annoyance insignificant, an increased health risk from chronic noise annoyance has been acknowledged as a health/AHE.[39,138,169] The Superior Health Council of Belgium 2013 commented that annoyance and disturbed sleep can lead to “undue stress, which may adversely affect the health and well‑being of those concerned.”[115] WHO‑related research acknowledged an increased health risk from chronic noise annoyance: The LARES study states that a central effect of noise is annoyance and concluded that the result “confirms the thesis that for chronically strong annoyance a causal chain exists between the three steps: health‑strong annoyance‑increased morbidity.”[170] LARES also concluded that the “results of the LARES study – with regard to criteria for causal relations – confirmed, on an epidemiological level, an increased health risk from chronic noise annoyance.”[171] The WHO states “Noise is an underestimated threat that can cause a number of short‑and long‑term health problems.”[172] Among these problems are “sleep disturbance, cardiovascular effects, poorer work or school performance, hearing impairment including tinnitus, aberrations in social behavior such as aggressiveness and passivity, pain and hearing fatigue, speech problems, and hormonal responses (stress hormones) and their consequences on human metabolism, and immune system problems”.[172,173] These effects are similar to those reported by those living near wind turbines. The WHO also cites sleep disturbance from environmental noise at 40 dBA as having health impacts.[117] The placement of IWTs near family homes and noise compliance monitoring is typically based on predictive noise modeling measured in dBA.[99,175,176] The WHO indicates that the “yearly average of night noise level outside at the façade” can be used as a noise indicator,[174] resulting in peak levels not being measured. In some cases, even the average sound levels are exceeded at some residences located near IWTs. The use of dBA does not include low‑frequency audible noise (20–200 Hz) and inaudible infrasound (0–20 Hz) emitted by IWTs, yet wind turbines were known to emit lower frequency sound and vibration energy decades ago.[176‑178] LFN has been shown to cause physiological effects (e.g., to the cochleo‑vestibular system in animals). In 2004, LFN was reported as a recognized “special environmental noise problem,” especially for sensitive people residing in their homes, and that the A‑weighted level is very inadequate in that it underestimates annoyance for frequencies below about 200 Hz.[147] There is evidence that wind turbines generate low‑frequency sound and vibration energy, resulting in reports of the occurrence of adverse effects.[42,43,45,82,89,106,175] More recently, Basner et al. emphasized that “non‑auditory health effects of environmental noise are manifold, serious and, because of the widespread exposure, very prevalent,” and commented that noise levels from different noise sources cannot be merged into one indicator of decibels.[179] Cooper explained the variation in identified audible noise when wind turbines are operating, which was found to be a modulation of the amplitude occurring at a blade pass frequency. An amplitude modulated signal is associated with the output speed of the gearbox being modulated at the blade pass frequency. The level of the true amplitude modulation does not affect the overall A‑weighted level so is not generally measured; the modulation is related to LFN.[182] As reliance on dBA lacks measurements of the variable IWT‑audible/inaudible tonal and amplitude modulation noise emissions, there is a lack of consideration of risks Do w n l o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / j o u r n a l s . l w w . c o m / e n d i b y B h D M f 5 e P H K a v 1 z E o u m 1 t Q f N 4 a + k J L h E Z g b s I H o 4 X M i 0 h C y w C X 1 A W nY Q p / I l Q r H D 3 i 3 D 0 O d R y i 7 T v S F l 4 C f 3 V C 4 / O A V p D D a 8 K K G K V 0 Y m y + 7 8 = o n 1 2 / 1 4 / 2 0 2 3 Page 122 of 152 Dumbrille, et al.: Wind turbines: Applying Bradford Hill’s criteria for causation Environmental Disease | Volume 6 | Issue 3 | July‑September 2021 79 of sleep disturbance and AHE in sensitive individuals. As concluded by Pedersen and Waye, there is a need to consider the unique environment when planning a new IWT project in order to avoid AHE.[39] This includes effects of emissions from off‑shore turbines, as LFN is readily propagated above water and through it. To date, no large‑scale epidemiological studies have focused on the health effects of long‑term exposure to infrasound and LFN produced specifically by wind turbines. To strengthen the understanding of the health effects and validate our conclusions of causation, long‑term studies are required that are performed in the field using actual‑non‑averaged‑audible and inaudible noise levels, as well as EMF/RF energy. Ideally, these should be large‑scale, controlled, and blinded “on–off” studies involving all age groups. Measurement of LFN, EMF, and other potential emissions out to a distance that exceeds the travel of those emissions would aid in determining the cause of the effects. CONCLUSION Incontrovertible proof of causation has tended to be an elusive goal. The debate of determining causality associated with placing IWTs near family homes is similar to past controversies around the debate of causality from the use of tobacco products and from worker exposures to asbestos and coal. The “best available evidence” is the current standard, and it is our contention that the Bradford Hill criteria are that standard. Based on our analysis of clinical, biological, and experimental evidence and its concordance with the nine BH criteria, we conclude that there is a high probability that emissions from IWTs, including infrasound and LFN, result in serious harm to health in susceptible individuals living and/or working in their proximity. These effects can be attributed to IWT‑related events such as recurring sleep disturbance, anxiety and stress, and likely others. With the growing weight of evidence indicating this causation and the rapid proliferation of IWT installations globally, preventative actions should be taken, and policies implemented that are more cautiously protective of public health, safety, and welfare rather than wait for absolute certainty. More stringent regulation is needed to recognize, monitor, analyze, and document effects on the health of local residents and animals. Of concern is the lack of determination of the safe exposure cumulative dose of noise, including LFN and infrasound, for adults, the elderly, and particularly for fetuses and young children. There are no evidence‑based guidelines for setbacks of IWT; rather regulations have a wide variance across jurisdictions. The concern is compounded by the lack of centralized vigilance monitoring for those who have constant, long‑term exposure while living in their homes. Our findings provide compelling evidence that there is a pressing need for risk assessment before deployment of IWT into rural community settings that consider more effective and precautionary setback distances. A margin of safety sufficient to prevent pathogenic LFN from being detected by the human vestibular system is paramount before proceeding with political or economic policies. As written by Hill: “All scientific work is incomplete— whether it be observations or experimental. All scientific work is liable to be upset or modified by advancing knowledge. That does not confer upon us a freedom to ignore the knowledge we already have, or to postpone the action that it appears to demand at a given time.”[2] Acknowledgments We acknowledge the editorial contributions of Dr. Susan Cole and Les Stanfield. Financial support and sponsorship Nil. Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest. REFERENCES 1. Berglund B, Lindvall T, Schwela DH. Guidelines for Community Noise. World Health Organization; 1999. Available from: Comnoise 1: https://www.who.int/docstore/peh/noise/Comnoise‑1.pdf. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 01]. 2. Hill AB. The environment and disease: Association or causation? J R Soc Med 1965;589:295‑300. 3. Fedak KM, Bernal A, Capshaw ZA, Gross S. Applying the Bradford hill criteria in the 21st century: How data integration has changed causal inference in molecular epidemiology. Emerg Themes Epidemiol 2015;12:1‑9. 4. Shimonovich M, Pearce A, Thomson H, Keyes K, Katikireddi SV. Assessing causality in epidemiology: Revisiting Bradford Hill to incorporate developments in causal thinking. Eur J Epidemiol 2020;49:322‑9. 5. Davidson TM, Smith WM. Review. The Bradford hill criteria and zinc‑induced anosmia: A causality analysis. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2010;136:673‑6. 6. Lemen RA. Chrysotile asbestos as a cause of mesothelioma: Application of the Hill causation model. Int J Occup Environ Health 2004;10:233‑9. 7. Lucas RM, McMichael AJ. Association or causation: Evaluating links between “environment and disease”. Bull World Health Org 2005;83:792‑5. 8. Morabia A. On the origin of Hill’s causal criteria. Epidemiol 1991;2:367‑9. 9. Staudenmayer H, Binkley KE, Leznoff A, Phillips S. Idiopathic environmental intolerance: Part 1: A causation analysis applying Bradford Hill’s criteria to the toxicogenic theory. Toxicol Rev Do w n l o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / j o u r n a l s . l w w . c o m / e n d i b y B h D M f 5 e P H K a v 1 z E o u m 1 t Q f N 4 a + k J L h E Z g b s I H o 4 X M i 0 h C y w C X 1 A W nY Q p / I l Q r H D 3 i 3 D 0 O d R y i 7 T v S F l 4 C f 3 V C 4 / O A V p D D a 8 K K G K V 0 Y m y + 7 8 = o n 1 2 / 1 4 / 2 0 2 3 Page 123 of 152 Dumbrille, et al.: Wind turbines: Applying Bradford Hill’s criteria for causation 80 Environmental Disease | Volume 6 | Issue 3 | July‑September 2021 2003;22:235‑46. 10. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Causation. Community Oncol 2010;7:573‑5. 11. van Reekum R, Streiner DL, Conn DK. Applying Bradford Hill’s criteria for causation to neuropsychiatry: Challenges and opportunities. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci 2001;13:318‑25. 12. Weston A, Harris CC. Assessment of causation by the Bradford‑ Hill criteria. In: Kufe DW, Pollock RE, Weichselbaum RR, et al., editors. Holland‑Frei Cancer Medicine. 6th ed. Hamilton (ON): BC Decker; 2003. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/ NBK13302/. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 05]. 13. Medical Officer of Health. January 21, 2011. Grey Bruce Health Unit. Report to the Board. Industrial Wind Turbines. Ontario Public Health Standards – Health Hazard. Available from: https://www. southwesthealthline.ca/healthlibrary_docs/MOHReport.pdf. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 02]. 14. Académie Nationale de Médecine Groupe de Travail. Le Retentissement du Fonctionnement des Éoliennes Sur la Santé de L’homme. Paris, France: Académie Nationale de Médecine; 2006. Available from: https://www.academiemedecine.fr/sitesthematiques/EOLIENNES/ chouardrapp14mars2006.htm. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 03]. 15. Commonwealth of Australia. The Senate Select Committee on Wind Turbines. Final Report; 2015. Available from: https://apo.org.au/sites/ default/files/resource‑files/2015‑08/apo‑nid56372.pdf. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 03]. 16. Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Standing Committee on Green Energy and Green Economy Act. Testimony April 15 by B Ashbee and Ripley Group; 2009. Available from: https://www.ola.org/en/ legislative‑business/committees/general‑government/parliament‑39/ transcripts/committee‑transcript‑2009‑apr‑15. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 29]. 17. Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Standing Committee on General Government. Green Energy and Green Economy Act, Testimony by Dr. R. McMurtry; 2009 April, 22. p. G664. Available from: https//www.ola.org/en/legislative‑business/committees/general‑ government/parliament‑39/transcripts/committee‑transcript‑2009‑ apr‑22#P318_86091. