THE new study by BiGGAR Economics (“Wind farms have no negative impact on
tourist industry, study shows”, The Herald, August 3) does not succeed in
its objective of undermining claims that wind farms drive down tourism. It
has significant methodological weaknesses and, perhaps more importantly, a
major conceptual weakness. It assumes that all wind farms are equal; that
each can be expected to have the same effect on tourism. But that is not
the case.
Proponents of wind farms would have us believe that tourism impacts are
always negligible. Opponents would have us believe that the destruction of
tourism in Scotland is nigh. Neither position is at all tenable. The real
position is much more complex and subtle. That is an uncomfortable message
for all sides in a polarised, binary debate and also one difficult to get
across in a sound-bite or catchy headline.
There is no universal answer to the question of whether wind farms affect
tourism (or recreation). It depends on three things: (a) the
characteristics of any proposed development (both individually and as part
of the wider regional and national pattern); (b) the nature of the local
(and competitor) tourism offer and market; and (c) the characteristics of
local tourists.
Only tourism that is sensitive to upland landscape quality will be affected
by wind farms, and only in areas where such tourism has a sizeable market
share would wind farm construction have an area-level effect. These are
where the Mountaineering Council of Scotland (MCofS) focuses its objections
to wind farms. It is very telling that not one of the wind farms in the
BiGGAR study had been objected to by the MCofS.
I have just completed the first draft of a review of the research evidence
on mountaineering tourism and wind farms for the MCofS. I did so
independently and with the benefit of having had a career in research,
statistics and intelligence. In the review, I quantify the
landscape-sensitive component of Scottish tourism. I estimate that the
current impact of wind farms on tourism is a displacement of just under
five per cent of tourist spend within Scotland from areas with wind farms
to areas without, and that 0.25 per cent of potential spend is lost to
Scotland.
How far these figures will rise depends on strategic and local planning
decisions on the extent and pattern of wind farm development in Scotland
and how effectively they safeguard areas important for upland tourism in
each region of Scotland. The pattern so far is mixed, with most decisions
being sensible but some lacking balance. Good decision-making will not be
helped by inadequate research.
This letter is written in a personal capacity but I declare that I am an
elected board member of the MCofS.
Dave Gordon,
60 Bonhard Road, Scone, Perthshire.
YOUR article regarding the tourism report made amusing reading, especially
in the way it was seized upon as indisputable fact by the wind worshippers
who now seem to be influencing Scotland’s energy policy.
The company, Biggar Economics, had been commissioned by Renewables UK in
2012 for another onshore wind survey, reporting the “favourable” economics
of wind development. It hardly fills one with confidence however “robust”
this new report is supposed to be.
The fact is a temporary spike in “tourism” revenue can be expected in areas
where wind farms are constructed as the shipped-in foreign workers take up
the tourism beds to the detriment of real visitors. It is only temporary
though and as genuine tourist destinations report an aversion to wind farms
from the majority of their visitors a huge bucket of salt is needed when
reading this report.
With many more approved turbines due to be constructed on our hills and in
our glens the questions we should be asking our visitors are: if you visit
an area in Scotland where you expect to see her famous iconic landscapes
would you be disappointed to see them speared with giant industrial
hardware, miles of access tracks snaking up hillsides, pylons and
substations? Would you ever want to return and spend your holiday money in
the same area if you did?
I bet the answer would be a very robust no.
Lyndsey Ward,
Darach Brae, Beauly.
0 Comments