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

4. Desk-based review of the draft plan-level SEIA and wider literature

Introduction

With the purpose of informing the deliberative focus groups and identifying the key projected and experienced impacts of OWF on coastal communities, the desk-based review consisted of two parts:

Part A: The review of the draft plan-level SEIA to support the Iterative Plan Review of the Sectoral Marine Plans for SMP-OWE and INTOG. The draft plan-level SEIA was prepared by an independent contractor.^[2] At the time this desk-based review was undertaken (September 2023), the draft plan-level SEIA was emerging and in draft format. Therefore, the information contained within the review presented below is based on draft forecasts and estimates. These may be subject to change prior to the publication of the draft plan-level SEIA.

Part B: To supplement the review of the draft plan-level SEIA, a wider review of literature on the social and community impacts related to OWF and renewable energy developments was undertaken by AECOM. The aim of this was to establish a comprehensive overview of potential social and economic impacts, as well as social and economic impacts that have been identified through evaluation of existing offshore wind developments. It also allowed for exploration of gaps identified resulting from the draft plan-level SEIA.

Part A: Review of the draft plan-level SEIA

The draft plan-level SEIA presented projections of the potential social and economic impacts associated with implementing the SMP. This chapter presents a review of the draft plan-level SEIA with the aim of:

• Exploring the current socio-economic context for OWF developments; and
• Identifying where evidence gaps may exist.

The development of the draft plan-level SEIA

The methodology used for developing the draft plan-level SEIA was entirely desk-based and built on comparable studies and previous Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) for offshore developments. It followed Scottish Government guidance on the Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment and HM Treasury’s Green Book methodology. It included the following:

• Scenarios relating to future offshore wind development, to establish potential scale, spatial footprint, future technologies, indicative programme for deployment and supply chain development;
• Scoping to identify relevant marine activities and interaction pathways for inclusion in the assessment;
• Assessment period of 50 years, from 2023–2072, using 2022 prices;
• Establishing a baseline for marine activities;
• Assessing negative economic impacts to marine activities in terms of increased operating costs, direct gross value added (GVA) impacts, and impacts that are identified but not quantified;
• Assessing positive economic impacts from spend on offshore wind and supply chain development;
• Assessing knock-on social impacts on individuals, communities and society (positive and negative) from the previous two impacts; and
• Assessing cumulative and combined impacts.

Social and economic impacts were projected for three scenarios – low, central and high to reflect the scale of capacity and spatial footprints of all potential developments. The projections are cast for OWE and INTOG separately.These were based on the defined Option Agreement and Exclusivity Agreement areas, and the potential installed capacity and types of technologies from the award announcements, supplemented by additional information provided by ScotWind developers through a targeted Call for Evidence in October 2022. This encompasses a total of 27.6 GW of capacity for SMP-OWE and 5.4 GW for INTOG.

The draft plan-level SEIA's analysis of social impacts was centred on a discussion of ‘social clusters’ linked to national indicators and sustainable development goals from the National Performance Framework. This assessment approach was derived from the Marine Scotland and Sciencewise (2022) commission “A two way Conversation with the People of Scotland on the Social Impact of Offshore Renewables”. The clusters with identified impacts included, but were not limited to: family life, employment, cost of living, local industry, community sustainability, transport connections, local identity and cultural heritage. Impacts on individuals were expected to be largest in the East and North East and lowest in the West, while impacts on communities were anticipated to be largest in the North East and significant impacts also observed in the North and Shetland.

The following sections summarise the projections of social impacts on individuals and communities identified in the draft plan-level SEIA by central themes for exploration in focus group discussions.

Local businesses/ economy

To identify the potential social impacts of OWE developments, the draft plan-level SEIA considered relevant marine activities and interaction pathways, particularly in the context of negative economic impacts such as increased operating costs and direct gross value added (GVA) impacts.

Both negative and positive impacts were identified. On the negative side, wider port and harbour activities resulting from OWE developments and INTOG were identified as generating negative in-combination impacts on local businesses.

The draft plan-level SEIA also reported that the direct negative GVA impacts on commercial fisheries comprised the majority of the potential cost impacts associated with OWE, predominantly in the North East area. Smaller negative economic impacts were identified for tourism, telecom cables and recreational boating. Commercial shipping contributed the largest potential cost impact associated with INTOG. However, the draft plan-level SEIA indicated that knock-on social impacts associated with economic losses in these industries required exploration.

