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

5. Deliberative research

Focus groups

This section sets out the key findings of the deliberative research element of the study. As mentioned in chapter 3 of this report, the deliberative research took the form of focus groups. Five virtual focus groups were held with a total of 44 participants taking part, of which:

• 9 participants were at the focus group in Lewis;
• 9 participants were at the focus group in Orkney;
• 10 participants were at the focus group in Buckie;
• 10 participants were at the focus group in Dundee; and
• 6 participants were at the focus group in Stonehaven.

A breakdown by gender, age, occupational status and educational level is shown in the table below. Relative to Scotland’s population, the sample is slightly skewed towards more male participants and disproportionately more participants who are 18–34 years old.

Summary of focus group discussion

The thematic discussion followed the central themes outlined in the evidence session: local economy and employment, distributional impacts, local services, infrastructure, tourism and recreation, socio-cultural and human health. The research team provided a high-level recap of the predicted and evidenced impacts before inviting discussion on each theme and wider impacts where applicable.The discussion covered the following:

What are participants attitudes towards the perceived and evidenced impacts that are set out in the draft plan-level SEIA and wider literature? Are the findings applicable in the local area?

How are the perceived and evidenced impacts expected to interact with the specific local social and economic conditions of the local area? For example, considering the demographic profile, deprivation levels, unemployment and importance of coastal locations for tourism and recreation.

Do participants think that there will be additional socio-economic impacts wider than those presented in current literature?

Across the five focus groups, local economy, employment and distributional impacts were discussed at length. In particular, local employment opportunities and Community Benefit Funds were most commonly mentioned by participants, while local services, infrastructure, tourism and recreation impacts were mostly perceived as negligible. Socio-cultural and human health impacts were discussed the least across all themes.

Due to the small sample size and the qualitative nature of the focus groups, differences in contributions by characteristics such as age, location, gender, and qualifications/backgrounds can only reported on tentatively. Where applicable, these differences are mentioned in the summary of discussions within each theme below. A breakdown of opinions based on the non-representative survey is provided at the end of this chapter, but should not be assumed to be applicable to the wider public.

Local economy and employment

Discussions within this theme largely focused on the potential for OWF to establish local employment opportunities. In terms of the local economy, opportunities for local businesses to supply components, equipment and support services to foster a local supply chain were recognised. Indirect local economy benefits were anticipated through the in-migration of labour encouraging expansion and development within the local area, as well as spending within local businesses.

The focus group discussions recognised the potential for employment opportunities across the construction, maintenance and operation stages of OWF developments. In particular, the maintenance stage was identified as the main source of long-term local employment with the support of training and upskilling schemes.

However, all five groups expressed a concern that local residents may not benefit from new employment opportunities as they may be filled by non-UK developers located in countries with more competitive employment laws. One group in particular suggested the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany as largely composing imported labour within Scotlands offshore wind industry. According to some participants, the current trend of multinational companies outweighing national or community ownership of wind farms had established a “fundamental problem” that offshore wind expertise was more likely to come from overseas. One group felt this was a “long-term strategic economic failing” and a missed opportunity to create sustainable local employment through incentivising wind turbine manufacturing within Scotland, rather than relying on imported infrastructure and skills. Similarly, another group suggested that CES could encourage investment in manufacturing and constructing OWF within Scotland in an effort to localise employment and minimise the presence of multinational companies who “capitalised off Scotland’s national resources”.

Discussions further highlighted the importance of offering training in the renewable energy industry in order to establish long-term employment opportunities for residents and new career potential for younger generations. One group expressed excitement and interest towards the new offshore wind industry, especially for young engineers. Participants highlighted that this should be a locally driven initiative because multi-national companies were expected to prioritise cost over time and thus favour experienced imported labour. In addition, those affected by the decommissioning of the oil and gas industry could be set up with alternative employment in offshore wind and transfer their skills rather than facing unemployment.

Respondents felt that training opportunities should also be targeted at underrepresented groups or those with no existing route into the green economy who could otherwise experience disproportionate impacts. For example, further discussions of training advocated the provision of funding and grants for local training opportunities to prevent exclusion based on wealth.