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 29]. 18. Minnesota Department of Health. Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines; May 2009. Available from: https://mn.gov/eera/web/ project‑file?legacyPath=/opt/documents/Public%20Health%20 Impacts%20of%20Wind%20Turbines,%205.22.09%20Revised. pdf. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 03]. 19. Northern Ireland Assembly. Committee for the Environment. Report on the Committee’s Inquiry into Wind Energy; 2015. Available from: http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/assembly‑business/ committees/2011‑2016/environment/reports/report‑on‑the‑ committees‑inquiry‑intowind‑energy/. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 03]. 20. Ontario Municipal Board. 2007. Issue Date: July 16, 2007. Decision/ Order No: 1989. PL060986. J.P. Atcheson, Member. Issue Date: Jul. 16, 2007. Testimony by d’Entremont D; Brownell R; Marshall E; and Connor W. PDF copy available on request. 21. Castelo Branco NA, Alves‑Pereira M, Pimenta AM, Ferreira JR. Clinical Protocol for Evaluating Pathology Induced by low Frequency Noise Exposure. EuroNoise Conference, Maastricht; 2015. p. 2653‑ 8. Available from: https://puc.sd.gov/commission/dockets/ electric/2018/EL18‑026/prefiledexhibits/davenport/i25d.pdf. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 10]. 22. Krogh CM, Harrington ME. Wind turbine electromagnetic energy: Exploring risk of harm to human health. Altern Ther Health Med 2019;25:32‑8. 23. Krogh CM, Wilson EJ, Harrington ME. Wind turbine incident/ complaint reports in Ontario, Canada: A review – Why are they important? Open Access Library J 2019;6:e5200. 24. Nissenbaum MA, Aramini JJ, Hanning CD. Effects of industrial wind turbine noise on sleep and health. Noise Health 2012;14:237‑43. 25. Phillips CV. Properly interpreting the epidemiologic evidence about the health effects of industrial wind turbines on nearby residents. Bull Sci Technol Soc 2011;31:303‑15. 26. Pierpont N. Wind Turbine Syndrome: A Report on a Natural Experiment. Santa Fe, NM: K‑Selected Books; 2009. 27. Shepherd D, McBride D, Welch D, Dirks KN, Hill EM. Evaluating the impact of wind turbine noise on health‑related quality of life. Noise Health 2011;13:333‑9. 28. Whiteley A, Dumbrille A. Ontario’s green energy policy vs. social justice. Open J Soc Sci 2021;9:447‑86. 29. Whiteley A, Dumbrille A, Hirsch J. Access to justice: Recommended reforms to the Ontario justice system using the green energy act as an example. Open J Soc Sci 2021;9:1‑19. 30. Le Coz E, Sherman L. In the Shadow of Wind Farms. How the Wind Industry Angers Landowners and Divides Communities in Pursuit of Billions of Dollars in Subsidies and Other Incentives. Gatehouse Media; December, 2017. Available from: https://stories. usatodaynetwork.com/windfarms/home/?skipintro=true?skipintro =true?skipintro=true. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 22]. 31. EPAW (European Platform against Windfarms). Available from: http://epaw.org/victims.php?lang=en. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 05]. 32. National Wind Watch. Available from: https://wind‑watch.org/ww‑ noise‑health.php. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 05]. 33. Stop These Things. Available from: https://stopthesethings.com/ experience/. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 05]. 34. Wind Concerns Ontario. About Us. Available from: https://www. windconcernsontario.ca/about‑us/. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 25]. 35. Wind Concerns Ontario. Response to Wind Turbine Noise Complaints by Ontario’s Environment Ministry, Fourth Report: 2018; April 2021. Available from: https://www.windconcernsontario.ca/wp‑content/ uploads/2021/04/Report‑on‑Noise‑Complaint‑Response‑2018‑ FINAL.pdf. [Last accessed on 2021 Jul 25]. 36. Bray RI. Personal Communiqué to Ontario Premier Ford, Ministers, Members of Provincial Parliament and Colleagues; November 28, 2018. Available from: http://greatlakeswindtruth.org/featured/just‑ in‑dr‑riina‑bray‑of‑womens‑college‑hospital‑warns‑of‑proximity‑to‑ wind‑turbines/. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 05]. 37. General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5, Legislative Council. New South Wales, Australia. 2009. Inquiry into Rural wind Farms. Ordered to be Printed 16 December 2009 according to Standing Order 231, Australia. Available from: https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/lcdocs/ inquiries/1875/091216%20Report%20‑%20Rural%20wind%20farms. pdf. [Last accessed on 2021 Jul 16]. 38. Havas M, Colling D. Wind turbines make waves: Why some residents near wind turbines become ill. Bull Sci Technol Soc 2011;31:414‑26. 39. Pedersen E, Persson Waye K. Wind turbine noise, annoyance and self‑reported health and well‑being in different living environments. Occup Environ Med 2007;64:480‑6. 40. van den Berg F, Pedersen E, Bouma J, Bakker R. Project WINDFARMperception. Visual and Acoustic Impact of Wind Turbine Farms on Residents. FP6‑2005‑Science‑and‑Society‑20 Specific Support Action. Project no. 044628; 2008. Available from: http:// docs.wind‑watch.org/wfp‑final‑1.pdf. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 05]. 41. Alves‑Pereira M, Rapley B, Bakker H, Summers R. Acoustics and biological structures. In: El Abiddine Fellah Z, Ogam E, editors. Acoustics of Materials. London: IntechOpen, UK; 2019. 42. Ambrose SE, Rand RW, Krogh CM. Wind turbine acoustic investigation: Infrasound and low‑frequency noise – A case study. Bull Sci Technol Soc 2012;32:128‑41. 43. Cooperative Measurement Survey. 2012. Cooperative Measurement Survey and Analysis of Low Frequency and Infrasound at the Shirley Wind Farm in Brown County, Wisconsin. Report Number 122412‑ 1 (Issued: December 24, 2012). Revised. Prepared Cooperatively by: Channel Islands Acoustics, Camarillo, CA, Principal: Dr. Bruce Walker; Hessler Associates, Inc., Haymarket, VA, Principals: George F. and David M. Hessler; Rand Acoustics, Brunswick, ME Principal: Robert Rand; Schomer and Associates, Inc., Champaign, IL Principal: Dr. Paul Schomer. Available from: https://puc.sd.gov/commission/dockets/ Do w n l o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / j o u r n a l s . l w w . c o m / e n d i b y B h D M f 5 e P H K a v 1 z E o u m 1 t Q f N 4 a + k J L h E Z g b s I H o 4 X M i 0 h C y w C X 1 A W nY Q p / I l Q r H D 3 i 3 D 0 O d R y i 7 T v S F l 4 C f 3 V C 4 / O A V p D D a 8 K K G K V 0 Y m y + 7 8 = o n 1 2 / 1 4 / 2 0 2 3 Page 124 of 152 Dumbrille, et al.: Wind turbines: Applying Bradford Hill’s criteria for causation Environmental Disease | Volume 6 | Issue 3 | July‑September 2021 81 electric/2018/EL18‑003/testimony/testimony/mogen/Noise%20 Exhibit%204.pdf. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 05]. 44. ERT (Environmental Review Tribunal of Ontario). Case Nos.: 10‑ 121/10‑122. In the matter of appeals by Katie Brenda Erickson and Chatham‑Kent Wind Action Inc. filed on November 29, 2010 for a Hearing before the Environmental Review Tribunal pursuant to section 142.1 of the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.19, as amended with respect to a Renewable Energy Approval issued by the Director, Ministry of the Environment, on November 10, 2010 to Kent Breeze Corp. and MacLeod Windmill Project Inc. (Kent Breeze Wind Farms) c/o Suncor Energy Services Inc. under section 47.5 of the Environmental Protection Act, regarding the construction, installation, operation, use and retiring of eight wind turbine generators located at Part Lots 8‑11, Concession 1 and Part Lots 4‑6, Concession 1 & 2, in the Township of Camden, Municipality of Chatham‑Kent, Ontario. Vol 3. Transcript of testimony under oath by Dr. D. Shepherd testimony, PDF copy available on request; February 9, 2011. 45. James RR. Wind turbine infra and low‑frequency sound: Warnings signs that were not heard. Bull Sci Technol Soc 2011;32:108‑27. 46. Jeffery RD, Krogh CM, Horner B. Industrial wind turbines and adverse health effects. Can J Rural Med 2014;19:21‑6. 47. The Acoustic Group. The Results of an Acoustic Testing Program Cape Bridgewater Wind Farm. 44.5100.R7: MSC. Melbourne, Australia: Prepared for Energy Pacific (Vic) Pty Ltd; 2014. Available from: https://pacifichydro.com.au/our‑communities/local‑communities/ cape‑bridgewater‑wind‑farm‑acoustic‑study/. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 05]. 48. Wellington Dufferin Guelph Public Health. Health Hazard Investigation of a Transformer Station. Fergus, ON, Canada: Wellington Dufferin Guelph Public Health; 2013. Available from: https://www.wdgpublichealth.ca/sites/default/files/file‑attachments/ report/ht_report_2013‑health‑hazard‑investigation‑of‑a‑transformer‑ station_access.pdf. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 05]. 49. Wilson J, Krogh C, Peel PC. Déja vu and wind turbines: A review of lived experiences after appeals of Ontario industrial‑scale wind power facilities. Open Access Library J 2020;7:e6276. 50. ERT (Environmental Review Tribunal of Ontario). Decision. July 18, 2011. Case no. Case Nos.: 10‑121/10‑122. In the matter of appeals by Katie Brenda Erickson and Chatham‑Kent Wind Action Inc. filed on November 29, 2010 for a Hearing before the Environmental Review Tribunal pursuant to section 142.1 of the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.19, as amended with respect to a Renewable Energy Approval issued by the Director, Ministry of the Environment, on November 10, 2010 to Kent Breeze Corp. and MacLeod Windmill Project Inc. (Kent Breeze Wind Farms) c/o Suncor Energy Services Inc. under section 47.5 of the Environmental Protection Act, regarding the construction, installation, operation, use and retiring of eight wind turbine generators located at Part Lots 8‑11, Concession 1 and Part Lots 4‑6, Concession 1 & 2, in the Township of Camden, Municipality of Chatham‑Kent, Ontario; and In the matter of a Hearing held on February 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 15, and 16; March 2, 4, 11, 22, 23, 25, 29, 30, and 31; and May 26, 2011 in the Council Chambers. 51. ERT (Environmental Review Tribunal of Ontario). Case Nos.: 10‑ 121/10‑122. In the matter of appeals by Katie Brenda Erickson and Chatham‑Kent Wind Action Inc. filed on November 29, 2010 for a Hearing before the Environmental Review Tribunal pursuant to section 142.1 of the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.19, as amended with respect to a Renewable Energy Approval issued by the Director, Ministry of the Environment, on November 10, 2010 to Kent Breeze Corp. and MacLeod Windmill Project Inc. (Kent Breeze Wind Farms) c/o Suncor Energy Services Inc. under section 47.5 of the Environmental Protection Act, regarding the construction, installation, operation, use and retiring of eight wind turbine generators located at Part Lots 8‑11, Concession 1 and Part Lots 4‑6, Concession 1 & 2, in the Township of Camden, Municipality of Chatham‑Kent, Ontario. Transcript of testimony under oath by Dr. K Mundt, p. 29‑30. PDF copy available on request. 52. ERT (Environmental Review Tribunal, Ontario, Canada). 2013. Case Nos. 13‑002/13‑003. In the matter of an appeal by Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County and an appeal by Prince Edward County Field Naturalists vs the Director, Ministry of the Environment (“Director”) and Ostrander Point GP Inc., as a general partner for and on behalf of Ostrander Point Wind Energy LP. Transcript of testimony under oath by Dr. Kieran Moore, Day 40 and Dr. RJ McCunney, Day 41. PDF copies available on request. 53. ERT (Environmental Review Tribunal, Ontario, Canada). June 25, 2015. Case No. 15‑026. In the matter of the appeal by Gary Fohr with respect to the Renewable Energy Approval Number 9022‑ 9STQS5 (“REA”) issued by the Director, Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (“MOECC) and the Grey Highlands Clean Energy GP Corp. Transcript of testimony under oath by Dr Cornelia Baines, pg 87. PDF copy available on request. 