Further potentially negative effects of renewable energy development on aquaculture, fisheries, oil, gas and shipping were mentioned. In particular, the negative in-combination impacts on fisheries might include changes to the cost-revenue profile, conflict with other vessel types, reduced efficiency of operation, increasing carbon emissions and seabed impacts. For example, the value of landings potentially affected by SMP, INTOG, existing and planned OWF, and proposed Offshore Marine Protected Area management measures was estimated at £11,925,970 over 50 years. It was not projected that this full value would be lost as some catches would move to other areas.

On the positive side, the concentration of OWE and INTOG in the East and North Eastern regions was projected to have the potential to generate in-combination impacts on other local sectors, such as aviation, power interconnectors and commercial shipping.

The draft plan-level SEIA identified potential mitigation strategies to reduce consequential impacts across sectors. This includes early engagement with affected sectors, use of smaller turbines to reduce visual impacts, burial of cables to sufficient depth or fishing-friendly cable protection and turbine foundations with minimal footprint.

The draft plan-level SEIA reported positive impacts of OWE developments, with the concentration of OWE developments in the East and North East Option Agreement areas experiencing the largest positive cost impacts. In the East, £5,000 million - £6,300 million in direct total GVA is expected to generate from OWE and £3,000 million - £3,800 million in the North East. These coastal regions are expected to experience the highest positive GVA impacts per year as a result of the concentration of construction and installation activities between 2029 and 2033. The direct positive cost impacts associated with INTOG ranged from £180 million in the East to up to £1,700 million total GVA in the North East.

The draft plan-level SEIA indicated that both positive and negative social impacts emerging as a result of economic gain across the construction, installation and operation of OWE and INTOG required further exploration.

Employment

The assessment of economic impacts within the draft plan-level SEIA projected 11,000 to 14,000 full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs^[3] expected in the direct supply chain for OWF in Scotland in any given year of the appraisal timeframe. The largest regional employment impacts associated with OWE were anticipated in the East. Employment impacts directly resulting from INTOG are 1,800 to 2,300 maximum full-time equivalent jobs. The North East was estimated to have the largest employment impacts associated with INTOG.

As a result of OWE and INTOG potential for increasing skilled job provision, the draft plan-level SEIA anticipated increased wealth of local coastal communities as a direct result of higher incomes and an indirect result of increased local spending. The new highly paid jobs within the renewable energy sector would generate larger disposable income for both local and relocated employees through reducing the net income spent on housing, food and fuel. This employment was projected to also likely reduce relative poverty. A knock-on effect of the rise in disposable income was idenfitied in the draft plan-level SEIA as increased spending on local in-land businesses and improved community sustainability. The increased wealth generated as a result of OWE and INTOG developments could improve happiness and mental health for populations residing within the coastal communities and neighbouring towns.

However, it is recognised in the draft plan-level SEIA that OWE and INTOG may catalyse job losses across local industries if their operations are compromised. In particular, a potential reduction in fish landing would result in a loss of FTE jobs within the fishing industry. The draft plan-level SEIA estimated that between 2023-2072, 57-81 FTE jobs may be lost through the direct and indirect impacts of SMP-OWE^[4] while 6.7-9.6 FTE jobs could be lost as a direct and indirect result of INTOG.^[5] This loss of employment could have knock-on effects for associated industries, such as the catching sector and those servicing the industry, such as transportation of landings and logistics. Thereby, those employed in the fishing industry and related sectors not taking up new and higher paid employment opportunities from OWE developments could experience wealth inequality as a result of unemployment.

The draft plan-level SEIA identified community engagement as an avenue for establishing effective mitigation strategies to minimise the negative impacts on employment, particularly considering the location and design of cable routes. It suggested that it should be communicated to stakeholders that although job loss is unavoidable, mitigation can minimise the severity of this impact.

Cost of living

The draft plan-level SEIA identified that the offshore wind industry could generate a negative cost of living impact as a result of increased income and in-migration.