Discussions highlighted the potential exclusion of women from typically male dominated industries engaging with renewable energy, such as engineering and maintenance. One group felt that engaging women at ground level and presenting the offshore wind industry as a component of the evolving maritime industry could overcome the ‘paradigm’ of the energy industry being male dominated. Others participants highlighted that depopulation trends, especially across island communities, could be eased through inspiring young generations to partake in the renewable industry. In order to retain young talent, participants recommended that learning about the renewable sector, in particular wind energy, should be integrated into school curriculums as soon as possible.

One focus group felt that the transition to net zero economy was being prioritised over community wellbeing. Participants expressed concern that the transition to the net zero agenda was being pushed without taking into consideration the potential for negative community impacts that could impact mental health and wellbeing. For example, it was perceived that there was a lack of available information, limited community engagement and that government bodies were positioning offshore wind as the only viable solution to the climate crisis, which created a sense that communities did not have a voice in the development of offshore wind. Following this, comments suggested that people may not be willing to take up employment in new green jobs that they were less informed about.

Distributional impacts

Discussions revealed a range of views regarding the potential of in-migration and any distributional impacts as a result. Some participants perceived an attraction of workers and families to the local area as positive, while others expressed uncertainty about how the industry would be maintained in the long-term and consequently perceived in-migration as a short-term impact. For example, participants expressed that the maintenance and operation of wind farms may require minimal labour and eventually wind farms would be self-sufficient, therefore in-migration was not expected for longer than the construction period.

Participants from island communities expressed that the offshore wind industry had the potential to attract workers and their families if they were placed in a suitable location. Island participants felt that island regions were not suitable for OWF due to the high degree of naturalness and sensitivity to human damage. Further, the rurality of these communities could deter in-migration for new jobs especially if they were perceived as short-term.

Indirect population impacts of the offshore wind industry were also recognised. The stimulation of the local economy through in-migration and local supply chain impacts, as well as wider local job creation, could attract people of working age and families into the area. On the other hand, the presence of OWF could deter people looking to relocate due to visual impacts.

In terms of the cost of living, discussions focused on the impact on energy bills and local housing markets. One group acknowledged that offshore wind was a cost-effective investment and therefore should lead to lower energy costs, especially for affected communities. There were some limited discussions around what constitutes an affected community, as boundaries are not clearly established. This was also pointed out in the literature (see chapter 4). However, the dominance of multinational companies that were viewed as prioritising profit over local benefits may reduce the likelihood of this benefit. Many participants agreed that if OWF reduced the cost of living for the immediate community, they would be more approving of the developments.

Some participants anticipated potential impacts of OWF on the local housing market and a slight rise in house prices as a result of increased competition, however this increase was felt to be subject to local circumstance. For example, participants perceived that lower house prices in Dundee would lead to less significant impacts compared to island communities who were already experiencing a housing crisis. High house prices were identified by participants as an existing problem within rural island communities which they expected to worsen should new wind farms generate in-migration. Currently, participants expressed that new market properties tend to be purchased by new wealthy residents or for the purpose of vacation rentals. Therefore, some participants were concerned about the lack of affordable housing supply for younger generations and that their communities may experience increased out-migration and depopulation as a result.

Finally, a discussion of Community Benefit Funds revealed a divide between someparticipants who view funding as an “underhand marketing tactic” and others who felt that funding can provide much-needed financial support to local communities, community projects and infrastructure needs. For example, one group highlighted that community benefits would not “compensate for a loss of an iconic traditional landscape”, however low-income residents tend to support the offshore wind industry in exchange for short-term financial relief from funding initiatives. Despite this divide, most groups recognised the need to manage community benefits transparently and address specific needs through involving residents in allocating funding.

Alongside perceptions of community benefits being referred to by some participants as a “bribery” exercise, other participants also raised the view that the “past mismanagement of Scottish Government finances” had reduced local residents’ trust in the delivery of positive impacts through Community Benefit Funds.^[7] For example, the delays and over spending involved in the construction of ferries for CalMac and the Edinburgh tram line were identified as a government mismanagement.^[8] Further, participants voiced concerns about funding being short-term and only available for a limited amount of time and the amount of funding reaching local communities being minimal, so little benefit was seen by residents.

Throughout discussions, some participants displayed a preference for monetary benefits in the form of £ per megawatt, while others preferred sustainable community initiatives such as educational programmes. In light of the cost-of-living crisis, some participants favoured monetary benefits for communities to allocate based on where council and government funding has been cut back, for example in arts and culture services, sports and leisure, and wellbeing initiatives. Further, in cases where community funding would take the form of new infrastructure provision, such as a new community centre, participants stressed the need for this infrastructure to be a sustained benefit rather than a one-off investment. In particular, small coastal towns may struggle to gain any long-term benefit if they are unable to afford maintenance of community benefit investments.

