Publication - Impact assessment
Offshore wind energy - draft sectoral marine plan: social and economic impact assessment
A social and economic impact assessment to support development of the draft sectoral marine plan for offshore wind energy.
G Detailed Socio-Economic Impact Assessment
G.1 Key sources of positive impacts underlying the social impact assessment
G.1.1 East
Spend on wind farms will result in GVA impacts estimated at £389 million (low scenario, Type I) to £1,386 million (high scenario, Type II) in Present Value terms over the appraisal timeframe. The maximum GVA impacts in any one year are £20 million (low, Type I) to £78 million (high, Type II).
Key ports that could be positively affected by the projected levels of spend are likely to include (based on Maritime Publication Limited, 2019[78]):
- Aberdeen
- Dundee
- Eyemouth
- Grangemouth
- Leith
- Methil
- Montrose
- Peterhead
- Rosyth (including Port Babcock)
Employment impacts are given as full-time equivalents and a maximum over the appraisal timeframe. In the East, the employment impacts are estimated at a total of 282 jobs (low scenario, Type I) to 1,849 jobs (high scenario, Type II). These are divided into direct/indirect (Type I) and direct/indirect/induced jobs (Type II) and local and relocated jobs.
The difference between Type I and Type II jobs gives an indication of the knock-on employment impacts associated with spend from those being directly and indirectly affected. These are estimated at 162 jobs (low scenario) to 587 jobs (high scenario) in the East.
Local direct and indirect jobs (Type I) in the East range from 71 (low scenario) to 315 (high scenario). Relocated jobs (Type I) where people would move into the region to fill the roles range from 212 (low scenario) to 946 (high scenario).
G.1.2 North East
Spend on wind farms will result in positive impacts estimated at £645 million (low scenario, Type I) to £2,259 million (high scenario, Type II) in Present Value terms over the appraisal timeframe. The maximum GVA impacts in any one year are £77 million (low, Type I) to £189 million (high, Type II).
Key ports that could see positive impacts from the projected levels of spend are likely to include (based on Maritime Publication Limited, 2019[79]):
- Buckie
- Cromarty Firth
- Fraserburgh
- Inverness
- Kirkwall and Hatston
- Macduff
- Nigg
- Wick
Employment impacts are given as full-time equivalents and a maximum over the appraisal timeframe. In the North East, the employment impacts are estimated at a total of 1,255 jobs (low scenario, Type I) to 4,250 jobs (high scenario, Type II). These are divided into direct/indirect (Type I) and direct/indirect/induced jobs (Type II) and local and relocated jobs.
The difference between Type I and Type II jobs gives an indication of the knock-on employment impacts associated with spend from those being positively affected directly and indirectly. These are estimated at 511 jobs (low scenario) to 1,344 jobs (high scenario) in the North East.
Local direct and indirect jobs (Type I) in the North East range from 314 (low scenario) to 775 (high scenario). Relocated jobs (Type I) where people would move into the region to fill the roles range from 941 (low scenario) to 2,324 (high scenario).
G.1.3 North
Spend on wind farms will result in GVA impacts estimated at £139 million (low scenario, Type I) to £497 million (high scenario, Type II) in Present Value terms over the appraisal timeframe. The maximum GVA impacts in any one year are £21 million (low, Type I) to £50 million (high, Type II).
Key ports that could see positive impacts from the projected levels of spend are likely to include (based on Maritime Publication Limited, 2019[80]):
- Kishorn
- Lerwick
- Lyness
- Scrabster
- Stornoway
- Sullom Voe
Employment impacts are given as full-time equivalents and a maximum over the appraisal timeframe. In the North, the employment impacts are estimated at a total of 373 jobs (low scenario, Type I) to 1,126 jobs (high scenario, Type II). These are divided into direct/indirect (Type I) and direct/indirect/induced jobs (Type II) and local and relocated jobs.
The difference between Type I and Type II jobs gives an indication of the knock-on employment impacts associated with spend from those being positively affected directly and indirectly. These are estimated at 212 jobs (low scenario) to 457 jobs (high scenario) in the North.
Local direct and indirect jobs (Type I) in the North range from 93 (low scenario) to 200 (high scenario). Relocated jobs (Type I) where people would move into the region to fill the roles range from 279 (low scenario) to 599 (high scenario).
G.1.4 West
Spend on wind farms will result in GVA impacts estimated at £49 million (low scenario, Type I) to £288 million (high scenario, Type II) in Present Value terms over the appraisal timeframe. The maximum GVA impacts in any one year are £3.4 million (low, Type I) to £40 million (high, Type II).
Key ports that could see positive effects from the projected levels of spend are likely to include (based on Maritime Publication Limited, 2019[81]):
- Ardrishaig
- Ardrossan
- Campbeltown
- Corpach
- Fairlie
- Greenock
- Hunterston
- Oban (including NLB Base)
Employment impacts are given as full-time equivalents and a maximum over the appraisal timeframe. In the West, the employment impacts are estimated at a total of 51 jobs (low scenario, Type I) to 808 jobs (high scenario, Type II). These are divided into direct/indirect (Type I) and direct/indirect/induced jobs (Type II) and local and relocated jobs.
The difference between Type I and Type II jobs gives an indication of the knock-on employment impacts associated with spend from those being positively affected directly and indirectly. These are estimated at 53 jobs (low scenario) to 342 jobs (high scenario) in the West.
Local direct and indirect jobs (Type I) in the West range from 13 (low scenario) to 142 (high scenario). Relocated jobs (Type I) where people would move into the region to fill the roles range from 39 (low scenario) to 426 (high scenario).
G.1.5 South West
Spend on wind farms will result in GVA impacts estimated at £30 million (low scenario, Type I) to £149 million (high scenario, Type II) in Present Value terms over the appraisal timeframe. The maximum GVA impacts in any one year are £2.6 million (low, Type I) to £21 million (high, Type II).
Key ports that could see positive effects from the projected levels of spend are likely to be (based on Maritime Publication Limited, 2019[82]):
- Ayr
Employment impacts are given as full-time equivalents and a maximum over the appraisal timeframe. In the South West, the employment impacts are estimated at a total of 38 jobs (low scenario, Type I) to 426 jobs (high scenario, Type II). These are divided into direct/indirect (Type I) and direct/indirect/induced jobs (Type II) and local and relocated jobs.
The difference between Type I and Type II jobs gives an indication of the knock-on employment impacts associated with spend from those seeing positive effects directly and indirectly. These are estimated at 25 jobs (low scenario) to 155 jobs (high scenario) in the South West.
Local direct and indirect jobs (Type I) in the South West range from 9 (low scenario) to 75 (high scenario). Relocated jobs (Type I) where people would move into the region to fill the roles range from 28 (low scenario) to 225 (high scenario).
G.2 Key sources of negative impacts underlying the social impact assessment
G.2.1 Negative impacts
Section 3 summarises the negative impacts on activities. Key impacts for the social impact assessment include commercial fisheries, recreational boating, commercial shipping, tourism and water sports. Of these, impacts on commercial fishing are expected to result in impacts that are sufficiently significant to cause a change in output. Specific details of the likely regional effects are described in more detail below. For the other sectors, impacts are expected to be less significant but could cause some changes in costs. These impacts are captured within the social impact assessment with consideration given as to whether these impacts may be more significant at the local scale.
G.2.2 East
Impacts on fishing could result in a loss of income and GVA[83] of around £18,200 per year (low scenario, Type I) to £63,800 per year (high scenario, Type II) in the East. The most impacted ports in the East in terms of reduction in value of landings are expected to be, based on impacts on fishing grounds from all regions that are then landed to ports in the East region[84]:
- Eyemouth (51% of impacts in the East in terms of value of landings)
- Aberdeen (41% of impacts)
- Stonehaven (5% of impacts)
The impacts on employment that result from the reduction in value of landings is estimated at 0.3 FTE (low scenario, Type I) to 1 FTE (high scenario, Type II). The main home ports affected in the East are:
- Eyemouth (59% of impacts in the East on home ports under the low scenario and 54% under the high scenario)
- Pittenweem (35% of impacts (low scenario) to 41% of impacts (high scenario))
- Aberdeen (5% of impacts (low and high scenario))
Total impacts in terms of value of landings per port[85] are used as an indication of the likely significance of any knock-on social impacts resulting from changes in value of landings at home port (e.g. on jobs) or at landing port (e.g. on processing):
- Eyemouth: 0.015% of landings by vessels registered to the home port; 0.02% of landings to the port;
- Aberdeen: 0.003% of landings by vessels registered to the home port; 0.06% of landings to the port
- Stonehaven: no data for landings by vessels registered to the home port; 0.02% of landings to the port
- Pittenweem: 0.0019% of landings by vessels registered to the home port; ~0% of landings to the port
Other negative impacts could be caused by the migration of workers to take up the relocated jobs created by spend on wind farms through effects on housing demand, increased demand on services. With an estimated 212 (low scenario, Type I) to 2,387 (high scenario, Type II) relocated jobs being created (maximum in any one year over the appraisal period), this could result in up to 441 (low) to 4,965 (high) people moving into communities in the East region assuming 2.08 people per household[86] including the person taking up the job. The communities most likely to be impacted are likely to be associated with the ports where the main spend is projected to be retained, i.e.:
- Aberdeen
- Dundee
- Eyemouth
- Grangemouth
- Leith
- Methil
- Montrose
- Peterhead
- Rosyth (including Port Babcock)
G.2.3 North East
Impacts on fishing could result in a loss of income and GVA of around £97,800 per year (low scenario, Type I) to £342,000 per year (high scenario, Type II) in the North East. The most impacted ports in the North East terms of reduction in value of landings are expected to be, based on impacts on fishing grounds from all regions that are then landed to ports in the North East region[87]:
- Peterhead (46% of impacts in the North East in terms of value of landings)
- Fraserburgh (24% of impacts)
- Lerwick (19% of impacts)
- Buckie (6% of impacts)
- Stonehaven (5% of impacts)
The impacts on employment that result from the reduction in value of landings is estimated at 1.6 FTE (low scenario, Type I) to 5.3 FTEs (high scenario, Type II). The main home ports affected are:
- Fraserburgh (46% of impacts in the North East on home ports)
- Peterhead (20% of impacts)
- Lerwick (19% of impacts)
- Kirkwall (8% of impacts)
- Buckie (7% of impacts)
Total impacts in terms of value of landings per port[88] are used as an indication of the likely significance of any knock-on social impacts resulting from changes in value of landings at home port (e.g. on jobs) or at landing port (e.g. on processing):
- Buckie: 0.27% of landings by vessels registered to the home port; 0.29% of landings to the port
- Fraserburgh: 0.18% of landings by vessels registered to the home port; 0.11% of landings to the port
- Kirkwall: 0.25% of landings by vessels registered to the home port; 0.003% of landings to the port
- Lerwick: 0.10% of landings by vessels registered to the home port; 0.05% of landings to the port
- Peterhead: 0.13% of landings by vessels registered to the home port; 0.05% of landings to the port
- Stonehaven: no data for landings by vessels registered to the home port; 0.02% of landings to the port
Other negative impacts could be caused by the migration of workers to take up the relocated jobs created by spend on wind farms through effects on housing demand, increased demand on services. With an estimated 941 (low scenario, Type I) to 3,188 (high scenario, Type II) relocated jobs being created (maximum in any one year over the appraisal period), this could result in up to 1,938 (low) to 6,567 (high) people moving into communities in the North East region assuming 2.06 people per household[89] including the person taking up the job.
G.2.4 North
Impacts on fishing could result in a loss of income and GVA of around £60,800 per year (low scenario, Type I) to £213,000 per year (high scenario, Type II) in the North. The most impacted ports in the North in terms of reduction in value of landings are expected to be, based on impacts on fishing grounds from all regions that are then landed to ports in the North region[90]:
- Scrabster (47% of impacts in the North in terms of value of landings)
- Kinlochbervie (28% of impacts)
- Ullapool (10% of impacts)
- Stromness (7% of impacts)
The impacts on employment that results from the reduction in value of landings is estimated at 1.0 FTE (low scenario, Type I) to 3.3 FTEs (high scenario, Type II). The main home ports affected are:
- Scrabster (51% of impacts in the North on home ports)
- Ullapool (15% of impacts)
- Stornoway (15% of impacts)
- Kinlochbervie (9% of impacts)
Total impacts in terms of value of landings per port[91] are used as an indication of the likely significance of any knock-on social impacts resulting from changes in value of landings at home port (e.g. on jobs) or at landing port (e.g. on processing):
- Kinlochbervie: 0.22% of landings by vessels registered to the home port; 0.17% of landings to the port
- Scrabster: 0.84% of landings by vessels registered to the home port; 0.12% of landings to the port
- Stornoway: 0.12% of landings by vessels registered to the home port; 0.03% of landings to the port
- Stromness: no data for landings by vessels registered to the home port; 0.19% of landings to the port
- Ullapool: 0.25% of landings by vessels registered to the home port; 0.05% of landings to the port
Other negative impacts could be caused by the migration of workers to take up the relocated jobs created by spend on wind farms through effects on housing demand, increased demand on services. With an estimated 279 (low scenario, Type I) to 844 (high scenario, Type II) relocated jobs being created (maximum in any one year over the appraisal period), this could result in up to 574 (low) to 1,739 (high) people moving into communities in the North region assuming 2.06 people per household[92] including the person taking up the job.
G.2.5 West
Impacts on fishing could result in a loss of income and GVA of around £30,500 per year (low scenario, Type I) to £142,000 per year (high scenario, Type II) in the West. The most impacted ports in the West in terms of reduction in value of landings are expected to be (reported for ports that would experience a minimum of 10% of the impacts), based on impacts on fishing grounds from all regions that are then landed to ports in the West region[93]:
- Islay (27% of impacts in the West in terms of value of landings)
- Fionnphort (21% of impacts)
- Port Ellen (19% of impacts)
- Bunessan (5% of impacts)
- Portnhaven (5% of impacts)
The impacts on employment that results from the reduction in value of landings is estimated at 0.5 FTE (low scenario, Type I) to 2.2 FTEs (high scenario, Type II). The main home ports affected are:
- Oban (96% of impacts in the West on home ports)
- Malliag (2% of impacts)
- Portree (2% of impacts)
Total impacts in terms of value of landings per port[94] are used as an indication of the likely significance of any knock-on social impacts resulting from changes in value of landings at home port (e.g. on jobs) or at landing port (e.g. on processing):
- Bunessan: no data for landings by vessels registered to the home port; 0.41% of landings to the port
- Fionnphort: no data for landings by vessels registered to the home port; 0.71% of landings to the port
- Islay: no data for landings by vessels registered to the home port; 0.74% of landings to the port
- Mallaig: 0.02% of landings by vessels registered to the home port; 0.01% of landings to the port
- Oban: 0.39% of landings by vessels registered to the home port; 0.01% of landings to the port
- Port Ellen: no data for landings by vessels registered to the home port; 0.41% of landings to the port
- Portnahaven: no data for landings by vessels registered to the home port; 0.78% of landings to the port
- Portree: 0.01% of landings by vessels registered to the home port; ~0% of landings to the port
Other negative impacts could be caused by the migration of workers to take up the relocated jobs created by spend on wind farms through effects on housing demand, increased demand on services. With an estimated 39 (low scenario, Type I) to 606 (high scenario, Type II) relocated jobs being created (maximum in any one year over the appraisal period), this could result in up to 82 (low) to 1,267 (high) people moving into communities in the West region assuming 2.09 people per household[95] including the person taking up the job.
G.2.6 South West
Impacts on fishing could result in a loss of income and GVA of around £11,000 per year (low scenario, Type I) to £43,000 per year (high scenario, Type II) in the South West. The most impacted ports in the South West in terms of reduction in value of landings are expected to be, based on impacts on fishing grounds from all regions that are then landed to ports in the South West region[96]:
- Kirkcudbright (25% of impacts in the South West in terms of value of landings)
- Port William (19% of impacts)
- Drummore (18% of impacts)
- Isle of Whithorn (12%)
- Girvan (9% of impacts)
- Campbeltown (7% of impacts)
- Stranraer (5% of impacts)
The impacts on employment that results from the reduction in value of landings is estimated at 0.2 FTE (low scenario, Type I) to 0.7 FTEs (high scenario, Type II). The main home ports affected are:
- Ayr (63% (low scenario) or 57% impacts (high scenario) in the South West on home ports)
- Campbeltown (37% (low scenario) or 43% impacts (high scenario))
Total impacts in terms of value of landings per port[97] are used as an indication of the likely significance of any knock-on social impacts resulting from changes in value of landings at home port (e.g. on jobs) or at landing port (e.g. on processing):
- Ayr: 0.15% of landings by vessels registered to the home port; ~0% of landings to the port
- Campbeltown: 0.28% of landings by vessels registered to the home port; 0.01% of landings to the port
- Drummore: no data for landings by vessels registered to the home port; 0.17% to landings to the port
- Girvan: no data for landings by vessels registered to the home port; 0.05% of landings to the port
- Isle of Whithorn: no data for landings by vessels registered to the home port; 0.10% of landings to the port
- Kirkcudbright: no data for landings by vessels registered to the home port; 0.03% of landings to the port
- Port William: no data for landings by vessels registered to the home port; 0.15% of landings to the port
- Stranraer: no data for landings by vessels registered to the home port; 0.05% of landings to the port
Other negative impacts could be caused by the migration of workers to take up the relocated jobs created by spend on wind farms through effects on housing demand, increased demand on services. With an estimated 28 (low scenario, Type I) to 320 (high scenario, Type II) relocated jobs being created (maximum in any one year over the appraisal period), this could result in up to 59 (low) to 669 (high) people moving into communities in the South West region assuming 2.09 people per household[98] including the person taking up the job.