The uptake of high-paid green jobs could increase inflationary pressures within local communities and drive up the cost of living. This impact would be felt across the whole population, however disproportionate negative outcomes are likely amongst low-income households and those who are not able to take up better paid employment. Consequently, wealth inequality is anticipated to increase within coastal communities impacted by new offshore wind developments.

The housing market could face increasing demand as a result of in-migration relating to OWE employment opportunities. Better paid job creation is a positive social impact, however the increased population within coastal towns is expected to drive up competition and house prices within local markets. Thereby, local residents not taking up new or higher paid employment may be priced out of the local housing market and be forced to rely on below standard housing.

Local services

The draft plan-level SEIA estimated the number of people that could relocate into communities across the Option Agreement Areas as a result of relocated jobs, assuming 2.13 people per household including the person taking up the job. It was estimated that 10,000-22,000 people could move into communities in the East; 8,300-17,000 people could move into the Northeastern region; 4,000-8,300 into the North; 900-1,900 into the West; and 2,600-5,400 into the Shetland Islands.

This has the potential to add pressure on local services. Coastal communities are expected to experience an in-migration of labour to take up new green jobs, which would place increased demand on current infrastructure and services, such as transport, education and healthcare. For example, the increased demand on healthcare could exacerbate long wait times for General Practitioner services, including mental health services. The increased pressure on local services could negate the positive social impacts resulting from improved wealth within these communities and may even result in forced relocation of local residents. Whilst not explicitly stated in the draft plan-level SEIA, this could have potential implications on public health if medical appointments are unavilable.

However, on the other hand, the in-migration of workers and their families could encourage investment into the local area and the development of community services to facilitate increased numbers.

Therefore, an influx of people into communities could be seen as having both potential positive and negative outcomes, which must be balanced in any assessment. Engagement at the project level would be required to identify specific impacts relevant to affected communities and map out the projected impacts on local services.

Infrastructure

The draft plan-level SEIA indicated that the development of OWE sites would require some new infrastructure, including cable routes and sub-stations. The construction and operation of this infrastructure might be associated with negative impacts on the landscape and transport services. However, the provision of onshore infrastructure was yet to be confirmed so the significance of these impacts could not be assessed.

In terms of ports and harbours, the draft plan-level SEIA identified the potential of increased vessel traffic and activity during the construction and operation of OWF. For example, ports and harbours could experience temporary disruption during cable installation and could impact the fisheries sector which rely on port and harbour facilities. However, following completion, the level of construction traffic and activities were expected to reduce other than routine maintenance, including wet storage of turbines.

Socio-cultural impacts

The draft plan-level SEIA identified that in terms of socio-cultural impacts, increased disposable income created through FTEs in the offshore wind sector could encourage spending within local creative and cultural industries. In-migration could further support local cultural industries and establish greater interest in the culture and history of the community. The draft plan-level SEIA estimates a total GVA impact of £890 million - £1.1 billion for creative industries and between £1.3 billion - £1.7 billion for cultural industries. These socio-cultural benefits were expected to be highest where there was a greater propensity to spend, such as where new jobs were concentrated and increased disposable income was highest.

However, in-migration could catalyse a reduced sense of identity and be perceived as changing the local culture and traditions. In particular, the relocation of workers and families into areas where new green jobs are available could reduce the population who actively speak Gaelic which is more common in the North and North East of Scotland than in other parts of Scotland covered in the draft plan-level SEIA.

Recreation

The draft plan-level SEIA indicated that the offshore wind industry was anticipated to reduce the sea area available for recreational activities. The draft plan-level SEIA calculated the total negative cost impact to recreational fishing across the 50-year assessment period: within the North this sits between £1,918 - £2,740 across three scenarios and between £8,780.1 - £12,543 in the West. The potential impact on other watersports could not be quantified, as there was little information available to determine the current value of these watersports or the potential impact of offshore wind development.

However, the draft plan-level SEIA recognised that kitesurfing, windsurfing, stand up paddleboarding, kayaking and canoeing were recreational activities taking place inshore of the potential offshore wind development sites. These activities could be negatively impacted by the development of offshore wind, either directly through displacement or changing wind and wave patterns. These impacts were not anticipated to generate economically significant impacts locally, regionally or nationally, however the wider local level impacts needed to be explored through project-level engagement.