One group discussed a top-down versus bottom-up approach to Community Benefit Funds. On one hand, some participants felt that the tax revenue from OWF should be governed by a central body and equally distributed across local authority budgets. This approach could prevent creating wealth inequality for local communities who did not have community councils to apply for community funding. Similarly, participants agreed it was challenging to identify the ‘locality’ boundaries and who was eligible to benefit. Therefore, a top-down approach was perceived to maintain equality and prevent exclusion, enabling everybody to benefit. Other participants expressed support of a top-down approach, but revealed a preference for the benefits of a bottom-up approach to local communities disproportionately impacted by OWF. Support for targeted local compensation and investment was expressed in these cases.

Local services

There was scepticism regarding the number of workers and families that might relocate into local areas. Consequently a few participants anticipated minimal impact to local services. However, many others perceived that in-migration – if in high numbers – could place additional pressure on local services that are already stretched, especially healthcare services and the local education system. Participants shared their experiences of oversubscribed nursery facilities, families travelling across towns to schools with capacity and years-long wait times for healthcare treatments. Participants supported in-migration and related opportunities as positive impacts of OWF, however investment into local services would be required to maintain the ratio of local services to population.

One group recognised that offshore wind developers should not be held responsible for local service failings that pre-exist OWF developments. Participants acknowledged that local services and infrastructure were governmental issues and if the local or national government failed in their educational, healthcare and related objectives, OWF developers should not be expected to deliver investment above and beyond what the industry was responsible for.

Further concerns regarding the costs of new facilities were expressed, especially if the local community were responsible for the maintenance of these services.

Infrastructure

Perceived impacts on current local infrastructure were mixed across the five discussions. Most participants perceived the majority of OWF infrastructure to be delivered by sea and erected by a barge, therefore placing no additional pressure on local resources. On the other hand, participants were concerned that the additional demand and usage of local roads as a result of transporting turbines, could place them in a state of disrepair that local authorities cannot afford to restore. For example, in rural regions with no dual carriageway roads, a convoy of trucks delivering turbine components between 7am and 5pm was expected to significantly increase congestion for locals. In locations with a main rail line, this was identified as a preferable option for the transportation of OWF components.

Some participants also reflected on the potential impacts of necessary onshore infrastructure related to the offshore wind industry, in particular pylons. The presence of pylons along the A9 corridor – “through the heartland of the Scottish countryside” – was perceived as unaesthetic and disturbing to the natural landscape. This also demonstrated that participants were aware of impacts to areas further inland than the immediate coastal community as a result of onshore infrastructure of OWF. This infrastructure was also expected to increase as the National Grid connections expanded with the offshore wind industry. Participants acknowledged that in order to experience the benefits of offshore wind they may also encounter negative consequences. However, participants wanted local communities to be informed of final construction proposals or potentially forming grid connections underground to mitigate some opposition.

One group considered the decommissioning impacts of OWF in 20 to 25 years. Wind turbines tended to be considered as carbon neutral, however turbines are mostly made of steel or other non-renewable materials. According to one participant, recycling turbine blades was impossible and therefore, the long-lasting impacts of offshore wind infrastructure were yet to be considered. This aspect was not considered in the draft plan-level SEIA which assume that OWF will be repowered after 25 years, not decomissioned.

A few groups felt that a lack of government investment limited the presence of infrastructure to support the offshore wind industry. For example, one participant noted that the dualling the A96 Corridor from Aberdeen to Inverness would have supplied road infrastructure for developing offshore wind along the east coast, however from their knowledge these plans had now been reconsidered. Similarly, respondents discussed how in the Buckie Harbour Masterplan consideration had been given to developing a new Deep Water harbour facility for loading boats and dedicated facilities for offshore wind operation and maintenance, however a lack of funding resulted in this being postponed. Therefore, there was a view that there had not been the necessary investment in the local infrastructure to facilitate the new offshore wind industry to date.

