Economic impacts of wind farms on Scottish tourism: report

3 Literature review

3.1 Introduction

This chapter seeks to bring together evidence from the UK, Denmark, and, because of its similarities to Scotland, Norway on the economic impacts of wind farms. A brief mention is also made of the experiences in the US, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden and Finland. For the UK and Norway a key factor is that the evidence to date is based on a very limited number of wind farms and the relative rarity has possibly made them more of a tourist attraction than repellant.

The limited experience to date has meant that the number of published studies of actual, as opposed to projected, effects is limited. The limited evidence from Denmark is important in that it is based on a community which already has very extensive experience of wind farms.

In the UK the planning system, discussed in Chapter 13, has an important role. An environmental appraisal is required for all developments and where there is a significant negative impact on the environment the assumption is that the development will not be allowed. Given the assumed direct relationship between landscape and tourism, ex post findings of limited impact of wind farms on tourism could be taken as evidence of effective planning rather than evidence that wind farms in inappropriate locations or linked in a continuous band could not have serious negative effects on tourism

3.2 The UK

3.2.1 Introduction

One of the major problems of a literature review of studies of the impact of wind farms on tourism is that apparently important new information turns out to be existing evidence reworked to support a case either for or against a development. Typically developers or their agents report positive or no impact and minimise or disregard any studies which suggest an impact. Opponents, on the other hand, invariably select the limited number of studies that suggest a negative impact and ignore those that suggest none or positive impact. These include, for example written submissions to Select Committees or verbal accounts to Planning Inquiries. The following boxes provide some examples.

Written Evidence to:	Select Committee on Welsh Affairs June 2005
Evidence by:	Mynydd Llansadwrn Action Group
Evidence:	2002 Visit Scotland Survey
" Evidence from Europe suggest a 40% drop in tourism in areas where there wind farms. The 2002 VisitScotland Survey of visitor attitude showed that tourists avoid landscapes with wind turbines…. The effects of a drop in tourism will be felt most keenly in rural areas. Most tourists come to Wales to enjoy the peace and tranquility of the countryside and to engage in outdoor activities. Wind farms are incompatible with this type of tourism. The result will be fewer visitors to rural areas and, therefore, fewer tourism-related jobs in communities where employment opportunities are already very limited."

Verbal Evidence to:	Griffin Forest Inquiry
Evidence by:	Murdo Fraser MSP
Evidence:
" The tourism industry throughout Perthshire accounts for about 15% of all employment in the area. When tourism comprises such a large proportion of employment, it can be deemed as not only very important, but essential… The vast majority of studies I have come across, even undertaken within the pro-wind lobby, still arrive at the conclusion that wind farms could harm tourism"

Verbal Evidence to:	InverCassley Inquiry
Evidence from:	M.Mouat (Chair, Creich, Ardgay and Lairg Community Councils)
Evidence:	Local Experience
" the grounds for objection were: tourism and the economy; .. Tourism and the local economy would be adversely affected as the unspoilt views would be lost and a niche market damaged"

The evidence base for the objectors in practice seems to be limited to the findings of the System 3 survey of 2002 for VisitScotland, a WITB survey ( TMS,2003) and a customer "survey" reported in Strachan et al (2003) discussed in 3.2.4 The developers, on the other hand, working through the British Wind Energy Association, have presented extensive evidence collated by David Stewart Associates suggesting either a positive or no effect of wind farms on tourism. In May 2006 they presented a document on " The impact of wind farms on the tourist industry in the UK" to the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Tourism ( BWEA ,2006). Attached to that paper is an annex listing the survey evidence available on the impact of Wind farms on tourism and this list forms the basis of much of the evidence base presented here.

3.2.2 England

Cornwall and South West have seen a considerable number of studies.

Aitchison (2004) found that "93.9% of those surveyed would not be discouraged from visiting the area if there was a wind farm. Only 6.1% said they would be 'marginally' or 'strongly' discouraged from visiting, a higher percentage (7.2%) stated that they would be more encouraged to visit if there was a wind farm". Contrary to this, the Devon Marketing Bureau has apparently conducted a survey which suggests that visitors would be discouraged from retuning the area if there was a wind farm, however the survey has not been released for public view.

The Cornwall Tourist Board (2000) found that for the year's 1996 to 2000 wind farms did not alter the percentage of tourists returning for repeat visits. In 1996 79.6% of those responding to the tourist board questionnaire said they were returning to Cornwall, in 1997 the figure was 81.2%, in 1998 it was 80.1%, in 1999 it was 79.2% and in 2000 it was 81.5%.

An earlier study by Robertson Bell Associates (1996) found that "Nineteen out of every twenty tourists (94%) say that the presence of wind farms has had no impact on the likelihood of them visiting North Cornwall again - the majority of the remaining 6% say that the presence of wind farms will actually encourage them to visit again with only one respondent stating that the wind farms will discourage them from visiting the area in the future."

A contemporary study by Nicholas Pearson Associates (1996) reported that analysis of the visitor figures since 1991 to important tourist attractions within 10km of the Delabole Wind Farm showed no decrease in the numbers since the advent of the wind farm. Indeed there had been a marginal increase to some attractions including Tintagel Castle.

In Somerset the Centre for Sustainable Energy, ( CSE,2002) carried out a survey in order to answer the concerns of a number of people in Brean, Sedgemoor about a proposed wind farm having a detrimental impact on the local tourism industry. Of the 331 people who were interviewed: 91.5% said that the proposed development would make no difference to how often they visit the area, 3.6%said they would visit less often, 3.9% said they would visit more often and 0.9% had no opinion Other key findings were: The majority of respondents supported wind technology, with a total of approximately 8 out of 10 in favour or strongly in favour of wind power Approximately 7 out of 10 respondents viewed the proposed wind farm as a positive development for the area.

The edges of the Lake District have seen some of the most vocal opposition and consequently, research.

Robertson Bell Associates (2002) carried a survey of local residents close to the Lambrigg farm and found that: 3% of respondents believed that the wind farm had caused a fall in visitor numbers; 11% believed in had caused an increase and the remainder felt there had been no effect. This was then extended to cover visitors for the Lake District National park Authority which found: 87% of visitors either approved or strongly approved of wind power. 75% of respondents claimed that significantly more wind farms would make no difference to the number of times they visited. 2% of respondents claimed they would visit more often 22% claimed they would visit less often.