54. ERT (Environmental Review Tribunal of Ontario). Case Nos.: 10‑ 121/10‑122. In the matter of appeals by Katie Brenda Erickson and Chatham‑Kent Wind Action Inc. filed on November 29, 2010 for a Hearing before the Environmental Review Tribunal pursuant to section 142.1 of the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.19, as amended with respect to a Renewable Energy Approval issued by the Director, Ministry of the Environment, on November 10, 2010 to Kent Breeze Corp. and MacLeod Windmill Project Inc. (Kent Breeze Wind Farms) c/o Suncor Energy Services Inc. under section 47.5 of the Environmental Protection Act, regarding the construction, installation, operation, use and retiring of eight wind turbine generators located at Part Lots 8‑11, Concession 1 and Part Lots 4‑6, Concession 1 & 2, in the Township of Camden, Municipality of Chatham‑Kent, Ontario. Volumn 14. Transcript of testimony under oath by Dr. W. Colby, pg 42. PDF copy available on request. 55. Knott D, Bolton P. House of Commons Library. Statistical Literacy Guide. Basic Outline of Regression Analysis; 2009. Available from: https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN04449/ SN04449.pdf. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 05]. 56. McGill University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences. (ND), Assessing Causation. Ch. 4. Montreal, Canada: McGill University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences; p. 102. Available from: https://www.medicine.mcgill.ca/epidemiology/hanley/bios602/b‑ d‑II‑ch‑1‑2‑3/PDQ‑EPI‑Ch4.pdf. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 05]. 57. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Assessing causation. In: PDQ Epidemiology. 3rd ed., Ch. 5. USA: People’s Medical Publishing House; 2009. p. 159. Available from: https://books.google.ca/bo oks?id=PQ54T8WHyl4C&pg=PA159&lpg=PA159&dq=%E2%8 0%9Cdescending+order+of+importance%E2%80%9D%2BBradf ord+Hill&source=bl&ots=Tzq9aL6tgg&sig=ACfU3U3qZZmSa0‑ g0uKvUdEKe2cPP_9k‑A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiJx8S0oP vuAhWKGs0KHd2XBFMQ6AEwAXoECAUQAw. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 05]. 58. Wikipedia. Bradford Hill Criteria. Available from: https://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Bradford_Hill_criteria. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 05]. 59. Carolan M. Court Ruling Means Wind Farms must provide more Information on Noise. Judge Overturns Decision by Commissioner for Environmental Information. The Irish Times; January 27, 2021. Available from: https://www.irishtimes.com/business/energy‑and‑ resources/court‑ruling‑means‑wind‑farms‑must‑provide‑more‑ information‑on‑noise‑1.4469418. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 23]. 60. ERT (Environmental Review Tribunal, Ontario, Canada). 2016. Case Nos. 13‑002/13‑003. Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County and Prince Edward County Field Naturalists vs Ministry of Environment (“Director”) and Ostrander Point GP Inc. general partner for/and behalf of Ostrander Point Wind Energy LP. Transcript of testimony under oath by: Elmes E. May 9, 2016; Davey M. May 14, 2013; Michaud L. May 15, 2016; Fraser E. May 16, 2013; Johnson S and Desmond D. May 21, 2016; Kenny E. May 22, 2013; Whitworth T. May 23, 2015; Horton N and White J. May 24, 2016. PDF copy available Do w n l o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / j o u r n a l s . l w w . c o m / e n d i b y B h D M f 5 e P H K a v 1 z E o u m 1 t Q f N 4 a + k J L h E Z g b s I H o 4 X M i 0 h C y w C X 1 A W nY Q p / I l Q r H D 3 i 3 D 0 O d R y i 7 T v S F l 4 C f 3 V C 4 / O A V p D D a 8 K K G K V 0 Y m y + 7 8 = o n 1 2 / 1 4 / 2 0 2 3 Page 125 of 152 Dumbrille, et al.: Wind turbines: Applying Bradford Hill’s criteria for causation 82 Environmental Disease | Volume 6 | Issue 3 | July‑September 2021 on request. 61. Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Divisional Court). July 21, 2014. Court File No.: 2055/14. Factum. Tribunal Case No.: 13‑084‑13‑087. S Dixon, J Dixon, T Ryan and C Ryan and the Director, Ministry of the Environment and St. Columban Energy LP; and between S Drennan and T Drennan and the Director, Ministry of the Environment and K2 Wind Ontario, operating as K2 Wind Ontario Limited Partnership; and between KG Kroeplin and SA Kroeplin and the Director, Ministry of the Environment and SP Armow Wind Ontario GP. Court File No.: 2055/14. Factum. Tribunal Case No.: 13‑084‑13‑087. Testimony by: Ashbe, B. and Macleod S. pg 39: Weaver D. and Whitworth T. pg 62; and MacKenzie B, Reyneveld N and Schmidt N. pg 68. PDF copy available on request. 62. Follett A. Nearby Wind Turbines Cause Family to Abandon Home, which t Turned into a Research Center. Daily Caller News Foundation; August 22, 2016. Available from: https://dailycaller.com/2016/08/22/ nearby‑wind‑turbines‑cause‑family‑to‑abandon‑home‑which‑greenies‑ then‑turned‑into‑a‑research‑center/. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 05]. 63. Hartke T. January 20, 2014. Boone County Zoning Meeting, Submission of Ted Hartke; Presented May 28, 2013. Available from: https://docs. wind‑watch.org/Hartke_Submittal‑Wind_Farm_Experience_5‑28‑13. pdf. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 05]. 64. Planet e.ZDF. Infrasound Caused by Industrial Wind Turbines. Documentary by the German Television Programme “Planet e”. Time Approximately 26:48. Friends against Wind; November 4, 2018. Available from: http://en.friends‑against‑wind.org/films/ infrasound‑caused‑by‑iwt. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 05]. 65. Supreme Court of Justice Judgment. May 30, 2013. Lisbon, Portugal. Court File: 2209/08.0TBTVD.L1S1. Certified Translation by All Languages Ltd. Canada. PDF copy available on request. 66. Nicol J, Seglins D. Ontario Wind Power Bringing down Property Values. CBC News; October 2, 2011. Available from: https://www. cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/story/2011/09/30/ontario‑wind‑power‑ property‑values.html. [Last accessed on 2021 Jul 03]. 67. Wilson L. Farmers Flee as Turbines Trigger Despair. Credited to: The Australian. National Wind Watch; August 22, 2009. Available from: https://www.wind‑watch.org/news/2009/08/22/farmers‑flee‑as‑ turbines‑trigger‑despair/. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 05]. 68. Krogh CM, Gillis L, Kouwen N, Aramini J. WindVOiCe, a self‑ reporting survey: Adverse health effects, industrial wind turbines, and the need for vigilance monitoring. Bull Sci Tech Soc 2011;31:321‑33. 69. Krogh CM, McMurtry RY, Dumbrille A, Hughes D, Gillis L. Preliminary results: Exploring why some families living in proximity to wind turbine facilities contemplate vacating their homes – A community‑based study. Open Access Library J 2020;7:e6118. 70. Krogh CM, McMurtry RY, Johnson BW, Dumbrille A, Alves‑Pereira Ml, Punch JL, et al. Wind turbines: Why some families living in proximity to wind energy facilities contemplate vacating their homes: An overview of findings. Open Access Library J 2020;7:e6443. 71. Krogh CM, McMurtry RY, Johnson WB, Dumbrille A, Alves‑Pereira M, Punch JL, et al. Grounded theory as an analytical tool to explore housing decisions related to living in the vicinity of industrial wind turbines. Open Access Library J 2021;8:e7233. 72. Reider S. Senate Health Care Committee Testimony (Wind Turbines and Health); April 24, 2013. Available from: https://docs.wind‑ watch.org/DRSANDYREIDER_042413.pdf. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 05]. 73. Reider S. Vermont Legislature PSB Hearing. Statement by Physician. Wind Noise and Adverse Health Effects; July 29, 2014. Available from: https://waubrafoundation.org.au/wp‑content/uploads/2014/08/ Dr‑Sandy‑Reider‑PSB‑Hearing‑Wind‑Noise‑Adverse‑Health‑Effects. pdf. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 05]. 74. Colby W, Dobie R, Leventhall G, Lipscomb D, McCunney R, Seilo M, et al. Wind Turbine Sound and Health Effects: An Expert Panel Review. Prepared for American Wind Energy Association and Canadian Wind Energy Association; 2009. Available from: http://www.canwea.ca/ pdf/talkwind/Wind_Turbine_Sound_and_Health_Effects.pdf. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 05]. 75. Council of Canadian Academies. Understanding the Evidence: Wind Turbine Noise. Technical Report, Council of Canadian Academies Expert Panel on Wind Turbine Noise and Human Health; 2015. Available from: https://cca‑reports.ca/reports/understanding‑the‑ evidence‑wind‑turbine‑noise/. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 12]. 76. Michaud DS, Feder K, Keith SE, Voicescu SA, Marro L, Than J, et al. Exposure to wind turbine noise: Perceptual responses and reported health effects. J Acoust Soc Am 2016;139:1443‑54. 77. Arra I, Lynn H, Barker K, Ojgbuneke C, Regalado S. Systematic review 2013: Association between wind turbines and human distress. Cureus 2014;6:e183. 78. Onakpoya IJ, O’Sullivan J, Thompson MJ, Heneghan CJ. The effect of wind turbine noise on sleep and quality of life: A systematic review and meta‑analysis of observational studies. Environ Int 2015;82:1‑9. 79. Shepherd D, Welch D, Dirks KN, McBride D. Do quiet areas afford greater health‑related quality of life than noisy areas? Int J Environ Res Public Health 2013;10:1284‑303. 80. Abbasi M, Monnazzam MR, Zakerian SA, Yousefzadeh A. Effect of wind turbine noise on workers’ sleep disorder: A case study of Manjil Wind Farm in Northern Iran. Fluct Noise Lett 2015;14:1550020. 81. Abbasi M, Monazzam MR, Ebrahim MH, Zakerian SA, Dehghan SF, Akbarzadeh A. Assessment of noise effects of wind turbine on the general health of staff at wind farm of Manjil, Iran. J Low Freq Noise V A 2016;35:91‑8. 82. Ambrose SE, Rand R. The Bruce McPherson Infrasound and Low Frequency Noise Study. Adverse Health Effects Produced by Large Industrial Wind Turbines Confirmed. (Also Called the Falmouth Study); 2011. Available from: https://www.heartland.org/_template‑ assets/documents/publications/Bruce‑McPherson.pdf. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 22]. 83. Inagaki T, Nishi Y. Analysis of aerodynamic sound noise generated by a large scaled wind turbine and its physiological evaluation. Int J Environ Sci Technol 2015;12:1933‑44. 84. Monazzam MR, Zakerian SA. Kazemi Z, Ebrahimi MH, Ghaljahi M, Mehri A, et al. Investigation of occupational noise annoyance in a wind turbine power plant. J Low Freq Noise V A 2019;38:798‑807. 85. Rand RW, Ambrose SE, Krogh CME. Occupational health and industrial wind turbines: A case study. Bull Sci Technol Soc 2011;31:359‑62. 86. Swinbanks M. Direct Experience of Low‑Frequency Noise and Infrasound within a Windfarm Community. Paper – 6th International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise, April 2015; 2015. Available from: https://docs.wind‑watch.org/WTN2015‑Swinbanks.pdf. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 07]. 87. Kelley N, McKenna H, Hemphill R, Etter C, Garretts R, Linn N. Acoustic Noise Associated with the MOD‑1 Wind Turbine: Its Source, Impact, and Control. Report by Solar Energy Research Institute. Report for US Department of Energy (DOE); 1985. Available from: https://tethys.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Kelley‑1985. pdf. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 07]. 88. Thorne B. The problems with “Noise Numbers” for wind farm noise assessment. Bull Sci Technol Soc 2011;31:262‑90. 89. Thorne B. Wind Farm Generated Noise and Adverse Health Effects. Noise Measurement Services Pty Ltd, Brisbane, Australia. Submitted to the Senate Hearing on ‘Excessive Noise from Wind Farms’ Bill; 2012. Available from: https://docs.wind‑watch.org/Thorne_Wind‑ farm‑generated‑noise‑adverse‑health‑effects.pdf14. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 07]. 90. Health Canada. Environmental and Workplace Health. Wind Turbine Noise and Health Study: Summary of Results; November 06, 2014. Available from: https://www.canada.ca/en/health‑canada/services/ environmental‑workplace‑health/noise/wind‑turbine‑noise/wind‑ turbine‑noise‑health‑study‑summary‑results.html. