The document presents a landscape and visual impact assessment of proposed 144m high wind turbines in Vorukula, Estonia, focusing on potential disturbances to the landscape and community. It evaluates the area's soil quality, road networks, settlement patterns, natural protected areas, and the visual impact on residents and the environment. Mitigation measures are suggested to reduce severe adverse impacts based on receptor sensitivity and visibility from the turbines.

1. Presented by: BHAVNA MISHRA
Department of Landscape Architecture, Estonian University of Life sciences
LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSED WIND TURBINES AT VORUKULA, ESTONIA

2. The objective of this assessment is to identify potential impact of this wind turbines which are 144m high including
the size of the blades, on the quality and character of the landscape. The study also assesses the predicted visual
disturbances that would be created by these wind turbines on people living and passing through the area. The aim
of the assessment of effects are to identify the effects of the development, estimate the magnitude of the effect,
assess the nature and significance of these effects and indicate the measures to be taken for avoiding, reducing
and compensating the effects.
TARTU

3. Position of Wind turbines in the Vorukula site

4. Extent of the area: The site at Vorukula and the areas covered within 10 km radius.
2 KM 5KM 10KM

5. STUDY OF SOIL CONDITION, ROAD NETWORKS, SETTLEMENT PATTERN, NATURE PROTECTED AREAS, FOREST
COVER, HYDROLOGY, CULTURAL HERITAGE AND PROTECTED AREAS TO DEVELOP THE LANDSCAPE CHARACTER
TYPES
1. SOIL CONDITION
The proposed wind farm area
represented mainly 5 different soil types:
1) LP- pseudopodzolic soils, 2)LPG-
pseudopodzolic gley-soils, 3)LPg- gleyed
pseudopodzolic soils, 4) GI- eluviated
gley-soils AND 5) M"'- deep swamp
soil
In view of soil types the
area is too damp and
soil is not good quality,
so area is not suitable
for cultivation. So, the
site is suitable for wind
farm.

6. 2. ROAD NETWORKS
The site is connected to one primary road
which is Tartu-Räpina-Värska highway
and it is located to north-east of the site.
In addition to the surrounding of the site
there are four asphalted roads: Vana-
Kastre-Roiu (located to north to south of
the site), Melliste-Heiti (located to east to
south of the site), Sillaotsa-Kriimani
(located to south of the site), Tõrvandi-
Roiu-Uniküla (located to south of the
site). The others are smaller and gravel
roads.
In general, the roads are poor conditions
because the roads are narrow and
curved, especially near on the site.

7. 3. SETTLEMENT PATTERN
The proposed wind farm is located in
Mäksa Parish, Võruküla village. Võruküla
village settlement is concentrated to
northwest of the site. Võruküla village
population is 47 inhabitant (2013 year
data).
Settlement around the site is distributed,
so the settlement pattern is not
clustered.

8. 4. NATURE PROTECTED AREAS
Within 2 kms, there are not so many
important nature protection and Natura
2000 areas. The nearest nature protection
areas are approximately 2-4 kilometers
away: Age oru special conservation area
(located to southwest of the site), lake
Lavatsi special conservation area (located
to southeast of the site). Kaagvere manor
park (located to north of the site).
5. FOREST COVER
In this map we can also see the forest
coverage. Near to the study area is a lot of
forest area, especially to west and south of
the site.

9. 6. THE WATER BODIES
The proposed wind farm is surrounded
with different water bodies: lakes, rivers
and streams. The nearest (~ 2 km) water
body is lake „Kaikjärv“, which is located to
east of the site. The biggest lakes are
„Poka“ and „Lavatsi“, which are located
also to east and approximately 2,5
kilometres away study area. Lake Lavatsi
has special conservation area, so it is
protected. Other water bodies located
more than 3 kilometers away study
area:1) lakes: Melliste, Kaanjärv,
Kriimani, Kitseküla, Roiu, Tammejärv,
Agali, Kurepalu artificial lake, 2)rivers:
Emajõgi, Mõra, Luutsna, 3)streams:
Melliste.