Campey et al (2003) were commissioned by the Friends of the Lake District to research the views of tourists and tourism organisations and businesses. Opinions were sought near three wind farms all situated on the borders of the Lake District National Park; Lambrigg, near Kendal, Kirkby Moor near Ulverston and the proposed development at Wharrels Hill near Bothel, Responses were collected from 143 tourists and 24 tourism organizations. Although small and possibly not statistically significant, these responses are worth noting given the location, the nature of the respondents and also the commissioning organisation, a group with a history of not viewing the development of wind energy positively. Primary research found that over 80% of visitors and tourism organizations interviewed within the Lake District and Cumbria feel positive about renewable energy and wind farms. The three sites under investigation were found to have little or no effect on tourism within Cumbria and the Lake District . The majority of visitors / tourists were not aware of the wind farms under investigation and after being made aware they felt it would not impact on future visits. The majority of tourism organisations reported no effect on their business from the presence of an existing wind farm in their vicinity, nor did they expect any effect associated with the proposal for a new wind farm. The majority of visitors (75%) said that increases in the number of turbines in the next few years would not have any effect on them visiting in the future, although 22% of visitors said that if the number of wind turbines increased considerably over the next few years, they would be discouraged from visiting the area. It is interesting to note that the opinion of tourism organisations differ from actual tourists. When asked how they would react if a wind farm were to be developed near them, the majority - 46% - said that they would have a negative reaction and only 21% said that they would react positively, compared with the 75% of tourists who said that increases in turbine numbers would have no effect on their visiting the area in future. Amongst those that said they would react negatively were attractions and ramblers clubs. This is in keeping with their previous views towards wind farms in general. Hotels were also amongst those that had a negative reaction towards proposed developments near them. This contrasts with their positive opinions towards renewable energy and wind farms in general.

3.2.3 Wales

As a mountainous windy area with a large tourist industry Wales has had a number of studies undertaken. The earliest of these date back to the mid nineties.

ETSU (1994) examined the situation following the construction and 12 month operation of the Cemmaes Wind Farm in Mid Wales, They found that 62% of respondents thought that the wind farm should be promoted as a tourist attraction with 25% saying 'no' and 14% 'don't know'. The consensus of opinion was that 'people still believe that the wind farm is more likely to attract visitors than it is to deter them - even though the novelty value has more or less disappeared over the past year.' Moreover 92% of the respondents were 'not bothered' by the look of the wind turbines."

Chris Blandford Associates (1994) provides further evidence that local people feel wind farms are a tourist attraction. For Llandinam, Rhyd-y-Groes and Llangwyryfon Wind Farms, 65%, 59% and 49% respectively, of local people believe the wind farms would attract tourists.

Robertson Bell Associates (1997) surveyed residents close to the Taff Ely development and found that the majority of residents (68%) felt that the number of people visiting the area has not been affected, but of those who thought there had been some effect, many more say that visitor numbers have increased (15%) than have decreased (1%)."

David Stewart Associates ( BWEA, 2006) also report on a thesis undertaken for the Wales Tourist Board ( WTB) in 2001. The key conclusions of this study were: 96% of visitors would not be put off visiting Wales if more wind farms were be developed almost 70% would visit a wind farm if an information centre was built. There is not a large difference in opinion on wind farms between people that have seen a wind farm during their stay and people who have not. Most people believe that their contribution to renewable energy outweighs their impact on the landscape.

As a result of the findings by NFO in Scotland in their 1996 report they were commissioned by the Welsh Tourist Board to assess the potential 'Impact of Wind Farms on Tourism in Wales'.

NFO ( 2003) found that:

78% of all respondents had a neutral or positive view on wind farm development 21% had a negative view 68% would be interested in attending a visitor centre at a wind farm development 68% said it would make no difference to their likelihood to take holidays in the Welsh countryside if the number of wind farms increased Amongst businesses and organisations the general view was that wind farms should be very carefully sited and not in areas which were deemed to be particularly sensitive to their development. There were variations in the explanation of what constitutes a 'no-go' area with some more explicit than others in their definition. Nevertheless, there was general consensus that they should be located outside of designated areas (e.g. National parks and Area's of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Sites of Special Scientific Interest) and in areas in which the visual and environmental impacts would be minimized. Because no research in Wales (or elsewhere) has attempted to quantify the impact of wind farms on tourists, most respondents found it difficult to make any estimates of future impact. Amongst those that did provide an opinion most believed that the impacts of tourism were negligible, although these views are based on anecdotal evidence.

3.2.4 Scotland

Of the home countries Scotland has probably the most extensive list of studies of the best quality.

Hanley and Nevin (1999) conducted a detailed study of renewable energy options for the North Assynt Estate. The study is notable in both investigating the economic impact and in valuing scenic change using contingent valuation. Central to the study are the reactions of both visitors (tourists) and the small local community. North Assynt is a remote community owned estate in North West Scotland that hosts 130 households in 12 townships. The options considered were: A three turbine wind farm A hydro-scheme A bio-mass plant A survey of 76 visitors was undertaken using standard photo-montages of the likely appearance of the three schemes. Table 3-1 shows the percentage of people who stated they were more or less likely to return. Table 3-1 Reaction of visitors to renewable energy developments in Assynt Wind Hydro Bio-Mass More Likely 5.3 3.9 0 No Reaction 90.8 82.9 86.5 Less Likely 3.9 13.2 14.5 Net Effect 1.4 -9.3 -14.5 On the basis of tourist expenditure per head of £21.50 Hanley and Nevin estimate a fall of £2,590 for every tourist day lost; the impact would be very small even if it was negative. The contingent valuation related to the drop/increase in value to the local community. Those in favour of the scheme were asked about their willingness to pay into a fund to ensure that the scheme proceeded. Those against were asked to identify the drop in electricity prices or the number of jobs that would need to be created for them to cease opposition. The results are seen in Table 3-2. Table 3-2 Rating and WTP scores for energy options, residents' sample Renewable energy option Percentage in favour of scheme Percentage opposed Proportion of those opposed who would accept compensation[1] Mean rating on Likert scale (1-5) Mean WTP[2] of those in favour of scheme (per annum) Mean WTP across whole sample (per annum) Implied community WTP (per annum)[3] Wind farm at Raffin 78 22 3/10 3.7 £87 £52.25 £13,585 Biomass schemes at Culkein/Stoer 42 58 7/26 3.2 £77 £25.54 £6,642 Small-scale hydro on Loch Poll 87 13 0/6 4 £77 £54.93 £14,282 Opposition to the wind scheme was wholly locational and based on loss of scenic value (and potential loss of tourist income). Of the 10, only 1 would accept a decrease in electricity price as compensation and another 2 would accept full time employment as adequate community compensation. It is not clear how Hanley and Nevin obtained the value for the whole sample but the figures presented suggest a mean willingness to accept for the opponents of £71. If we assume that the supporters are indifferent to scenic effects (some may have a positive WTP, some negative) then the mean value of the scenery would be £15.6 which is very similar to the values for scenery found elsewhere (see section 3.6).