G.3 Cluster: individual – family, family life, inter-generation issues
Impacts on family, family life and inter-generation issues at the individual levels are linked to extent to which a family can stay connected, can be located near to each other and can obtain support from the family network. Under family, aspects such as children wellbeing and material deprivation are also included (Table 70).
The relevant statistics identified for this category relate mostly to child wellbeing and happiness, child material deprivation, child social and physical development, and positive relationships for children. It is assumed that this is a good indicator of family issues overall as it can be linked to family time and income.
Table 70 Cluster: individual – family, family life, inter-generation issues
| Aspect | Detail |
|---|---|
| Detailed statistics | 14% of children with abnormal score using the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation Index (SIMD) as the basis for assessing child wellbeing and happiness (2013-16) 12% of children in combined material deprivation and low income (below 70% of UK median income) in 2014-17 81% of children have positive relationships (2015) |
| Level | NATIONAL |
| Positive impacts – potential contribution to national indicators |
Potential reduction in proportion of children in material deprivation. More family time for those able to be employed locally helping to improve child wellbeing and happiness |
| Cause of impacts | Increase in local and relocated jobs potentially increase family income Local jobs reduce need to commute to jobs that are further away increasing family time |
| Impacts rating and justification | Minor (+ +) Significant potential for increased employment with potential for knock-on impacts for family life from 864 (low, Type I) to 3,821 (high, Type II) jobs and potential reduction in child material deprivation |
| Distributional effects | Rural and coastal areas likely to see positive effects due to location of wind farm developments |
| Negative impacts – potential effect on national indicators |
Less family time where workers move to new regions to take up jobs over week could affect child wellbeing and happiness Loss of income from loss of fishing jobs (or income from fishing where effects are not sufficient to cause loss of job) and supply chains supporting fishing, plus knock-on effects from reduced spend in other services from reduction in income from fishing all potentially impacting on child material deprivation |
| Cause of impacts | Relocated jobs may mean some families are split up during the working week if workers move to take up jobs but where family stays in original location, with potential for 648 (low, Type I) to 2,866 (high, Type II) relocated jobs Loss of small number of local jobs or income from fishing, which may result in fishers having to take on other jobs to supplement income with knock-on effects on family time Loss of small number of indirect and induced jobs due to negative impacts on fishing |
| Impacts rating and justification |
Minor (- - ) overall Small impacts on communities as a whole |
| Distributional effects | May be larger impacts on fisher families where there are job losses, although losses of around 2.5 FTEs (low scenario, Type I) to 8.3 FTEs (high scenario, Type I) are projected such that impacts should be small |
| Region | EAST |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Moderate (+ + +) Impacts greater than for national with higher retention or equal rates over all five activities |
| Distributional effects | Most significant impacts likely to be in larger towns and ports that support wind farm development. Families within these towns and moving to these towns are expected to see the greatest positive effects. |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Minor (- - ) Small impacts on jobs with 0.9 fisher FTEs lost on over-12m vessels under high scenario, Type I |
| Distributional effects | Fisheries jobs affected most likely to be in Aberdeen and Eyemouth and may affect processing jobs, with impacts on families associated with these industries. However, impacts on total value of landings are low: 0.02% at Eyemouth and 0.06% at Aberdeen |
| Region | NORTH EAST |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Moderate (+ + +) Impacts may be greater in North East towards end of construction phase due to greater retention of spend in balance of plant and installation and commissioning, with positive impacts for families associated with those jobs, but North East has the largest number of jobs potentially created of any one region (low 1,255 to high 4,250) |
| Distributional effects | Most significant impacts likely to be associated with ports supporting balance of plant and installation and commissioning activities in particular |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Minor (- -) Significant impacts could occur in some ports but overall effect is small with up to a maximum of 4.7 fisher FTEs (high, Type I) lost across the whole region |
| Distributional effects | Peterhead and Fraserburgh see most of the impacts in the North East, but these represent just 0.18% of landings to the home port by value (Fraserburgh) and 0.13% for Peterhead. Buckie sees the overall greatest change in value of landings (0.27% where Buckie is the home port and 0.29% where Buckie is the landing port). These are small reductions that are unlikely to result in local job losses either directly to fisheries or to processing and the supply chain. Families in all these ports could be impacted to the extent that concerns are raised in the communities, both in terms of direct impacts on fisher’s families and knock-on effects on families of those working at the port, processing or support industries. In total, though a maximum of 4.7 FTEs (high, Type I) are estimated to be lost across the region as a whole; there could be impacts on incomes though that may have effects on child material deprivation |
| Region | NORTH |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Minor (+ +) Impacts are generally smaller than at the national level but should still be sufficient to enable expansion of local supply chains |
| Distributional effects | Key impacts on families in ports where activities are likely to be concentrated, including Kishorn, Lerwick, Lyness, Scrabster, Stornoway and Sullom Voe likely to see most of the positive effects. Families of people taking up jobs in the wind farm industry should see positive impacts |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Minor (- - ) Significant impacts could occur in some ports but overall effect is small with up to a maximum of 2.9 fisher FTEs (high, Type I) lost across the whole region |
| Distributional effects | Scrabster, Kinlochbervie and Ullapool see most of the impacts in the North, but these represent 0.84% of landings to the home port by value (Scrabster), 0.22% for Kinclochbervie and 0.25% for Ullapool. The overall greatest change in value of landings is 0.84% at Scrabster (home port) and 0.19% at Stromness (landing port). These are small reductions that are unlikely to result in local job losses either directly to fisheries or to processing and the supply chain. This could have impacts on families affected by a reduction in income even if the change is not sufficient to result in significant job losses |
| Region | WEST |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Minor (+ +) Impacts similar to or smaller than at national level in terms of retention rates but still sufficient to enable expansion of supply chains with job impacts that could result in positive impacts on families |
| Distributional effects | Families in and around ports that provide the facilities needed for wind farm development are likely to see the greatest positive effects. These include Ardrishaig, Ardrossan, Corpach, Fairlie, Greenock, Hunterston, Oban |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Minor (- -) Impacts may be significant locally but are small overall with up to a maximum of 2.0 fisher FTEs (high, Type I) lost due to impacts on landings |
| Distributional effects | Oban, Islay, Fionnphort and Port Ellen see most of the impacts in the West. There are no data for most of these West ports for home port landings. The overall greatest change in value of landings is 0.39% at Oban (home port) and 0.78% at Portnhaven (landing port). These are small reductions that are unlikely to result in local job losses either directly to fisheries or to processing and the supply chain. Some of these ports are not expected to be greatly impacted by wind farm development so the impacts could be disproportionately greater as fishers would not be able to supplement their income through, e.g. support work using their vessels directly from their home port. This could affect family life by requiring them to travel further and potentially spend more time away from their families. |
| Region | SOUTH WEST |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Minor (+ +) Impacts generally smaller in terms of retention rates than national but are still significant to enable growth of supply chains providing income and support to families in the region |
| Distributional effects | Most significant impacts likely on families in and around those ports with the facilities required or potential to offer wind farm services. These are likely to be based around Ayr and Campbeltown |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Minor (- -) May be significant impacts on specific families but overall impacts are small with up to a maximum of 0.6 fisher FTEs (high, Type I) lost across the region |
| Distributional effects | Ayr, Campbeltown, Drummore and Kirkcudbright see most of the impacts in the South West, but these represent a small percentage of total landing value. Maximum impacts on landings ports are seen at Campbeltown (0.28% of landings value) and Drummore (0.17% of landings value). These are small reductions that are unlikely to result in local job losses either directly to fisheries or to processing and the supply chain. Impacts on fisher families in these locations could be greater than suggested by loss of jobs due to loss of income from landings, but some income lost could be supplemented for fishermen out of Ayr and Campbeltown from new activities associated with wind farms to help supplement incomes |
G.4 Cluster: individual – jobs, career, employment
Impacts on jobs, career, and employment at the individual level are linked to job opportunities. This includes statistics on economic activities such as entrepreneurial activity, employment rate, gender balance and gender pay gap, and levels of self-employment.
The estimated employment created through supply chain impacts includes an estimate of the number of jobs that would be created and then number of these jobs that would be available to local people, and the number where it is expected that people would migrate to the regions to fill (Table 71).
Table 71 Cluster: Individual – jobs, career, employment
| Aspect | Detail | |
|---|---|---|
| Detailed statistics | 6.7% of the adult working age population that is actively trying to start a business or that own/manage a business that is less than 3.5 years old (2017) 6.9% gap between male and female employment rate (2017) 5.7% difference between make and female full-time hourly earnings, expressed as a percentage of male full-time hourly earnings (2017) 322,900 self-employed people in Scotland (2017) 62% of households had at least one adult in paid employment (2017) |
|
| Level | NATIONAL | |
| Positive impacts – potential contribution to national indicators | Increase in number of households with at least one adult in paid employment, with these being in skilled positions in many cases. Opportunity to increase self-employed people, although many may choose to take jobs within the supply chain which may be in existing businesses |
|
| Cause of impacts | Increase in paid employment from increase in jobs Increase in potential for people to develop careers locally in skilled occupations Opportunities for people to take up skilled positions in a range of locations opening up options in terms of where they live Support to supply chain and other services, e.g. shops which could positively affect small businesses |
|
| Impacts rating and justification | Moderate (+ + +) Potential for significant additional employment nationally with annual maximum of 864 (low, Type 1) to 3,821 (high, Type II) jobs |
|
| Distributional effects | Impacts likely to be greater where there is a concentration of jobs and may positively affect specific groups with the required skills. This could include people who previously worked in the oil and gas industry, if this declines over the appraisal timeframe | |
| Negative impacts – potential effect on national indicators | Loss of jobs in fishing industry with increase in unemployment Knock-on impacts in processing industries, income to ports and business for supply chain supporting fishing industry |
|
| Cause of impacts | Impact on value of landings resulting in reduced landings and income for fishers, with knock-on reduction in income for ports and support industries. Processing industries will see a reduction in raw materials which may mean they have to import more for other sources, with potential for higher costs or loss of accreditation impacts depending on where alternative materials can be sourced from | |
| Impacts rating and justification | Minor (- -) Losses of around 2.5 FTEs (low scenario, Type I) to 8.3 FTEs (high scenario, Type I) are projected such that impacts should be small |
|
| Distributional effects | May be larger impacts on fisher families where there are job losses with direct impacts in terms of increased unemployment in the fishing community and support industries | |
| Region | EAST | |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Moderate (+ + +) Impacts greater than for national with higher retention or equal rates over all five activities resulting in potentially significant numbers of jobs (282 to 1,849), but likely to result in expansion of existing businesses and services rather than generation of large numbers of new services, especially in the early part of the appraisal timeframe |
|
| Distributional effects | Most significant positive impacts likely to be in larger towns and ports that support wind farm development. Unemployment within these towns likely to be the most significantly reduced, with potential development of renewable energy clusters | |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Minor (- - ) Small impacts on jobs with 0.9 FTE lost on over-12m vessels under high scenario, Type I |
|
| Distributional effects | Fisheries jobs affected most likely to be in Aberdeen and Eyemouth and may affect processing jobs, although impacts on total value of landings is very small | |
| Region | NORTH EAST | |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Moderate (+ + +) Impacts may be greater in North East towards end of construction phase due to greater retention of spend in balance of plant and installation and commissioning, with impacts in terms of 1,255 to 4,250 jobs. Significance of jobs means rating for reduction in unemployment is increased from national |
|
| Distributional effects | Most significant impacts likely to be associated with ports supporting balance of plant and installation and commissioning activities in particular | |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Moderate (- - -) Number of jobs lost is small, but larger than in other regions, and than the national overall |
|
| Distributional effects | In total, a maximum of 4.7 FTEs (high, Type I) are estimated to be lost across the region as a whole such that unemployment impacts are small in the context of the region but may be greater at the port level. There are small reductions in value of landings (up to 0.29% at Buckie) that are unlikely to result in knock-on local job losses either directly to fisheries or to processing and the supply chain | |
| Region | NORTH | |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Minor (+ +) Impacts are generally smaller than at the national level but should still be sufficient to enable expansion of local supply chains |
|
| Distributional effects | Key impacts in terms of reduction in unemployment in ports where activities are likely to be concentrated, including Kishorn, Lerwick, Lyness, Scrabster, Stornoway and Sullom Voe likely to see most of the 373 to 1,126 jobs | |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Minor (- - ) Significant impacts could occur in some ports but overall effect is small with up to a maximum of 2.9 FTEs lost across the whole region |
|
| Distributional effects | There are small reductions in value of landings (up to 0.84% at Scrabster) that are unlikely to result in knock-on local job losses either directly to fisheries or to processing and the supply chain. This could have impacts on families affected by a reduction in income even if the change is not sufficient to result in significant job losses. | |
| Region | WEST | |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Minor (+ +) Impacts similar to or smaller than at national level in terms of retention rates but still sufficient to enable expansion of supply chains such with up to 51 to 910 jobs |
|
| Distributional effects | Families in and around ports that provide the facilities needed for wind farm development are likely to see the largest impacts. These include Ardrishaig, Ardrossan, Corpach, Fairlie, Greenock, Hunterston, Oban | |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Minor (- - -) Impacts may be significant locally but are small overall with up to a maximum of 2.0 FTEs (high, Type I) lost due to impacts on landings |
|
| Distributional effects | Oban, Islay, Fionnphort and Port Ellen see most of the impacts in the West. Loss of jobs and, hence, unemployment could be concentrated in these locations, although the impacts on value of landings to any one port are small (maximum is at Portnahaven at 0.78% | |
| Region | SOUTH WEST | |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Minor (+ +) Impacts generally smaller in terms of retention rates than national but are still significant to enable growth of supply chains providing 38 to 426 jobs |
|
| Distributional effects | Most significant impacts likely in and around those ports with the facilities required or potential to offer wind farm services. These are likely to be based around Ayr and Campbeltown with most jobs generated in this area | |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Minor (- -) May be localised job losses in most affected ports but overall impacts are small with up to a maximum of 0.6 FTEs (high, Type I) lost across the region |
|
| Distributional effects | Ayr, Campbeltown, Drummore and Kirkcudbright see most of the impacts in the South West, but these represent a small percentage of total landing value. Maximum impacts on landings ports are seen at Campbeltown (0.28% of landings value) and Drummore (0.17% of landings value). Job losses likely to be concentrated in these activities but those in Ayr and Campbeltown could be replaced by new opportunities associated with wind farm development | |
G.5 Cluster: individual – money, cost of living
Impact on money and cost of living at the individual level are linked to income and the cost of living, measures of poverty and debt, inequalities in terms of income and wealth (Table 72).