10. 7. CULTURAL HERITAGE PROTECTED
AREAS
The nearest cultural heritage area is
ohverdamiskoht "Kiigeoru hiiesalu".
Cultural heritage areas away from the site:
Ohvriallikas "Silmaläte". Ohvriallikas
"Põrguvaluläte". Linnus "Lingutusmägi".
Kivikalme "Vareslepik". Vana-Kastre
linnuse territoorium, 13-16. saj. Kaagvere
manor park buildings (Kaagvere manor
park, Mõisaase, Kaagvere mõisa kuivati,
Kaagvere mõisa valitsejamaja, Kaagvere
manor basement)

11. H
Establishment of Landscape Character types according to the site survey and Map observations.
LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AREAS
A Tartu urban and suburban character
B Oblong area of arable land and forest patches growth and industrial land use.
C Emajogi flood regime and open arable landscape
D Rolling uplands of open arable land with fragmented dense forest patches
E Rolling uplands with dense forest and no cultivated plots
F Drained flat mosaic and managed forest strip
G Uninhabited lake regime bog landscape
H Emajoe river landscape
C
H
E
H

12. H
Landscape Sensitivity, Magnitude and Significance of impact based on the Landscape Characters areas.
SENSITIVITY MAGNITUDE SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT
A HIGH NEGLIGIBLE MINOR
B MEDIUM MEDIUM MODERATE
C HIGH MEDIUM-SMALL MAJOR
D MEDIUM LARGE SEVERE
E MEDIUM MEDIUM-SMALL MINOR
F MEDIUM NEGLIGIBLE MINOR
G HIGH NEGLIGIBLE MINOR
H HIGH LARGE SEVERE

13. Landscape Sensitivity, Magnitude of impact and Significance of impact based on LCA, Manor landscapes and
landscape resources
Identification of areas
within 10 km radius

14. LCA TYPES SENSITIVITY MAGNITUDE OF IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT
A HIGH NEGLIGIBLE MINOR ADVERSE
B MEDIUM MEDIUM MODERATE ADVERSE
C HIGH MEDIUM-SMALL MAJOR ADVERSE
D MEDIUM LARGE SEVERE ADVERSE
E MEDIUM MEDIUM-SMALL MINOR ADVERSE
F MEDIUM NEGLIGIBLE MINOR ADVERSE
G HIGH NEGLIGIBLE MINOR ADVERSE
H HIGH LARGE SEVERE-ADVERSE
MANOR LANDSCAPE
LUUNJA MANOR LANDSCAPE HIGH NEGLIGIBLE MINOR ADVERSE
KAAGVERE MANOR HIGH LARGE SEVERE ADVERSE
SAARAKUSTE MANOR HIGH SMALL MODERATE ADVERSE
MAKSA MANOR HIGH SMALL MODERATE ADVERSE
KIRIMANI MANOR HIGH LARGE SEVERE ADVERSE
HASALAVA MANOR HIGH SMALL MODERATE ADVERSE
VALUED OR PROTECTED
LANDSCAPES
MAKSA CONSERVATION AREA HIGH SMALL MODERATE ADVERSE
LUUNJA MANOR PARK HIGH NEGLIGIBLE MINOR ADVERSE
ROPKA MANOR PARKS HIGH NEGLIGIBLE MONIR ADVERSE
VANA KUSTE MOISA PARK MEDIUM NEGLIGIBLE MINOR ADVERSE
EMAJOE RIVER LANDSCAPE HIGH SMALL MODERATE ADVERSE
AGE ORU CONSERVATION AREA HIGH MEDIUM MODERATE ADVERSE
POKA WATER RESERVE MEDIUM MEDIUM MODERATE ADVERSE
KONNU NATURE RESERVE HIGH SMALL MINOR ADVERSE
EASTERN SIDE BOG COAST AREA HIGH NEGLIGIBLE MINOR ADVERSE
LAKE LAVATSI MEDIUM NEGLIGIBLE MINOR ADVERSE