One of the most quoted studies for opponents is the survey undertaken by NFO System 3 for VisitScotland ( NFO System 3, 2002). For example even in New York State, Jones and Strauss-Jones (2007) write " In 2003 the tourism board in Scotland released a 190 page report that completed contradicted the earlier BWEA survey. This new report concluded that 15% of tourists would definitely avoid areas with Wind farms and that an additional 10% would be less likely to return. Over 50% of tourists agreed that Wind farms spoiled the look of the countryside. The study concluded that plans for additional Wind farms would eliminate 4,000 to 6,000 tourism jobs, and result in $120M to $210M in lost tourism revenue."

The study does however have a number of detractors due to the methodology adopted.

The NFO/System3 (2002) study employed what they termed the "Hall approach.". In this methodology tourists are invited into a rented hall for a semi-structured in- depth discussion for up to 30 minutes on general issues. In this case the identified topic was the importance of scenery. One contentious point was the selection of only those who described the natural landscape and natural scenery as important to their stay. This excluded anyone visiting the area on business and visiting fiends and relatives, rather than because they were on holiday. In addition it eliminated anyone who was undertaking some activities not deemed to be landscape focused such as golf and fishing whilst including hill-walking, short walks, cycling, mountaineering and sightseeing. A total of only 180 people were interviewed, a relatively small sample. Initially nobody identified wind farms as detracting from the enjoyment of the countryside. Table 3-3 Developments/facilities which detract from enjoyment of Scottish countryside Base: All respondents (N=180) Seen any wind farms in Scotland? Type of visitor Origin ALL VISITORS Yes No Active Passive Scots Other UK Overseas Too much building work going on 6 8 7 8 8 10 3 8 Nuclear Power Stations 5 2 3 5 8 1 - 4 Fish Farms 2 3 1 4 4 - 5 3 Quarries 1 2 1 3 4 1 - 2 Lack of public toilets 2 1 - 3 4 - - 2 Amusement arcades 1 1 1 1 3 - - 1 Others 29 12 20 19 21 22 13 19 Nothing 51 71 64 59 47 65 80 61 Base (Total Interviews): 82 89 70 110 72 68 40 180 - Nil respondents Source: NOS 2003 The questioning then proceeded with increasing focus on wind farms and their appearance. At this stage 29% stated that wind farms detracted from their experience of the countryside, a not unsurprising result. Table 3-4 Table 0-38 - 10: Wind farms and turbines (%) Base: All respondents (N=180) Seen any wind farms in Scotland? Type of visitor Origin ALL VISITORS Yes No Active Passive Scots Other UK Overseas Enhances experience 21 13 17 18 15 21 18 18 Detracts from experience 28 30 34 26 33 29 23 29 Neither 51 56 49 55 51 50 60 53 Seen in Scotland? Yes 85 31 56 57 67 56 40 57 No 15 69 44 43 33 44 60 43 Base (Total Interviews): 82 89 70 110 72 68 40 180 Having established that wind farms reduced the value of the scenic experience interviewees were then asked how they would respond to an increase of wind farms in the area, where area was left undefined. Indeed it is not clear if respondents were referring to a hillside that contained a wind farm or Scotland. Table 3-5 Table 0-63 - Impact on further holidays in the Scottish countryside if the number of wind farms was to increase (%) Base: All respondents (N=180) Seen any wind farms in Scotland? Type of visitor Origin ALL VISITORS Yes No Active Passive Scots Other UK Overseas Would make no difference 70 54 63 63 56 65 73 63 Steer clear of the area 12 19 16 15 19 13 10 15 Less likely to come back 7 12 10 10 11 10 8 10 Depends on the area 6 7 6 6 7 6 5 6 Minimal impact 1 2 3 1 - 4 - 2 Other 1 2 1 2 4 - - 2 Don't Know/Not stated 2 3 1 4 3 1 5 5 Base (Total Interviews): 82 89 70 110 72 68 40 180 As a result of the structure of the interview 50 people, who had not even identified wind farms as a problem at the start, eventually identified it as a serious enough threat to change planned behaviour.

Detractors (e.g. David Stewart Associates, 2006) believe that the combination of quantitative measures and in depth probing of underlying attitudes may have, unwittingly, led the interviewee into identifying a response because it appeared obvious that they should respond in that way. Perhaps the most notable point is that unlike every other survey not one individual was positive about wind farms.

The problem is that despite the flawed methodology the study does offer some proof of a potentially serious threat of wind farms to tourism. This finding is however mitigated by the responses of tourism organisations which were summarised thus:

'In summary, most respondents were of the view that as long as wind farms were 'sensitively sited' i.e. outwith designated areas such as National Parks and National Nature Reserves as well as those areas which are regarded as key tourist 'honeypot' locations then wind farms should have few negative impacts on tourists and tourism businesses. At the existing level of wind farm development in Scotland, the impacts of wind farms on tourists were felt to be relatively minimal.'

The Tourism Trade responses were similar:

'In general, the respondents tended to be more positive than negative towards the impacts of wind farms on tourism, although most of the views presented had a conditional aspect to them. A few could be said to be strongly in favour of wind farms and a similar minority three expressed views strongly against. The majority had more neutral opinions, where most of them tended to be in favour if certain conditions were met, regarding, for example, the siting and scale of new wind farms developments.'

A contrasting study in Argyll and Bute was carried out by MORI (2002). There were three large commercial wind farms in operation in the area at the time the survey was undertaken. More than 300 face-to-face interviews among tourists visiting Argyll and Bute were analysed. Interestingly, despite the presence of the farms, 3 in 5 of tourists questioned were not aware of their presence, and the majority - 71% - had visited areas close to the wind farms. Respondents were asked about how wind farms affected the idea of Argyll as a place to visit: 43% said presence of a wind farm had positive effect 43% said made no difference 8% said had a negative effect When asked about the impact on the likelihood of visiting Argyll in future: 91% said made no difference 4% more likely to return 2% less likely to return As so many studies show there was strong interest in visiting a wind farm if opened to the public. If a wind farm had a visitor centre, 80% would be interested in going, with 54% 'very interested and 19% not interested. The majority of tourists who knew about the wind farms came away with a more positive image of the area because of their presence.