Part B: Wider literature review

This section presents a review of wider literature on social and community impacts related to OWF and renewable energy developments. The literature review was conducted by AECOM following the review of the draft plan-level SEIA to address gaps in existing evidence. This recognised the high level nature of the draft plan-level SEIA and its focus on economic impacts as well as the fact that impacts of offshore wind developments on the human environment, and the local and regional coastal communities adjacent to the projects are vastly under-researched (Glasson et al., 2022b). Criteria used to identify relevant evidence for the literature review included:

Search terms of “social/ health/ tourism/ community/ culture/ employment/ economy/ skills/ housing/ distributional effects and offshore wind farms” as informed by Glasson’s et al. (2022b) impact review;

Prioritisation of academic and grey literature from Scotland and the rest of the UK, but supplemented with international literature;

Most recent literature of the past 10 years was prioritised, but no cut-off defined.

However, it should be noted that evidence on the social and economic impact of OWF on communities was limited and often outdated. As such, evidence on onshore wind farms was included in this review wherever applicable.

Local economy and employment

Studies in Scotland, Wales and Ireland presented evidence that OWF impact direct and indirect employment through local manufacturing, construction, operation and maintenance opportunities (Alem, et al., 2020). Wider studies concluded that foreign investment tends to outweigh local opportunities during the construction phase. For example, the turbine itself composes the largest capital cost and is typically imported, in addition to on-site installation personnel being employed from the turbine manufacturer (Glasson et al., 1988). Thus, the evidence on local employment benefits was mixed. Whilst some elements appeared to benefit the local economy, the largest capital cost and associated labour can be imported and this does not tend to benefit the local economy directly.

Marine Scotland and Sciencewise (2022) undertook a project to inform the conceptual framework of clusters of “social values” used to support the assessment of social impacts within the draft plan-level SEIA. The framework intended to be used to help to make social impact assessments more true to life, based on lived experience and also illustrates the use of the public dialogue methodology for community engagement. The public dialogue expressed concerns that employment opportunities could compromise community sustainability and resilience. Participants perceived that local people would be outcompeted when accessing new green jobs and barriers to employment should be minimised to retain young talent within coastal communities. Thereby, local residents felt that opportunities from offshore renewable developments should be localised and guaranteed for locals (Marine Scotland and Sciencewise, 2022, p. 61).

On occasion, renewable energy developers preferred to bring in teams of experienced and technical experts to fill new job roles within construction contracts. This is to ensure value and reduction of risk as documented in the newly introduced supply chain commitments which detail how products, materials, and labour are sourced to develop, manufacture, construct, and operate the offshore wind projects (Crown Estate Scotland, 2023b). Coastal communities are likely to benefit from training provision and employment in maintaining and managing new renewable wind infrastructure during its operating life (Marine Scotland and Sciencewise, 2022).

The short-term nature of construction related employment was perceived to disadvantage small coastal towns through creating a ‘boom and bust’ scenario (Marine Scotland and Sciencewise, 2022). Sudden changes in the job market can be a cause for concern in small and more sensitive communities. However, the delivery of training could enable local residents to upskill and become long-term employees with beneficial transferable skills that could improve their employability in the future. Several participants of this research confirmed that they would undertake training or upskilling for a job in renewable energy.

Whilst at the time of the review there was no statistical evidence of the long-term employment benefits of the offshore wind industry, the Aberdeen Offshore Wind Farm case study presented evidence of short-term construction employment opportunities. This study revealed that in the context of a short construction period and small-scale nature of this project, the majority of labour was already employed and experienced (Glasson, et al., 2022a). For example, 50% of the construction workers were Dutch which reflected the nationality of the construction contractor and the main benefits of the offshore construction stage were experienced by individuals residing outside Aberdeen.

Marine Scotland and Sciencewise (2022) research recognised the wider implications of the offshore wind industry on local businesses. Knock-on effects of relocated labour could benefit businesses within the coastal area, especially small businesses which could be sustained for future generations. Contrastingly, unemployment in local industries was identified by participants. In particular, the potential loss of employment in fisheries was anticipated should small boats be obliged to change routes or become excluded from sea areas to facilitate OWE infrastructure.