Table 72 Cluster: individual – money, cost of living
| Aspect | Detail |
|---|---|
| Detailed statistics | 25% of median net income spent on housing, fuel and food (2014-17) 8% of people in Scotland living in relative poverty after housing costs for three of the last four years (2012-16) 3.3% of households in unmanageable debt (excessive debt repayments/arrears on commitments or high debt levels relative to annual income) 19.4% of workers earning less than the living wage (2018) Income share of the top 10% of the population in Scotland divided by income share of the bottom 40% (Palma ratio) was 124% (2014-17) 61 wealth inequality measured by the Gini coefficient which ranges from 0 (perfect equality) to 100 (maximal inequality) (2014-16) 8% of adults reporting that at some point in the previous 12 months they worried they would run out of food because of a lack of money or other resources (2017) 54% of households earn less than £25,000 per year, while 22% of households earn more than £40,000 per year (2017) 56% of households reported that they were managing well financially with 35% stating that they get by alright (2017) |
| Level | NATIONAL |
| Positive impacts – potential contribution to national indicators | Potential reduction in net income spent on housing, fuel and food, and likely relative poverty after housing costs. Additional jobs in skilled positions could help reduce debt and should reduce percentage of workers earning less than the living wage (although the skilled occupations may mean those taking up the jobs may already have been earning above the living wage). Should maintain or increase proportion of households that are managing well through increased jobs and employment |
| Cause of impacts | Increase in skills local and relocated jobs increasing income Reduced poverty and debt from increased income from more skilled jobs Greater income leads to more spend in communities with knock-on impacts in terms of income from those working in supply chain and services Potential to reduce wealth inequality by providing skilled jobs in rural areas |
| Impacts rating and justification | Minor (+ +) Significant potential for increased income with potential for knock-on impacts from 864 (low, Type 1) to 3,821 (high, Type II) jobs but over country as a whole is unlikely to result in widescale expansion |
| Distributional effects | Impacts likely to be greater where there is a concentration of jobs and may positively affect specific groups with the required skills. This could include people who previously worked in the oil and gas industry, if this declines over the appraisal timeframe, although the similar skills and earnings may then mean that the impacts in terms of income are reduced. Positive impacts in rural areas and around ports that can provide the required facilities could affect coastal communities |
| Negative impacts – potential effect on national indicators | Combination of negative effects may impact on incomes to fishers at same time as cost of living, e.g. housing costs, are increasing due to more people moving into the area |
| Cause of impacts | Loss of income to fishers and potential loss of jobs Potential increase in cost of living due to increased demand, e.g. on housing or for services due to relocation of people to fill new jobs resulting from spend on wind farms Positive impacts may be clustered into hubs, and may not spill far outside those hubs, which could increase wealth inequality |
| Impacts rating and justification | Minor (- -) May be larger impacts on fisher families where there are job losses, although losses of around 2.5 FTEs (low scenario, Type I) to 8.3 FTEs (high scenario, Type I) are projected such that impacts should be small |
| Distributional effects | Fishers may see a reduction in income at the same time as costs of living increases where there are jobs created in ports that result in people moving into the area increasing demand on housing. However, fishers may be able to supplement their income from offering services to the wind farm where impacts occur in the same or nearby locations |
| Region | EAST |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Minor (+ +) Impacts greater than for national with higher retention or equal rates over all five activities but may see movement of people from similar skilled jobs, e.g. from oil and gas industry rather than necessarily significant additional income for local people currently in lower paid jobs |
| Distributional effects | Most significant positive impacts are likely to be in larger towns and ports that support wind farm development. People taking up jobs in wind farm activities within these towns and moving to these towns are expected to see the greatest impacts in terms of increased income (assuming they would move to a job that is better paid or has other positive effects such as lower cost and/or quality of living, at least initially) |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Minor (- - ) Small impacts on jobs with 0.9 FTE lost on over-12m vessels under high scenario, Type I |
| Distributional effects | Fisheries jobs affected most likely to be in Aberdeen and Eyemouth and may affect processing jobs, with impacts on income to fishers and those working in sectors associated with fishing. However, impacts on total value of landings are low: 0.02% at Eyemouth and 0.06% at Aberdeen |
| Region | NORTH EAST |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Minor (+ +) Impacts may be greater in North East towards end of construction phase due to greater retention of spend in balance of plant and installation and commissioning, with impacts in terms of income for those employed in these sectors |
| Distributional effects | Most significant positive impacts likely to be associated with ports supporting balance of plant and installation and commissioning activities in particular. These activities have a duration of around four years so may be a mobile workforce that moves around the region (or even outside the region) for similar jobs over the appraisal period |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Moderate (- - -) Significant impacts could occur in some ports but overall effect is small with up to a maximum of 4.7 FTEs lost across the whole region |
| Distributional effects | Peterhead and Fraserburgh see most of the impacts in the North East, but these represent just 0.18% of landings to the home port by value (Fraserburgh) and 0.13% for Peterhead. Buckie sees the overall greatest change in value of landings (0.27% where Buckie is the home port and 0.29% where Buckie is the landing port). These are small reductions that are unlikely to result in local job losses either directly to fisheries or to processing and the supply chain. Incomes to fishers and those working in associated industries in all these ports could be impacted to the extent that concerns are raised in the communities, both in terms of direct impacts on fishers and knock-on effects on those working at the port, processing or support industries. In total, though a maximum of 4.7 FTEs are estimated to be lost across the region as a whole so while impacts may be larger locally, they are expected to be concentrated into small areas |
| Region | NORTH |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Minor (+ +) Impacts are generally smaller than at the national level but should still be sufficient to enable expansion of local supply chains such that local incomes could increase |
| Distributional effects | Key impacts in ports where activities are likely to be concentrated, including Kishorn, Lerwick, Lyness, Scrabster, Stornoway and Sullom Voe likely to see most of the positive effects. People taking up jobs in the wind farm industry should see positive impacts in terms of increased income, although many may move from similar types of jobs in other sectors or other locations |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Minor (- - ) Significant impacts could occur in some ports but overall effect is small with up to a maximum of 2.9 FTEs lost across the whole region |
| Distributional effects | Scrabster, Kinlochbervie and Ullapool see most of the impacts in the North, but these represent 0.84% of landings to the home port by value (Scrabster), 0.22% for Kinclochbervie and 0.25% for Ullapool. The overall greatest change in value of landings is 0.84% at Scrabster (home port) and 0.19% at Stromness (landing port). These are small reductions that are unlikely to result in local job losses either directly to fisheries or to processing and the supply chain. This could have small impacts on fishers and associated industries including processing affected by a reduction in income even if the change is not sufficient to result in significant job losses |
| Region | WEST |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Minor (+ +) Impacts similar to or smaller than at national level in terms of retention rates but still sufficient to enable expansion of supply chains with positive impacts on jobs that could result in increased incomes |
| Distributional effects | People living in or moving into the areas in and around ports that provide the facilities needed for wind farm development are likely to most positively affected. These include Ardrishaig, Ardrossan, Corpach, Fairlie, Greenock, Hunterston, Oban |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Minor (- -) Impacts may be significant locally but are small overall with up to a maximum of 2.0 FTEs lost due to impacts on landings |
| Distributional effects | Oban, Islay, Fionnphort and Port Ellen see most of the impacts in the West. There are no data for most of these West ports for home port landings. The overall greatest change in value of landings is 0.39% at Oban (home port) and 0.78% at Portnhaven (landing port). These are small reductions that are unlikely to result in local job losses either directly to fisheries or to processing and the supply chain. Some of these ports are not expected to be greatly impacted by wind farm development so the impacts could be disproportionately greater as fishers would not be able to supplement their income through, e.g. support work using their vessels directly from their home port. |
| Region | SOUTH WEST |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Minor (+ +) Impacts generally smaller in terms of retention rates than national but are still significant to enable growth of supply chains providing potential to increase income, especially at the local level |
| Distributional effects | Most significant impacts likely on people taking up jobs in and around those ports with the facilities required or potential to offer wind farm services. These are likely to be based around Ayr and Campbeltown |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Minor (- -) May be significant impacts on specific families but overall impacts are small with up to a maximum of 0.6 FTEs lost across the region |
| Distributional effects | Ayr, Campbeltown, Drummore and Kirkcudbright see most of the impacts in the South West, but these represent a small percentage of total landing value. Maximum impacts on landings ports are seen at Campbeltown (0.28% of landings value) and Drummore (0.17% of landings value). These are small reductions that are unlikely to result in local job losses either directly to fisheries or to processing and the supply chain. Impacts on fishers in these locations could be greater than suggested due to loss of income from landings, but some income lost could be supplemented for fishermen out of Ayr and Campbeltown from new activities associated with wind farms to help supplement incomes |
G.6 Cluster: community – local jobs, local industry, community sustainability
Impacts on local jobs, local industry and community sustainability at the community level are linked to economic growth, participation, including how changes in participation in recreational activities may affect local industry and community sustainability, innovation, exports and productivity (Table 73).
Table 73 Cluster: community – local jobs, local industry, community sustainability
| Aspect | Detail |
|---|---|
| Detailed statistics | The annual GDP gap of Scotland with the UK was 0.014% (2017) -1.31% Scotland’s position on labour market participation as a gap between the best performing of the other three countries in the UK as a percentage (2018) 1.2% of businesses that were high growth enterprises as a share of all registered enterprises 45% of businesses that were innovation active (2017) Value of Scottish exports to the rest of the world (not including the rest of the UK) was £32,400 million (2017) Scotland was ranked 16th for productivity against key trading partners in the OECD (2017) Number of private sector enterprises registered for VAT and/or PAYE) 391 per 10,000 adults (2017) |
| Level | NATIONAL |
| Positive impacts – potential contribution to national indicators | Increase in proportion of high growth and innovative businesses. Investment should help secure future of PAYE registered businesses in relevant sectors Exports may increase over time as Scottish businesses develop and innovate, with potential to increase export of knowledge and services |
| Cause of impacts | Positive impacts from spend in renewable energy, high growth and clean growth businesses Opportunities to diversify into new business areas could help innovative businesses to grow and develop |
| Impacts rating and justification | Moderate (+ + +) Significant potential for business growth from spend with Present Value GVA impacts over the appraisal timeframe of £515 million (low, Type I) to £2,137 (high, Type II) |
| Distributional effects | Positive effects may be clustered into hubs, and may not spill far outside those hubs, such that the impacts may be concentrated in localised communities. This could assist high growth and innovative businesses who will be able to build networks and share ideas better in hubs |
| Negative impacts – potential effect on national indicators | Impacts localised to fishing industry and likely to be small. Fishing communities may be affected in terms of reduction in income with local sustainability and fishing traditions potentially affected. Sustainability of some ports may also be affected by impacts on commercial shipping, while marinas may be affected by displacement of recreational boating and angling |
| Cause of impacts | Loss of local fishing jobs and income with knock-on impacts on traditional jobs and skills, supply chain, etc. May be some small effects at the local scale due to increases in costs associated with commercial shipping that could affect local ports |
| Impacts rating and justification | Minor (- -) May be larger impacts on fisher families where there are job losses, although losses of around 2.5 FTEs (low scenario, Type I) to 8.3 FTEs (high scenario, Type I) are projected such that impacts should be small. Loss of income may be more significant in terms of ability for fishing business owners to invest in their businesses. Impacts on ports and marinas should be small |
| Distributional effects | Impacts on fishing could affect specific elements of the community so be concentrated on family groups or locations within a town/village. Some ports may see larger impacts due to displacement of recreational boating that may reduce earnings of marinas. Similarly, some ports may be affected by changes to shipping routes that could affect trade in and out of the port, or displacement of sea angling boats |
| Region | EAST |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Moderate (+ + +) Impacts greater than for national with higher retention or equal rates over all five activities, this could positively affect hubs of businesses over the whole supply chain and appraisal timeframe |
| Distributional effects | Most significant positive impacts are likely to be in larger towns and ports that support wind farm development. Businesses within these towns are likely to see the greatest effects. |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Minor (- - ) Small impacts on jobs with 0.9 FTE lost on over-12m vessels under high scenario, Type I. Impacts on recreational boating and commercial shipping very small with no expected impacts on tourism or water sports |
| Distributional effects | Fisheries jobs affected most likely to be in Aberdeen and Eyemouth and may affect processing jobs, with impacts on fishing businesses associated with these industries |
| Region | NORTH EAST |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Moderate (+ + +) Impacts may be greater in North East towards end of construction phase due to greater retention of spend in balance of plant and installation and commissioning, with positive impacts for businesses associated with those jobs. Timing of effects may be slightly delayed compared with other regions, although greater potential of region for balance of plant and installation and commissioning could enable it to become a hub, exporting ideas and services to other regions and internationally |
| Distributional effects | Most significant positive impacts are likely to be associated with ports supporting balance of plant and installation and commissioning activities in particular. Hubs of companies providing these services could lead to greater effects for these sectors |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Minor (- -) Small impacts on fisher jobs with up to 4.7 FTE lost under the high scenario, Type I. Impacts on recreational boating, tourism and water sports are very small. Impacts on commercial shipping could be significant due to overlapping shipping routes around Scotland that could affect trade into and out of specific ports within the region, with the potential for knock-on effects on local industry and sustainability |
| Distributional effects | Peterhead and Fraserburgh see most of the impacts in the North East, but these represent just 0.18% of landings to the home port by value (Fraserburgh) and 0.13% for Peterhead. Buckie sees the overall greatest change in value of landings (0.27% where Buckie is the home port and 0.29% where Buckie is the landing port). These are small reductions that are unlikely to result in local job losses either directly to fisheries or to processing and the supply chain. Fishers in all these ports could be impacted to the extent that concerns are raised in the communities, both in terms of direct impacts on fishing businesses and knock-on effects on port, processing or support industries. In total, though a maximum of 4.7 FTEs are estimated to be lost across the region as a whole; there could be impacts on incomes though that may have effects on ability of business owners to invest in their businesses such that the future viability and sustainability of the sectors could be affected |
| Region | NORTH |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Minor (+ +) Impacts are generally smaller than at the national level but should still be sufficient to enable expansion of local supply chains by encouraging investment in local businesses |
| Distributional effects | Key positive impacts on businesses in ports where activities are likely to be concentrated, including Kishorn, Lerwick, Lyness, Scrabster, Stornoway and Sullom Voe likely to see most of the effects. Hubs may develop in these locations that could attract additional investment, especially where businesses are innovative |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Minor (- - ) Significant impacts could occur in some ports but overall effect is small with up to a maximum of 2.9 FTEs (high, Type I) lost across the whole region. Spatial planning should reduce impacts on ports from increased costs on commercial shipping |
| Distributional effects | Scrabster, Kinlochbervie and Ullapool see most of the impacts in the North, but these represent 0.84% of landings to the home port by value (Scrabster), 0.22% for Kinclochbervie and 0.25% for Ullapool. The overall greatest change in value of landings is 0.84% at Scrabster (home port) and 0.19% at Stromness (landing port). This could have impacts on fishing business owners affected by a reduction in income as they may not be able to afford to invest in their business, which could affect long-term viability Tourism and recreational angling impacts could be significant in the Outer Hebrides with impacts potentially on ports such as Miavaig Boat trips out of Miavaig are also important for recreational fishing and wildlife watching with impacts on fuel costs or access to sites potentially impacting on these industries |
| Region | WEST |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Minor (+ +) Impacts similar to or smaller than at national level in terms of retention rates but still sufficient to enable expansion of supply chains encouraged to invest in growing businesses and diversification |
| Distributional effects | Businesses in and around ports that provide the facilities needed for wind farm development are likely to see the greatest positive effects. These include Ardrishaig, Ardrossan, Corpach, Fairlie, Greenock, Hunterston, Oban |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Minor (- -) Impacts may be significant locally but are small overall with up to a maximum of 2.0 FTEs (high, Type I) lost due to impacts on fish landings. Possible impacts on recreational boating, tourism and recreational sea angling could also cause some knock-on effect on local industries and community sustainability |
| Distributional effects | Oban, Islay, Fionnphort and Port Ellen see most of the impacts in the West. There are no data for most of these West ports for home port landings. The overall greatest change in value of landings is 0.39% at Oban (home port) and 0.78% at Portnhaven (landing port). Other than Oban, these ports are not expected to be greatly impacted by wind farm development so the impacts could be disproportionately greater as fishers would not be able to supplement their income through, e.g. support work using their vessels directly from their home port. This could affect the extent to which fishing business owners are able to invest with potential impacts on future viability Impacts on recreational boating and marinas may be greatest in Oban, which may also incur impacts due to effects on access for cruise ships and the positive effects these can bring to the local community (although spatial planning should reduce the potential impacts) |
| Region | SOUTH WEST |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Minor (+ +) Impacts generally smaller in terms of retention rates than national but are still significant to enable growth of supply chains providing encouragement for investment in businesses to help improve future sustainability |
| Distributional effects | Most significant impacts likely on businesses in and around those ports with the facilities required or potential to offer wind farm services. These are likely to be based around Ayr and Campbeltown |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Minor (- -) May be significant impacts on specific fishing businesses but overall impacts are small with up to a maximum of 0.6 FTEs (high, Type I) lost across the region. Possible impacts on recreational boating, recreational sea angling and water sports could also cause some knock-on effect on local industries and community sustainability |
| Distributional effects | Ayr, Campbeltown, Drummore and Kirkcudbright see most of the impacts in the South West, but these represent a small percentage of total landing value. Maximum impacts on landings ports are seen at Campbeltown (0.28% of landings value) and Drummore (0.17% of landings value). Impacts on fishing businesses in these locations could be greater than suggested by loss of jobs due to loss of income from landings, but some income lost could be supplemented for fishermen out of Ayr and Campbeltown from new activities associated with wind farms to help supplement incomes and encourage investment. Investment may be more in activities related to wind farms and less related to fishing with potential loss of traditional community activities and possibility of knock-on impacts on the fishing supply chain Impacts on recreational boating, sea angling and tourism are likely to most affect the coast of Dumfries and Galloway, with impacts on local industries and community sustainability potentially greatest in ports such as Kirkcudbright, Garlieston and Port William |
G.7 Cluster: community – transport connections, technology connections
Impacts on transport connections and technology connections are linked to any impacts on transport connections (e.g. shipping). These include statistics on active travel, travel methods, satisfaction with public transport and access to superfast broadband (Table 74).