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 07]. Do w n l o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / j o u r n a l s . l w w . c o m / e n d i b y B h D M f 5 e P H K a v 1 z E o u m 1 t Q f N 4 a + k J L h E Z g b s I H o 4 X M i 0 h C y w C X 1 A W nY Q p / I l Q r H D 3 i 3 D 0 O d R y i 7 T v S F l 4 C f 3 V C 4 / O A V p D D a 8 K K G K V 0 Y m y + 7 8 = o n 1 2 / 1 4 / 2 0 2 3 Page 126 of 152 Dumbrille, et al.: Wind turbines: Applying Bradford Hill’s criteria for causation Environmental Disease | Volume 6 | Issue 3 | July‑September 2021 83 91. Feder K, Michaud DS, Keith SE, Voicescu SA, Marro L, Than J, et al. An assessment of quality of life using the WHOQOL‑BREF among participants living in the vicinity of wind turbines. Environ Res 2015;142:227‑38. 92. Keith SE, Feder K, Voicescu SA, Soukhovtsev V, Denning A, Tsang J, et al. Wind turbine sound power measurements. J Acoust Soc Am 2016;139:1431‑5. 93. Keith SE, Feder K, Voicescu SA, Soukhovtsev V, Denning A, Tsang J, et al. Wind turbine sound pressure level calculations at dwellings. J Acoust Soc Am 2016;139:1436‑42. 94. Michaud DS, Keith SE, Feder K, Voicescu SA, Marro L, Than J, et al. Personal and situational variables associated with wind turbine noise annoyance. J Acoust Soc Am 2016;139:1455‑66. 95. Michaud DS, Feder K, Keith SE, Voicescu SA, Marro L, Than J, et al. Effects of wind turbine noise on self‑reported and objective measures of sleep. Sleep 2016;39:97‑109. 96. Michaud DS, Feder K, Keith SE, Voicescu SA, Marro L, Than J, et al. Self‑reported and measured stress related responses associated with exposure to wind turbine noise. J Acoust Soc Am 2016;139:1467‑79. 97. Michaud DS, Feder K, Voicescu SA, Marro L, Than J, Guay M, et al. Clarifications on the design and interpretation of conclusions from Health Canada’s study on wind turbine noise and health. Acoust Aust 2018;46:99‑110. 98. Voicescu SA, Michaud DS, Feder K, Marro L, Than J, Guay M, et al. Estimating annoyance to calculated wind turbine shadow flicker is improved when variables associated with wind turbine noise exposure are considered. J Acoust Soc Am 2016;139:1480‑92. 99. Krogh CM, Dumbrille A, McMurtry RY, James R, Rand RW, Nissenbaum MA, et al. Health Canada’s wind turbine noise and health study – A review exploring research challenges, methods, limitations and uncertainties of some of the findings. Open Access Library J 2018;5:e5046. 100. Harry A. Wind Turbines, Noise, and Health. National Wind Watch; February 2007. Available from: http://docs.wind‑watch.org/wtnoise_ health_2007_a_harry.pdf. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 08]. 101. Morris M. Waterloo wind Farm Survey. Technical Report (Published by the Author); 2012. Available from: https://waubrafoundation.org. au/wp‑content/uploads/2013/02/Waterloo‑Wind‑Farm‑Survey‑ April‑2012‑Select‑Committee1.pdf. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 17]. 102. Pedersen E, Waye KP. Perception and annoyance due to wind turbine noise – A dose‑response relationship. J Acoust Soc Am 2004;116:3460‑70. 103. Hubbard HH. Noise induced house vibrations and human perception. Noise Control Engineer J 1982;19:49‑55. 104. Poulsen AH, Raaschou‑Nielsen O, Peña A, Hahmann AN, Nordsborg RB, Ketzel M, et al. Short‑term nighttime wind turbine noise and cardiovascular events: A nationwide case‑crossover study from Denmark. Environ Int 2018;114:160‑6. 105. Calvert C. behavioural Pediatrician. Communiqué. To Whom it may concern. October 5, 2012. Dundas, Ontario, Canada. 106. Castelo Branco NA, Costa e Curto T, Pedro da Costa Pereira J, Jorge LM, Faisca JC. Family with Wind Turbines in Close Proximity to Home: Follow‑Up of the Case Presented in 2007. 14th International Meeting on Low Frequency Noise and Vibration and Its Control, Aalborg, Denmark; 2010. Available from: https://www.researchgate. net/publication/290444702_Family_with_wind_turbines_in_ close_proximity_to_home_follow‑up_of_the_case_presented_ in_2007. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 22]. 107. Evans A. Environmental noise pollution: Has public health become too utilitarian? Open J Soc Sci 2017;5:80‑109. 108. Iser DJ. Report to Council. Health Issues and Wind Farms; 2004. Available from: https://docs.wind‑watch.org/Dr.‑Iser‑Submission‑ to‑NHMRC.pdf. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 07]. 109. Johnson WB. Madison County, Iowa, Cardiologist’s Investigation and Response to Industrial wind Turbines in the Rural Residential Countryside Regarding Concerns of Adverse Health Effects, and Exploration of the Relevant Accompanying Larger Issues; December 7, 2020. Available from: https://docs.wind‑watch.org/Johnson‑health‑ effects‑201207.pdf. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 08]. 110. Mitric A. M.D Treats Patients for Wind Turbine Syndrome (Australia). Wind Turbine Syndrome; 2011. Available from: https://www. windturbinesyndrome.com/2011/m‑d‑treats‑patients‑for‑wind‑ turbine‑syndrome‑australia/. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 08]. 111. Austrian Medical Association. Austrian Medical Association Issues Warning. Calls for Comprehensive Studies on Wind Turbine Noise. Waubra Foundation; April 2014. https://waubrafoundation.org. au/2014/austrian‑medical‑association‑issues‑warning‑calls‑for‑ comprehensive‑studies‑wind‑turbine‑noise/. [ Last accessed on 2021 Oct 06] 112. City Council of the Municipality of Amsterdam. English Translation; March 29, 2021. Available form: https://www. windwiki.nl/wp‑content/uploads/2021/04/To‑the‑City‑Council‑ of‑the‑Municipality‑of‑Amsterdam‑20210329.pdf. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 08]. 113. Gosselin PL. Austrian Chamber of Physicians Warns of Health Hazards from Large‑Size Wind Turbines. NoTricksZone; February 11, 2016. Available from: https://notrickszone.com/2016/02/11/ acoustic‑torture‑austrian‑chamber‑of‑physicians‑warns‑of‑health‑ hazards‑from‑large‑size‑wind‑turbines/comment‑page‑1/. [Last accessed on 2021 Nov 06]. https://www.ots.at/presseaussendung/ OTS_20140430_OTS0071/tag‑des‑laerms‑aerztekammer‑warnt‑vor‑ gross‑dimensionierten‑windkraftanlagen [ Last Accessed 2021 Oct 06] 114. Fátharta CO. Irish Doctors’ Environmental Association. Irish Examiner; 2015. Available from: https://www.irishexaminer.com/ news/arid‑20317947.html. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 08]. 115. Superior Health Council. Publication of the Superior Health Council of Belgium. No. 8738. Public Health Effects of Siting and Operating Onshore Wind Turbines; April 3, 2013. Available from: https://www. health.belgium.be/sites/default/files/uploads/fields/fpshealth_ theme_file/19085692/Public%20health%20effects%20of%20 siting%20and%20operating%20onshore%20wind%20turbines%20 %28April%202013%29%20%28SHC%208738%29.pdf. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 19]. 116. McMurtry RY, Krogh CM. Diagnostic criteria for adverse health effects in the environs of wind turbines. JRSM Open 2014;5:1‑5. 117. HGC Engineering. Low Frequency Noise and Infrasound Associated with Wind Turbines Generator Systems. A Literature Review. Ontario Ministry of the Environment RFP No. OSS‑078696; 2010. Available from: https://acoustical‑consultants.com/wp‑content/uploads/2019/03/ Low‑Frequency‑Noise‑and‑Infrasound‑Associated‑With‑Wind‑Turbine‑ Generator‑Systems.pdf. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 08]. 118. Thorne B, editor. Wind farm noise and human perception: A review. In: Select Committee on Wind Turbines Submission 155, Att 3. Australia: Noise Measurement Services Pty Ltd; 2013. Available from: https://www.google. ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiG jeWG‑_LrAhWFsJ4KHWdPD4MQFjACegQIBRAB&url=https%3A% 2F%2Fwww.aph.gov.au%2FDocumentStore.ashx%3Fid%3Df5454c61‑ 7f26‑4135‑95f8‑0284ba990914%26subId%3D304922&usg=AOvVaw0g wStrl3N4QkFqpATgLVfP. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 10]. 119. Hansen K, Zajamsek B, Hansen C. Noise Monitoring in the Vicinity of the Waterloo Wind Farm; 2014. Available from: https://waubrafoundation. org.au/wp‑content/uploads/2014/08/Hansen‑Zajamsek‑Hansen‑ Noise‑Monitoring‑at‑Waterloo1.pdf. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 08]. 120. Bittner‑Mackin E. Excerpts from the Final Report of the Township of Lincoln Wind Turbine Moratorium Committee. Prepared for Presentation to the Bureau County, Illinois, Zoning Board of Appeals; 2006. Available from: http://www.aweo.org/windlincoln.html. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 08]. 121. Knuth L. Comments on Wisconsin’s Wind Siting Rules by Biologist Lynne Knuth. Submission to Public Service Commission of Wisconsin; June 17, 2010. Available from: https://waubrafoundation. org.au/resources/knuth‑dr‑l‑submission‑public‑service‑commission‑ Do w n l o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / j o u r n a l s . l w w . c o m / e n d i b y B h D M f 5 e P H K a v 1 z E o u m 1 t Q f N 4 a + k J L h E Z g b s I H o 4 X M i 0 h C y w C X 1 A W nY Q p / I l Q r H D 3 i 3 D 0 O d R y i 7 T v S F l 4 C f 3 V C 4 / O A V p D D a 8 K K G K V 0 Y m y + 7 8 = o n 1 2 / 1 4 / 2 0 2 3 Page 127 of 152 Dumbrille, et al.: Wind turbines: Applying Bradford Hill’s criteria for causation 84 Environmental Disease | Volume 6 | Issue 3 | July‑September 2021 wisconsin/. [Last accessed 2021 Oct 06] 122. Proctor K. The Quest for Answers – and Compensation – for Electrical Pollution on the Farm. Farm and Farming; 2007. Available from: https://www.betterfarming.com/magazine/short‑takes. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 08]. 123. Whitworth T. SpeakOut Ontario – Ted Whitworth. YouTube; December 22, 2012. Available from: http://wind3.herokuapp.com/ posts/35675‑speakout‑ontario‑ted‑whitworth. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 08]. 124. Olesen KB. 1,600 Miscarriages at Fur Farm Near Wind Turbines. (World Council for Nature). Spoke at a Public Meeting in Isenvad; November 25, 2015. Available form: https://wcfn.org/2014/06/07/windfarms‑ 1600‑miscarriages/. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 08]. 125. Tsuruta Y. Dairy Cattle Getting Wind Turbine Syndrome? Stray Voltage? (Summary Translation from Japanese). Wind Turbine Syndrome; January 25, 2010. Available form: http://www. windturbinesyndrome.com/2010/dairy‑cattle‑suffer‑from‑wind‑ turbine‑syndrome‑japan/. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 08]. 126. Van Tassel D. Once Successful Nova Scotia Emu Farm Forced to Close after Turbines Destroyed their Flock; Nov 15, 2013. Available from: http://www.smithvilleturbinesoppositionparty.ca/before‑the‑turbines‑ we‑never‑had‑any‑problems‑now‑forced‑to‑close‑farm/. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 08]. 127. Bairstow J. Could Wind Turbines be Killing Cows? Energy Live News; July 22, 2019. Available form: https://www.energylivenews. com/2019/07/22/could‑wind‑turbines‑be‑killing‑cows/. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 08]. 128. Dumas T. Depuis L’ouverture du Parc Éolien de Nozay, les Vaches Meurent et les Humains Sont Maladies. Nozay (Loire‑Atlantique), Report. Mediacities; March 25, 2019. Available from: https:// reporterre.net/Depuis‑l‑ouverture‑du‑parc‑eolien‑de‑Nozay‑les‑ vaches‑meurent‑et‑les‑humains. [Last accessed 2021 Oct 06]. https:// mothersagainstturbines.com/2019/03/28/cows‑are‑dying‑humans‑ are‑sick‑since‑nozay‑wind‑opened/ [ Last accessed 2021 Oct 06]. 129. Dyer C. French Farmers Say Wind Turbines and Solar Panels have Killed Hundreds of their Cows. Daily Mail; 2019. Available from: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article‑6855801/French‑ farmers‑say‑wind‑turbines‑solar‑panels‑killed‑hundreds‑cows.html. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 08]. 130. BBC News. Wind Farm ‘Kills Taiwanese Goats’ A Large Number of Goats in Taiwan may have Died of Exhaustion because of Noise from a Wind Farm; 2009. Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/ hi/8060969.stm. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 09]. 131. Dickinson B. Are Wind Turbines Killing Innocent Goats? Discoblog. Discover Magazine; May 21, 2009. Available from: https://www. discovermagazine.com/health/are‑wind‑turbines‑killing‑innocent‑ goats. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 21]. 132. Agnew RC, Smith VJ, Fowkes RC. Wind turbines cause chronic stress in badgers (Meles meles) in Great Britain. J Wildl Dis 2016;52:459‑67. 133. WCFN (World Council for Nature). List of Scientific and Other Literature Evidencing the Adverse Effects of Infrasound on Animals. Available from: https://wcfn.org/2016/10/02/wind‑turbines‑effects‑ on‑animals/. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 22]. 134. Ishaque AB, Aighewi IT. Dose‑response. In: Reference Module in Earth Systems and Environmental Sciences. Oxford, UK. Elsevier; 2014. https://www.elsevier.com/about/locations: [DOI 10.1016/ B978‑0‑12‑409548‑9.09092‑8] 135. Bakker RH, Pedersen E, van den Berg GP, Stewart RE, Lok W, Bouma J. Impact of wind turbine sound on annoyance, self‑reported sleep disturbance and psychological distress. Sci Total Environ 2012;425:42‑51. 136. Yano T, Kuwano S, Kageyama T, Sueoka S, Tachibana H. Dose Response Relationships for Wind Turbine Noise in Japan. Proceedings of INTERNOISE, 42nd International Congress and Exposition on Noise Control Engineering, Innsbruck, Austria; September 15‑18, 2013, p. 4591‑8. Available from: https://docs.wind‑watch.org/ internoise‑2013‑0598.pdf. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 09]. 137. Palmer WK. Confirming tonality at residences influenced by wind turbines. J Energy Conserv 2020;1:13‑44. 138. ERT (Environmental Review Tribunal of Ontario). Case Nos.: 10‑ 121/10‑122. In the matter of appeals by Katie Brenda Erickson and Chatham‑Kent Wind Action Inc. filed on November 29, 2010 for a Hearing before the Environmental Review Tribunal pursuant to section 142.1 of the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.19, as amended with respect to a Renewable Energy Approval issued by the Director, Ministry of the Environment, on November 10, 2010 to Kent Breeze Corp. and MacLeod Windmill Project Inc. (Kent Breeze Wind Farms) c/o Suncor Energy Services Inc. under section 47.5 of the Environmental Protection Act, regarding the construction, installation, operation, use and retiring of eight wind turbine generators located at Part Lots 8‑11, Concession 1 and Part Lots 4‑6, Concession 1 & 2, in the Township of Camden, Municipality of Chatham‑Kent, Ontario. March 22, 2011‑Vol 11. Transcript of testimony under oath by Dr. C. Ollson p. 118. PDF copy available on request. 139. Health Canada. It’s Your Health. Community Noise Annoyance; 2005. Available from: https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/hc‑sc/ migration/hc‑sc/hl‑vs/alt_formats/pacrb‑dgapcr/pdf/iyh‑vsv/life‑ vie/community‑urbain‑eng.pdf. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 09]. 140. Stetzer D. Stetzer Consulting, LLC. Ground Current Investigation at Denmark, WI Residences. Wind Action; 2011. Available from: http:// www.windaction.org/posts/49515‑ground‑current‑investigation‑at‑ denmark‑wi‑residences#.YV34kLhKh3d [Last accessed 2021 Oct 06]. 141. Qibai CY, Shi H. Technical contribution. An investigation on the physiological and psychological effects of infrasound on persons. J Low Freq Noise V A 2004;23:71‑6. 142. Alves‑Pereira M, Castelo Branco NA. Vibroacoustic disease: Biological effects of infrasound and low‑frequency noise explained by mechanotransduction cellular signalling. Prog Biophys Mol Biol 2007;93:256‑79. 143. Salt AN, Hullar TE. Responses of the ear to low frequency sounds, infrasound and wind turbines. Hear Res 2010;268:12‑21. 144. Punch JL, James RR. Wind turbine noise and human health: A four‑decade history of evidence that wind turbines pose risks. In: Hearing Health and Technology Matters; 2016. Available from: https://hearinghealthmatters. org/journalresearchposters/. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 10]. 145. Møller H, Pedersen CS. Low‑frequency noise from large wind turbines. J Acoust Soc Am 2011;129:3727‑44. 146. Schomer PD, Erdreich J, Pamidighantam PK, Boyle JH. A theory to explain some physiological effects of the infrasonic emissions at some wind farm sites. J Acoust Soc Am 2015;137:1356‑65. 147. Leventhall HG. Low frequency noise and annoyance. Noise Health 2004;6:59‑72. 148. Leventhall G, Pelmear P, Benton S. Published by Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). A Review of Published Research on Low Frequency Noise and its Affects; 2003. Available from: https://westminsterresearch.westminster.ac.uk/downl oad/48d989044c72806ed0ad4e0907c3ca7accb01311215117b6226d46 abcf0a949c/921008/Benton_2003.pdf. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 10]. 149. Doolan C. A review of wind turbine noise perception, annoyance and low frequency emission. Wind Engineer 2013;37:97‑104. 150. Haneke KE, Carson BL, Claudine A, Gregorio CA, Maull EA. Infrasound. Brief Review of Toxicological Literature. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Literature Review (Revised 2002. Integrated Laboratory Systems, Inc., NIEHS Contract Number N01‑ES‑65402.); 2001. Available from: https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ ntp/htdocs/chem_background/exsumpdf/infrasound_508.pdf. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 10]. 151. Echteler SM, Fay RR, Popper AN. Structure of the mammalian cochlea. In: Comparative Hearing: Mammals. Vol. 4. New York, NY: Springer; 1994. p. 134‑71. Available from: https://link.springer.com/ chapter/10.1007/978‑1‑4612‑2700‑7_5. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 11]. 152. West CD. The relationship of the spiral turns of the cochlea and the length of the basilar membrane to the range of audible frequencies Do w n l o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / j o u r n a l s . l w w . c o m / e n d i b y B h D M f 5 e P H K a v 1 z E o u m 1 t Q f N 4 a + k J L h E Z g b s I H o 4 X M i 0 h C y w C X 1 A W nY Q p / I l Q r H D 3 i 3 D 0 O d R y i 7 T v S F l 4 C f 3 V C 4 / O A V p D D a 8 K K G K V 0 Y m y + 7 8 = o n 1 2 / 1 4 / 2 0 2 3 Page 128 of 152 Dumbrille, et al.: Wind turbines: Applying Bradford Hill’s criteria for causation Environmental Disease | Volume 6 | Issue 3 | July‑September 2021 85 in ground dwelling mammals. J Acoust Soc Am 1985;77:1091‑101. 153. Schofield R. Seismic Measurements at the Stateline Wind Project and a Prediction of the Seismic Signal that the Proposed Maiden Wind Project Would Produce at LIGO (Laser Interferometric Gravitational Wave Observatory). Report Number: LIGO‑T020104‑00‑Z; 2001. Available from: https://dcc.ligo.org/public/0027/T020104/000/ T020104‑00.pdf. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 13]. 154. Escaler X, Mebarki T. Statistical analysis of low frequency vibrations in variable speed wind turbines. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng 2013;52:052011. 155. Verzini AM, Ortiz Skarp AH, Nitardi H, Fuchs GL. A laboratory experiment on very low frequency sounds effects. Appl Acoust 1999;57:69‑77. 156. Smith MG, Ögren M, Thorsson P, Pedersen E, Persson Waye K. Physiological Effects of Wind Turbine Noise on Sleep. 2016. Proceedings of the 22nd International Congress on Acoustics. Buenos Aires – 5 to 9 September, 2016. Available from: https://www. researchgate.net/publication/308269158_Physiological_effects_of_ wind_turbine_noise_on_sleep/link/57dfb04808aeea19593be397/ download. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 12]. 157. Smith MG, Ögren M, Thorsson P, Hussain‑Alkhateeb L, Pedersen E, Forssén J, et al. Editor’s choice. A laboratory study on the effects of wind turbine noise on sleep: Results of the polysomnographic WiTNES study. 2020; [doi: 10.1093/sleep/zsaa046]. 158. Pawlaczyk‑Luszczynska M, Dudarewicz A, Szymczak W, Sliwinska‑ Kowalska M. Evaluation of annoyance from low frequency noise under laboratory conditions. Noise Health 2010;12:166‑81. 159. Radford T. Silent Sounds Hit Emotional Chords. The Guardian; 2003. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2003/sep/08/ sciencenews.science. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 15]. 160. Weichenberger M, Bauer M, Kühler R, Hensel J, Forlim CG, Ihlenfeld A, et al. Altered cortical and subcortical connectivity due to infrasound administered near the hearing threshold – Evidence from fMRI. PLoS One 2017;12:e0174420. 161. Mroczek B, Kurpas D, Karakiewicz B. Influence of distances between places of residence and wind farms on the quality of life in nearby areas. Ann Agric Environ Med 2012;19:692‑6. 162. Mikolajczak J, Borowski S, Marć‑Pieńkowska J, Odrowaz‑ Sypniewska G, Bernacki Z, Siódmiak J, et al. Preliminary studies on the reaction of growing geese (Anser anser f. domestica) to the proximity of wind turbines. Pol J Vet Sci 2013;16:679‑86. 163. Karwowska M, Mikołajczak J, Dolatowski ZZ, Borowski S. The effect of varying distances from the wind turbine on meat quality of growing‑ finishing pigs. Ann Anim Sci 2015;15:1043‑54. 164. Shannon SG, Moran AW, Shackelford LC, Mason KT. Army Aeromedical Research Lab Fort Rucker Al. Effect of Vibration Frequency and Amplitude on Developing Chicken Embryos. NTIS Technical Report (NTIS/AD‑A288517) (USAARL‑95‑1); 1994. Available from: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA288517.pdf. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 15]. 165. Tzvetkov D, Vergievac T, Hinkova L, Dinoeva S, Penkov AI, Tilev P, Experimental studies on the effect of whole‑body high frequency vibrations on reproduction and development in rats. https://journals. sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/026309239101000104. J Low Freq Noise V A 1991;10:26‑37. 166. Krogh CM. Industrial wind turbine development and loss of social justice? Bull Sci Technol Soc 2011;31:321. 167. Cummings J. Wind Farm Noise 2012: Science and Policy Overview. The Acoustic Ecology Institute; 2012. Available from: https://aeinews. org/aeiarchive/wind/winddocs/AEI_WindFarmNoise2012.pdf. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 22]. 168. ERT (Environmental Review Tribunal) Volume Four ‑ January 13, 2015. Case No(S): 14‑065 / 14‑066 / 14‑067 In The Matter Of Appeals by The Corporation of the County of Lambton filed September 4, 2014 and Kimberley and Richard Lance Bryce filed September 5, 2014 for a Hearing before the Environmental Review Tribunal pursuant to Section 142.1 of the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.E.19, as amended, with respect to Renewable Energy Approval No. 6914‑9L5JBB issued by the Director, Ministry of the Environment, on August 22, 2014 to Suncor Energy Products Inc., under Section 47.5 of the Environmental Protection Act, regarding a Class 4 wind facility consisting of the construction, installation, operation, use and retiring of a wind facility with a total nameplate capacity of 100 megawatts (MW), with the substation located at the Southwest corner of Cedar Point Line and Fuller Road, in the Municipality of Lambton Shores and other project infrastructure at various locations within the Town of Plympton‑Wyoming, Municipality of Lambton Shores, Warwick Township, and Lambton County, Ontario. Transcript of testimony under oath by Brian Howe, pg 189,191. PDF copy available on request. 169. Michaud DS, Keith SE, McMurchy D. Noise annoyance in Canada. Noise Health 2005;7:39‑47. 170. Niemann H, Maschke C. WHO LARES Final Report. Noise Effects and Morbidity. World Health Organization; 2004. Available from: https://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/105144/ WHO_Lares.pdf. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 15]. 171. Niemann H, Bonnefoy X, Braubach M, Hecht K, Maschke C, Rodrigues C, et al. Noise‑induced annoyance and morbidity results from the pan‑European LARES study. Noise Health 2006;8:63‑79. 172. WHO (World Health Organization). WHO Europe. Noise: Data and Statistics; 2011. Available from: https://www.euro.who.int/en/ health‑topics/environment‑and‑health/noise/data‑and‑statistics. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 16]. 173. Frey BJ, Hadden PI. Wind Turbines and Proximity to Homes. The Impact of Wind Turbine Noise on Health. A Review of the Literature & Discussion of the Issues; January, 2012. Available from: https:// waubrafoundation.org.au/wp‑content/uploads/2014/06/Frey‑ Hadden‑Wind‑Turbines‑Proximity‑to‑Homes. [Last accessed on 2021 Jul 29]. 