The impact of new infrastructure (such as cables) on shipping and fisheries was unclear. Cables are typically buried to 1-4m below seabed to ensure long-term cable integrity and to prevent damage by fishing vessels, ship anchors or seabed movement (The Crown Estate and the Offshore Renewable Energy Catapult, 2019). Burial depths are determined based on an industry standard (burial protection index and/or cable burial risk assessment). However, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency advises that in view of the serious consequences resulting from damage to submarine cables, vessel operators should take special care when anchoring, fishing, dredging, or engaging in underwater operations near areas where these cables may exist or have been reported to exist.

A postal survey revealed that neutral or positive attitudes towards offshore renewable energy developments are held by the majority of fishers (81%) (Alexander et al., 2013a). The diversification of rural island economies, employment, wealth growth and further socioeconomic benefits were recognised as potential impacts of offshore energy. Further interviews with fishers anticipated a loss of earnings and time through the deployment of marine renewable energy devices in the most productive fishing grounds (Alexander et al., 2013b). The displacement of fishing sites could increase travel distances, spend on fuel and competition. The proximity and awareness of nearby developments was identified as an influence on attitudes. For example, fishers operating from island ports, who are less exposed to current offshore developments, were more likely to have positive attitudes than those living on the mainland, who were likely to live in close proximity to developments. Despite the negative attitudes, the majority of fishers recognised there is a need for offshore renewable energy developments. It should be noted that at the time of writing, these studies (Alexander et al., 2013a and 2013 b) were undertaken 10-years ago and the perceptions of fishers’ may have changed since.

Distributional Impacts - Community Benefit Funds

Distributional impacts in the context of new transmission and electricity infrastructure are defined as policies intending to redistribute funds from all electricity consumers to communities that host new transmission network infrastructure (Department for Energy Security & Net Zero, 2023). With the aim of enabling communities to benefit, funding from developers to local communities living in closest proximity to the development can be allocated through what is known as 'Community Benefit Funds' (Cowell, et al., 2012). The Energy and Climate Change Directorate (2019) define community benefits as voluntary initiatives for communities “to build a lasting relationship with the renewables industry that supports Scotland’s transition to a low carbon future".

Cowell et al. (2012) Milbourne (2011) and Zsamboky et al. (2011) proposed that the location of onshore and offshore renewable wind developments is important when considering the impacts on local communities. These developments are typically located in geographically isolated areas that are reliant on low-paid seasonal workers, experience higher than average deprivation, youth outmigration and have ageing populations. Developments gravitate towards remote areas with high levels of wind and previously industrialised environments which already have supporting infrastructure. Cowell et al. (2012) emphasised the importance of delivering long-term resilience to these disadvantaged communities through benefits schemes.

The level of funding provided by onshore wind projects is typically defined by £ per megawatt of installed capacity per annum. Typically, these funds are allocated in response to community needs, for example on sports equipment, social activities, educational opportunities and sustainable energy measures (Cowell et al., 2012). The Energy and Climate Change Directorate (2019) have committed to promoting community benefits at a value equivalent to £5,000 per installed megawatt per annum. The Scottish Government Community Benefit Register confirmed that 214 onshore projects are currently offering community benefits packages from Onshore Renewable Energy and over £15 million in community benefits have been paid in the last 12 months from 2018-2019.

The community benefits provided by the developer Centrica across three OWF on the east coast of England were shaped by community consultation to understand the needs of the area and potential impacts of the project. These OWF are located in close proximity to socially and economically disadvantaged communities (Lincolnshire Research Observatory, 2011), some of which are vulnerable to sea level rise (Zsamboky et al., 2011). Consequently, the community benefits delivered included school visits from a local environmental educationalist to educate children on wind energy projects and a £115,000 donation to the Gibraltar Point nature reserve to boost tourism (Cowell et al., 2012). Later disruption in Skegness from installing electrical cable connections led to the developer funding heating and hot-water systems in the local community centre.

Community engagement with the intent to improve social outcomes was significant in empowering communities and generating positive perceptions of wind farms and energy more widely. Aitken, Hagget and Rudolph (2014) concluded that public engagement tended to generate the most social acceptance when it verbally engaged with the community, adapted the proposed scheme as a result and recorded how community concerns were being addressed. The Energy and Climate Change Directorate (2019) encouraged consultation with affected communities at an early and pre-consent stage as best practice to build mutual trust in the development process.