Table 74 Cluster: community – transport connections, technology connections
| Aspect | Detail |
|---|---|
| Detailed statistics | 30.1% of adults usually travelling to work by public or active transport (2017) 87% of residential and non-residential addresses where superfast broad band is available (2017) 69% of respondents (to the Scottish Household Survey) who are fairly or very satisfied with the quality of public transport |
| Level | NATIONAL |
| Positive impacts – potential contribution to national indicators | Potential increase in quality or frequency of public transport (although increased incomes may discourage use of public transport) Potential increase in proportion of population with access to superfast broadband |
| Cause of impacts | Investment in, e.g. ports could have positive effects in terms of boat transport (ferries, also potential for cruise ships and recreation) More demand for transport services (e.g. from larger population) could help support better quality or more frequent public transport services Demand for high-speed broadband from high growth businesses may help drive roll-out for households as knock-on effects; growth of communities due to relocation to fill jobs may also help improve the case for roll-out of high speed broadband to more rural areas |
| Impacts rating and justification | Minor (+ +) Significant potential for increased public transport and broadband due to increased population from those moving into the country to take up jobs (some may move within Scotland so there may be more of a rearrangement of the population rather than a significant increase) |
| Distributional effects | Impacts likely to be greater where there is a concentration of jobs since this will attract more people to move into the area and drive demand for transport and broadband services |
| Negative impacts – potential effect on national indicators | Greater demand on transport services through increased traffic (directly associated with developments or indirectly due to more people moving to areas) could lead to greater congestion. Possible impacts on ferries, and hence quality of ferry services due to impacts on commercial shipping |
| Cause of impacts | Increased population to take up job opportunities and/or increased number of people commuting for jobs where they do not permanently move for work. Increased commercial shipping costs caused by increased fuel costs to divert around developments |
| Impacts rating and justification | Minor (- -) Impacts likely to be noticed by local community and could be significant enough to cause complaints, but there is time for the level of spend within local areas to help encourage investment locally and reduce the risk of impacts. Impacts on commercial shipping can be minimised through spatial planning to create safe shipping lanes |
| Distributional effects | Impacts may be greater in terms of congestion where there are jobs in areas where the transport infrastructure is under-developed, but there is time for improvements to infrastructure before the maximum number of jobs are created |
| Region | EAST |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Minor (+ +) Impacts greater than for national with higher retention or equal rates over all five activities, with number of people potentially moving into the region of up to 441 (low) to 4,965 (high). Population likely to be spread over ports that could see positive effects such that impacts in any one community may be reduced but may still be sufficient to support investment in transport and broadband |
| Distributional effects | Most significant positive impacts likely to be in larger towns and ports that support wind farm development. People living within these towns are more likely to see positive effects from any investment in transport and broadband |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Minor (- - ) Population increases of 441 (low) to 4,965 (high) may have impacts on local transport services resulting in congestion, which could cause complaints but there is time for the level of spend before the maximum number of jobs are created (2030). Impacts on commercial shipping expected to be small and can be mitigated through spatial planning |
| Distributional effects | Impacts likely to be greatest in areas where there are already congestion issues, and where these are expected to increase over time |
| Region | NORTH EAST |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Minor (+ +) Number of people potentially moving into the region of up to 1,938 (low) to 6,657 (high). Population likely to be spread over ports that could be positively affected such that impacts in any one community may be reduced but may still be sufficient to support investment in transport and broadband |
| Distributional effects | Most significant positive impacts likely to be in larger towns and ports that support wind farm development. People living within these towns are more likely to see effects from any investment in transport and broadband |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Moderate (- - -) Population increases of 1,938 (low) to 6,567 (high) may have impacts on local transport services resulting in congestion, which could cause complaints but there is time for the level of spend before the maximum number of jobs are created (2033). Possible impacts on commercial shipping moving through the North Sea |
| Distributional effects | Impacts likely to be greatest in areas where there are already congestion issues, and where these are expected to increase over time |
| Region | NORTH |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Minor (+ +) Number of people potentially moving into the region of up to 574 (low) to 1,739 (high). Population likely to be spread over ports that could be positively affected such that impacts in any one community may be reduced but may still be sufficient to support investment in transport and broadband |
| Distributional effects | Most significant positive impacts are likely to be in larger towns and ports that support wind farm development. People living within these towns are more likely to see positive effects from any investment in transport and broadband. Impacts may also occur on specific ferry routes, e.g. Aberdeen to Lerwick ferry |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Minor (- -) Population increases of 574 (low) to 1,938 (high) may have impacts on local transport services resulting in congestion, which could cause complaints but there is time for the level of spend before the maximum number of jobs are created (2033). Impacts on ferry services likely to be small due to services and routes not being directly affected |
| Distributional effects | Impacts likely to be greatest in areas where there are already congestion issues, and where these are expected to increase over time. No significant impacts expected on quality or duration of ferry services |
| Region | WEST |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Minor (+ +) Number of people potentially moving into the region of up to 82 (low) to 1,267 (high). Population likely to be spread over ports that could positively affected such that impacts in any one community may be reduced but may still be sufficient to support investment in transport and broadband |
| Distributional effects | Most significant positive impacts are likely to be in larger towns and ports that support wind farm development. People living within these towns are more likely to see positive effects from any investment in transport and broadband |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Minor (- -) Population increases of 82 (low) to 1,267 (high) may have impacts on local transport services resulting in congestion, which could cause complaints but there is time for the level of spend before the maximum number of jobs are created (2028). Impacts on ferry services likely to be small due to services and routes not being directly affected |
| Distributional effects | Impacts likely to be greatest in areas where there are already congestion issues, and where these are expected to increase over time. No significant impacts expected on quality or duration of ferry services |
| Region | SOUTH WEST |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Minor (+ +) Number of people potentially moving into the region of up to 59 (low) to 669 (high). Population likely to be spread over ports that could be positively affected such that impacts in any one community may be reduced but may still be sufficient to support investment in transport and broadband |
| Distributional effects | Most significant positive impacts likely to be in larger towns and ports that support wind farm development. People living within these towns are more likely to see positive effects from any investment in transport and broadband |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Minor (- -) Population increases of 59 (low) to 669 (high) may have impacts on local transport services resulting in congestion, which could cause complaints but there is time for the level of spend before the maximum number of jobs are created (2028). Impacts on ferry services likely to be small due to location of services and routes |
| Distributional effects | Impacts likely to be greatest in areas where there are already congestion issues, and where these are expected to increase over time. No significant impacts expected on quality or duration of ferry services |
G.8 Cluster: community – education
Impacts on education at the community level are linked to skill levels and training.
This includes statistics on skill profile, skill shortages, skill under-utilisation, workplace learning and young people’s participation in education, employment of training.
The type of employment related to specific activities associated with wind farm development is related to the types of skills and level of skills required. Studies such as Energy & Utility Skills (2018)[99] provide an overview of the type of skills required (Table 75).
Table 75 Cluster: community – education
| Aspect | Detail |
|---|---|
| Detailed statistics | 10.8% of the population with low or no qualifications at SCQF level 4 or below (2017) 91.1% of Early Learning and Childcare achieving good or better across four quality themes (2017) 6% of employers with skill shortage vacancies (2017) 35% of graduates aged 16-64 years in employment in low and medium-skilled occupations (2017) Gross Expenditure on research and development as a percentage of GDP was 1.54% (2016) 23.2% of employees received on-the-job training in the last three months (2017) 91.8% of young adults (16-19 year olds) participating in education, training or employment 31% of the population had a degree or professional qualification, 12% an HNC/HND or equivalent, 18% higher/ A level or equivalent, 19% O grade/standard grade or equivalent and 16% no qualifications (2017) 70% of respondents (to the Scottish Household Survey) who are fairly or very satisfied with the quality of local schools |
| Level | NATIONAL |
| Positive impacts – potential contribution to national indicators |
Potential increase in on-the-job training through additional skilled positions. Opportunities for graduates to take up skills positions reducing percentage in low and medium-skilled occupations Potential increase in research and development from businesses investing innovation |
| Cause of impacts | 30+ year spend profiles can help drive local careers for local people, with opportunities to develop and use skills in a growing field Relocation of workers and their families could help support demand for services and could help secure the future of rural schools |
| Impacts rating and justification | Minor (+ +) Significant potential for increased employment in skilled positions through creation of up to 864 (low, Type 1) to 3,821 (high, Type II) jobs. Relocation of families could result in more than 1,762 (low, Type I) to 7,795 (high, Type II) people increasing demand for schools for those families with children that relocate |
| Distributional effects | Impacts likely to be greater where there is a concentration of job, this could result in hubs providing high skilled jobs in concentrated locations. These are likely to be around the ports that can offer the facilities needed by wind farm developments |
| Negative impacts – potential effect on national indicators | Potential reduction in proportion of the population that are fairly or very satisfied with the quality of local schools |
| Cause of impacts | More families relocating could increase demand on schools, resulting in greater class sizes and perceived reduction in quality of education that is being offered |
| Impacts rating and justification | Minor (- -) Any impacts are likely to be small given the number of people likely to relocate, proportion that may have children and the extent to which these families congregate in the same areas |
| Distributional effects | May be larger impacts in areas where jobs are concentrated since this may be where most people relocate to, but could be wider impacts where families relocate to surrounding towns and villages |
| Region | EAST |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Moderate (+ + +) Impacts greater than for national with higher retention or equal rates over all five activities with potential for greater opportunities in terms of skilled employment across all five activities |
| Distributional effects | Most significant positive impacts likely to be in larger towns and ports that support wind farm development. Here the workforce should become increasingly skilled, especially if hubs of high growth businesses begin to concentrate in the region |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Minor (- - ) Families relocating could affect demand for school places and increase class sizes. The maximum number of people projected to move into the region is 441 (low) to 4,965 (high). |
| Distributional effects | The most affected areas may be schools in locations where jobs are concentrated, although there may be wider impacts on surrounding towns and villages if people relocate more widely |
| Region | NORTH EAST |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Moderate (+ +) Impacts greater than for national for work on balance of plant and installation and commissioning. These activities last for around four years (for each package) so may be more likely to result in temporary positive impacts on skills with people then moving out to another region to offer the same skills when they are needed elsewhere |
| Distributional effects | Most significant positive impacts likely to be in larger towns and ports that support wind farm development. Here the workforce should become increasingly skilled. It may be less likely that hubs will develop under the low scenario, but could be greater impacts under the high scenario where repeated spending may help to encourage hubs of high growth businesses to set up with longer term positive effects for skills |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Moderate (- - -) Families relocating could affect demand for school places and increase class sizes. The maximum number of people projected to move into the region is 1,938 (low) to 6,567 (high). This is a potentially significant increase in demand on services such as schools that could result in concerns being raised by local communities while the relatively short-term nature of work with the key activities could mean there is less opportunity for sustained demand that could enable expansion of schools |
| Distributional effects | The most affected areas may be schools in locations where jobs are concentrated, although there may be wider impacts on surrounding towns and villages if people relocate more widely |
| Region | NORTH |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Minor (+ +) Impacts equal to or lower than for national in terms of retention rates of spend. As such, education and skills could increase through provision of skilled employment |
| Distributional effects | Most significant positive impacts likely to be in larger towns and ports that support wind farm development. Here the workforce should become increasingly skilled, although some employees may move from similar skilled positions, e.g. from oil and gas industry |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Minor (- - ) Families relocating could affect demand for school places and increase class sizes. The maximum number of people projected to move into the region is 574 (low) to 1,739 (high). This could be a significant increase in demand on services such as schools but across the region as a whole and across all the ports that could potentially be positively affected may not be sufficient to raise concerns within communities |
| Distributional effects | The most affected areas may be schools in locations where jobs are concentrated, although there may be wider impacts on surrounding towns and villages if people relocate more widely |
| Region | WEST |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Minor (+ +) Impacts equal to or lower than for national in terms of retention rates of spend. As such, education and skills could increase through provision of skilled employment |
| Distributional effects | Most significant positive impacts likely to be in larger towns and ports that support wind farm development. Here the workforce should become increasingly skilled, although some employees may move from similar skilled positions, e.g. from oil and gas industry |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Minor (- - ) Families relocating could affect demand for school places and increase class sizes. The maximum number of people projected to move into the region is 82 (low) to 606 (high). This could result in an increase in demand on services such as schools but across the region as a whole and across all the ports that could potentially be positively affected may not be sufficient to raise concerns within communities |
| Distributional effects | The most affected areas may be schools in locations where jobs are concentrated, although there may be wider impacts on surrounding towns and villages if people relocate more widely |
| Region | SOUTH WEST |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Minor (+ +) Impacts equal to or lower than for national in terms of retention rates of spend. As such, education and skills could increase through provision of skilled employment |
| Distributional effects | Most significant positive impacts likely to be in larger towns and ports that support wind farm development. Here the workforce should become increasingly skilled, although some employees may move from similar skilled positions, e.g. from oil and gas industry |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Minor (- - ) Families relocating could affect demand for school places and increase class sizes. The maximum number of people projected to move into the region is 59 (low) to 669 (high). This could result in an increase in demand on services such as schools but across the region as a whole and across all the ports that could potentially be positively affected may not be sufficient to raise concerns within communities |
| Distributional effects | The most affected areas may be schools in locations where jobs are concentrated, although there may be wider impacts on surrounding towns and villages if people relocate more widely |
G.9 Cluster: community – shops, housing
Impacts on shops and housing at the community level are linked to availability and quality of housing. This includes consideration of statistics on relative poverty after taking housing costs into account, satisfaction with housing, and housing tenure (Table 76).