Tourism and recreation

Participants’ perceptions of tourism impacts were divided between OWF attracting visitors interested in eco-tourism and OWF deterring tourists as a result of the visual disturbance. Several participants identified OWF as a “sign of modernity” and change, especially amongst younger generations who could perceive turbines as technological progress and problem solvers. However, others expressed that the visual impact of turbines was likely to discourage tourists who travel to see the un-spoilt landscapes of Scotland. One participant recognised the importance of magnitude when considering these visual impacts, with one or two turbines along the coast considered more acceptable than larger wind farms. Another participant expressed that while there could be a curiosity element to OWF now, over time the aesthetics and appeal of the industry could depreciate.

Some participants reflected however that tourism impacts may be neglible, especially for tourists who had never seen the landscape of Scotland before and may not know any different to the presence of OWF. Further, a few participants felt that ecotourism would not benefit Scotland in particular. Comparison was drawn with the Netherlands, where green tourism expanded due to OWF bringing a new element to the flat landscape. However, participants felt that Scotland had more to offer from its natural landscape, so green tourism may be less of a benefit.

In terms of recreational impacts, a few participants mentioned the potential disruption in accessing the open sea for recreational sailing, windsurfing and diving. The majority highlighted that most OWF were too far offshore to intersect with recreational activities and impose any danger. However, one group identified the most significant safety impacts could be during the construction phase and negligible during the operational phase. Fishing trawlers may be excluded from sea areas during construction, while smaller boats are still able to sail amongst OWF but may experience changed passing and escape routes. Therefore, participants felt there was a need to educate and mitigate safety concerns for recreational activities during construction.

Socio-cultural

The majority of participants felt that there were no socio-cultural impacts relating to OWF developments, while some acknowledged the potential introduction of new cultures to coastal communities. A few participants expressed that “change is normal” and many communities in Scotland already had transient populations. Participants acknowledged in-migration as a frequent occurrence since people had become more mobile, therefore OWF were not expected to impose a significant change to local dynamics.

However, there were also participants who expressed concern about the retention of language and cultural identity, especially Gaelic. Participants acknowledged that often residents spoke English so visitors or relocated residents did not feel excluded, however local language could be lost as a result. There was concern amongst some participants that in-migration could cause the percentage of the population speaking Gaelic to drop below a certain percentage at which the Gaelic speaking community would depreciate exponentially.

On the other hand, larger towns, especially on the east coast were not perceived as a monoculture and were considered outward looking. Participants expressed those cultural impacts were not anticipated here because they felt that Gaelic was not spoken in larger towns and visitors tended to adapt to the existing culture.

Human health

The thematic discussion of human health focused on mental health impacts. Only a few participants anticipated noticeable mental health impacts. One group felt that mental health issues would have been documented in research if these were significant, considering, in their view there have been studies conducted across the UK and Europe.

There were participants that acknowledged positive mental health impacts through the potential for offshore wind to improve services through community benefits, such as medical centres and community centres. Further, the presence of OWF could mitigate eco-anxiety for younger generations. One particpant explained that they understood eco-anxiety as anxiety surrounding climate and ecology changes which were predicted to reach crisis point and create uninhabitable spaces. Therefore, witnessing a local transition towards renewable energy and addressing this climate crisis could be beneficial for mental health. Similarly, while some participants expressed a dislike towards OWF, they accepted it as necessary and a progressive mechanism for reaching net zero.

However, the potential for negative impacts on mental health were also recognised, especially in terms of visual obstructions to the landscape. Wind turbines were perceived as “cold objects” humans were not familiar with, and that they disrupted the peacefulness of coastal retreats obstructing the natural landscape and producing background noise. Further, one participant was concerned that the potential influx of OWF workers could worsen mental health if medical facilities were not able to absorb additional demand for appointments and wait times increased as a result.

Wider positive health impacts mentioned by participants were contributions to long-term health by reducing air pollution from fossil fuel-based power generation. This suggests that the participants directly associated future long term health with OWF rather than short-term impacts.

Mitigation

The focus groups ended with a discussion of potential mitigation strategies and alternatives to OWF. This discussion was guided by the following two questions:

• What could make OWF more acceptable in your local community?
• What alternative to OWF would you suggest?

A recurring suggestion across all five locations was for developers and the Scottish Government to engage in an “open and transparent dialogue” with coastal communities proximate to OWF. Promoting active engagement and involving residents in the decision-making process could address concerns, as well as provide accurate information on the positives and negatives of offshore wind projects for those likely to be affected. One participant suggested an informative local Town Hall discussion to communicate any upcoming plans and present “facts, figures and hard evidence” to residents.

