Abstract
Offshore wind is a major, dynamic, and rapidly evolving renewable energy industry, and a vital element in the transition to a greener energy economy. This is particularly so in Europe, and especially so in the UK. Offshore wind farms (OWFs) are increasingly large, and have a range of biophysical and socioeconomic impacts. This study is part of the European Offshore Wind Deployment Centre (EOWDC) Environmental Research and Monitoring Programme supported by Vattenfall. The research focus is on the impacts of OWFs on local tourism and recreation activities in adjacent coastal communities.The conventional wisdom on such impacts is mixed and unclear. Are impacts generally positive, or might they be negative and a deterrent to visitors and locals alike? The research includes three core elements:
In Section 2, a literature review sets out some of the findings from recent academic articles and professional and industry reports on the impacts of OWFs on local tourism and recreation. The focus of the literature is on the perceived impacts of operational OWFs, with much less on the construction stage and on hard evidence of actual impacts. Whilst impacts vary from stakeholder to stakeholder, findings from the literature indicate that the overall impact of OWFs on tourism appears relatively benign, and in sometimes positive. In some cases, OWFs may be a tourism attractant by virtue of their modern, innovative and novelty factors, and have a positive impact on tourism. There are several examples of attempts to use initiatives to promote the virtues of OWFs, such as visitor centres, viewing platforms and boat trips, although hard evidence on effectiveness of such initiatives is limited.
Section 3 includes a review of secondary sources on the predicted impacts of actual OWF projects, drawing on a content analysis of Environmental Statements (ESs) and various associated reports for major OWF developments in the UK and in a number of EU states. Tourism is an important impact topic in almost all of the ESs reviewed, and is usually included with socio-economic factors, with visual impact at the forefront. The ESs largely predict no impact or minor/negligible impact concerning both tourism and recreation, and there are several examples of predicted positive impacts. The research shows that, certainly for UK OWFs, the use of community benefits initiatives is a previously hidden and unreported dimension to the impacts of OWFs especially on local recreation.
Section 4 includes a small number of UK case studies of specific OWF project coastal locations that provide a primary and more detailed examination, by direct survey, of impacts and of mitigation and enhancement responses to those impacts. A macro-survey of key onshore agencies for a wide set of UK OWF locations provides little evidence of any negative effects of OWFs on either tourism or recreation activities. Indeed, there are more comments on positive impacts, including on boat trips, visitor centres and angling, all set in the wider context of the importance of such developments in the transition towards renewable energy. A micro-survey focuses on a small sample of relatively near-coast OWF locations across the British nations with: Aberdeen (Scotland), Scroby Sands (Great Yarmouth, England), Rampion (Brighton, England) and Gwynt-y-Mor (North Wales). Aberdeen, as the key location from previous research, was the main study. Again, the responses are either neutral or positive, with very few negative comments. The positive comments cover several themes: visually attractive OWF; positive symbol of/local pride in renewable energy initiative; local/school educational links and potential; plus harbour/boat tours.
A final Section 5 draws together some key conclusions from the research studies. All three elements show similar findings; whilst impacts vary from stakeholder to stakeholder, the overall impacts of OWFs on tourism and recreation appear relatively benign, and in some cases, positive. Surprisingly, given the increasing incidence of the use of community benefits funds, especially in relation to UK OWF projects, there is very little mention, both in the literature and from our case studies, of the positive impacts of such funds on local recreational activities.
The report concludes with some recommendations for future good practice, including the importance of early engagement and planning to both mitigate negative effects on tourism and recreation and enhance potential positive impacts, plus the need for significant commitment, especially between the OWF developer and local authorities/agencies, to support enhancement measures such as visitor centres. Community benefit schemes also provide the potential to support local tourism and especially recreation facilities, with a focus on sustainability initiatives; they would benefit from a much higher profile from developers and local authorities/agencies. Finally, the monitoring of hard evidence on changing tourism and recreation impacts over time, and their auditing against predictions, is important for better managing impacts and for improving predictions for future OWF projects.