Table 76 Cluster: community – shops, housing
| Aspect | Detail |
|---|---|
| Detailed statistics | 18% of individual living in private households with an equivalised incomes of less than 60% of the UK median after housing costs (2014-17) 92% of households who report being fairly or very satisfied with their house or flat (2017) 35% of people in Scotland live alone (2017) 15% of households rent from a private landlord of which 79% lived in urban areas, with 23% of households in social rented sector (2017) 84% of households are located in urban areas including small towns (2017) 35% of adults in private rented properties had been at their address for less than one year, with an average stay of two years (2017) Private rented properties are more likely to be flats (62%) than houses (37%) and tend to be smaller with 23% having one bedroom and 50% having two bedrooms (2017) 130,000 households (5%) were on a housing list with a further 20,000 (1%) of households having applied for social housing using a choice based letting system or similar within the past year (2017) Total number of households has increased by 13% since 1999 to 2.46 million households (2017) |
| Level | NATIONAL |
| Positive impacts – potential contribution to national indicators | Potential increase in proportion of population satisfied with their house or flat Potential increase in disposable income after housing costs are taken into account |
| Cause of impacts | Greater demand for housing may lead to development of new, high quality, efficient new housing More people moving into an area or more secure income could help increase spend in local shops and on local services (e.g. restaurants, bars) with knock-on impacts on level and quality of services provided |
| Impacts rating and justification | Minor (+ +) Potential for expansion of housing sector to support people moving for work but may be limited in scale at national level. Growth in spend from increased income may not be sufficient to see significant expansion of shops or other services, but could help support existing services |
| Distributional effects | Impacts likely to be greater where there is a concentration of jobs and may provide positive effects for groups with the required skills. This could result in more demand in some areas than others, with greater impacts from spend of larger disposable incomes than in other areas |
| Negative impacts – potential effect on national indicators | Potential reduction in proportion of population satisfied with their house or flat Potential reduction in level of disposable income if demand for housing means housing costs increase such that they take up more as percentage of income Possible loss of some specialist shops and services, e.g. those associated with fishing industry |
| Cause of impacts | Greater demand for housing may increase the cost of housing Loss of income for fishers could reduce demand for specialist services supporting the fishing industry with potential loss |
| Impacts rating and justification | Minor (- -) Impacts may be significant at times of peak employment levels, but may not be sufficient to raise issues or concerns with the community over the longer term. Housing may continue to be affordable for those moving to take up skilled positions but may be negative for those already living in the area who may not have the skills needed |
| Distributional effects | Impacts will be concentrated in those areas where there are the greatest increase in jobs and hence largest potential for relocation into areas. Most areas affected will be ports and coastal communities so they may have limited capacity to cope with increased populations |
| Region | EAST |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Minor (+ +) Impacts greater than for national with higher retention or equal rates over all five activities but total number of families moving into the region is lower than for some other regions and may be concentrated in larger towns that may have greater housing capacity to cope with increased demand |
| Distributional effects | Most significant positive impacts likely to be in larger towns and ports that support wind farm development. Some of these may already be growth areas, e.g., Aberdeen, Dundee |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Minor (- - ) Increased demand for housing may increase house prices and rental charges, which may be affordable for those moving to take up skilled positions but may be negative for those already living in the area who may not have the skills needed |
| Distributional effects | Impacts likely to be focused onto those areas where jobs are created, so increased income from those jobs could help to offset the additional housing costs. Poorer sections of communities may be disproportionately affected as they may not see their income increase and may find their housing costs increasing with potential negative consequences such as having to move to lower quality housing or moving out of the area |
| Region | NORTH EAST |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Moderate (+ +) Impacts greater than for national with higher retention for balance of plant and installation and commissioning with potentially 1,938 (low, Type I) to 6,567 (high Type I) people moving into the region at peak employment times |
| Distributional effects | Most significant positive impacts likely to be in larger towns and ports that support wind farm development. Some of these may already be growth areas, e.g., Inverness |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Moderate (- - -) Increased demand for housing may increase house prices and rental charges, which may be affordable for those moving to take up skilled positions but may be negative for those already living in the area who may not have the skills needed. The large number of people potentially moving into the region at peak employment time may cause concerns within the existing communities |
| Distributional effects | Impacts likely to be focused onto those areas where jobs are created, so increased income from those jobs could help to offset the additional housing costs. Poorer sections of communities may be disproportionately affected as they may not see their income increase and may find their housing costs increasing with potential negative consequences such as having to move to lower quality housing or moving out of the area |
| Region | NORTH |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Minor (+ +) Impacts equal to or lower than national in terms of retention rates over all five activities so total number of families moving into the region is lower than for some other regions and may be concentrated in larger towns that may have greater housing capacity to cope with increased demand |
| Distributional effects | Most significant positive impacts likely to be in larger towns and ports that support wind farm development. This may increase demand for new quality housing in areas such as Lerwick, Stornoway |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Minor (- - ) Increased demand for housing may increase house prices and rental charge, which may be affordable for those moving to take up skilled positions but may be negative for those already living in the area who may not have the skills needed. The impacts are likely to be concentrated in areas that may already have some housing issues, such as in Shetland, and where the capacity to support influxes of new employees may be limited |
| Distributional effects | Impacts likely to be focused onto those areas where jobs are created, so increased income from those jobs could help to offset the additional housing costs. Poorer sections of communities may be disproportionately affected as they may not see their income increase and may find their housing costs increasing with potential negative consequences such as having to move to lower quality housing or moving out of the area. There is pressure on entry-level housing stocks in Shetland based on the housing need and demand assessment. |
| Region | WEST |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Minor (+ +) Impacts equal to or lower than national in terms of retention rates over all five activities but total number of families moving into the region is lower than for some other regions and may be concentrated in larger towns that may have greater housing capacity to cope with increased demand |
| Distributional effects | Most significant positive impacts likely to be in larger towns and ports that support wind farm development. Some of these may already be growth areas, e.g. Greenock. Others are smaller ports that may already have capacity issues that could be exacerbated by increased demand. |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Minor (- - ) Increased demand for housing may increase house prices and rental charges, which may be affordable for those moving to take up skilled positions but may be negative for those already living in the area who may not have the skills needed |
| Distributional effects | Impacts likely to be focused onto those areas where jobs are created, so increased income from those jobs could help to offset the additional housing costs. Poorer sections of communities may be disproportionately affected as they may not see their income increase and may find their housing costs increasing with potential negative consequences such as having to move to lower quality housing or moving out of the area. However, the population moving into the region is smaller than for some other regions |
| Region | SOUTH WEST |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Minor (+ +) Impacts equal to or lower than national in terms of retention rates over all five activities but total number of families moving into the region is lower than for some other regions and may be concentrated in larger towns that may have greater housing capacity to cope with increased demand |
| Distributional effects | Most significant positive impacts likely to be in larger towns and ports that support wind farm development. These impacts are likely to be concentrated in and around Ayr but could help support investment in the Ayrshire Growth Scheme. Towns such as Campbeltown may see positive impacts from investment and migration into the town |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Minor (- - ) Increased demand for housing may increase house prices and rental charges, which may be affordable for those moving to take up skilled positions but may be negative for those already living in the area who may not have the skills needed |
| Distributional effects | Impacts likely to be focused onto those areas where jobs are created, so increased income from those jobs could help to offset the additional housing costs. Poorer sections of communities may be disproportionately affected as they may not see their income increase and may find their housing costs increasing with potential negative consequences such as having to move to lower quality housing or moving out of the area. However, the population moving into the region is smaller than for some other regions |
G.10 Cluster: community – socialising, recreation, parks, leisure
Impacts on socialising, recreation, parks and leisure at the community level are linked to levels of physical activity, and visits to the outdoors (Table 77).
Table 77 Cluster: community – socialising, recreation, parks, leisure
| Aspect | Detail |
|---|---|
| Relevant statistics | Physical activity; visits to the outdoors |
| Detailed statistics | 65% of adults meeting physical activity recommendations while 81% participated in physical activity (2017) 52% of adults making one or more visits to the outdoors per week (2017) |
| Level | NATIONAL |
| Positive impacts – potential contribution to national indicators | Potential for contribution to increase in physical activity including through increasing visits to the outdoors |
| Cause of impacts | Increase in local jobs could reduce commuting time so provide more free time for socialising and recreation Investment in ports could provide better facilities for recreational boating People moving into the area to take up new jobs could offer new opportunities through more support and involvement in recreational activities or facilities |
| Impacts rating and justification | Negligible (+) Possible small positive through creation of more local jobs but impact is likely to be small. May also be impacts from those relocating from more urban areas to more rural areas where access to greenspace may improve |
| Distributional effects | Impacts may be greater in more rural areas, especially if there is increased access to greenspace |
| Negative impacts – potential effect on national indicators | Potential reduction in time spent undertaking physical activity outside of work or for socialising. Potential impacts on recreational boating although these are expected to be small and recreational boats should be able to transit safely through wind farm arrays. Maybe some impacts for less experienced sailors or those looking for a remote coast experience |
| Cause of impacts | Relocation of workers on a temporary basis may mean they spend more time commuting to/from their family home potentially reducing free time. Shift work could also affect free time. May be some impacts on enjoyment of recreational boating where there are changes from what was previously perceived as being an unspoilt coastline/sea |
| Impacts rating and justification | Negligible (-) Possible small negative where workers travel to/from their place of work to home and where the family itself does not commute, but impacts likely to be small. Impacts on recreational boating likely to be small and may be limited to perception of wind farms within the marine environment. Impacts on sea angling and water sports are less significant across the country as a whole |
| Distributional effects | Impacts may be greater where jobs are of short-time duration reducing likelihood that workers and their families would move. Recreational boating impacts may be greater in smaller ports along the West coast where marina income could be affected if activities are displaced. Impacts on sea angling may be greater in the South West and West due to the closer location of wind farms to land in these regions. Changing wind or wave climates may also have knock-on effects on water sports activities in these regions |
| Region | EAST |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Negligible (+) Possible small positive through creation of 71 (low) to 462 (high) local jobs but impact is likely to be small. May also be impacts from those relocating from more urban areas to coastal areas such as Aberdeen |
| Distributional effects | Impacts may be greater in coastal and more rural areas, especially if there is increased access to greenspace |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Negligible (-) Possible small negative where workers travel to/from their place of work to home and where the family itself does not commute, but impacts likely to be small. Impacts on recreational boating are expected to be very small with costs significantly less than £1,000 across the appraisal timeframe. Impacts on sea angling and water sports are not significant |
| Distributional effects | Impacts may be greater where jobs are of short-time duration reducing likelihood that workers and their families would move. There may also be more commuters to cities with good transport links such as Aberdeen or Dundee. |
| Region | NORTH EAST |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Negligible (+) Possible small positive through creation of 314 (low) to 1,111 (high) local jobs but impact is likely to be small. May also be impacts from those relocating from more urban areas to more rural areas in and around Inverness or Wick, for example |
| Distributional effects | Impacts may be greater in coastal and more rural areas, especially if there is increased access to greenspace. Impacts unlikely to be sufficient to have a noticeable effect on marina income |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Negligible (-) Possible small negative where workers travel to/from their place of work to home and where the family itself does not commute, but impacts likely to be small. Impacts on recreational boating are small, with costs of a few thousand over the appraisal timeframe. Impacts on sea angling and water sports are not significant |
| Distributional effects | Impacts may be greater where jobs are of short-time duration reducing likelihood that workers and their families would move. There may also be more commuters to cities with good transport links such as Inverness and may be less likely for more remote locations |
| Region | NORTH |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Negligible (+) Possible small positive through creation of 93 (low) to 314 (high) local jobs but impact is likely to be small. May also be impacts from those relocating from more urban areas to more rural areas in and around Kishorn or Lyness, for example |
| Distributional effects | Impacts may be greater in coastal and more rural areas, especially if there is increased access to greenspace |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Minor (-) Possible small negative where workers travel to/from their place of work to home and where the family itself does not commute, but impacts likely to be small. Impacts on recreational boating are very small with no expected impacts on tourism or water sports. Impacts on sea angling and water sports may be larger, although are still likely to be small |
| Distributional effects | Impacts may be greater where jobs are of short-time duration reducing likelihood that workers and their families would move. There may also be more commuters to areas with good transport links such as Shetland. Impacts unlikely to be sufficient to have a noticeable effect on marina income, but may be some perception impacts on the unspoilt nature of the coast around the Outer Hebrides in particular. Sea angling and water sports impacts may also be grater in the Outer Hebrides, with potential effects on boat trips out of harbours such as Miavaig or surfing along the Lewis coast |
| Region | WEST |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Negligible (+) Possible small positive through creation of 13 (low) to 227 (high) local jobs but impact is likely to be small. May also be impacts from those relocating from more urban areas to more rural areas in and around Oban or Fairlie, for example |
| Distributional effects | Impacts may be greater in coastal and more rural areas, especially if there is increased access to greenspace |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Negligible (-) Possible small negative where workers travel to/from their place of work to home and where the family itself does not commute, but impacts likely to be small. May be some small impacts on recreational boating due to a change in perception of the coast becoming more spoilt due to development, which may reduce enjoyment of recreational boaters. Sea angling and water sports impacts are also projected to be very small |
| Distributional effects | Impacts may be greater where jobs are of short-time duration reducing likelihood that workers and their families would move. There may also be more commuters to areas with good transport links such as Greenock and may be less likely for more remote locations such as Ardrishaig or Corpach. Impacts on recreational boating may be more significant, especially for those using harbours such as Dunstaffnage, Craobh, and Oban Marinas if there is displacement of activity due to development of the sea or reduction in enjoyment from development of what was previously perceived to be an unspoilt area |
| Region | SOUTH WEST |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Negligible (+) Possible small positive through creation of 9 (low) to 114 (high) local jobs but impact is likely to be small. May also be impacts from those relocating from more urban areas to more rural areas in and around Ayr |
| Distributional effects | Impacts may be greater in coastal and more rural areas, especially if there is increased access to greenspace |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Negligible (-) Possible small negative where workers travel to/from their place of work to home and where the family itself does not commute, but impacts likely to be small. May be some small impacts on recreational boating potential displacement of activities where wind farms are located over offshore cruising routes |
| Distributional effects | Impacts may be greater where jobs are of short-time duration reducing likelihood that workers and their families would move. There may also be more commuters to areas with good transport links such as Ayr. Impacts on recreational boating may be associated with displacement of activities with potential impacts on marinas at Kirkcudbright and Dalbeattie |
G.11 Cluster: community – friends, being involved, supporting others
Impacts on friends, being involved and supporting others at the community levels are linked to feelings of belonging to their community, levels of discrimination and crime and views on the neighbourhood as a place to live (Table 78).