Strachan et al (2004) discuss evidence produced in a short newspaper article in The Aberdeen Press and Journal on 28 th May 2002. This concerned a couple who surveyed 100 people renting their cottages in Lochavich. They found that over 70% said they would not return to the area if the wind farm was built, and 68% said they would not visit Scotland if wind farms proliferated in the landscape. The validity of such a "survey" should undoubtedly be challenged but it is impossible to dismiss the broad finding; that some individuals might react so negatively to the intrusion of wind turbines that they might not return.

Busbridge (2004) also utilises the VisitScotland figures to argue that the impact on tourism in the Western Isles of the Lewis development would be serious. He points out that for island communities the opportunities for local displacement are limited. He reinforces his worries with evidence eventually presented in TMS(2005).

TMS(2005) were commissioned by the Western Isles Tourist Board ( WITB) and surveyed the opinions of tourism suppliers in the area on the likely impact of the proposed wind farm developments. Of the 402 questionnaires posted 139 were returned a response rate of 35%. The responses covered the islands and business types proportionately and there is no reason to suppose significant non-response bias. Whilst 74% were in support of wind power developments on the islands in principle approximately the same proportion opposed the specific proposed developments on Lewis. The sample was then split into those defined as generally supportive and those adamantly opposed. Of the former group 50% believed there would be no impact on tourism and 62% disagreed with the statement that there would be a positive impact. It would appear that of this supportive group those who believe it to have a positive impact outweighed those who thought it would have a negative impact but the largest group thought they would have no impact. The second set of questions were aimed at those who were opposed to wind farm development but seems to have been answered by some who were generally supportive. Table 3-6 shows the key table from the report. Even if we assume that all who did not answer disagreed with the statement two thirds of those surveyed would have agreed with the statement that wind farms "..will destroy the natural and visual landscape and less tourists will visit" Table 3-6 Potential Dis-Benefits of Wind Farms Agree Strongly % Agree % Disagree % Disagree Strongly % They will displace leisure tourists during construction due to demand for accommodation by contractors 47 36 11 6 They will destroy the natural and visual landscape and less tourists will visit 70 18 8 4 They will a detrimental long-term effect on bird/animal life 55 23 18 4 They will not create the jobs and wealth as suggested 53 36 8 4 They will have a negative impact on my business 62 22 11 5 Hinton (2006) carried out a review of " Wind Farm Public Attitude and Tourism Studies in Scotland". This covers VisitScotland data on tourism and the activities therein and most of the literature discussed elsewhere in this chapter. Of particular interest is the analysis relating the growth in wind farms to the growth/decline in tourism as shown in Table 3-7 Table 3-7 Comparison of Wind Farm Developments and Tourism Numbers for England and Scotland Year Scotland England Number of New Wind farms No of UK visitors to Scotland % change in visitors Number of New Wind farms No of UK visitors to England % change in visitors 2000 5 = 34.8 MW 18,980,000 6 = 22.2 MW 140,430,000 2001 4 = 47.5 MW 17,500,000 -7.80% 3 = 14.15 MW 131,900,000 -6.07% 2002 4 = 49.5 MW 18,530,000 5.89% 2 = 2.1 MW 134,900,000 2.27% 2003 2 = 4 MW 16,500,000 -10.96% 3 = 10.25 MW 121,300,000 -10.08% Average -4.29% -4.63% As they point out has seen substantially more farms and even more turbines than England and yet has actually experienced less of a decline in numbers of tourists than England. The relationship is not significant and simply confirms previous statements about Cornwall; any impact is slight and submerged by other factors

3.2.5 Attitude, Attitude Change and Tourism Effects

Much of the evidence above suggests that initial opposition can mutate to mild support after construction. Braunholz(2003) led a survey by MORI of the Public Attitudes towards Wind Farms for the Scottish Executive. The survey was undertaken in the summer of 2003 and interviewed 430 people living in and around Scotland's operating farms at Hagshaw Hill in Lanarkshire, Novar in Ross-shire, Windy Standard in Dumfries and Galloway and Beinn Ghlas near Oban. 67 per cent of all respondents said there was something they liked about the wind farm and this figure rose to 73 per cent among those living within 5km of the farm. Prior to the development 40 per cent of respondents anticipated problems while only nine per cent experienced problems after the development; Only 14 per cent of respondents said they would be concerned if extra turbines were added to the farm. Although respondents were generally positive about the farms most felt they should be located in uninhabited areas and high on hills.

Warren et al (2005) review the attitudes to wind farm developments and identify the clear importance of open effective planning mechanisms. Surveys of public attitudes have frequently shown that large majorities of residents in areas with Wind farms are in favour of wind power, both in principle and in practice, and that positive attitudes increase through time and with proximity to Wind farms (Krohn & Damborg, 1999; Redlinger et al., 2002; SEDD, 2002; Elliott, 2003). As an example, in a survey of 1810 people living within 20 km of existing large Wind farms in Scotland, Braunholtz (2003) reports that three times as many people regard their local Wind farm as a positive feature than as a negative feature, with people living closest the most positive. An Irish survey of 1200 people found that only 1 per cent of the general public is opposed to Wind farms, that 84 per cent regard them as a good thing, and that most of those with direct experience of Wind farms do not consider that they have had any adverse impact on the scenic beauty of the area, or on wildlife, tourism or property values ( SEI, 2003a). Survey evidence also indicates that people's viewpoints are critically influenced by the nature of the planning and development process: the earlier, more open and participatory the process, the greater the likelihood of public support (Birnie et al., 1999; Khan, 2003). In contrast, ''decision making over the heads of local people is the direct route to protest'' (Krohn & Damborg, 1999, p. 959). On this basis, Wolsink (2000) suggests that local resistance to wind projects does not focus on the turbines themselves but on the people (usually outsiders) who want to build the turbines. Because wind developments frequently occur in rural areas, they can inflame pre-existing rural urban tensions (Pasqualetti et al., 2002a), especially if locals are denied access to the process. Contemporary public attitudes, then, are shaped by a broad range of interacting influences, as explored by Devine-Wright (2005b). Key factors include local perceptions of visual and economic impacts, the inclusiveness of the planning process, social influences, and the political and institutional context.