15. Initially the locations of the viewpoints were identified with help of Google maps and Google street view. Points
were selected and maps with field survey sheet completed. The field trips were carried out by car soon after the
materials were prepared and the places selected before were visited. The main points were visited, described and
photos taken. Some new possible points were found on the way. The information from field trip was put together
and evaluated during second group meeting. More possible viewpoints were selected with help of Google maps
and Maa- Amet. With this groundwork we analyzed our points in the virtual landscape studio to make sure our
presumptions were correct or not. Virtual studio helped us to find even more possible viewpoints. We finished layers
for landscape character assessment before our second field trip. We did another field trip and visited rest of the
viewpoints which we could access. Some of the points confirmed what we saw in visual studio and some of them
showed different thing. We came back and organized two more group meetings during which the photomontages
were done using mostly real photos as background. Sketches, maps, tables for visual impact assessment,
methodology of our group work and conclusion was done.
The Visual Impact Assessment

16. Identification of the visual resources likely to be affected occurring within the study area within 10 kms radius
.

17. RECEPTOR POSITION 1: VIEW WITHIN THE 2KM RADIUS RESIDENCE NEAR THE LEEPIKU TALU ROAD WHERE THE VISIBILITY IS PROMINENT
.
RECEPTOR POSITION 2: VIEW FROM VORUKULA SETTLEMENT AREA WITHIN 2 KMS RADIUS
RECEPTOR NO. OF VIEWS VISIBILITY TYPE DESCRIPTION OF VISIBILITY EXPERIENCE SENSITIVITY
1 MANY HIGH VORUKULA RESIDENTS, FARM WORKERS, PASSER-BYS MEDIUM
2 MANY HIGH FARM RESIDENTS, WORKERS, CAR DRIVERS MEDIUM
BEFORE
AFTER
BEFORE
AFTER

18. RECEPTOR POSITION 3: VIEW FROM THE MAJOR ROAD TO THE EAST SIDE OF THE WIND TURBINE INSTALLED AREA.
RECEPTOR POSITION 4: VIEW FROM THE NEAR BY FARM HOUSE CLOSE TO THE SITE ITOWARDS THE SOUTH SIDE.
.
RECEPTOR NO. OF VIEWS VISIBILITY TYPE DESCRIPTION OF VISIBILITY EXPERIENCE SENSITIVITY
3 FEW HIGH RESIDENTS, FARMERS, TRUCK DRIVERS LOW
4 MANY HIGH RESIDENTS, FARMERS MEDIUM
BEFORE
AFTER
BEFORE
AFTER

19. RECEPTOR POSITION 5: VIEW FROM THE MAJOR ROAD AND INFRONT OF THE ENTRANCE TO THE NEARBY RESIDENT‘S HOUSE, WIND TURBINES ARE CLEARLY
VISIBLE FROM THE WINDOW.
RECEPTOR POSITION 6: THE MAJOR ROAD CONNECTING TO MELLISTE AREA, THE VIEW WHILE LOOKING TOWARDS THE WEST.
.
RECEPTOR NO. OF VIEWS VISIBILITY TYPE DESCRIPTION OF VISIBILITY EXPERIENCE SENSITIVITY
5 MANY HIGH RESIDENTS, FARMERS, CAR USERS MEDIUM
6 FEW HIGH LIBRARY USERS, SCHOOL STUDENTS, LOCALS LOW
BEFORE
AFTER
BEFORE
AFTER

20. RECEPTOR POSITION 7: VIEW FROM THE NATURE RESERVE AREA AND LAKE, WHERE THE VISIBILITY OF WIND TURBINES ARE NEGLIGIBLE.
RECEPTOR POSITION 8: THE MINOR ROAD INSIDE THE VILLAGE DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY VIEW WHILE LOOKING TOWARDS THE SITE.
.
RECEPTOR NO. OF VIEWS VISIBILITY TYPE DESCRIPTION OF VISIBILITY EXPERIENCE SENSITIVITY
7 LESS LOW TOURISTS, FARMERS, LOCAL PEOPLE LOW
8 LESS LOW VILLAGERS, FARMERS, PASSER BYS LOW
BEFORE
AFTER
BEFORE
AFTER
NO CHANGE
NO CHANGE