However, the scale at which Community Benefit Funds are managed is an important consideration in enabling positive impacts to be shared across the local community. The cost of managing this community funding in small communities could outweigh the funding benefits (Cowell, 2012). Additionally, it is challenging to objectively define the boundaries that define the ‘locality’ of a development and who is eligible to benefit from any benefit provision (Devine-Wright and Sherry-Brennan, 2019). The parish-level focus of funding could neglect structural vulnerabilities affecting the wider area and other constituencies who use the parish resources but do not live within the defined boundaries (Cowell, 2012).

Community Sustainability

In the literature review, themes such as housing, energy prices, local services and redevelopment initiatives were discussed more widely under the topic of community sustainability. The literature highlighted that potential new employment opportunities and investments as a result of OWF could help create more sustainable communities. However, at the same time, OWF could increase pressure on local services and infrastructure.

For example, in Marine Scotland and Sciencewise (2022) research, participants identified how new employment opportunities and related upskilling could help sustain coastal communities. Since rural locations are vulnerable to depopulation, participants expressed concern that if the number of inhabitants was not increased the community may become unsustainable. The development of the offshore wind industry offers valuable employment opportunities that could encourage the relocation of workers and their families. Despite these potentially positive impacts, older participants expressed concern for the natural environment, local resources, types of employment and benefits from OWE developments for future generations (Marine Scotland and Sciencewise, 2022). The legacy of OWE developments was considered an important social impact for consideration.

With regards to local services, other participants of the study expressed concern that already stretched resources could experience further strain through relocated jobs increasing local populations (Marine Scotland and Sciencewise, 2022). This was echoed by a case study in Argyll where up to 300 additional residents were expected to arrive on the island in phases over a five-year period from 2010-2015 as a result of offshore wind, dependent on partners and families joining and if local residents were directly employed (Argyll Renewables Communities, 2010). This study perceives significant consequences for housing, water, sewerage, schooling and transport as well as potential impacts on the island's social, cultural and architectural heritage.

Wider local service impacts were perceived as a result of OWE development’s reliance on current transport networks including road, rail and ports. The offshore wind industry in Argyll demonstrated the potential for interference with shipping routes and increased capacity for ferry, road and air transport. Consequently, space for local people travelling by air or ferry was limited while congestion increased alongside the risk of accidents (Argyll Renewables Communities, 2010).

However, studies recognised that investment from the offshore wind industry could fund redevelopment initiatives within the local area. For example, in Argyll desk-based research and consultation with developers perceived that new OWF developments could increase interest in upgrading port facilities (Argyll Renewables Communities, 2010). In Stornoway for example, the new Deep Water Terminal will accommodate offshore wind farm vessels, and additionally, also be suitable to serve large cruise liners, which is expected to help boost the islands’ tourism industry (Stornoway Port Authority, 2022). Development of the terminal will also increase the capabilities and flexibility of the Arnish fabrication yard at Stornoway. Further, the Masterplan for Orkney Harbours sees the development of new harbour facilities to service the new offshore wind industry, but also benefit the wider economy (Orkney.com, 2023). In the US, a new port is being developed at the New London State Pier facility to serve the expanding offshore wind industry whilst also promoting local economic development, job creation, and community benefits (Agerbæk et al., 2022; Memija, 2023).

Similarly, participants from coastal locations across Scotland anticipated that OWE developments could aid the improvement of local transport and technology with knock-on effects on local businesses trade and facilitating recreational, sporting and cultural events (Marine Scotland and Sciencewise, 2022). These redevelopment opportunities are dependent on the actions of the offshore wind developer. Should the developer not take responsibility for upgrading the transport system, the local area could experience deterioration and existing connections may have to operate beyond capacity.

Further discussions in Marine Scotland and Sciencewise (2022) report expressed uncertainty regarding the impact on energy prices. Some participants perceived beneficial impacts of a reduction in energy prices for local residents where OWE developments are in close proximity. However, participants in Islay expressed concerns that developers may choose to increase prices in the long term and increase the local cost of living. Many participants requested further information on the impact of renewables on energy prices. The Contracts for Difference (CfD) mechanism implemented by UK Government prevents costs from rising as it provides investors with certainty over the future of their investments, with a fixed price for each MWh of electricity they generate (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, 2023).