174. World Health Organization. WHO Europe. Night Noise Guidelines for Europe; 2009. Available from: https://www.euro.who.int/__ data/assets/pdf_file/0017/43316/E92845.pdf. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 15]. 175. AAT (Administrative Appeals Tribunal). Waubra Foundation vs ACNC. Decision and Reasons, Summary of the Effect of the Medical and Scientific Evidence; December 04, 2017. p. 479. Available from: https://waubrafoundation.org.au/wp‑content/uploads/2017/12/ Decision‑4‑Dec‑17.pdf. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 09]. 176. Hubbard HH, Shepherd KP. Wind Turbine Acoustics. NASA Technical Paper 3057. DOE/NASA.20320‑77; 1990. Available from: https:// ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19910007366/downloads/19910007366. pdf. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 23]. 177. Hubbard HH, Shepherd KP. Response measurements for two building structures excited by noise from a large horizontal axis wind turbine generator. NASA contractor report 172482. J Acoust Soc Am 1985;77:S32. 178. Kelley ND, Hemphill RR, McKenna HE. A methodology for assessment of wind turbine noise generation. Transact ASME 1982;104:112‑20. 179. Basner M, Babisch W, Davis A, Brink M, Clark C, Janssen S, et al. Auditory and non‑auditory effects of noise on health. Lancet 2014;383:1325‑32. 180. Takahashi Y, Kanada K, Yonekawa Y, Harada N. A study on the relationship between subjective unpleasantness and body surface vibrations induced by high‑level low‑frequency pure tones. Ind Health 2005;43:580‑7. 181. Schneider P. Cullerin Range Wind Farm Survey. Technical Report (Published by the Author); 2012. Available from: https://docs. wind‑watch.org/Cullerin‑Range‑Wind‑Farm‑Survey‑August‑2012. pdf. [Last accessed on 2020 Sep 17]. 182. Cooper S. Wind farm noise – Modulation of the amplitude. Acoustics 2021;3:364‑90. Do w n l o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / j o u r n a l s . l w w . c o m / e n d i b y B h D M f 5 e P H K a v 1 z E o u m 1 t Q f N 4 a + k J L h E Z g b s I H o 4 X M i 0 h C y w C X 1 A W nY Q p / I l Q r H D 3 i 3 D 0 O d R y i 7 T v S F l 4 C f 3 V C 4 / O A V p D D a 8 K K G K V 0 Y m y + 7 8 = o n 1 2 / 1 4 / 2 0 2 3 Page 129 of 152 Dumbrille, et al.: Wind turbines: Applying Bradford Hill’s criteria for causation 86 Environmental Disease | Volume 6 | Issue 3 | July‑September 2021 APPENDIXES Appendix 1: Reports of adverse effects on animals Reported AHE of animals located near IWTs include the following: • Disturbances in animal reproduction have been reported related to wind energy facilities in Wisconsin (USA).[120,121] Reported abnormalities include teratogenic effects in cattle (missing eyes and tails); health, teratogenic and reproduction problems in a formerly award‑winning herd of cattle (cancer deaths, cows not calving properly, mutations such as absent eyeballs or tails, cows holding pregnancy only 1–2 weeks and then aborting, blood from nostrils); as well as teratogenic effects in chickens (crossed beaks, missing eyeballs, deformities of the skull, joints of feet/legs bent at odd angles) • Farmers near a wind turbine development near Goderich, Ontario, Canada, observed health problems with their livestock which began shortly after the wind turbines were installed.[122] The cattle were reported to exhibit unusually aggressive and erratic behavior, “including the kicking of newborn calves, prolapsed birthing, weight loss, decline in fertility, a high incidence of mastitis, calves being deformed at birth, and a high incidence of stillbirths” • Similar adverse health effects and excess mortalities in various animal species have been reported that were temporally coincidental with the installation of industrial wind turbines and associated generating stations, that include the following: • Cows: Reduced fertility (Canada);[123] fertility and structural issues (Japan);[125] and mortality (France)[127‑129] • Goats: Reduced fertility and health problems (Canada)[123] and mortalities in 450 of 700 (Taiwan)[130,131] • Horses: Leg deformities (Portugal)[106] • Emu: Mortalities in 30 of 38 and reduced laying (Canada)[126] • Mink: 1600 miscarriages and birth defects (Denmark)[124] • Badgers: High cortisol levels, an indicator of stress (UK)[132] • Other effects.[133] Appendix 2: Experimental evidence: Clinical studies associated with industrial wind turbines Additional clinical studies A study conducted by Smith et al.[156,157] examined the potential for nocturnal noise with the acoustical characteristics of wind turbine noise to contribute toward sleep disturbance (Wind Turbine Noise Effects on Sleep). Six young, healthy individuals spent five nights in a sound exposure laboratory. During the final three nights of the study, the participants were exposed to synthesized wind turbine noise, which was based on analysis of field measurements. Exposures involved periods of different amplitude modulation strengths, the presence or absence of beats, different blade rotational periods, and outdoor LAeq, 8 h = 45 or 50 dB with indoor levels based on the windows being fully closed or slightly open. Physiological measurements indicate that nights with low‑frequency band amplitude modulation impacted sleep the most. The amplitude modulation and the presence of beating contributed to sleep disruption, reflected by more electrophysiological awakenings, increased light sleep and wakefulness and reduced random eye movement and deep sleep. A study was performed by Pawlaczyk‑Luszczynska et al., 2010 to investigate the annoyance of low‑frequency noise (LFN) at levels normally at workplaces in control rooms and office‑like areas.[158] Two different laboratory experiments were carried out: (1) included 55 young volunteers; (2) 70 older volunteers categorized in terms of sensitivity to noise. The subjects listened to noise samples with different spectra, including LFNs at sound pressure level (SPL) of 45–67 dBA, and evaluated annoyance using a 100‑score graphical rating scale. The subjective ratings of annoyance were compared to different noise metrics. Results showed a significant influence of individual sensitivity to noise on annoyance rating for some LFNs, with no age‑related difference. Generally, over half of the subjects were predicted to be highly annoyed by LFN. Low‑frequency A‑weighted SPL (L (LFAeq, T)) and C‑weighted SPL (L (Ceq, T)) seemed to be reliable predictors of annoyance exclusively from LFN. Note that although noise limits for turbines are often regulated to be no more than an average of 40 dBA, there are fluctuations well above the level in this study. In a U.K. experiment involving the National Physical Laboratory, back‑to‑back music concerts were staged in London’s Purcell Hall.[159] The concerts were similar in all respects except that two different musical pieces in each concert were laced with infrasound. While hearing the infrasound‑laced pieces, audience members reported significantly elevated sensations of nausea, dizziness, increased heart rates, and tingling in the neck and shoulders, among other sensations. Do w n l o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / j o u r n a l s . l w w . c o m / e n d i b y B h D M f 5 e P H K a v 1 z E o u m 1 t Q f N 4 a + k J L h E Z g b s I H o 4 X M i 0 h C y w C X 1 A W nY Q p / I l Q r H D 3 i 3 D 0 O d R y i 7 T v S F l 4 C f 3 V C 4 / O A V p D D a 8 K K G K V 0 Y m y + 7 8 = o n 1 2 / 1 4 / 2 0 2 3 Page 130 of 152 Dumbrille, et al.: Wind turbines: Applying Bradford Hill’s criteria for causation Environmental Disease | Volume 6 | Issue 3 | July‑September 2021 87 Effects of high‑level LFN were examined by Takahashi et al. through measurement of human body surface vibrations at the chest and the abdomen, induced by high‑level low‑frequency pure tones. The subject rated the unpleasantness perceived during the exposure. Results revealed that the unpleasantness correlated closely with the vibration acceleration level of the vibration measured. The vibration acceleration level was not related to the loudness; the A‑weighted SPL was not related to the vibration. It was concluded that the effects of vibration should be considered when evaluating the effects of LFN.[180] A study by Weichenberger et al. investigated the brain’s response toward near‑ and supra‑threshold infrasound stimulation (sound frequency <20 Hz) under resting‑state fMRI conditions. It demonstrated that infrasound near the hearing threshold may induce changes of neural activity across several brain regions which are known to be involved in auditory processing and in emotional and autonomic control.[160] Animal studies Mikolajczak et al. studied the effect of noise generated by wind turbines on stress parameters (cortisol) and the weight gain of geese. Two groups of 40 domestic geese. (Anser anser f. domestica, 5 weeks old) were studied over 12 weeks: Group I remained within 50 m from turbine; Group II within 500 m from turbine. Measurements included noise, weight gain, and the concentration of cortisol in blood. Significant differences between groups were found in both weight gain and blood cortisol levels. Geese from Group I gained less weight (10%) and had a higher concentration of cortisol in the blood, lower activity, and behavioral changes compared to individuals from Group II. Group II had elevated blood cortisol compared to control values, indicating that they were still affected by the turbines. In addition, the stress parameters (cortisol concentration) increased with the residence time in the vicinity of the wind turbine. The study indicates that the turbines induced stress in the geese that affected their health and behavior.[162] Karwowska et al. assessed the effect of three different distances from a wind turbine (50, 500, and 1000 m) on the physicochemical properties and fatty acid composition of loin and neck muscles in reared pigs. Those reared in proximity to the turbines had lower muscle pH, heme iron, and C18:3n 3 fatty acid. This impacted their bulk and market value.[163] Concerns over women aviators of childbearing age prompted the U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory to conduct a study of chicken embryos exposed to low frequency vibration. Fertilized eggs were exposed to different levels and frequencies of whole body low frequency vibration (5–50 Hz), 3 h per day, 5 days per week. There was increased mortality and birth defects with the vibration. Mortality increased with the magnitude of the exposure. Factors associated with chicken embryo mortality were frequency, amplitude, amplitude transmission, and timing of the exposure. Teratogenic effects included crossed beaks, missing eyeballs and missing bony structures in the skull, some disorientation, muscular weakness, and malformed feet.[164] Similar effects were found by Tzvetkov et al. studying the effect of vibration of 150 Hz frequency for 3 h daily over 3 months on reproduction in female white rats. The rats were exposed up to the time when fertilization occurred (first experimental group) and up to the end of the first quarter of pregnancy (the 5th day after fertilization) (second experimental group). They were studied throughout the prenatal period and during the postnatal development of the offspring. In the second experimental group, mortality before implantation was raised by a factor 1.5–1.8; in the first group, the weight of the placenta was lower; in both groups, the weight of the fetuses was lower, there was a higher proportion of fetuses with abnormal development of parenchymal organs and bones, and on days 20 and 60 after birth, the offspring showed less motor activity. The data indicate that exposure to high‑frequency vibration before the onset of pregnancy and during the early part of pregnancy can have an adverse effect on reproduction.