Fig 1.
Operating wind turbines and power transmission lines in 2017 in Lithuania.
Size of circles indicates energy capacity in MW; capacities of overlapping wind farms were summed for the presentation on this map.
Fig 2.
Logical scheme of estimations used to evaluate conflicts between wind power development and wildlife conservation in this study.
Table 1.
Input parameter and results of the integrated assessment of wind energy development and conflicts with wildlife in different municipalities.
Table 2.
Description of wildlife sensitivity and scores for the final evaluation.
Table 3.
Characteristics of breeding bird species for the estimation of sensitivity to wind power.
Table 4.
Scores of conservation status and sensitivity to wind energy development for bats.
Table 5.
Characteristics of migratory bird species for estimation of sensitivity to wind power.
Table 6.
Matrix for conflict estimation among perspectives of wind energy development and wildlife sensitivity.
Fig 3.
Wind direction and speed parameters in 2016 in different parts of Lithuania.
A – scale parameter; k – shape parameter; U – wind speed (m/s), P – wind power density (W/m2).
Fig 4.
Perspectives of wind development (A), wildlife sensitivity to wind power (B), and assessment of their conflicts in Lithuania (C).
Fig 5.
Cumulative sensitivity to wind power effects for species that are both breeders and migrants.
Fig 6.
Wind energy development situation in Kalvarija municipality.
Solid colored lines represent wind resources from the lowest (green) to the highest wind speed (red); grey polygons mark planned zones for wind energy development, blue dashed lines represent high voltage grid lines.