21. RECEPTOR POSITION 9: LOOTVINA NATURE RESERVE AREA WITH MINOR ROADS AND ROLLING LANDSCAPE, THE WINDTURBINES ARE LOCATED TOWARDS THE
NORTH OF THE SITE.
RECEPTOR POSITION 10: VIEW FROM THE RESIDENT‘S HOUSE NEAR LOOTVINA, LOOKING AT THE WIND TURBINES MOSTLY TROUGH THE WINDOW TOWARDS THE NORTH.
.
RECEPTOR NO. OF VIEWS VISIBILITY TYPE DESCRIPTION OF VISIBILITY EXPERIENCE SENSITIVITY
9 MANY MEDIUM TOURISTS, LOCAL PEOPLE, FARMERS MEDIUM
10 FEW LOW RESIDENTS , FARMERS LOW
BEFORE
AFTER
BEFORE
AFTER
THE TURBINES HIDDEN BEHIND THE TREES
NO CHANGE

22. RECEPTOR POSITION 11: VIEW FROM THE VONNU PARK AND CHURCH AREA TOWARDS THE WIND TURBINE IN THE NORTH WEST DIRECTION.
RECEPTOR POSITION 12: VIEW FROM THE MELLISTE RAMATUKOGU, LOOKING AT THE WIND TURBINES MOSTLY THROUGH THE WINDOW TOWARDS THE WEST.
THE TURBINES HIDDEN BEHIND THE TREES
.
RECEPTOR NO. OF VIEWS VISIBILITY TYPE DESCRIPTION OF VISIBILITY EXPERIENCE SENSITIVITY
11 FEW LOW RESIDENTS, CHURCH VISITORS, TOURISTS LOW
12 FEW LOW STUDENTS, LIBRARY USERS MEDIUM
BEFORE
AFTER
THE IMAGE BEFORE WAS NOT CAPTURED AS THE SITE COULD NOT BE VISITED BY US AND IT IS
ALSO NOT APPROACHABLE BY GOOGLE STREET VIEW
AFTER
NO CHANGE

23. RECEPTOR POSITION 13: VIEW FROM THE MELLISTE RESIDENTIAL AREA LOOKING TOWARDS THE WEST TOWARDS THE WIND TURBINES.
RECEPTOR POSITION 14: VIEW FROM THE MELLISTE-VOOSPTE ROAD WHILE DRIVING TOWARDS THE WEST STRAIGHT LOOKS TOWARDS THE WIND TURBINE SITE.
.
RECEPTOR NO. OF VIEWS VISIBILITY TYPE DESCRIPTION OF VISIBILITY EXPERIENCE SENSITIVITY
13 LESS LOW RESIDENTS, FARMERS LOW
14 LESS LOW CAR USERS, TRUCK DRIVERS LOW
BEFORE
AFTER
BEFORE
AFTER
NO CHANGE
NO CHANGE

24. RECEPTOR POSITION 15: VIEW FROM THE SUDASTE AREA RESIDENT‘S WINDOW LOOKING TOWARDS THE WEST TOWARDS THE WIND TURBINES.
RECEPTOR POSITION 16: VIEW FROM THE KAAGVERE PARK AREA LOOKING TOWARDS THE SOUTH STRAIGHT TO THE WIND TURBINE SITE.
.
RECEPTOR NO. OF VIEWS VISIBILITY TYPE DESCRIPTION OF VISIBILITY EXPERIENCE SENSITIVITY
15 FEW MEDIUM RESIDENTS, LOCAL PEOPLE LOW
16 FEW MEDIUM RESIDENTS, VISITORS TO MANOR HOUSE MEDIUM
BEFORE
AFTER
BEFORE
AFTER

25. RECEPTOR POSITION 17: VIEW FROM THE KAAGVERE MANOR HOUSE LOOKING TOWARDS THE SOUTH TOWARDS THE WIND TURBINE SITE.
RECEPTOR POSITION 18:
.
RECEPTOR NO. OF VIEWS VISIBILITY TYPE DESCRIPTION OF VISIBILITY EXPERIENCE SENSITIVITY
17 LESS LOW TOURISTS AND RESIDENTS LOW
18 MANY HIGH CAR DRIVERS, TRUCK DRIVERS, TRAFFIC MANAGERS HIGH
BEFORE AND AFTER NO CHANGE FROM THIS LOCATION AS THERE IS ENOUGH TREE COVERAGE ACTING AS THE VISUAL BARRIER.
BEFORE
AFTER