Within this dialogue and wider communications about OWF, one focus group stressed the importance of accessible information in order for residents to understand “what they are sacrificing today for the future”. It was perceived that often documentation on offshore wind was technically complex and consequently excluded local residents with limited knowledge. Therefore, information should be accessible in simple English for any reader to understand.

The majority of participants expressed that more effective management of Community Benefit Funds would increase communities’ acceptance of local OWF. Participants suggested the following mitigation strategies in regard to community benefits:

• A bottom-up approach engaging with affected communities to determine the most appropriate type of funding to best meet local needs;
• Exploring the potential for community OWF ownership in order to secure tangible benefits for the local area;
• Community benefits delivered through reducing electricity costs for local residents specifically;
• Community Benefit Bunds delivered through offshore wind apprenticeship programmes for school leavers;
• Community Benefit Bunds delivered through the provision of affordable housing or an ‘option to buy’ scheme for young people in affected communities where locals could be priced out of the housing market as a result of increased competition from in-migration. For example, Dounreay housing estate was built for relocated workers of the nuclear power industry;
• Establish a publicly owned Scottish Renewable Energy Fund, taking inspiration from the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund, to deliver lasting national as opposed to local economic prosperity directly to residents of the host country. This fund could be utilised to ensure healthcare remains free and provide free education, so Scotland nurtures an increasingly educated population;
• The provision of new or improved local services to communities experiencing increased demand as a result of in-migration, particularly GP surgeries, dentists and schools.

In order to facilitate effective investment into local services, participants supported a bottom-up approach. Participants expressed concern that Scottish Government may proceed with offshore wind plans for the “greater good of energy security” regardless of local needs. However, they felt that engagement at a community level with those living in closest proximity to the scheme was valuable in identifying local need and making an informed decision.

Further mitigation for affected communities included “levelling-up” mechanisms. For example, participants suggested that when purchasing a house, a proportion of this money should be diverted towards the development of local services to manage overcrowding. Similarly, should new housing estates be required to facilitate an influx of workers in the offshore wind industry, the housing developers should make financial contributions towards upgrading local services.

Discussions of the procurement stage proposed the inclusion of community benefits and employment commitments across all future offshore wind projects. This would ensure that developers were held accountable for returning value to the affected community and following through with commitments. For example, participants suggested restricting regions from which labour is recruited, committing to a certain percentage of local employment, and prioritising local residents for employment in the renewable job sector.

In terms of alternatives, most participants suggested alternative renewable energy sources including solar, tidal and wave power, while others proposed the non-renewable alternative of nuclear power. A few groups suggested the combination of renewable energy mechanisms as opposed to being solely dependent on wind energy, either through enhancing wind turbines using solar panels or simultaneously feeding tidal power into the same grid as wind energy.

General views towards OWF: pre and post deliberation

Deliberative research provides valuable in-depth insights into participants’ views on a specific topic and how these views potentially change when participants are provided with information and given the opportunity to discuss and reflect. As agreed with the Research Advisory Group, information packs were distributed to participants at the event and not prior. This was to limit preconceived ideas and opinions about OWF and for the focus to be on the discussion of social impacts.

To capture any changes in opinions, participants were asked to complete a survey to demonstrate their existing levels of awareness and perceptions of offshore wind both before the focus groups and within one week after the session. The purpose of this secondary survey was to gauge if participants’ opinions on offshore wind had changed after deliberation and private reflection. The survey asked the same questions to the survey participants completed at the start of each focus group session. Of the 44 participants, 40 submitted a response to the post-focus group survey. All 44 participants had submitted a response to the pre-focus group survey.

The key findings of this survey are highlighted below indicating substantial change in level of knowledge, and to a lesser extent more support for OWF. The survey is not representative of the wider public and only captures the views of the participants of the focus groups. Whilst specific data is provided, this is merely to indicate where change has occurred, not to allow any comparisons to the wider public with regards to their views on OWF. If repeated as part of a larger survey, results may change.

Within the survey, participants were asked to indicate their levels of awareness of local and national OWF, confidence in levels of knowledge and understanding of OWF and levels of approval of local and national OWF. Figure 1 below highlights the pre-deliberation and post-deliberation outcomes for these questions.

Note: In figure 1, awareness is measured on a scale of ‘yes’ and ‘no’. Confidence represents participants who felt ‘confident’ and ‘very confident’ of their knowledge and understanding of OWF on a 5-point scale. Similarly, approval represents participants who ‘approved’ and ‘strongly approved’ of OWF on a 5-point scale both locally and nationally.