[165] Do w n l o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / j o u r n a l s . l w w . c o m / e n d i b y B h D M f 5 e P H K a v 1 z E o u m 1 t Q f N 4 a + k J L h E Z g b s I H o 4 X M i 0 h C y w C X 1 A W nY Q p / I l Q r H D 3 i 3 D 0 O d R y i 7 T v S F l 4 C f 3 V C 4 / O A V p D D a 8 K K G K V 0 Y m y + 7 8 = o n 1 2 / 1 4 / 2 0 2 3 Page 131 of 152 Committee of the Whole Discussion Report Page 1 of 1 Version: 2023-01 Subject: RMA Resolution Proposal Regarding Renewable Energy and Grid Stability Meeting Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2024 Prepared By: Mike Haugen, CAO Presented By: Mike Haugen, CAO RECOMMENDATION: That the Committee of the Whole recommend that Council direct staff to prepare a resolution regarding the availability of electricity from renewable energy developments for submission to the RMA 2024 Fall Convention. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: (Check all that apply) ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ High Quality Infrastructure Economic Resilience Quality of Life Effective Leadership Level of Service RELEVANT LEGISLATION: Provincial (cite)- Renewable Electricity Act: Renewable electric energy targets, ministerial duties 2(1) A target is established that at least 30% of the electric energy produced in Alberta, measured on an annual basis, will be produced from renewable energy resources. Council Bylaw/Policy (cite)- NA BACKGROUND/PROPOSAL: This item has been brought forward at the request of Reeve King. Reeve King would like Council to consider putting forward a resolution at an upcoming Rural Municipalities of Alberta Convention. DISCUSSION/OPTIONS/BENEFITS/DISADVANTAGES/OTHER CONSIDERATIONS: The specific resolution would seek to have the Province establish a minimum on demand threshold that renewable energy developments would be required to provide. Either through generation or purchase from another source. The aim of such a threshold would be to help ensure grid stability and avoid potential problems when renewable production was lower. FINANCIAL & STAFFING IMPLICATIONS: Staff time will be required to research and draft the resolution. This could be accommodated within existing resources. ATTACHMENTS: NA APPROVAL(S): Mike Haugen, Chief Administrative Officer Approved- ☒ Page 132 of 152 Kneehill County Audit planning communication to the Council for the year ended December 31, 2023 START Page 133 of 152 Back to contents To the Council of Kneehill County For the year ended December 31, 2023 We are pleased to provide you with this planning communication to highlight and explain key issues which we believe to be rel evant to the audit of Kneehill County (the “Entity”) financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2023. The enclosed planning communication includes our approach to your audit, the significant risks we have identified and the ter ms of our engagement. At the year-end meeting, we will provide you with a copy of our draft audit opinion and discuss the nature, extent and results of our audit work. We will also communicate any significant internal control deficiencies identified during our audit and rec onfirm our independence. Our audit and therefore this communication will not necessarily identify all matters that may be of interest to the Council in fulfilling its responsibilities. This communication has been prepared solely for the use of the Council and should not be distributed without our prior consent. Consequently, we accept no responsibility to a third party that uses this communication. We look forward to completing our draft audit report opinion and discussing our conclusions with you. In the meantime, please feel free to contact us if you have any questions or concerns. Yours truly, BDO Canada LLP January 16, 2024 2 | Kneehill County Page 134 of 152 For the year ended December 31, 2023 Table of Contents Audit at a glance LEAD PARTNER ON YOUR AUDIT Alan Litster CPA, CA E: ALitster@BDO.ca T: 403-342-2500 START DATE November 27, 2023 END DATE March 27, 2024 For the year ended December 31, 2023 Your dedicated BDO audit team1 4 Audit timeline2 5 Auditor's responsibilities3 6 Significant risks and planned responses4 9 Planned scope5 10 How we audit financial statements6 13 Our audit approach7 16 BDO’s digital audit suite8 17 Recommended resources9 19 Page 135 of 152 Back to contents Your dedicated BDO audit team Alan Litster, CPA, CA T: 403-342-2500 E: ALitster@BDO.ca Alan Litster will be the Engagement Partner for your assurance services. He will assume ultimate responsibility for the provision of all services, monitoring and controlling costs to ensure you receive quality, effective and value- added service. Mitchell Kennedy, CPA, CA T: 403-342-2500 E: MiKennedy@bdo.ca Mitchell Kennedy will be the Engagement Manager for your assurance services. He will assume ultimate responsibility for the provision of all services, monitoring and controlling costs to ensure you receive quality, effective and value- added service. Our independence We have complied with relevant ethical requirements and are not aware of any relationships between Kneehill County and our Firm that may reasonably be thought to bear on our independence. For the year ended December 31, 2023 4 | Kneehill County Page 136 of 152 Back to contents Audit timeline Planning and Interim fieldwork November 27, 2023 Present audit planning communication, and agreed upon fees January 16,2024 Final audit fieldwork March 25-27, 2024 Clearance meeting with Management and BDO April 8, 2024 Present final communication to Council April 23, 2024 Release of audit report April 23, 2024 BDO’S DIGITAL AUDIT SUITE APT Next Gen We use our APT Next Gen software and documentation tool to save time, streamline processes, and go paperless with your audit. LEARN MORE DISCOVER THE DIGITAL DIFFERENCE For the year ended December 31, 2023 5 | Kneehill County Page 137 of 152 Back to contents Auditor’s responsibilities: financial statements We are responsible for forming and expressing an opinion on the financial statements that have been prepared by management, with oversight by those charged with governance. The audit of the financial statements does not relieve management or those charged with governance of their responsibilities. The scope of our work, as confirmed in our engagement letter attached as Appendix A to this letter, is set out below: Year-End Audit Work Work with management towards the timely issuance of the financial statements. Provide timely and constructive management letters. This will include deficiencies in internal control identified during our audit. Present significant findings to the Council including key audit and accounting issues, any significant deficiencies in internal control and any other significant matters arising from our work. We are required to obtain an understanding of the system of internal control in place in order to consider the adequacy of these controls as a basis for the preparation of the financial statements, to determine whether adequate accounting records have been maintained and to assess the adequacy of these controls and records as a basis upon which to design and undertake our audit testing. We are required to report to you in writing about any significant deficiencies in internal control that we have identified during the audit. For the year ended December 31, 2023 6 | Kneehill County Page 138 of 152 Back to contents Auditor’s responsibilities: fraud We are responsible for planning and performing the audit to obtain reasonable assurance that the financial statements are fre e of material misstatements, whether caused by error or fraud, by: Identifying and assessing the risks of material misstatement due to fraud; Obtaining sufficient and appropriate audit evidence regarding the assessed risks of material misstatement due to fraud, throu gh designing and implementing appropriate responses; and Responding appropriately to fraud or suspected fraud identified during the audit. The likelihood of not detecting a material misstatement resulting from fraud is higher than the likelihood of not detecting a material misstatement resulting from error because fraud may involve collusion as well as sophisticated and carefully organized scheme s designed to conceal it. Behind the audit report Learn how we audit your financial statements SEE OUR PROCESS For the year ended December 31, 2023 7 | Kneehill County Page 139 of 152 Back to contents Auditor’s responsibilities: fraud Throughout our planning process, we performed risk assessment procedures and related activities to obtain an understanding of the entity and its environment, including the Entity’s internal control, to obtain information for use in identifying the risks of material misstatement due to fraud and made inquiries of management regarding: Management’s assessment of the risk that the financial statements may be materially misstated due to fraud, including the nature, extent and frequency of such assessments; Management’s process for identifying and responding to the risks of fraud in the Entity, including any specific risks of fraud that management has identified or that have been brought to its attention, or classes of transactions, account balances, or disclosures for which a risk of fraud is likely to exist; Management’s communication, if any, to those charged with governance regarding its processes for identifying and responding to the risks of fraud in Kneehill County; and Management’s communication, if any, to employees regarding its view on business practices and ethical behavior. We are not currently aware of any fraud affecting the Entity. If you are aware of any instances of actual, suspected, or alleged fraud, please let us know. For the year ended December 31, 2023 8 | Kneehill County Page 140 of 152 Back to contents Significant risks and planned responses We have identified the following significant risks that require special audit consideration. These risks were identified base d on our knowledge of the Entity, our past experience, and input from management and the Council. Please review these significant risks and let us know your thoughts on these or any other areas of concern. Financial statement areas Risks noted Audit approach Revenue Recognition There is an inherent fraud risk related to grant revenue and the recognition of the revenue. -A sample of grants received in the year will be reviewed to ensure that they are being appropriately recorded in accordance with the grant agreement. -The revenue recognition policy was reviewed to ensure it was in compliance with Public Sector Accounting Standards. -A review of the controls and processes in place will be reviewed to identify and review any potential areas of concern in the control system. Management Override of Controls Management is in a unique position to override or circumvent the controls in place. -All manual journal entries done in the year will be reviewed using analytical procedures and vouching to supporting documentation as required. -A review of the controls and processes in place will be reviewed to identify and review any potential areas of concern in the control system. Asset Retirement Obligations (ARO)Risk that new asset retirement obligation standard PS 3280 is not adopted correctly. -Review the scoping process performed by the client to identify ARO’s. -Compare scoped in assets to TCA listing to ensure all ARO’s have been identified. -Review process to determine ARO and determine if it’s in compliance with PS 3280 -Recalculate the ARO and analyze the estimated liability. For the year ended December 31, 2023 9 | Kneehill County Page 141 of 152 Back to contents Materiality We determined preliminary materiality to be $815,000, based on 2.75%of Revenue. Misstatements are considered to be material if they could reasonably be expected to influence the decisions of users based on the financial statements. Our materiality calculation is based on the Entity’s preliminary results. If actual results change significantly, we will com municate those changes to the Council as part of our year-end communication. We will communicate all corrected and uncorrected misstatements identified during our audit to the Council, other than those which we determine to be “clearly trivial.” We encourage management to correct any misstatements identified throughout