Offshore wind energy – sectoral marine plan: further research for social impact assessment

8. Conclusion

In response to the initial commission of the Scottish Government Offshore Wind Directorate on behalf of Scottish Ministers, this study met its research objectives and aims by providing further research into the social and economic impacts of OWE on coastal communities in Scotland in the following ways:

Reviewing of the findings obtained from the draft plan-level SEIA that is currently being conducted to support the Iterative Plan Review of the Sectoral Marine Plans for Offshore Wind Energy and Innovation and Targeted Oil and Gas decarbonisation. The findings of this study were that the draft plan-level SEIA largely focused on economic modelling projections while the assessment of social impacts remained at a relatively high level. In the focus groups, discourse on potential social impacts centred on a discussion of ‘social clusters’, including employment, cost of living, local services, and local identity, and identified that individuals in the East and North East and communities in the North East could experience the largest impacts. Some areas of interest were missing from the draft plan-level SEIA, such as an impact on human health or impact on groups within society that are likely to be disproportionately affected.

Building on and developing these findings further by reviewing wider academic literature and case studies on social and economic impacts on coastal communities. This wider literature review provided empirical evidence which largely supported the overall findings from the draft plan-level SEIA, but in some cases, conflicted with the draft plan-level SEIA. For example, a more nuanced and positive view on the impacts on tourism and attitudes of fishers towards OWF was found in the wider literature. On the other hand, case studies from the literature suggested that employment opportunities may be more likely to benefit workers outside Scotland than provide employment opportunities for the local workforce. An evidence gap on the impact of OWF on human health was also found.

Testing and refining the draft conclusions from the draft plan-level SEIA using primary research with members of the public and collating their views on the impacts identified and beyond. The study involved five deliberative focus groups with residents of coastal locations. Discussions were informed by an information pack summarising the draft plan-level SEIA and literature review. A change in opinions and knowledge was captured through a pre- and post-deliberation survey. The survey and discussions revealed that the majority of participants were not opposed to OWF but felt that the industry could improve the management of potential impacts. Whilst overall support for OWF increased as a result of the informed discussion, participants remained sceptical with regards to employment impacts in particular. Discussions showed that whilst most participants accepted that OWF may be developed adjacent to their communities, they emphasised that a just transition to net zero was needed to ensure positive impacts benefit the local communities. This should be done, for example, through more innovative stakeholder engagement, Community Benefit Funds, commitments to creating local social value with ambitious targets and accountability as part of each development, and potential negative impacts need to be mitigated.

Recommending improvements of the draft plan-level SEIA and project-level SEIAs, and making wider policy suggestions: The study highlighted gaps in the draft plan-level SEIA as well as the wider literature and specific recommendations on how to enhance the draft plan-level SEIA and future project-level SEIAs have been made. This includes further disaggregating findings locally, and thematically. The key recommendation is for future plan- and project-level SEIAs to involve stakeholders to scope potential impacts at an early stage, to test assumptions and to include appropriate mitigating actions. Qualitative data should be included where no quantitative data is available. The accessibility of the SEIA should be considered as currently it may be too technical for a lay audience. Lastly, projections were perceived to be too vague by participants and should, if possible, be more specific. With regards to wider policy recommendations, the study revealed that if presented with accessible information, members of the public take more interest in OWF and can develop an informed opinion. This enables them to identify positive and negative impacts and suggest appropriate mitigating actions specific to their local context. Communication and consistency of engagement can help build trust and develop sustainable solutions to sharing benefits with local communities. More research should be conducted at a larger scale to verify these findings further as this study was based on a small sample.

Limitations of this study: The findings of this study are based on the review of the draft plan-level SEIA, a wider literature review, and on the contributions of the participants of the focus groups. As with any qualitative research, the findings should not be assumed to apply to the overall population in coastal Scotland. A survey could help compare the findings against a nationally representative sample. Another limitation is that some participants may have changed their views and opinions differently, had they been provided with more time to engage with the information material. For future deliberative research, this should be considered.