The message is reinforced in the study of attitudes to the existing Dun Law ( DL) and the then proposed Blackhill ( BH) farm; support was more muted and opposition stronger for the new farm.

Table 3-8

	Strongly Support		Support		Neutral		Oppose		Strongly Oppose
	DL(%)	BH(%)	DL(%)	BH(%)	DL(%)	BH(%)	DL(%)	BH(%)	DL(%)	BH(%)
Wind power in Scotland	55	55	35	22	6	16	2	0	2	7
Local wind farm	63	47	25	16	3	20	3	4	5	13

One surprising outcome of the research is shown in Table 3-9. Although the sample was very small, those who responded saw the farm as a positive rather than a negative tourism factor.

Table 3-9 The Perceived Positive and Negative Impacts at Dun Law

	% of responses	Number of responses
Positive impact
Attractive feature in the landscape	34	13
Community funding	26	10
Intrinsic value	16	6
A local amenity	13	5
Tourist attraction	11	3
Total	100	38
Negative impact
Unattractive feature in the landscape	44	7
Driver distraction	25	4
No local economic benefits (jobs, contracts)	25	4
Noise	6	1
Total	100	16

Another noteworthy fact is that almost twice as many people find it attractive as find it unattractive. Landscape values are, of course, notoriously subjective (Habron,1998; Devine-Wright, 2005a). 'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder', or, in the words of Krohn & Damborg (1999, p. 956), ''whether wind turbines spoil or enrich the scenery is a matter of taste''. However the research also found that the setting was extremely important and that the populace did not want wind farms in areas of natural beauty.

3.2.6 UK Conclusions

The evidence presented, although ambiguous in places, suggests the following:

1. There is often strong hostility to developments at the planning stage on the grounds of the scenic impact and the knock on effect on tourism. However the most sensitive of these do not appear to have been given approval so that where negative impacts on tourism might have been a real outcome there is, in practice, no evidence of a negative effect.

2. There is a loss of value to a significant number of individuals but there are also some who believe that wind turbines enhance the scene.

3. Over time hostility lessens and the farms become an accepted even valued part of the scenery. Those closest seem to like them most.

4. Even if there is a loss of value the effect on tourism in practice is extremely small. This possibly reflects the current limited nature of the exposure (e.g 10 minutes in a 5 hour journey) and, as mentioned earlier, the effect of the planning system preventing seriously adverse developments.

3.3 The Danish experience

3.3.1 Introduction

A review of tourist literature suggests that the general tourist perception of Denmark is of a green (in both senses), clean, well organised rural land with excellent sandy beaches, Legoland and "wonderful, wonderful Copenhagen". Wind farms are expected and accepted as part of the green image. An industrial landscape of smoking chimneys, coal tips and marching grid lines are absent.

As of January 2006, Denmark had wind capacity of 3,129 MW of which 423 MW were from offshore wind farms and numbers from 2005 show that wind energy accounts for 20% of the total production of renewable energy and 18.5% of the total Danish power supply. The wind power industry in Denmark employs around 20,000 people and in total makes a turnover ever year at over 20 billion Danish Kroner. (Energistyrelsen 2007e)

Figure 3-1 shows a map of the wind turbines in Denmark in 2006. The wind turbines with output over 1,500 kW are mainly offshore wind turbines or placed near the coast. The most common wind turbines in Denmark, counting for about 50% of the total output, are the ones with output of around 450 kW - 750 kW.

Figure 3-1 Wind Turbines in Denmark 2006

Table 3-10

Source: DKvind 2007

Figure 3-2 below shows the development in number of wind turbines and the total capacity in Denmark from 1996 - 2006. It shows that the number of wind turbines have actually been decreasing after 2001, but still the capacity have increased, though it has only been a small increase from 2003 - 2006.

Figure 3-2 Number of Wind Turbines and Total Capacity in Denmark from 1996 - 2006

Source: Danish Energy Authority

The Danish government can influence the location of onshore wind farms through information, regulations, and national directives, but ultimately it is the local and regional authorities that decide. Because offshore wind farms are normally larger than the ones onshore and therefore can have a greater impact, the government has the planning responsibility. (Energistyrelsen 2007b)

Despite the number of turbines, the population is still broadly in agreement with the expansion. The Nielsen Poll of February 2006 (Nielsen, 2007) found a staggering 91% of the population in favour of continued expansion. In addition 77% of the population generally believe that wind farms present a positive image and do not destroy the scenery indeed a strong majority regard them as beautiful and fitting in with the scenery.

3.3.2 Economic Cost of Wind farms on Scenery

Research into the economic cost of the visual externalities of off-shore wind farms,, as identified by willingness to pay, was conducted in 2005, as a part of the offshore wind farm monitoring programme in Denmark. This section discusses the findings of Ladenburg et al. (2005).

The survey was conducted in 3 areas:

1. A national survey with a sample size of 700 ( NA)

2. A survey in the area of Horns Rev with a sample size of 350 ( HR)

3. A survey in the area of Nysted with a sample size of 350 ( NY)

Respondents were asked about their willingness to pay to have the wind farms moved outside the visual range. The results are shown in Figure 3-3.

Figure 3-3 Willingness to pay for having future offshore wind farms located at the specified distance from the shore - relative to an 8 km baseline

One interesting finding was that males are willing to pay much more for moving the wind farm from 8 km to 12 km, 18 km or 50 km. This result is similar to the research by Gallup (Tns Gallup 2007) where it was found that men generally are more negative about wind turbines with the height of 100 - 150 m. It could seem that men have stronger opinions about wind farms than women and are therefore willing to pay more to get rid of the perceived problems. Of course it could be simply that men have a higher wage than women in Denmark and therefore they would be able to pay more.

Looking at the marginal willingness to pay ( WTP), i.e. expressing the willingness to pay for moving the wind farm one more kilometre away from the shore, it can be seen that the WTP for the national survey and the survey for Horns Rev are quire similar. On the other hand the willingness to pay for the respondents from Nysted is very different from the other surveys.

Figure 3-4 Marginal WTP/km above 8 km

The overall conclusion is though that the highest marginal willingness to pay is found by moving the wind farm from 8 km - 12 km, for all the three samples and varies from a maximum of around £15 per km per household to £7.

The importance of this finding is that it shows that, even in Denmark, there is a quantifiable preference for landscapes without wind farms. The link between value and demand was discussed in chapter 2 and one would expect a negative effect on tourist demand and consequently revenue. However for other reasons, the local population might actually want the expansion of wind farms, that is negative impacts on tourists could be associated with positive attitudes to wind farms.