In terms of awareness, the majority of participants (91%) were aware of OWF located across Scotland prior to the focus group discussions, while fewer (67%) were aware of future OWF developments planned in their local area. Post deliberation, awareness of OWF in the local area rose from 67% to 74%.

Participants’ confidence in their knowledge and understanding of OWF increased substantially following focus group discussions. The number of those who felt confident or very confident rose from 39% to 86%, while those who did not feel confident or not confident at all decreased to 0% following focus group discussions.

Similarly, approval for both local and national OWF rose following focus group deliberation. In Scotland, those who approve and strongly approve of OWF rose 70% to 75% post deliberation, and for OWF in the participants’ local area there was an increase from 65% to 75%.

Demographic analysis of participant responses was undertaken with regards to age and gender. Whilst the focus groups included non-binary participants, the sample was too small to establish or report on significant differences in views.

Most notably, the number of participants under 65 who were confident in their knowledge and understanding of OWF more than doubled from 29% to 67%. Three quarters of women felt confident following the focus groups compared to only on quarter before deliberation, while half of men felt confident or very confident before deliberation and compared to 95% post deliberation.

In terms of approval for local OWF, pre deliberation approval was highest amongst 18-34 year olds prior (76%) compared to other age groups. Whilst the approval of this age group remained stable, it rose from 53 to 86% amongst those aged 35-64 years. With regards to approval of OWF in Scotland, a positive shift was seen for people with Highers/ Advanced Highers qualifications from 65% to 84%.

Comparatively, men were more approving of OWF in Scotland than in their local area pre deliberation, at 77% and 68% respectively. This approval rose to 84% and 89% respectively as a result of the focus groups. Women felt similarly about OWF in Scotland and in their local area (68% approval) with only marginal changes post deliberation to 72%.

The pre and post deliberation survey also asked participants for their view on the potential impacts of OWF by theme. These views appear to become more nuanced and less positive after the focus groups (see figure 2 below).

Pre deliberation, only one participant felt strongly negative about OWF impacts on the local economy. Post deliberation, between 1 to 4 participants felt strongly negative across all themes, especially with regards to human health.

Similar to the pre-deliberation results, participants felt positive and strongly positive about impacts on the local economy post deliberation and had developed a more positive view of impacts on tourism. More than half of all participants felt positive or strongly positive about community funding, employment, local services, and infrastructure.

Half of the participants recorded in an open-text box that their views were not significantly changed through the focus group discussions and remained as positive or negative as before, while others now recognised the potential for positive contributions to the immediate community in terms of employment, wealth growth and community funding. Two participants suggested that there were benefits outweighing the negative impacts of OWE.

Also recorded in the open-text box section of the survey, were comments from participants who remained concerned. Some feared that benefit commitments for communities would not be followed through, the health and wellbeing of residents would not be prioritised and affected communities had limited scope for input and choice in new developments. Engagement with communities was necessary “to ensure that ‘potential’ becomes reality”.

Some participants expressed support for the renewable industry and the potential benefits offshore wind could offer. However, they felt that appropriate size and location had not been considered in the implementation of new developments across Scotland.

The interpretation of results is challenging as there was no additional follow-up with the participants after the post-deliberation survey. However, from the commentary and the substantial changes in participants’ confidence in their knowledge, it appears that overall support for OWF in participants’ local areas had improved due to more access to information on how communities could potentially benefit and be impacted, whilst support for OWF in Scotland overall remained as positive as prior to the deliberation. This could indicate that for the particular sample, when provided with tangible and local-level information, opinions became more positive. This was particularly the case for women who were both less confident in their knowledge and less supportive of OWF than men, but became more supportive and confident as a result of the deliberation.

However, the results also show that scepticism towards positive impacts on specific areas such as employment had increased as a result of the discussions. This is not surprising as in all focus group benefits for the local workforce were questioned. However, the example of tourism and recreation illustrates how exposure to evidence supporting neutral or positive impacts helped to improve opinions slightly and that scepticism towards OWF is correlated with lack of knowledge. Thus, engaging with groups that are traditionally less involved or exposed to the debate may result in relatively larger shifts in opinions.

Please note results should be interpretated with caution due to the small sample size of 40-44 respondents and should not be assumed to apply to the wider public.