Literature exploring OWE development’s impact on housing prices was limited and contradictory. Available studies of the perceived impacts echoed the potential for inflationary pressures to increase house prices outlined in the draft plan-level SEIA. For example, Environmental Statements have expressed community concerns regarding the devaluation of properties as a result of visible offshore wind (Glasson et al., 2022a). However, empirical studies concluded no significant evidence of house price depreciation as a result of visual OWF’s from the property or the nearest beach (Jensen et al., 2018).

Alem et al. (2020) reviewed empirical evidence assessing the impact of onshore wind developments and drew implications about offshore impacts from this. The review defined an 8-14km sphere of influence within which onshore wind developments could act as a negative influence on the housing market. Typically, offshore wind sits outside this 14km distance from inhabited households and consequently Alem et al. predicted that offshore wind is not likely to contribute inhibiting noise or shadow effects to justify lower house prices.

Health

Whilst there was some evidence available on the impact of green and blue space on health (Labib et al., 2020), there was a substantial evidence gap with regards to impacts of offshore windfarms speficially on human health. Empirical studies exploring the potential health impacts of wind energy tended to focus on onshore wind developments (e.g., Michaud et al., 2013, Health Canada, 2014, Feder et al., 2015, Michaud et al., 2016). However, the outcomes may be considered in the context of offshore wind to imply that the distance and noise levels of offshore wind are unlikely to generate negative health impacts for coastal communities. For example, Qu (2021) found that from a sample of 359 UK residents, 16% noticed wind turbine noise and 11% were annoyed by the noise. Of those who found the noise annoying, 80% lived within 850m of a turbine and 90% lived within 900m. Residents who noticed the noise reduced to 8.1% when the turbine was situated over 900m away from the place of residence. OWF are therefore likely to be too far away from residents to cause any noise disturbance.

An interesting finding with regards to the debate around monetary compensations for onshore developments with potential implications for offshore, Qu (2021) also found that for onshore wind developments, feelings of annoyance towards wind turbines are statistically associated with increasing levels of noise, particularly when exceeding 35 dB(A). However, residents who indirectly benefit from the project through community benefit schemes recorded lower levels of annoyance (Health Canada, 2014). Similarly, Qu (2021) concluded that the percentage of people who noticed turbines increased from 5-47% between a sound interval below 30 dBA and above 40 dBA and those who were annoyed by turbine noise increased from 3-30%.

In sum, the evidence focused on the human health impacts of onshore wind farms and was explored further in the next phase of this project through focus groups with local residents.

Tourism and recreation

With regards to impacts on tourism and recreation, the literature review identified mixed views and experiences. Overall, whilst some studies looked at negative impacts, many studies did not find negative impacts, and tourists were even found to have positive views of OWF.

Rudolph (2014) indicated that rural coastal areas are increasingly reliant on the tourism industry for economic stability, especially when manufacturing and agricultural sectors are diminishing. Therefore, the perception of successful tourism being associated with a natural landscape is threatened by the installation of OWF and drew out resistance (MacLellan, 1998; Byzio et al 2005). Similarly, the physical landscape change associated with wind farms was perceived as inappropriate for the local setting and disruptive to the cultural character of the area.

In Tiree, the perceived potential for visual disruption from OWF has historically led to opposition discourse and anticipated negative impacts on local tourism and wider local businesses that would benefit from tourist spending (Rudolph, 2014). Recreational tourism including windsurfing, sailing and boating is a large source of revenue in Tiree and there was a perception that wind farm sites could negatively affect the wave quality and restrict these water sport activities.

Further, a case study of Argyll recognised the potential negative impact OWF could have on the marine ecotourism industry. Offshore wind developments placed in key wildlife areas could deter wildlife and cause the industry to relocate tours, potentially further offshore (Argyll Renewables Communities, 2010). OWF could also disrupt breeding and migration which could threaten the marine tourism of Argyll, a key sector for island economies.

Despite the perception of negative impacts, empirical evidence from questionnaires, polls and interviews confirmed that tourists express neutrality or positivity towards OWF developments. Literature revealed a contrast between on the one hand local residents’ perceptions of how tourism would be impacted, and on the other hand empiricial evidence of how tourists’ decisions and attitudes had actually changed as a result of offshore wind developments.