Table 78 Cluster: community – friends, being involved, supporting others
| Aspect | Detail |
|---|---|
| Detailed statistics | 57% of adults rate their neighbourhood as a very good place to live and 95% rate it is very or fairly good (2017) 53% of people living in large urban or other urban areas rate it is a very good place to live, 59% of those living in accessible small towns, 65% in remote small towns, 70% in accessible rural and 76% in remote rural areas (2017) Rating of neighbourhood as a very good place to live varies by deprivation with 53% of the 1-10% most deprived rating it as very good compared with 80% of the 10% least derived (2017) 88% feel they fairly or strongly belong to their immediate neighbourhood (2017) 75.5% of respondents (to the Scottish Household Survey) who think crime in their area has stayed the same or reduced in the past two years (2017) 13.4% of people who have been victims of one or more crimes in the past year (2016) 15% of respondents to the Scottish Household Survey thought their neighbourhood had got worse over the past three years with 63% thinking it had stayed the same. 21% of the most deprived 10% thought their area had got worse (2017) 7% of adults reported that they had experienced discrimination and 6% had experienced harassment in the past three years (2017) 88% of respondents to the Scottish Household Survey tended to agree or strongly agreed that they would rely on friends/relatives in the neighbourhood for help (2017) |
| Level | NATIONAL |
| Positive impacts – potential contribution to national indicators | Potential to increase proportion of people that feel they fairly or strongly belong to their immediate neighbourhood Potential to increase proportion go people who think their neighbourhood is a good place to live, aligned with increase in income from more skilled jobs Potential to increase proportion of people that could rely on friends/relatives in the neighbourhood for help |
| Cause of impacts | More local jobs could help result in better local networks, retention of friends, etc. by helping to keep people in their communities through ability to develop their career locally |
| Impacts rating and justification | Negligible (+) Projection of 216 (low) to 955 (high) local jobs across nation as a whole may be unlikely to be noticed by the majority of the population |
| Distributional effects | Impacts likely to be greater where there is a concentration of local jobs and may provide positive impacts for specific groups with the required skills. This could include people who previously worked in the oil and gas industry, if this declines over the appraisal timeframe by avoiding them having to move out of the area to find jobs elsewhere with impacts on social networks. |
| Negative impacts – potential effect on national indicators | Potential to reduce proportion of people who feel that they fairly or strongly belong to their immediate neighbourhood Potential to increase proportion go people who think their neighbourhood is a good place to live, aligned with possible change in makeup of community, aligned with increase in housing costs that may make it more difficult for local people to live in the same neighbourhood |
| Cause of impacts | Lots of new people relocating to an area could be perceived as being less friendly Loss of fishing jobs or income could impact on networks for family businesses and the fishing community |
| Impacts rating and justification | Negligible (-) Projection of loss of 2.5 (low, Type I) to 8.3 (high, Type I) fishing jobs across the country is unlikely to be noticeable at the national level. Relocation of 648 (low) to 2,866 (high) jobs could have some community impacts but again these are unlikely to be noticeable across the country as a whole |
| Distributional effects | Impacts may be greater where the negative impacts affect concentrations of people within the local community, e.g. where there is an identifiable fishing community. Impacts may also be greater on those communities where there is a large influx of people moving for jobs such that housing costs increase affecting extent to which local people who are not able to take up the skilled positions becoming less able to afford to live in the same area that they grew up |
| Region | EAST |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Negligible (+) Projection of 71 (low) to 462 (high) local jobs across the region may be unlikely to be noticed by the majority of communities |
| Distributional effects | Impacts likely to be greater where there is a concentration of local jobs and may result in positive effects on specific groups with the required skills. This could include people who previously worked in the oil and gas industry, if this declines over the appraisal timeframe. |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Negligible (-) Projection of loss of 0.3 (low, Type I) to 0.9 (high, Type I) fishing jobs across the region is unlikely to be noticeable, with impacts very localised. Relocation of 212 (low) to 1,387 (high) jobs could have some community impacts but again these are likely to be noticeable across the region as a whole |
| Distributional effects | Impacts may be greater where the negative impacts affect concentrations of people within the local community, e.g. Peterhead. Impacts may also be greater on those communities where there is a large influx of people moving for jobs such that housing costs increase affecting extent to which local people who are not able to take up the skilled positions becoming less able to afford to live in the same area that they grew up. These may already be larger communities such as Aberdeen and Dundee so impacts may be small. |
| Region | NORTH EAST |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Minor (+ +) Projection of 314 (low) to 1,111 (high) local jobs across the region may be sufficient to have some noticeable impacts |
| Distributional effects | Impacts likely to be greater where there is a concentration of local jobs and may result in positive impacts on specific groups with the required skills. This could include people who previously worked in the oil and gas industry, if this declines over the appraisal timeframe. |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Negligible (-) Projection of loss of 1.6 (low, Type I) to 4.7 (high, Type I) fishing jobs across the region is unlikely to be noticeable, with impacts very localised. Relocation of 648 (low) to 2,866 (high) jobs could have some community impacts but again these are likely to be noticeable across the region as a whole |
| Distributional effects | Impacts may be greater where the negative impacts affect concentrations of people within the local community, e.g. Buckie or Fraserburgh (here impacts may increase to Minor (- -). Impacts may also be greater on those communities where there is a large influx of people moving for jobs such that housing costs increase affecting extent to which local people who are not able to take up the skilled positions becoming less able to afford to live in the same area that they grew up. This could affect communities, for example, in Nigg or Wick |
| Region | NORTH |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Negligible (+) Projection of 93 (low) to 314 (high) local jobs across the region may be sufficient to have some noticeable impacts |
| Distributional effects | Impacts likely to be greater where there is a concentration of local jobs and may result in positive effects for specific groups with the required skills. This could include people who previously worked in the oil and gas industry, if this declines over the appraisal timeframe. |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Negligible (-) Projection of loss of 1.0 (low, Type I) to 2.9 (high, Type I) fishing jobs across the region is unlikely to be noticeable, with impacts very localised. Relocation of 279 (low) to 844 (high) jobs could have some community impacts but again these are likely to be noticeable across the region as a whole |
| Distributional effects | Impacts may be greater where the negative impacts affect concentrations of people within the local community, e.g. Kinlochbervie or Ullapool. Impacts may also be greater on those communities where there is a large influx of people moving for jobs such that housing costs increase affecting extent to which local people who are not able to take up the skilled positions becoming less able to afford to live in the same area that they grew up. This could affect communities, for example, in Lerwick or Scrabster |
| Region | WEST |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Negligible (+) Projection of 13 (low) to 227 (high) local jobs across the region may be sufficient to have some noticeable impacts |
| Distributional effects | Impacts likely to be greater where there is a concentration of local jobs and may result in positive impacts on specific groups with the required skills. This could include people who previously worked in the oil and gas industry, if this declines over the appraisal timeframe. |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Negligible (-) Projection of loss of 0.5 (low, Type I) to 2.0 (high, Type I) fishing jobs across the region is unlikely to be noticeable, with impacts very localised. Relocation of 39 (low) to 682 (high) jobs could have some community impacts but again these are likely to be noticeable across the region as a whole |
| Distributional effects | Impacts may be greater where the negative impacts affect concentrations of people within the local community, e.g. Oban or Fionnphort. Impacts may also be greater on those communities where there is a large influx of people moving for jobs such that housing costs increase affecting extent to which local people who are not able to take up the skilled positions becoming less able to afford to live in the same area that they grew up. This could affect communities, for example, in Ardrossan or Hunterston |
| Region | SOUTH WEST |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Negligible (+) Projection of 9 (low) to 114 (high) local jobs across the region may be sufficient to have some noticeable impacts |
| Distributional effects | Impacts likely to be greater where there is a concentration of local jobs and may result in positive effects for specific groups with the required skills. This could include people who previously worked in the oil and gas industry, if this declines over the appraisal timeframe. |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Negligible (-) Projection of loss of 0.2 (low, Type I) to 0.6 (high, Type I) fishing jobs across the region is unlikely to be noticeable, with impacts very localised. Relocation of 28 (low) to 341 (high) jobs could have some community impacts but again these are likely to be noticeable across the region as a whole |
| Distributional effects | Impacts may be greater where the negative impacts affect concentrations of people within the local community, e.g. Ayr and Kirkcudbright. Impacts may also be greater on those communities where there is a large influx of people moving for jobs such that housing costs increase affecting extent to which local people who are not able to take up the skilled positions becoming less able to afford to live in the same area that they grew up. This could affect communities, for example, in and around Ayr |
G.12 Cluster: community – local identity, cultural heritage, Gaelic
Impacts on local identity, cultural heritage and Gaelic at the community level are linked to the extent to which traditions can be maintained. The statistics captured include attendance at cultural events, people working in arts and culture and the state of historic sites (Table 79).
Table 79 Cluster: community – local identity, cultural heritage, Gaelic
| Aspect | Detail |
|---|---|
| Detailed statistics | 93% of adults had attended or visited a cultural event or place in 2017 78.1% of adults who have participated in a cultural activity in the last 12 months Gross Value Added of cultural economy was £4,389 million (2016) 77,000 people worked in creative industries growth centre (culture and arts) (2017) 68% of pre-1919 dwellings (sites) classified as having disrepair to critical elements (2017) |
| Level | NATIONAL |
| Positive impacts – potential contribution to national indicators | Potential increase in number of people working in creative industries as knock-on impacts from increased number of jobs Potential increase in percentage of adults attending or visiting a cultural event or place (although this may be more of a reallocation of attendances rather than an increase in attendance) |
| Cause of impacts | More local jobs enables people to stay in the area and build a career, maintaining the local community and enhancing a sense of belonging People relocating to an area could provide more support for cultural activities and create more interest in local history and culture Potential knock-on positive effects on creative industries from investment into the area Impacts on landscapes and seascapes could be viewed by receptors as changing the identity of areas due to development, but the impacts are expected to be small |
| Impacts rating and justification | Negligible (+) Impacts on creative industries in terms of knock-on positive impacts are small, estimated at 4% of GVA impacts for creative industries and 6% for cultural industries[100] such that impacts from increased income and spend will only be small. Over total Present Value GVA impacts (2020-2059) of £515 million (low, Type II) to £2,137 million (high, Type II), this gives positive effects of £21 million to £85.5 million for creative industries and £31 million to £128 million for cultural industries. Over the country as a whole, this is unlikely to be noticeable |
| Distributional effects | Impacts likely to be greater where there is a concentration of jobs (local and relocated) and where disposable income increases such that there is greater potential for spend on creative and cultural activities |
| Negative impacts – potential effect on national indicators | Potential impacts on traditions of local community, but may be more perceptions than actual impacts. More visible may be changes to the fishing communities |
| Cause of impacts | People relocating to an area could be perceived as changing the nature of the community and its culture and traditions and may reduce sense of identity Impacts on fishers could impact on tradition of fishing and culture of fishing in community with spend on wind farms potentially changing areas from fishing towns to wind farm towns. Influxes of non-Gaelic speaking people could also affect continued use of the language |
| Impacts rating and justification | Negligible (-) Relocation of between a maximum in any one year of 648 (low) to 2,866 (high) and loss of 2.5 (low, Type I) to 8.3 (high, Type I) FTEs from reduction in income to fishers from impacts on landings, but at an national level these changes are unlikely to be sufficient to be noticeable for the majority of communities |
| Distributional effects | Impacts, or perception of impacts, likely to be greater where there is a concentration of relocated jobs and where there are specific impacts on fishing communities that could affect fishing traditions in those locations that are more significantly affected |
| Region | EAST |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Negligible (+) Impacts on creative industries in terms of knock-on positive impacts are small, estimated at 4% of GVA impacts for creative industries and 6% for cultural industries[101] such that impacts from increased income and spend will only be small. Over total Present Value GVA impacts (2020-2059) of £389 million (low, Type II) to £1,386 million (high, Type II), this gives positive effects of £16 million to £55 million for creative industries and £23 million to £83 million for cultural industries. This is unlikely to be noticeable over the whole region |
| Distributional effects | Impacts likely to be greater where there is a concentration of jobs (local and relocated) and where disposable income increases such that there is greater potential for spend on creative and cultural activities. This could be in locations such as Leith and Rosyth |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Negligible (-) Relocation of between a maximum in any one year of 212 (low) to 1,387 (high) and loss of 0.3 (low, Type I) to 0.9 (high, Type I) FTEs from reduction in income to fishers from impacts on landings. At a regional level these changes are unlikely to be sufficient to be noticeable for the majority of communities or cultural events, and in many cases may be a redistribution of visits from the original location of workers and their families that have relocated for work. No impacts on landscapes or seascapes so no impacts on local and cultural identity associated with changes to these in this region |
| Distributional effects | Impacts, or perception of impacts, likely to be greater where there is a concentration of relocated jobs and where there are specific impacts on fishing communities that could affect fishing traditions in those locations that are more significantly affected |
| Region | NORTH EAST |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Negligible (+) Impacts on creative industries in terms of knock-on positive impacts are small, estimated at 4% of GVA impacts for creative industries and 6% for cultural industries[102] such that impacts from increased income and spend will only be small. Over total Present Value GVA impacts (2020-2059) of £645 million (low, Type II) to £2,259 million (high, Type II), this gives positive effects of £26 million to £90 million for creative industries and £39 million to £136 million for cultural industries. This is unlikely to be noticeable over the whole region |
| Distributional effects | Impacts likely to be greater where there is a concentration of jobs (local and relocated) and where disposable income increases such that there is greater potential for spend on creative and cultural activities. This could be in locations such as Inverness and Cromarty Firth |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Negligible (-) Relocation of between a maximum in any one year of 941 (low) to 3,188 (high) and loss of 1.6 (low, Type I) to 4.7 (high, Type I) FTEs from reduction in income to fishers from impacts on landings. At a regional level these changes are unlikely to be sufficient to be noticeable for the majority of communities or cultural events, and in many cases may be a redistribution of visits from the original location of workers and their families that have relocated for work. No impacts on landscapes or seascapes so no impacts on local and cultural identity associated with changes to these in this region |
| Distributional effects | Impacts, or perception of impacts, likely to be greater where there is a concentration of relocated jobs and where there are specific impacts on fishing communities that could affect fishing traditions in those locations that are more significantly affected. These impacts may be more significant and noticeable in smaller communities to Minor (- -) |
| Region | NORTH |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Negligible (+) Impacts on creative industries in terms of knock-on positive impacts are small, estimated at 4% of GVA impacts for creative industries and 6% for cultural industries[103] such that impacts from increased income and spend will only be small. Over total Present Value GVA impacts (2020-2059) of £139 million (low, Type II) to £497 million (high, Type II), this gives positive effects of £6 million to £20 million for creative industries and £8 million to £30 million for cultural industries. This is unlikely to be noticeable over the whole region |
| Distributional effects | Impacts likely to be greater where there is a concentration of jobs (local and relocated) and where disposable income increases such that there is greater potential for spend on creative and cultural activities. This could be in locations such as Lerwick and Stornoway |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Minor (- -) Relocation of between a maximum in any one year of 279 (low) to 844 (high) and loss of 1.0 (low, Type I) to 2.9 (low, Type I) FTEs from reduction in income to fishers from impacts on landings. At a regional level these changes are unlikely to be sufficient to be noticeable for the majority of communities or cultural events, and in many cases may be a redistribution of visits from the original location of workers and their families that have relocated for work. There may be some impacts on landscapes or seascapes but effects on local and cultural identity associated with such changes are expected to be small for the majority of the population (some people may also like to see the windfarms) |
| Distributional effects | Impacts, or perception of impacts, likely to be greater where there is a concentration of relocated jobs and where there are specific impacts on fishing communities that could affect fishing traditions in those locations that are more significantly affected. Seascape changes may be greatest on the Isle of Lewis, but are not expected to be significant in terms of cultural or local identity |
| Region | WEST |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Negligible (+) Impacts on creative industries in terms of knock-on positive impacts are small, estimated at 4% of GVA benefits for creative industries and 6% for cultural industries[104] such that impacts from increased income and spend will only be small. Over total Present Value GVA impacts (2020-2059) of £49 million (low, Type II) to £288 million (high, Type II), this gives positive effects of £2 million to £12 million for creative industries and £3 million to £17 million for cultural industries. This is unlikely to be noticeable over the whole region |
| Distributional effects | Impacts likely to be greater where there is a concentration of jobs (local and relocated) and where disposable income increases such that there is greater potential for spend on creative and cultural activities. This could be in locations such as Campbeltown and Ardrossan |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Minor (- -) Relocation of between a maximum in any one year of 39 (low) to 606 (high) and loss of 0.5 (low, Type I) to 2.0 (high, Type I) FTEs from reduction in income to fishers from impacts on landings. At a regional level these changes are unlikely to be sufficient to be noticeable for the majority of communities or cultural events, and in many cases may be a redistribution of visits from the original location of workers and their families that have relocated for work. There may be some impacts on landscapes or seascapes but effects on local and cultural identity associated with such changes are expected to be small |
| Distributional effects | Impacts, or perception of impacts, likely to be greater where there is a concentration of relocated jobs and where there are specific impacts on fishing communities that could affect fishing traditions in those locations that are more significantly affected. Seascape changes may be greatest on the Islay and Jura, but are not expected to be significant in terms of cultural or local identity for the majority of the population |
| Region | SOUTH WEST |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Negligible (+) Impacts on creative industries in terms of knock-on positive impacts are small, estimated at 4% of GVA impacts for creative industries and 6% for cultural industries[105] such that impacts from increased income and spend will only be small. Over total Present Value GVA impacts (2020-2059) of £30 million (low, Type II) to £149 million (high, Type II), this gives positive effects of £1.2 million to £6 million for creative industries and £1.8 million to £9 million for cultural industries. This is unlikely to be noticeable over the whole region |
| Distributional effects | Impacts likely to be greater where there is a concentration of jobs (local and relocated) and where disposable income increases such that there is greater potential for spend on creative and cultural activities. This could be in locations such as Ayr |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Minor (- -) Relocation of between a maximum in any one year of 28 (low) to 341 (high) and loss of 0.2 (low, Type I) to 0.6 (high, Type I) FTEs from reduction in income to fishers from impacts on landings. At a regional level these changes are unlikely to be sufficient to be noticeable for the majority of communities or cultural events, and in many cases may be a redistribution of visits from the original location of workers and their families that have relocated for work. There may be some impacts on landscapes or seascapes but effects on local and cultural identity associated with such changes are expected to be small |
| Distributional effects | Impacts, or perception of impacts, likely to be greater where there is a concentration of relocated jobs and where there are specific impacts on fishing communities that could affect fishing traditions in those locations that are more significantly affected. Seascape changes may be greatest on the coastline from Drummore to Kirkcudbright, but are not expected to be significant in terms of cultural or local identity for the majority of the population |
G.13 Cluster: community – healthcare
Impacts on healthcare at the community level are linked to access to healthcare services, such as GP, and satisfaction with health care services. Other statistics of relevance relate to health risk behaviours, healthy weight, mental wellbeing, and long-term physical and mental health condition (Table 80).