26. RECEPTOR POSITION 19: VIEW FROM THE KAVASTU INDUSTRIAL AREA TOWARDS THE WIND TURBINE SITE.
RECEPTOR POSITION 20: VIEW FROM THE VANA-KASTRE-ROIU ROAD NEAR KOIVUKULA AREA HEADING TOWARDS THE SOUTH EAST.
.
RECEPTOR NO. OF VIEWS VISIBILITY TYPE DESCRIPTION OF VISIBILITY EXPERIENCE SENSITIVITY
19 FEW LOW INDUSTRY WORKERS, LOCALS LOW
20 MANY HIGH TRUCK DRIVERS, CAR USERS HIGH
BEFORE
AFTER
BEFORE
AFTER

27. RECEPTOR POSITION 21: VIEW FROM THE ARDLA NATURE RESERVE
RECEPTOR POSITION 22: VIEW FROM THE LAAMI MAJOR ROAD TOWARDS THE NOLVAKU ROAD JUNCTION LOOKS STRAIGHT TO THE WIND TURBINES CLEARLY VISIBLE.
.
RECEPTOR NO. OF VIEWS VISIBILITY TYPE DESCRIPTION OF VISIBILITY EXPERIENCE SENSITIVITY
21 LESS LOW TOURISTS, RESIDENTS, LOCAL FARMERS LOW
22 MANY HIGH TOURISTS, RESIDENTS, FARMERS MEDIUM
BEFORE
AFTER
BEFORE
AFTER
NO CHANGE

28. RECEPTOR POSITION 23: VIEW FROM THE TARTU LENNUJAAM TOWARDS THE WIND TURBINE SITE.
RECEPTOR POSITION 24: VIEW FROM THE MAJOR TARTU-RAPINA-VARSKA ROAD AT THIS POINT TOWARDS THE WIND TURBINE SITE.
.
RECEPTOR NO. OF VIEWS VISIBILITY TYPE DESCRIPTION OF VISIBILITY EXPERIENCE SENSITIVITY
23 LESS LOW AIRPORT USERS AND VISITORS LOW
24 LESS LOW TRUCK DRIVERS, CAR USERS LOW
BEFORE
AFTER
BEFORE
AFTER
NO CHANGE
NO CHANGE
IT WAS NO WHERE VISIBLE

29. RECEPTOR POSITION 25:
.
RECEPTOR NO. OF VIEWS VISIBILITY TYPE DESCRIPTION OF VISIBILITY EXPERIENCE SENSITIVITY
25 LESS LOW MUSEUM VISITORS LOW
BEFORE
AFTER
NO CHANGE

30. RECEPTOR
POSITION
NO. OF VIEWS VISIBILITY TYPE DESCRIPTION OF VISIBILITY EXPERIENCE SENSITIVITY
1 MANY HIGH VORUKULA RESIDENTS, FARM WORKERS, PASSER-BYS MEDIUM
2 MANY HIGH FARM RESIDENTS, WORKERS, CAR DRIVERS MEDIUM
3 FEW HIGH RESIDENTS, FARMERS, TRUCK DRIVERS LOW
4 MANY HIGH RESIDENTS, FARMERS MEDIUM
5 MANY HIGH RESIDENTS, FARMERS, CAR USERS MEDIUM
6 FEW HIGH LIBRARY USERS, SCHOOL STUDENTS, LOCALS LOW
7 LESS LOW TOURISTS, FARMERS, LOCAL PEOPLE LOW
8 LESS LOW VILLAGERS, FARMERS, PASSER BYS LOW
9 MANY MEDIUM TOURISTS, LOCAL PEOPLE, FARMERS MEDIUM
10 FEW LOW RESIDENTS , FARMERS LOW
11 FEW LOW RESIDENTS, CHURCH VISITORS, TOURISTS LOW
12 FEW LOW STUDENTS, LIBRARY USERS MEDIUM
13 LESS LOW RESIDENTS, FARMERS LOW
14 LESS LOW CAR USERS, TRUCK DRIVERS LOW
15 FEW MEDIUM RESIDENTS, LOCAL PEOPLE LOW
16 FEW MEDIUM RESIDENTS, VISITORS TO MANOR HOUSE MEDIUM
17 LESS LOW TOURISTS AND RESIDENTS LOW
18 MANY HIGH CAR DRIVERS, TRUCK DRIVERS, TRAFFIC MANAGERS HIGH
19 FEW LOW INDUSTRY WORKERS, LOCALS LOW
20 MANY HIGH TRUCK DRIVERS, CAR USERS HIGH
21 LESS LOW TOURISTS, RESIDENTS, LOCAL FARMERS LOW
22 MANY HIGH TOURISTS, RESIDENTS, FARMERS MEDIUM
23 LESS LOW AIRPORT USERS AND VISITORS LOW
24 LESS LOW TRUCK DRIVERS, CAR USERS LOW
25 LESS LOW MUSEUM VISITORS LOW