Studies across Europe, US and Australia evidenced no or negligible change in tourist numbers, experience or expenditure following the construction of OWF (Aitchison, 2004; British Wind Energy Association, 2006; Frantal and Kunc, 2011; Glasgow Caledonian University, 2008). For example, Polecon Research (2013) identified no reduction in tourist expenditure or numbers after the construction of Denmark's Horns Rev OWF according to accommodation, food services, recreational activities, traffic volume and employment data.

Within Scotland, residents of Aberdeen identified positive impacts in terms of tourism. For example, they stated that OWF are visually attractive,are a symbol of local pride for participating in the renewable energy initiative, are linked to educational activities in the local area, and encouraged local boat tours (Glasson, et al., 2022b). Further, MORI (2022) interviewed 307 tourists face-to-face across five locations in Tarbet, Inverary, Oban, Campbeltown and Lochgilphead and found that 43% of tourists felt equally positive and negative about wind farms, 28% felt a generally positive effect and 15% found a completely positive effect and only 1% found a completely negative effect.

Smythe et al. (2021) conducted a study using interviews and a survey on the impacts of the United States’ first OWF on recreational fishers’ experience found that anglers report enjoyment of OWF as an enhanced fishing location, due to catch and non-related aspects of the experience. Survey data confirmed that fishers, particularly those who fished near wind farms, believed the wind farm has benefitted fishing. Respondents also valued the wind farm as symbol of progress towards green energy. Overall, results suggested that OWF do not necessarily conflict with recreational fishing, but instead OWF can enhance fishing destinations. The impact on fishing is discussed in the first sub-section of this chapter.

The British Wind Energy Association (2006) and German Offshore Wind Energy Foundation (2013) supported that OWF could develop a new form of tourism due to the increased importance of renewable energy, known as 'green tourism'. Local authorities can enhance tourism potential through harnessing marketing promotion and using OWF as local attractions for tourists, encouraging new boat trip businesses and associated tourist spending (Glasson, et al., 2022b). For example, the Nysted OWF attracted tourists through "The World of Wind" exhibition (German Offshore Wind Energy Foundation, 2013).

Conclusions of desk-based review

The key findings form the desktop review are as follows:

According to the draft plan-level SEIA projections, there may be job losses and reduced profits across some local industries. However, both the draft plan-level SEIA and wider literature identify that significant job creation is expected as a result of OWF – directly, indirectly and induced.

Both the draft plan-level SEIA and wider literature identify a risk that expertise sourced from outside Scotland may result in a loss of opportunities for the local workforce and businesses, and literature highlighted that training to upskill residents during operation and maintenance is required. This aligns with the aims of the newly introduced supply chain commitments which detail how products, materials, and labour are sourced to develop, manufacture, construct, and operate the offshore wind projects (Crown Estate Scotland, 2023b) and for which targets on local employment and training could be introduced.

Conclusions from the draft plan-level SEIA and wider literature expected that higher disposable income may be spent in the local economies resulting in an increased spending across local businesses. However, at the same time, there may be pressures on the local community due to the cost of living and in-migration may drive up competition and house prices.

Studies in literature suggested that OWF can generate investment into the local area but could also cause increased pressure on current services and infrastructure due to an influx of workers.

Whilst literature indicated that there was public resistance with regards to the impact of the offshore wind industry on the natural landscape, studies with tourists revealed neutrality or positive attitudes towards OWF. There was limited evidence on any negative impact on recreational activities.

With regards to cultural impacts, the draft plan-level SEIA predicted that higher incomes may lead to higher spending within local creative and cultural industries, while in-migration could impact local culture negatively and reduce the use of Gaelic.

No evidence of OWF impact on human health were found in the draft plan-level SEIA or wider literature.

Any impacts as a result of decommissioning of OWF were not taken into consideration in the draft plan-level SEIA as it was assumed that sites will be repowered after 25 years rather than decommissioned.

The above findings were included in an information pack that was provided to the participants of the focus group. They also formed the basis of the expert talk provided at the outset of focus group session setting out both evidence that was based on projections and evidence based on empirical data.