3.3.3 Attitudes to On-Shore Farms

Landerberg et al (2005) also surveyed the attitudes of the three groups towards existing onshore wind turbines. The results are shown in Figure 3-5 and are notable by their positive nature.

Figure 3-5 Attitudes towards existing land-based wind turbines

There is however a significant difference in the respondents' attitude towards existing and new onshore wind turbines where 22% are in some way negative towards an increase. They are especially negative in the Nysted sample, whereas the most positive attitudes can be found in the national sample.

Figure 3-6 Visual impact of land-based wind turbines

When asked about the visual impact of onshore wind turbines just around 25% are positive or neutral, while 35% - 40% are negative with the balance neutral.

In summary most of the sample wanted further development of wind farms, thought they were not unattractive but, in general believed they had a negative impact and were willing to pay to reduce that impact.

3.3.4 Case Study from Nysted Tourist Information

Because of the lack of published work on the impact of wind farms on Tourism, information was obtained directly from the Nysted Tourist Information about the tourism in Nysted and the impact of Nysted Offshore Wind Farm. This found that the offshore wind farm has had little effect on how many tourists have been coming to Nysted. For example Nysted camping site has had an increase in the number of visitors over the last 10 years, despite of the fact that it is situated along the shore with a view to the wind farm.

On the positive side Nysted Tourist Information has arranged boat trips to the wind farm with great success since 2003 and now that the wind farm is completed it is possible to sail between the wind turbines to get a very good view of them. They have only cancelled a trip because of too much wind, but never because too few were interested. It was expected that the boat trips would be popular during construction of the wind farm, but today people still take trips to Nysted with the intention of seeing the wind farm.

The insignificant effect Nysted Offshore Wind Farm has on tourism can also be seen when looking at vacation houses with a view of the wind farm. The view of the wind farm has not affected the prices of the vacation houses.

In conclusion Nysted Tourist Information believes the negative effects are minimal and outweighed by the positives. Generally speaking, tourists, especially Germans can be attracted by promoting "green tourism", since they have considerable interest in the new technology and in environmental issues. ( AUSWEA 2004)

3.3.5 The Hantsholm Harbour Development

Although opposition to wind farm development in Denmark has been muted, occasionally special areas of scenery or for tourism have been the subject of protest. Perhaps more contentious and relevant from a Tourist viewpoint is the proposed development at Hanstholm Harbour on the northern coast of Jutland. Throughout the second part of 2005 windsurfers from Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Holland, Finland, Norway, Canada and USA stated their opposition. Typical statements made were "…the harbour is one of the best places in the world for surfing and windsurfing and is visited by thousand of tourists every year for that reason" "This will destroy the best windsurfing place in Northern Europe""It will seriously affect the tourism in Hanstholm and Klitmøller carry through such a project" "It is the area that every spring, summer and fall is attracting large numbers of Germans, Dutchmen, Poles and Estonians…to windsurf" (Translated from Viborg Amt 2005b) The surf club in Thisted is certain that owners of gas stations, holiday cottages, campsites and a lot of other businessmen will loose income from thousands of visiting surfers. The Danish Windsurfer Organisation mentions that the area is used for national and international competitions and if the basis for this is taken away the organisation believes that there will be a loss to the tourism industry of 40 million Danish Kroner (£3.64 million)(Viborg Amt 2005b). However, in this case, the protesters seem to have been successful in preventing this development, as the proposal will not now apparently get government approval.

3.3.6 Conclusions on Denmark

Despite a very large number of wind turbines, attitudes are still extremely positive with 90% supporting expansion. Indeed a majority think they are attractive and blend well with the Danish landscape. As far as can be ascertained, there have been no negative and possibly some positive effects on tourism. That is not to say that there has not been any opposition and in the case of the development at Hantsholm this is led by sports tourists.. The lesson seems to be that in a relatively flat, rural, agricultural landscape, wind turbines are seen as an acceptable, even attractive, addition. Similar areas do exist in Scotland (e.g. Buchan and Caithness) and it might be reasonable to assume similar responses.

3.4 Norwegian experience

3.4.1 Introduction: The planning system

The Norwegian landscape is clearly more similar to the Scottish Highlands than most other landscapes (particularly Denmark) and tourists to Norway are looking for simalr dramatic landscapes. Any research in Norway could, therefore be useful, in developing a policy for the Highlands.

In 2007 Norway signed the EU directive of Renewable Energy Sources (Directive 2001/77/ EC) which aims for expanding the share of renewable energy in total energy consumption from 13.9 % in 1997 to 22.1 % in 2010. As a consequence of this Norway has set a target of 90 % of total energy consumption to come from renewable energy sources by 2010. The long run objective for Norway is to expand their renewable energy production by 30 TWh from 2001 to 2016, Fornybar (2007).

In Norway all energy projects above 1 kWh have to apply for a concession from the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate ( NVE (2007)). Currently they have 143 applications listed on their webpage at various stages If a proposal gets approval the opposition can only appeal the case to the government who will then decide whether or not the proposal should be approved. The local authorities work together with NVE, but it is NVE and the government who have the final decision, (National Office of Building Technology and Administration,1999).

In March 2007 a list was published on the webpage of NVE which was an evaluation of 75 Norwegian wind farm proposals from 3 different perspectives, military, environment and heritage. They were graded by on the impact inflicted on military, environment and heritage, and farming (grazing reindeer).

Like Scotland, nature and scenery is the primary factor in the choice of tourists who select Norway. Like Scotland the major source of conflict is between scenic beauty and wind farm development.

3.4.2 Wind Farms, Outdoor Activity and Tourism

Farms onshore in Norway present serious problems. The low lying areas and islands have a surprisingly large population and the higher ground offers major construction, climatic and environmental problems. As a consequence Norway has a far larger proportion of offshore wind farms planned or in operation than anywhere else. The map indicates the current and larger proposed developments.

Figure 3-7 Major Norwegian Wind Farm Developments

Source: WindSim (2003)

This map only has some of the major wind farms marked on it. The red colour indicates an onshore wind farm while blue is offshore. The only one of the projects currently running is the Smøla onshore wind farm.