31. RECEPTOR POSITION
OVERALL
SENSITIVITY
MAGNITUDE SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT
1 MEDIUM LARGE Major adverse
2 MEDIUM LARGE Major adverse
3 LOW MEDIUM Minor adverse
4 MEDIUM LARGE Major adverse
5 MEDIUM LARGE Major adverse
6 LOW MEDIUM Moderate adverse
7 LOW NEGLIGIBLE Minor adverse
8 LOW NEGLIGIBLE No change
9 MEDIUM MEDIUM Moderate adverse
10 LOW SMALL Minor adverse
11 LOW NEGLIGIBLE Minor adverse
12 MEDIUM SMALL Minor adverse
13 LOW NEGLIGIBLE No change
14 LOW NEGLIGIBLE Minor adverse
15 LOW MEDIUM Minor adverse
16 MEDIUM MEDIUM Moderate adverse
17 LOW NEGLIGIBLE Minor adverse
18 HIGH LARGE Severe adverse
19 LOW NEGLIGIBLE No change
20 HIGH LARGE Severe adverse
21 LOW SMALL Minor adverse
22 MEDIUM MEDIUM Moderate adverse
23 LOW NEGLIGIBLE No change
24 LOW NEGLIGIBLE No change
25 LOW NEGLIGIBLE Minor adverse

32. CUMULATIVE LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT
The cumulative landscape and visual effect may result from an individual project that is being assessed interacting with the
effects of other proposed development in the area. It was found at the site and surrounding landscape that there was no
such development occurring that significantly will alter the skyline.
The visual impact of wind turbines together towards north and north east of the site interacts with the forest covered elevated
ground and industrial chimneys which may reduce the severity of visual impact wind turbines. There are many
telecommunication masts visible and form important feature of this skyline.
There may be an incremental change in the landscape and visual impact when all wind turbines are installed and become
fully operational. There may be a cumulative landscape and visual impact of building other infrastructure such as power
houses and maintenance tracks to the wind turbine location.
Wind turbine proposed at Vorukula are on the forest cover or just on the edge, so has a unique character in the area. It’s a
wet forest patch where the installation of wind turbine would lead to clearing of forest which would lead to permanent loss of
forest, however it doesn’t have many significant areas of impact.

33. MITIGATION MEASURE
The mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the impact of wind turbine on specific receptors. Mitigation
measures can be selected based on the sensitivity of the receptor and the magnitude of change that specific
turbine impose on the receiving environment.
The mitigation measures for sever adverse impact on the receptors located within 0-2 Km follows:
1, 2,3- Hedge and tree plantation, 4,5- hedge, tree planting and change of colour of the turbine, 6- hedge, tree
planting and suitable colour of turbine,
The mitigation measures for severe adverse impact on the receptors within 2-5 Km follows:
16- Tree planting in the park edge and change of colour of turbines, 15, 12,13- suitable colour of turbine
depending on the back ground. 8,7- No significant impact as the area doesn’t allow visibility due to forest
coverage.
The mitigation measures for severe adverse impact on the receptors within 5-10 Km follows:
18, 20- In the major adverse situations where they face the clear visibility of turbines, where turbines can be
coloured and there shoul be road plantation. 9- change of colour of blades can make some difference to the
impact.
The receptors have moderate adverse impact on receptors can consider change of colour and road side
plantation as effective mitigation measure. The receptors receiving minor impact can be mitigated through
hedge and tree planting along the road or near houses and change of colour of turbine.