Table 80 Cluster: community – healthcare
| Aspect | Detail |
|---|---|
| Detailed statistics | 29% of adults with two or more health risk behaviours (current smoker, harmful drinking, low physical activity, obesity) (2017) 33% of adults that are a healthy weight (2017) 61 years estimated average number of years that a new born baby could be expected to live in ‘good health’ (2015) 49.8 average score of Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWS) (2017) 425.2 European Age Standardised mortality rate per 100,000 for people under 75 (2017) Perinatal mortality rate of 6 per 1000 births (2016) 90% of people who describe the overall care provided by their GP practice as excellent or good (2017) 82% of respondents (to the Scottish Household Survey) who are fairly or very satisfied with the quality of local health services 28% of adults reported a long-term physical or mental health condition (2017) |
| Level | NATIONAL |
| Positive impacts – potential contribution to national indicators | Potential reduction in mental health conditions Possible reduction in health risk behaviours with associated increase in average score on wellbeing scale and reduced mortality rate |
| Cause of impacts | Reduction in mental health conditions linked with increase in income and reduction in money concerns. Possible reduction in health risk behaviours due to correlation between increased income/reduced poverty and healthier living |
| Impacts rating and justification | Negligible (+) Potential for increased employment with potential for knock-on impacts for mental wellbeing associated with improved income from 864 (low, Type 1) to 3,821 (high, Type II) jobs and potential reduction in deprivation with associated positive effects for health |
| Distributional effects | Positive impacts for individuals taking up better paid jobs and knock-on impacts in terms of indirect and induced jobs, with potential greater effects where there are concentrations of jobs |
| Negative impacts – potential effect on national indicators | Potential reduction in proportion of people who describe the care provided by their GP service as excellent or good |
| Cause of impacts | Increased demand from larger populations from those relocating to take up jobs could put healthcare services under additional stress, resulting in longer waiting times to see a GP, etc. |
| Impacts rating and justification | Negligible (-) Relocation of 648 (low) to 2,866 (high) jobs with potential for increase in people moving to take up jobs of 1,322 (low) to 5,846 (high) (based on 2.04 people per household) unlikely to be noticeable at the national scale |
| Distributional effects | Impacts likely to be greater in those locations where there are larger numbers of jobs that are created, especially if there are hubs that result in large numbers of people moving into relatively local areas. Impacts could then increase to Minor (- -) or even Moderate (- - -) where the additional population is sufficient to result in concerns being raised |
| Region | EAST |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Negligible (+) Potential for increased employment with potential for knock-on positive impacts for mental wellbeing associated with improved income from 282 (low, Type 1) to 1,849 (high, Type II) jobs and potential reduction in deprivation with associated positive effects for health |
| Distributional effects | Positive impacts for individuals taking up better paid jobs and knock-on impacts in terms of indirect and induced jobs, with potential greater positive effects where there are concentrations of jobs, such as in Aberdeen or Dundee |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Negligible (-) Relocation of 212 (low) to 1,387 (high) jobs with potential for increase in people moving to take up jobs of 441 (low) to 4,965 (high) (based on 2.06 people per household) unlikely to be noticeable at the regional scale |
| Distributional effects | Impacts likely to be greater in those locations where there are larger numbers of jobs that are created, such as Montrose and Methil, especially if there are hubs that result in large numbers of people moving into relatively local areas. Impacts could then increase to Minor (- -) or even Moderate (- - -) where the additional population is sufficient to result in concerns being raised |
| Region | NORTH EAST |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Negligible (+) Potential for increased employment with potential for knock-on positive impacts for mental wellbeing associated with improved income from 1,255 (low, Type 1) to 4,250 (high, Type II) jobs and potential reduction in deprivation with associated positive effects for health |
| Distributional effects | Positive impacts for individuals taking up better paid jobs and knock-on impacts in terms of indirect and induced jobs, with potential greater effects where there are concentrations of jobs, such as in Fraserburgh and Inverness |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Negligible (-) Relocation of 941 (low) to 3,188 (high) jobs with potential for increase in people moving to take up jobs of 1,938 (low) to 6,567 (high) (based on 2.06 people per household) unlikely to be noticeable at the regional scale |
| Distributional effects | Impacts likely to be greater in those locations where there are larger numbers of jobs that are created, such as Buckie and Macduff, especially if there are hubs that result in large numbers of people moving into relatively local areas. Impacts could then increase to Minor (- -) or even Moderate (- - -) where the additional population is sufficient to result in concerns being raised |
| Region | NORTH |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Negligible (+) Potential for increased employment with potential for knock-on positive impacts for mental wellbeing associated with improved income from 279 (low, Type 1) to 844 (high, Type II) jobs and potential reduction in deprivation with associated positive effects for health |
| Distributional effects | Positive impacts for individuals taking up better paid jobs and knock-on impacts in terms of indirect and induced jobs, with potential greater effects where there are concentrations of jobs, such as in Lerwick and Lyness |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Negligible (-) Relocation of 279 (low) to 844 (high) jobs with potential for increase in people moving to take up jobs of 574 (low) to 1,739 (high) (based on 2.06 people per household) unlikely to be noticeable at the regional scale |
| Distributional effects | Impacts likely to be greater in those locations where there are larger numbers of jobs that are created, such as Kishorn and Sullom Voe, especially if there are hubs that result in large numbers of people moving into relatively local areas. Impacts could then increase to Minor (- -) or even Moderate (- - -) where the additional population is sufficient to result in concerns being raised |
| Region | WEST |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Negligible (+) Potential for increased employment with potential for knock-on positive impacts for mental wellbeing associated with improved income from 51 (low, Type 1) to 808 (high, Type II) jobs and potential reduction in deprivation with associated positive effects for health |
| Distributional effects | Positive impacts for individuals taking up better paid jobs and knock-on impacts in terms of indirect and induced jobs, with potential greater effects where there are concentrations of jobs, such as in Ardrishaig and Oban |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Negligible (-) Relocation of 39 (low) to 606 (high) jobs with potential for increase in people moving to take up jobs of 82 (low) to 1,267 (high) (based on 2.09 people per household) unlikely to be noticeable at the regional scale |
| Distributional effects | Impacts likely to be greater in those locations where there are larger numbers of jobs that are created, such as Corpach and Fairlie, especially if there are hubs that result in large numbers of people moving into relatively local areas. Impacts could then increase to Minor (- -) or even Moderate (- - -) where the additional population is sufficient to result in concerns being raised |
| Region | SOUTH WEST |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Negligible (+) Potential for increased employment with potential for knock-on positive impacts for mental wellbeing associated with improved income from 38 (low, Type 1) to 426 (high, Type II) jobs and potential reduction in deprivation with associated positive effects for health |
| Distributional effects | Positive impacts for individuals taking up better paid jobs and knock-on impacts in terms of indirect and induced jobs, with potential greater effects where there are concentrations of jobs in and around Ayr |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Negligible (-) Relocation of 28 (low) to 341 (high) jobs with potential for increase in people moving to take up jobs of 59 (low) to 669 (high) (based on 2.09 people per household) unlikely to be noticeable at the regional scale |
| Distributional effects | Impacts likely to be greater in those locations where there are larger numbers of jobs that are created in and around Ayr, especially if there are hubs that result in large numbers of people moving into relatively local areas. Impacts could then increase to Minor (- -) or even Moderate (- - -) where the additional population is sufficient to result in concerns being raised |
G.14 Cluster: community – connection to nature, landscape
Impacts on connection to nature and landscape at the community level are linked access and use of local green spaces, and personal concern over damage to the natural environment and climate change (Table 81).
Table 81 Cluster: community – connection to nature, landscape
| Aspect | Detail |
|---|---|
| Relevant statistics | Access to green or blue space; natural capital; waste generated |
| Detailed statistics | 64.7% of adults who live within a 5 minute walk of their local green or blue space (2017) while 52% visited the outdoors at least once a week in the past year and 37% visit their nearest area of greenspace at least once per week (2017) In urban areas, 51% of households make at least one visit per week to the outdoors, compared with 61% in rural areas (2017) 74% of adults were very or fairly satisfied with their nearest area of greenspace (2017) Natural Capital Asset Index was 101.5 (2015) as a measure of the quality and quantity of habitats in Scotland according to their potential to deliver different ecosystem services now and into the future 2.5 million tonnes of household waste generated (2017) |
| Level | NATIONAL |
| Positive impacts – potential contribution to national indicators | Potential increase in number of visits to outdoors, linked with potential increase in population moving from more urban to more rural areas and increase in proportion of adults living within a 5 minute walk of their local green or blue space |
| Cause of impacts | Local jobs in skilled areas may mean less commuting time that could provide more time for visits to the outdoors Spend on wind farms may help encourage connection with sea through career, education, etc. and could be used as catalyst to increase connection with nature and the landscape |
| Impacts rating and justification | Negligible (+) Local jobs estimated at 216 (low) to 955 (high) but impacts will depend on a number of other factors, including if commuting time reduces and if time saved is used for activities in the outdoors. Also assumes people relocating are moving from more urban to more rural areas, but change could be to attract people from surrounding villages into port areas that may be more developed reducing connection with the natural environment |
| Distributional effects | Impacts likely to be greater where people move from more urban to more rural areas and where commuting times are reduced. Families relocating may see greater positive effects than where the employee relocates for work and then returns home outside of working periods (e.g. weekends or end of shift) |
| Negative impacts – potential effect on national indicators | Potential reduction in percentage of adults that are very or fairly satisfied with their nearest area of greenspace |
| Cause of impacts | May be concerns over changes to landscape/seascape from wind farm developments, from turbines once installed but also from changes to coastal landscapes if they become more commercial, less fishing oriented |
| Impacts rating and justification | Minor (-) Mitigation measures should ensure that any potential negative impacts are minimised as far as possible, although there may be some small impacts where development is closer to shore for both those living along the coast through their connection to the landscape and for visitors to the coast |
| Distributional effects | Impacts may be greater where wind farms are located nearer to shore, or where there is more significant development of land for commercial/industrial purposes and where this is a change from current and use. This is likely to be associated with key ports, some of which already consist of industrial areas such that impacts may be minimised. As such, impacts are likely to be greatest in the North, West and South West regions |
| Region | EAST |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Negligible (+) Local jobs estimated at 71 (low) to 462 (high) but impacts will depend on a number of other factors, including if commuting time reduces and if time saved is used for activities in the outdoors. Also assumes people relocating are moving from more urban to more rural areas, but change could be to attract people from surrounding villages into port areas that may be more developed reducing connection with the natural environment |
| Distributional effects | Impacts likely to be greater where people move from more urban to more rural areas and where commuting times are reduced. Families relocating may see greater positive effects than where the employee relocates for work and then returns home outside of working periods (e.g. weekends or end of shift). |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Negligible (-) Mitigation methods should ensure that any potential negative impacts are minimised as far as possible. No impacts expected on landscapes hence no effects expected on connection to landscapes for locals or visitors |
| Distributional effects | Impacts may be greater where wind farms are located nearer to short, or where there is more significant development of land for commercial/industrial purposes and where this is a change from current and use. This is likely to be associated with key ports such as Aberdeen, Dundee or Grangemouth, some of which already consist of industrial areas such that impacts may be minimised |
| Region | NORTH EAST |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Negligible (+) Local jobs estimated at 314 (low) to 1,111 (high) but impacts will depend on a number of other factors, including if commuting time reduces and if time saved is used for activities in the outdoors. Also assumes people relocating are moving from more urban to more rural areas, but change could be to attract people from surrounding villages into port areas that may be more developed reducing connection with the natural environment |
| Distributional effects | Impacts likely to be greater where people move from more urban to more rural areas and where commuting times are reduced. Families relocating may see greater positive effects than where the employee relocates for work and then returns home outside of working periods (e.g. weekends or end of shift). |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Negligible (-) Mitigation methods should ensure that any potential negative impacts are minimised as far as possible. No impacts expected on landscapes hence no effects expected on connection to landscapes for locals or visitors |
| Distributional effects | Impacts may be greater where wind farms are located nearer to short, or where there is more significant development of land for commercial/industrial purposes and where this is a change from current and use. This is likely to be associated with key ports such as Inverness and Nigg, some of which already consist of industrial areas such that impacts may be minimised |
| Region | NORTH |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Negligible (+) Local jobs estimated at 93 (low) to 314 (high) but impacts will depend on a number of other factors, including if commuting time reduces and if time saved is used for activities in the outdoors. Also assumes people relocating are moving from more urban to more rural areas, but change could be to attract people from surrounding villages into port areas that may be more developed reducing connection with the natural environment |
| Distributional effects | Impacts likely to be greater where people move from more urban to more rural areas and where commuting times are reduced. Families relocating may see greater positive effects than where the employee relocates for work and then returns home outside of working periods (e.g. weekends or end of shift). |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Minor (- -) Mitigation methods should ensure that any potential negative impacts are minimised as far as possible. Impacts may occur on landscapes associated with development of wind farms near to the shore |
| Distributional effects | Impacts may be greater where wind farms are located nearer to short, or where there is more significant development of land for commercial/industrial purposes and where this is a change from current and use. This is likely to be associated with key ports such as Lerwick and Sullom Voe, some of which already consist of industrial areas such that impacts may be minimised. Impacts on landscapes likely to be focused around the Isle of Lewis. Impacts on local people may see a change in their perception of the landscapes and seascapes but the impacts are not expected to be significant. The impacts are expected to be insignificant in the context of the total value of tourism to the Outer Hebrides. The impacts may be linked to perception of development of an unspoilt coastline, with this used as a selling point for many boat trips and walks that look to sell the landscape and nature as part of a tourism offering |
| Region | WEST |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Negligible (+) Local jobs estimated at 13 (low) to 227 (high) but impacts will depend on a number of other factors, including if commuting time reduces and if time saved is used for activities in the outdoors. Also assumes people relocating are moving from more urban to more rural areas, but change could be to attract people from surrounding villages into port areas that may be more developed reducing connection with the natural environment |
| Distributional effects | Impacts likely to be greater where people move from more urban to more rural areas and where commuting times are reduced. Families relocating may see greater positive effects than where the employee relocates for work and then returns home outside of working periods (e.g. weekends or end of shift). |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Minor (- -) Mitigation methods should ensure that any potential negative impacts are minimised as far as possible. Impacts on landscape may be associated with perception of changes to the landscape. Impacts on local people may see a change in their perception of the landscapes and seascapes but the impacts are not expected to be significant. The costs of impacts for visitors are insignificant when compared with tourism income |
| Distributional effects | Impacts may be greater where wind farms are located nearer to short, or where there is more significant development of land for commercial/industrial purposes and where this is a change from current and use. This is likely to be associated with key ports such as Greenock and Hunterston, some of which already consist of industrial areas such that impacts may be minimised. Impacts on landscapes may be concentrated on Islay and Jura with windfarm development potentially affecting the perception of the coastline as undeveloped and unspoilt. |
| Region | SOUTH WEST |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Negligible (+) Local jobs estimated at 9 (low) to 114 (high) but impacts will depend on a number of other factors, including if commuting time reduces and if time saved is used for activities in the outdoors. Also assumes people relocating are moving from more urban to more rural areas, but change could be to attract people from surrounding villages into port areas that may be more developed reducing connection with the natural environment. |
| Distributional effects | Impacts likely to be greater where people move from more urban to more rural areas and where commuting times are reduced. Families relocating may see greater positive effects than where the employee relocates for work and then returns home outside of working periods (e.g. weekends or end of shift). |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Minor (- -) Mitigation methods should ensure that any potential negative impacts are minimised as far as possible. Impacts on landscape may be associated with perception of changes to the landscape. Impacts on local people may see a change in their perception of the landscapes and seascapes but the impacts are not expected to be significant. The costs of impacts for visitors are insignificant when compared with tourism income |
| Distributional effects | Impacts may be greater where wind farms are located nearer to short, or where there is more significant development of land for commercial/industrial purposes and where this is a change from current and use. This is likely to be associated with key ports such as Ayr, some of which already consist of industrial areas such that impacts may be minimised. Impacts on landscapes may be associated with development of the south coast of Dumfries and Galloway and could be associated with perception of development of the unspoilt coastline |
G.15 Cluster: community – local political and decision-making systems
Impacts on local political and decision-making systems at the community level are linked to involvement (perceived or actual) in decision-making, including participation in local decision-making, employee voice and access to justice (Table 82).