There are currently 3 offshore wind farm projects from the Norwegian company Havgul (2007). Opposition, however, comes from an unexpected quarter. The Norwegian Trekking Association ( DNT (2006)) claims that Havsul 1-4 could ruin unique landscapes along Mørekysten (The shores of Møre). Normally DNT policy is positive towards wind energy, but they are totally Norway could lose against the Havsul proposal as they believe it could destroy the tourism and outdoor industry. They claim that its position as both a regional and national tourist destinations as a result of the project. They urge for more national guidelines on the location of wind farms.

Mathisen (2005) interviewed three Norwegian politicians about the biggest challenges of coastal planning in Norway. Geir Knutson confirmed that the biggest area of conflict is between outdoor enthusiasts and the wind energy industry. A lot of the Norwegian coast line has good conditions for wind energy, but is also very important for the outdoor and tourism industry.

The Norwegian organisation Vern Kysten (2006) (Protect the Coast) also believes that huge Wind farms along the shores will ruin all the landscape and thus all the tourism in these areas. They refer to the current guidelines in Denmark and suggest the Norwegian government develop similar guidelines. They want the wind farms to be located in valleys or far out in the ocean to avoid the scenic damage of a wind turbine from a summit. They also want a limit for the maximum noise level from the wind farms, as they see the noise level as major environmental damage to the surroundings. They feel that people have been deceived by NVE and the project companies because the area and height of the wind farms has not been publicised.

A number of other tourist related issues have led to application rejection. There is a 150 MWh wind farm currently running on the isle of Smøla in the North West of Norway. The island is in many ways similar to the Western isles, and the population density is about the same. However the area of Harris and Lewis is 10 times bigger than the isle of Smøla. The wind farm has been running since 2002 with 20 x 2 MWh wind mills and in 2005 phase 2 was established with 48 x 2.3 MWh wind mills. There were studies on all the negative impacts of the wind farm before it got approval, Smøla Kommune (2001).

Since September 2005, 9 sea eagles have been killed by the turbines on Smøla Wind. On the basis of this experience RSPB fear that the planned wind farms on Lewis could also harm the some rare birds.

Two proposed expansions of the wind farm of Smøla were rejected by NVE (Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate) due to the environmental impact. One of the major points of rejection was the impact on birds i.e. collision of birds, disturbance effect of birds, and the loss of bird habitat. Another wind farm proposed in Stadlandet was first approved by NVE in 2000 but then later in 2002 rejected by OED (Ministry of Petroleum and Energy) due to complaints from numerous wild life groups and landscape protecting groups, NVE (2002).

3.4.3 Attitudes to wind farms

Vestlandsforskning (2005) commissioned an attitude survey. As in Denmark and the UK the general attitude was positive:

Table 3-11 Attitude towards wind power

	Utsira	Havøysund	Karmøy
Positive in general	38	19	76
Negative in general	1	7	11
Don't know	0	0	8
Total	39	26	95

To see if their attitude had changed they were asked if the construction of a wind farm in their local area had changed their attitude towards wind power. Most of them were unaffected but surprisingly a lot had actually become more positive. There were more people who were positively affected than people who had become more negative.

Table 3-12 Post Build Attitudes

	Utsira	Havøysund	Karmøy
Unaffected	19	13	55
More positive	14	7	22
More negative	1	4	11
Don't know	5	2	7
Total	39	26	95

Most of the respondents did not find that the turbines were destroying the landscape. However there were more people in Havøysund and Karmøy who were negative than in Utsira and this could be related to the size of the wind farm.

Table 3-13 Views on negative impact on landscape

	Utsira	Havøysund	Karmøy
Yes	3	7	27
No	35	19	62
Neutral	1	0	6
Total	39	26	95

The respondents did not seem to think that wild life was affected by the wind farms in particular. Again in Utsira the percentage that thought there would be a negative impact was lower.

Table 3-14 Views on negative impact on the wild life

	Utsira	Havøysund	Karmøy
Yes	4	8	30
No	29	18	54
Don't know	6	0	11
Total	39	26	95

The respondents were asked if they believed that the wind farms had any impact on outdoor activities. Most people saw it having a positive impact and very few people saw it as having a negative impact. However most of the respondents from Karmøy did not see any impact at all.

Table 3-15 Views on impact on outdoor activities

	Utsira	Havøysund	Karmøy
No impact	8	6	61
Positive impact	30	17	17
Negative impact	0	3	9
Don't know	1	0	8
Total	39	26	95

A question about tourism was also presented to the respondents and again there are some surprising results. Most people in Utsira and Havøysund actually thought that the wind farm would have a positive impact on tourism in the area. Only in Karmøy where the wind farm in not actually built yet is the result different. But it is still believed to have no impact rather than a negative impact on tourism.

Table 3-16 Views on impact on tourism in the area

	Utsira	Havøysund	Karmøy
No impact	7	3	69
Positive impact	32	17	11
Negative impact	0	3	8
Don't know	0	3	7
Sum	39	26	95

3.4.4 Norway: Conclusions

The problem with the location of a wind farm is simple; almost all places have an interest for at least one group of people. One of the onshore wind farms in Norway was rejected because it was to close to a town, and the noise impact was considered too great. Those involved with protecting birds do not want the wind farms in deserted areas whilst people, in general, do not want to have them close to them. The expensive solution of offshore farms has equally been criticized.

Within Norway the populace seems to be equally clear in their support and surprisingly positive in terms of appearance, wildlife and tourism. This may change but the message is similar; Wind farms are necessary, do not automatically have a detrimental effect on the scenery and have little impact on tourism.

3.5 Other international evidence

3.5.1 The US Experience

Wind power is at its most extensive in the western states, particularly California. Despite some huge developments, opposition has been limited and negative tourism impacts have not been mentioned. However as development spread east opposition has strengthened to "protect" the hill areas of Virginia, Vermont and New York State. With opposition has come increasing attention to the economic impacts of a decline in tourism. Nevertheless no research has been undertaken to identify such impacts, if they exist. The American Wind Energy Association for example states categorically "There is no evidence that wind turbines draw tourists away. In some areas wind turbines even draw tourists…..Surveys have found that the presence of wind turbines would not affect the decision of most visitors to return. The thousands of turbines in Palm Springs, California have had no negative impact on the number of tourists; on the contrary the local tourist office organises bus tours to the wind farms"( AWEA,2007).

Schleeds (2004) produces a searing attack on the NREL- JIND economic impact model (Goldberg, 2002) for wind farms. Amongst the many points he identifies a negative economic impact arising from a contraction from tourism but fails to make any estimate.