the audit process. For the year ended December 31, 2023 10 | Kneehill County Page 142 of 152 Back to contents How we audit financial statements: Our audit process 1 SCOPING Complete a preliminary review to plan the audit, determine the materiality level, and define the audit scope 2 IDENTIFY AND ASSESS RISK Focus on those areas of financial statements that contain potential material misstatements as a consequence of the risks you face 3 DESIGN AUDIT PROCESS Design an appropriate audit strategy to obtain sufficient assurance and enable us to report on the financial statements 4 OBTAIN AUDIT EVIDENCE Perform audit procedures while maintaining appropriate degree of professional skepticism, to conclude whether or not the financial statements are presented fairly 5 FORM OPINION Evaluate whether we have enough evidence to conclude that the financial statements are free from material misstatement, and consider the effect of any potential misstatements found 6 COMMUNICATION Communicate our opinion and details of matters on which we are required to communicate For the year ended December 31, 2023 11 | Kneehill County Page 143 of 152 Back to contents How the firm’s system of quality management supports the consistent performance of quality audit engagements Standard for Audit Quality CSQM 1 The quality of an audit depends not only on the people conducting it—but also on the systems underpinning it. These new rules up the ante for your audit quality. The firm’s system of quality management complies with the requirements set out in Canadian Standard on Quality Management 1 –Quality Management for Firms that Perform Audits or Reviews of Financial Statements, or Other Assurance or Related Services Engagements (CSQM 1) as issued by the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (AASB). In addition to the requirements set out in CSQM 1, we may have identified additional quality objectives and potential quality risks and have designed further policies and procedures to respond to these. Taken together our system of quality management supports consistent performance of audit engagements by focusing on eight components that operate in an iterative and integrated manner. These include: 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 Firm risk assessment process Governance and leadership Relevant ethical requirements Acceptance and continuance Engagement performance Resources Information and communication7 Monitoring and remediation process 12 | Kneehill County For the year ended December 31, 2023 Page 144 of 152 Back to contents Updates to our audit process Canadian Auditing Standard 315, Identifying and Assessing the Risks of Material Misstatement, was significantly revised with a greater focus on more robust risk identification, assessment and response procedures. The standard is effective for periods beginning on or after December 15, 2021. Key enhancements include: Assessment of inherent and control risk New guidance on identifying and assessing inherent risks (risk of material misstatement without consideration of control) and control risks (risk of control not preventing or detecting material misstatement) Spectrum of inherent risk Additional requirement to assess the likelihood and magnitude of misstatement, considering how inherent risk factors impact the degree to which inherent risk varies Internal system of control Clarifying requirements on indirect and direct controls in the system of internal control and the need for evaluation of design and implementation of controls Use of technology Expanded information on the use of technology (IT environment and IT general controls) and related risks Standback More explicit standback requirement for evaluation of completeness and appropriateness of risk assessment process What’s the impact to you? More inquiry, observation, and inspection procedures, especially for risks related to the use of technology No change to communicating significant risks Audit procedures focused on addressing risks identified More consistent and effective audits with improved responses to identified risks improving audit quality for all stakeholders For the year ended December 31, 2023 13 | Kneehill County Page 145 of 152 Back to contents Our audit approach: Responsiveness in action Our firm is deliberately structured to allow one partner to every six staff members. This means easy access to senior staff and the lead partner throughout your audit. It also helps our team gain a better understanding of your organization. Our audit process differs from the typical audit in our use of in-field reviews. The benefit of these in-field reviews is that final decision-makers are on site ensuring issues are resolved and files closed quickly. We offer clients the full-service expertise of a national firm. Yet we maintain a local community focus. The comprehensive range of services we deliver is complemented by a deep industry knowledge gained from over 100 years of working within local communities. OUR AUDIT APPROACH SUPPORTS CONSISTENCY Drives consistency and quality in audit execution throughout BDO, enabling us to be responsive to your size and location needs A DIGITAL APPROACH We promote a paperless audit where we perform and document our audit and exchange information with you and your team using technology EXCEPTIONAL DELIVERY Using our highly trained teams, underpinned by an exceptionally intuitive audit methodology, to enable timely and efficient delivery of your audit Discover how we’re accelerating audit quality Audit Quality Report We collected our core beliefs around audit quality, the very practical steps we take to sustain it, and the progress we have made to accelerate its quest. Follow our progress For the year ended December 31, 2023 14 | Kneehill County Page 146 of 152 Back to contents BDO’s digital audit suite Our digital audit suite of technologies enables our engagement teams to conduct consistent risk-based audits, both domestically and internationally,with maximum efficiency and minimal disruption to our clients’ operations and people. APT Next Gen Our audit software and documentation tool, APT, is an integral part of our audit methodology. Our professionals engage APT to devise and perform appropriate, risk-based audit procedures and testing based on applicable Canadian Auditing Standards (CASs), as well as to factor in engagement and industry-specific objectives and circumstances. APT enables us to deliver an audit that fits your organization—whether large or small; complex or basic. This sophisticated tool also amplifies two key attributes of our audits: consistency and quality. The quality framework that we developed measures our audit performance with hard quality indicators and reflects our indispensable culture for quality. To see our audit quality and consistency in action, look no further than how our teams share best audit practices for continuous improvement. Through a strategic alliance with Microsoft and the introduction of new technology, this global, cloud-based application can now streamline and focus the audit process in even more ways for BDO professionals and their clients. For the year ended December 31, 2023 15 | Kneehill County Page 147 of 152 Back to contents BDO Global Portal BDO Global Portal transforms and enhances your digital experience with your BDO advisors. Available at any time, Portal enabl es you to access all services, tools, apps, and information and to collaborate with your advisors in a seamless way through a flexible, appealing, and secure environment. SECURE DOCUMENT SHARING BDO Global Portal allows BDO and the clients to collaborate securely through features like multi-factor authentication, DocuSign, data storage encryption, secure document exchange, and audit logging. ONE PLATFORM, CUSTOMER AT THE CENTRE BDO Global Portal is a customer-centric solution that reflects your needs through quarterly platform releases. SEAMLESS AND INTEGRATED EXPERIENCE BDO Global Portal is an open platform enabling firms to integrate local applications and languages. This creates a seamless and tailored experience. 24/7 ACCESS TO BDO SERVICES BDO Global Portal provides 24/7 access to BDO services, modern tools, and apps as well as insights tailored to your industry and business. ENHANCE COLLABORATION BDO Global Portal offers a real time collaboration space for BDO and its clients, including project, task and team management. NOTIFICATIONS Within the BDO Global Portal you can set the interval for when and which notifications you want to receive about the changes in the BDO Global Portal. For the year ended December 31, 2023 16 | Kneehill County Page 148 of 152 Back to contents Recommended Resource For the year ended December 31, 2023 Staying in the know with knowledge and perspective 17 | Kneehill County Key changes to financial reporting When the rules of reporting change, you may need to fine-tune how to present financial statements and govern the organization. ACCESS OUR KNOWLEDGE CENTRE The latest tax pointers Corporate. Commodity. Transfer pricing. International tax. Government programs. Together they add up to immense differences on the organization’s bottom line. Our tax collection keeps you current. STAY ON TOP OF TAXES Trending topics As a community of advisors with the best interests of our clients in mind, we keep our ear to the ground to bring insights and perspectives related to key business trends to you. Asset Retirement Obligations (ARO): A Practical Approach to Section PS 3280 This publication will walk through a practical approach to applying Section PS 3280 including: identification, recognition and measurement of an obligation, and the different options available to entities on transition. EXPLORE NOW READ ARTICLE Page 149 of 152 Back to contents Recommended Resource For the year ended December 31, 2023 Staying in the know with knowledge and perspective 18 | Kneehill County Key changes to financial reporting When the rules of reporting change, you may need to fine-tune how to present financial statements and govern the organization. ACCESS OUR KNOWLEDGE CENTRE The latest tax pointers Corporate. Commodity. Transfer pricing. International tax. Government programs. Together they add up to immense differences on the organization’s bottom line. Our tax collection keeps you current. STAY ON TOP OF TAXES Trending topics As a community of advisors with the best interests of our clients in mind, we keep our ear to the ground to bring insights and perspectives related to key business trends to you. Asset Retirement Obligations (ARO): A Practical Approach to Section PS 3280 This publication will walk through a practical approach to applying Section PS 3280 including: identification, recognition and measurement of an obligation, and the different options available to entities on transition. EXPLORE NOW READ ARTICLE Page 150 of 152 Back to contents Spotlight on ESG For the year ended December 31, 2023 19 | Kneehill County Transformative world events—an international health crisis, social movements, shareholder and investor values, global supply chains, energy transition, smart cities, and sustainable finance—are transforming Canadian business. Standards and regulations are rapidly changing to reflect the goals of all of your stakeholders. Organizations, investors, and customers are embracing environmental, social, and governance (ESG) considerations as important measures of success. Non - financial and financial information is becoming more interconnected. ESG Insights Sector insights at your convenience EXPLORE NOW Page 151 of 152 Back to contents Spotlight on public sector For the year ended December 31, 2023 20 | Kneehill County Industry insights to shape your business At BDO, we help governments create efficient ways of working to achieve better outcomes for their citizens and public servants. From technology-based solutions to program development, advisory and audit, our team can guide you through critical strategic decisions to ensure you deliver on your vision, goals, and accountability expectations. Public sector Insights Resources to support your business EXPLORE NOW Page 152 of 152