Table 82 Cluster: community – local political and decision-making systems
| Aspect | Detail |
|---|---|
| Detailed statistics | 75.5% of adults who are confident that the Scottish Criminal Justice System as a whole makes sure everyone has access to the justice system if they need it (2016-17) 22.7% of people who agree with the statement ‘I can influence decisions affecting my local area’ (2017) 34.8% of employees who agree that agreements between trade union and employer affect pay and conditions (2017) |
| Level | NATIONAL |
| Positive impacts – potential contribution to national indicators | Potential increase in proportion of people who feel they can influence decisions affecting their local area |
| Cause of impacts | Larger populations may be perceived as giving neighbourhoods a louder voice |
| Impacts rating and justification | Negligible (+) Unlikely to be significant positive impacts for most of the community, with impacts relying on other factors to deliver effects, such as location of relocated employees and their families and their willingness and interest to get involved in local decision-making |
| Distributional effects | Impacts may be greatest in areas with the largest increases in populations, but the original communities may find themselves faced with more decisions (e.g. planning for new housing) and may not necessarily feel more involved, although they may feel that they need to get more involved |
| Negative impacts – potential effect on national indicators | Potential decrease in proportion of people who feel that they can influence decisions affecting their local community |
| Cause of impacts | People relocating may result in larger communities with perception that individuals have less influence, or where more decisions need to be made due to increasing demands on services, it may feel that local communities have less influence |
| Impacts rating and justification | Negligible (-) For most communities, there may be no change in involvement in local decision making due to spend on wind farms |
| Distributional effects | Impacts likely to be greater where there is a concentration of jobs and where the population is increasing fastest as communities may feel that more decisions are being made than they can adequately influence |
| Region | EAST |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Negligible (+) Unlikely to be significant positive impacts for most of the community, with impacts relying on other factors to deliver effects such as location of relocated employees and their families and their willingness and interest to get involved in local decision-making. |
| Distributional effects | Relocation of 441 to 4,965 people to the region (based on average household size associated with a relocated job of 2.06) could have a noticeable impact on those communities where jobs are concentrated, but the increased voice of the community may come after many decisions, especially planning decisions, have been made |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Negligible (-) For most communities, there may be no change in involvement in local decision making due to spend on wind farms |
| Distributional effects | Impacts likely to be greater where there is a concentration of jobs and where the population is increasing fastest as communities may feel that more decisions are being made than they can adequately influence. This may be especially true in areas where jobs are concentrated, such as in the ports of Aberdeen, Eyemouth or Leith. |
| Region | NORTH EAST |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Negligible (+) Unlikely to be significant positive impacts for most of the community, with impacts relying on other factors to deliver effects such as location of relocated employees and their families and their willingness and interest to get involved in local decision-making. |
| Distributional effects | Relocation of 1,938 to 6,567people to the region (based on average household size associated with a relocated job of 2.06) could have a noticeable impact on those communities where jobs are concentrated, but the increased voice of the community may come after many decisions, especially planning decisions, have been made |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Negligible (-) For most communities, there may be no change in involvement in local decision making due to spend on wind farms |
| Distributional effects | Impacts likely to be greater where there is a concentration of jobs and where the population is increasing fastest as communities may feel that more decisions are being made than they can adequately influence. This may be especially true in areas where jobs are concentrated, such as in ports like Buckie, Macduff or Wick |
| Region | NORTH |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Negligible (+) Unlikely to be significant positive impacts for most of the community, with impacts relying on other factors to deliver effects such as location of relocated employees and their families and their willingness and interest to get involved in local decision-making. |
| Distributional effects | Relocation of 574 to 1,739 people to the region (based on average household size associated with a relocated job of 2.06) could have a noticeable impact on those communities where jobs are concentrated, but the increased voice of the community may come after many decisions, especially planning decisions, have been made |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Negligible (-) For most communities, there may be no change in involvement in local decision making due to spend on wind farms |
| Distributional effects | Impacts likely to be greater where there is a concentration of jobs and where the population is increasing fastest as communities may feel that more decisions are being made than they can adequately influence. This may be especially true in areas where jobs are concentrated, such as in ports like Kishorn, Lerwick or Stornoway |
| Region | WEST |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Negligible (+) Unlikely to be significant positive impacts for most of the community, with impacts relying on other factors to deliver effects such as location of relocated employees and their families and their willingness and interest to get involved in local decision-making. |
| Distributional effects | Relocation of 82 to 1,267 people to the region (based on average household size associated with a relocated job of 2.09) could have a noticeable impact on those communities where jobs are concentrated, but the increased voice of the community may come after many decisions, especially planning decisions, have been made |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Negligible (-) For most communities, there may be no change in involvement in local decision making due to spend on wind farms |
| Distributional effects | Impacts likely to be greater where there is a concentration of jobs and where the population is increasing fastest as communities may feel that more decisions are being made than they can adequately influence. This may be especially true in areas where jobs are concentrated, such as in ports like Ardrossan, Greenock or Hunterston |
| Region | SOUTH WEST |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Negligible (+) Unlikely to be significant positive impacts for most of the community, with impacts relying on other factors to deliver effects such as location of relocated employees and their families and their willingness and interest to get involved in local decision-making. |
| Distributional effects | Relocation of 59 to 669 people to the region (based on average household size associated with a relocated job of 2.09) could have a noticeable impact on those communities where jobs are concentrated, but the increased voice of the community may come after many decisions, especially planning decisions, have been made |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Negligible (-) For most communities, there may be no change in involvement in local decision making due to spend on wind farms |
| Distributional effects | Impacts likely to be greater where there is a concentration of jobs and where the population is increasing fastest as communities may feel that more decisions are being made than they can adequately influence. This may be especially true in areas where jobs are concentrated, such as in and around Ayr and Campbeltown |
G.16 Cluster: wider political and environmental context – landscape, seascape, wildlife, environmental change
Impacts on landscape, seascape, wildlife and environmental change at the wider scale are linked to climate change, greenhouse gas emissions and energy from renewable sources, and condition of protected nature sites (Table 83).
Table 83 Cluster: wider political and environmental context – land-scape, seascape, wildlife, environmental change
| Aspect | Detail |
|---|---|
| Detailed statistics | Index of terrestrial breeding birds 119 (2017) 76.5 million tonnes of CO2e was produced in Scotland in 2015 80.3% of natural features on protected nature sites found to be in favourable condition (2017) 20% of energy consumption that is renewable energy (2017) 61% thought climate change is an immediate and urgent problem (2017) 67% of respondents to the Scottish Household Survey disagreed or strongly disagreed that ‘it’s not worth me doing things to help the environment if others don’t do the same’ and 59% disagreed/strongly disagreed that ‘I don’t believe my behaviour and everyday lifestyle contribute to climate change’ (2017) |
| Level | NATIONAL |
| Positive impacts – potential contribution to national indicators | Increase in percentage of energy consumption that is renewable Reduction in tonnes of CO2e produced in Scotland (of renewable energy sources replace non-renewable sources) |
| Cause of impacts | Spend on renewable energy helps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and lead to cleaner economy Potential investment in new housing could lead to more efficient housing |
| Impacts rating and justification | Moderate (+ + +) Plan projects renewable energy generation of 3 GW (low), 5 GW (medium) to 10 GW (high) at the national level (scaled back). This is associated with sufficient level of spend to enable expansion of wind farm development supply chains in Scotland |
| Distributional effects | Impacts vary across regions, with highest level of projected development in North East region (low of 1.5 GW, medium of 3 GW and high of 4.5 GW). East and North regions both have projected development of 1 GW, 2 GW and 3 GW across the three scenarios with West at 0.5 GW, 1 GW and 2 GW and South West at 0.3 GW, 0.6 GW and 1 GW |
| Negative impacts – potential effect on national indicators | No impacts expected due to mitigation measures that will be required for all developments. May be some perception of development of the coastline that could be considered to impact on landscapes but these are expected to be insignificant at the national level, with impacts on landscape more locally considered under the community clusters |
| Cause of impacts | Assumes all mitigation measures are put in place and are sufficient to avoid environmental impacts |
| Impacts rating and justification | Neutral Mitigation measures should ensure that any negative environmental impacts are mitigated |
| Distributional effects | None |
| Region | EAST |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Moderate (+ + +) Proposed development of 1 GW (low scenario) to 3 GW (high scenario) |
| Distributional effects | Development likely to be concentrated in those ports which already have facilities to support wind farm activities or where expansion is possible to enable those facilities to be provided. In the East, this is expected to include Aberdeen, Dundee, Eyemouth, Grangemouth, Leith, Methil, Montrose, Peterhead and Rosyth |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Neutral Mitigation measures should ensure that any negative environmental impacts are mitigated. No impacts on landscape expected |
| Distributional effects | None |
| Region | NORTH EAST |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Major (+ + + +) Proposed development of 1.5 GW (low scenario) to 4.5 GW (high scenario) is more than double the next highest region with job opportunities expected to be much larger than in other regions due to the supply chain that already exists |
| Distributional effects | Development likely to be concentrated in those ports which already have facilities to support wind farm activities or where expansion is possible to enable those facilities to be provided. In the North East, this is expected to include Buckie, Cromarty Firth, Fraserburgh, Inverness, Kirkwall and Hatston, Macduff, Nigg and Wick |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Neutral Mitigation measures should ensure that any negative environmental impacts are mitigated. No impacts on landscape expected |
| Distributional effects | None |
| Region | NORTH |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Moderate (+ + +) Proposed development of 1 GW (low scenario) to 3 GW (high scenario) |
| Distributional effects | Development likely to be concentrated in those ports which already have facilities to support wind farm activities or where expansion is possible to enable those facilities to be provided. In the North, this is expected to include Kishorn, Lerwick, Lyness, Scrabster, Stornoway, and Sullom Voe |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Neutral Mitigation measures should ensure that any negative environmental impacts are mitigated. Maybe some impacts on landscape at the local level (e.g. Lewis coast) but these are considered in the community clusters |
| Distributional effects | None |
| Region | WEST |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Minor (+ +) Proposed development of 0.5 GW (low scenario) to 2 GW (high scenario) is lower than in most other regions (except South West) |
| Distributional effects | Development likely to be concentrated in those ports which already have facilities to support wind farm activities or where expansion is possible to enable those facilities to be provided. In the West, this is expected to include Ardrishaig, Ardrossan, Corpach, Fairlie, Greenock, Hunterston and Oban |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Neutral Mitigation measures should ensure that any negative environmental impacts are mitigated. Maybe some impacts on landscape at the local level (e.g. Islay and Jura) but these are considered in the community clusters |
| Distributional effects | None |
| Region | SOUTH WEST |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Minor (+ +) Proposed development of 0.3 GW (low scenario) to 1 GW (high scenario) is lower than all other regions |
| Distributional effects | Development likely to be concentrated in those ports which already have facilities to support wind farm activities or where expansion is possible to enable those facilities to be provided. In the South West, this is expected to include Ayr and Campbeltown |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Neutral Mitigation measures should ensure that any negative environmental impacts are mitigated. Maybe some impacts on landscape at the local level (e.g. Drummore, Isle of Whithorn) but these are considered in the community clusters |
| Distributional effects | None |
G.17 Cluster: wider political and environmental context – national and EU level political and decision-making systems
Impacts on national and EU level political and decision-making systems at the wider scale are linked to Scotland’s reputation and access to justice (Table 84).
Table 84 Cluster: wider political and environmental context – national and EU level political and decision-making systems
| Aspect | Detail |
|---|---|
| Relevant statistics | Access to justice; Scotland’s reputation |
| Detailed statistics | 62.7 average score of the six dimension of national competence (out of 100) using the Anholt GfK-Roper Nations Brands Index (2018)[106]. |
| Level | NATIONAL |
| Positive impacts – potential contribution to national indicators | Potential positive impacts on the exports, governance, people and investment and immigration dimensions of the index |
| Cause of impacts | Scotland’s reputation as a leader in renewable energy would be supported and could bring future investment linked to growth of the supply chain and the increasing supply chain capacity. This could result in positive effects exports through an increase in skills and innovation in business; governance through renewable energy development and contribution to reducing GHG emissions delivering environmental impacts; people through improving employability and development of skills; and investment and immigration through the perception of growth following development and the creation of 648 (low) to 2,866 (high) jobs available for those wishing to relocate |
| Impacts rating and justification | Moderate (+ + +) Potential development and impacts that could be delivered could improve Scotland’s score through positively impacting many of the 81 national indicators and, consequently, up to four of the six dimensions of national competence |
| Distributional effects | Impacts likely to be greater where development is greater across the regions since this will deliver more positive effects against the 81 national indicators and across the six dimensions of national competence |
| Negative impacts – potential effect on national indicators | Potential negative impacts on some of the 81 national indicators that reflect specific issues for the fishing industry, with this also potentially affecting exports (of fish and fish products) and people dimensions |
| Cause of impacts | Potential impacts on affected sectors such as fishing with estimated reduction of 2.5 (low, Type I) to 8.3 (high, Type I) FTEs as well as wider impacts from reduction of income from effects on landings |
| Impacts rating and justification | Minor (- -) Only likely to be noticeable in the fishing sector with knock-on impacts being small in most cases |
| Distributional effects | Impacts vary by port, with some ports being more affected than others such that impacts could be greater where landings are more affected |
| Region | EAST |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Minor (+ +) Potential development in the East region could provide that could help improve Scotland’s score through positively impacting many of the 81 national indicators and, consequently, up to four of the six dimensions of national competence. Scale of development (1 GW, low to 3 GW, high) means that the influence from the East region may not be sufficient alone to significantly affect Scotland’s scores |
| Distributional effects | Impacts on relevant indicators of the 81 national indicators will be more significant in and around those ports where development is more likely |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Minor (- -) Small impacts from reduction in fishing jobs with 0.3 (low, Type I) to 0.9 (high, Type I) FTE lost |
| Distributional effects | Fisheries jobs affected most likely to be in Aberdeen and Arbroath and may affect processing jobs, with impacts on families associated with these industries |
| Region | NORTH EAST |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Moderate (+ + +) Potential development in the North East region could provide that could help improve Scotland’s score through positively impacting many of the 81 national indicators and, consequently, up to four of the six dimensions of national competence. Scale of development (1.5 GW, low to 4.5 GW, high) means that the influence from the North East region may have the greatest potential impact on any change to Scotland’s scores |
| Distributional effects | Impacts on relevant indicators of the 81 national indicators will be more significant in and around those ports where development is more likely |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Minor (- -) Small impacts from reduction in fishing jobs with 1.6 (low, Type I) to 4.7 (high, Type I) FTEs lost |
| Distributional effects | Peterhead and Fraserburgh see most of the impacts in the North East, but these represent just 0.18% of landings to the home port by value (Fraserburgh) and 0.13% for Peterhead. Buckie sees the overall greatest change in value of landings (0.27% where Buckie is the home port and 0.29% where Buckie is the landing port). These are small reductions that are unlikely to result in local job losses either directly to fisheries or to processing and the supply chain. In total, though a maximum of 4.7 (high, Type I) FTEs are estimated to be lost across the region as a whole; as a result impacts on national indicators may be limited at the national level; more significant impacts may be seen at the more local level |
| Region | NORTH |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Minor (+ +) Potential development in the North region could provide that could help improve Scotland’s score through positively impacting many of the 81 national indicators and, consequently, up to four of the six dimensions of national competence. Scale of development (1 GW, low to 3 GW, high) means that the influence from the North region may not be sufficient alone to significantly affect Scotland’s scores |
| Distributional effects | Impacts on relevant indicators of the 81 national indicators will be more significant in and around those ports where development is more likely |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Minor (- - ) Significant impacts could occur in some ports but overall effect is small with up to a maximum of 2.9 FTEs (high, Type I) lost across the whole region |
| Distributional effects | Scrabster, Kinlochbervie and Ullapool see most of the impacts in the North, but these represent 0.84% of landings to the home port by value (Scrabster), 0.22% for Kinclochbervie and 0.25% for Ullapool. The overall greatest change in value of landings is 0.84% at Scrabster (home port) and 0.19% at Stromness (landing port). However, with only 2.3 (high, Type I) FTEs lost as a maximum, impacts on national indicators may be limited at the national level; more significant impacts may be seen at the more local level. |
| Region | WEST |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Minor (+ +) Potential development in the West region could provide that could help improve Scotland’s score through positively impacting many of the 81 national indicators and, consequently, up to four of the six dimensions of national competence. Scale of development (0.5 GW, low to 2 GW, high) means that the influence from the West region may be unlikely to be sufficient to significantly affect Scotland’s scores |
| Distributional effects | Impacts on relevant indicators of the 81 national indicators will be more significant in and around those ports where development is more likely |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Minor (- -) Impacts may be significant locally but are small overall with up to a maximum of 2.0 FTEs (high, Type I) lost due to impacts on landings |
| Distributional effects | Oban, Islay, Fionnphort and Port Ellen see most of the impacts in the West. There are no data for most of these West ports for home port landings. The overall greatest change in value of landings is 0.39% at Oban (home port) and 0.78% at Portnhaven (landing port).These ports are not expected to result in large positive impacts from wind farm development so the impacts could be disproportionately greater as fishers would not be able to supplement their income through, e.g. support work using their vessels directly from their home port. However, with only 2.0 (high, Type I) FTEs affected, impacts on national indicators may be limited at the national level; more significant impacts may be seen at the more local level |
| Region | SOUTH WEST |
| Impacts rating (positive) and justification | Minor (+ +) Potential development in the South West region could provide that could help improve Scotland’s score through positively affecting many of the 81 national indicators and, consequently, up to four of the six dimensions of national competence. Scale of development (0.3 GW, low to 1 GW, high) means that the influence from the West region may be unlikely to be sufficient to significantly affect Scotland’s scores |
| Distributional effects | Impacts on relevant indicators of the 81 national indicators will be more significant in and around those ports where development is more likely |
| Impacts rating (negative) and justification | Minor (- -) May be significant impacts on specific families but overall impacts are small with up to a maximum of 0.6 FTEs (high, Type I) lost across the region |
| Distributional effects | Ayr, Campbeltown, Drummore and Kirkcudbright see most of the impacts in the South West, but these represent a small percentage of total landing value. Maximum impacts on landings ports are seen at Campbeltown (0.28% of landings value) and Drummore (0.17% of landings value).Impacts on fisher families in these locations could be greater than suggested by loss of jobs due to loss of income from landings, but some income lost could be supplemented for fishermen out of Ayr and Campbeltown from new activities associated with wind farms to help supplement incomes. With up to 0.6 (high, Type I) FTEs lost across the region, impacts on national indicators may be limited at the national level; more significant impacts may be seen at the more local level |
Contact
Email: drew.milne@gov.scot
There is a problem
Thanks for your feedback