For change in value the most reliable study of the impact of wind farms would appear to be by the Renewable Energy Project (Sterzinger et al 2007). They write:

"If property values had been harmed by being within the view-shed of major wind developments, then we expected that to be shown in a majority of the projects analyzed. Instead, to the contrary, we found that for the great majority of projects the property values actually rose more quickly in the view shed than they did in the comparable community. Moreover, values increased faster in the view shed after the projects came on-line than they did before. Finally, after projects came on-line, values increased faster in the view shed than they did in the comparable community. In all, we analyzed ten projects in three cases; we looked at thirty individual analyses and found that in twentysix of those, property values in the affected view shed performed better than the alternative." Sterzinger et al (2003)

The survey was strongly attacked by Boone(2007) who argues that it is unreliable because of

1. limited sample size

2. atypical wind farms

3. limited time horizon

4. a definition of viewshed that was simply a property in a 5mile radius (as opposed to the standard definition that turbines could actually be seen from the property )

5. failure to distinguish between properties close to the wind farm compared to those on the periphery

6. the use of simple averages in the presence of inflation.

He identifies in his paper some examples of very substantial decreases in property values and a court decision to award substantial damages for loss of value due to a wind farm development.

Boone(2007) also reports on study in 2001 and 2002, by the Moratorium Committee of Kewaunee County, Lincoln Township, Wisconsin. In this study they compared property sales prices to assessed values before and after the construction of two wind energy facilities, each having relatively small .65 MW turbines. An assessor reported that property sales (vs. 2001 assessed values) declined by 26% within one mile and by 18% more than one mile of the wind project. The Moratorium Committee also sent anonymous survey forms to 310 property owners, of whom 223 responded. These responses were then grouped based upon proximity to the wind plants. The survey results found that 74% of respondents would not build or buy within 1/4 mile, 61% within 1/2 mile and 59% within 2 miles of the wind plants. In fact, a large percentage stated that they would not buy a home within 5 miles of the turbines. The wind plant's offer to purchase neighboring homes for demolition-to create an "additional buffer for the wind turbines"-came immediately following the release of a noise study showing the Lincoln wind turbines increased the ambient noise level significantly, depending on wind conditions, etc.

In summary the literature emanating from the US suggests that the economic impact on tourism is very limited and on property values, if it exists at all, is very small.

3.5.2 The Experience of Australia

One of the most detailed studies of the costs and benefits of wind farms that thoroughly incorporates tourist activity was undertaken by Sinclair Knight Mertz for Pacific Hydro and looked at wind farm development on the capes at Portland and Yambuk in Victoria State (Sinclair et al 2007). The market analysis identified the size and likely reactions of the key segments of the market. The most affected "eco-tourist" market was relatively small and consequently the research suggested any impact would be small. Against that they found that the wind farm could be a positive factor in the tourist experience for other larger segments provided the experience was organised and marketed. Even assuming that there was a substantial (50%) loss of tourists particularly affected, the number of jobs would still increase as a result of the wind farm development. Interestingly they point out that there was no impact on tourism of two wind farms in the Esperance region of Western Australia.

3.5.3 New Zealand

Although New Zealand has a number of wind farms, an extensive tourist industry and a proportionate number of bitterly fought developments, the issue of a detrimental effect on tourists has not been raised. Ashby (2004) in an excellent review of wind farms and planning policies merely notes the use of a wind farm as an icon, used in promoting tourism.

3.5.4 German Experience

Ashby (2004) reviews international experience including many of the UK cases studied earlier. Northern Germany is well known for its large number of wind turbines, both along the coast and further inland. Lower Saxony is the largest coastal north-German State, but has not been one of Germany's more popular tourist destinations. In 2000, Lower Saxony had only 2.3 million overnight stays by foreign visitors in comparison to Bavaria, which had 9.5 million. However, in the same year, Lower Saxony experienced the highest growth rate in overnight stays for all of Germany. Lower Saxony's growth rate was 27.3%, compared with 12.4% for Bavaria and an average of 12.8% across all German States. Based on those figures, there is no correlation between the presence of many wind turbines and low tourism growth rates.

3.5.5 Swedish and Finnish Experience

As part of their study of the possible impacts on Scottish tourism NFO/System3 examined the situation in Sweden and Finland.

For Sweden they found:

• There are approximately 600 wind turbines in Sweden, accounting for 0.5% of the country's annual energy production. There are plans to increase this target to 7% by 2015
• Sweden covers a geographical area approximately 5-6 times the size of Scotland. The existing wind farms are located in both remote and more developed areas.
• The most important impact of wind farms and tourism is the visual impact with the siting regarded as crucial. Similar to Scotland, many tourists come to Sweden to experience the unspoilt scenery.
• To date, there have been more positive than negative impacts reported about wind farms. There is, however, particular debate about wind farms located in the mountains and coast.
• There are strict guidelines for the siting of wind farms and they not allowed in areas of 'national interest' (e.g. areas already protected with historical heritage, coastal areas and mountain), national parks and nature reserves.
• The planning process in Sweden is very 'open' and developers have a duty to consult more at the local level with local consultation groups which seems to work relatively well.

For Finland:

• There are around 60 wind turbines in Finland which account for 0.1% of the country's annual energy production. There are plans in the future to increase this target to 1% by 2010.
• Finland has a population similar to Scotland but its geographical area is around 8 times the size of Scotland. It is a vast country with wind farms located in large remote and underdeveloped areas.
• There have been more positive than negative impacts recorded on tourism although there is more debate about the wind farms situated in the archipelagos
• Wind farms are used in parts of the country for tourism marketing and also marketing to investors.

3.6 Landscape value

This project is concerned with assessing the Economic Impact of wind farms (notably jobs and incomes) not the economic value (the satisfaction individuals obtain from viewing a beautiful landscape) that will be lost if a wind farm is developed. However there is a logical relationship between the value placed on a scene and the expenditure of tourists. As an obvious extreme example the town of Niagara is highly dependent upon the value associated with the local scenery, the Niagara Falls. Few would dispute the importance of the scenery to the economy of Skye. Evidence that the value of scenery changes (decreases) when wind farms are built is prima facie evidence that there might well be a negative impact.

Moran (2005) prepared an extensive review for the Scottish Executive Environmental and Rural Affairs Department ( SEERAD) on the value of landscape which covers some 42 studies. Remarkably all these studies generate positive values for the preservation of existing rural landscapes. The summary annex is reproduced as an annex to this chapter.

Most of these studies are based on stated valuations of respondents to theoretical change, often in the form of photo-montages. This approach is known as contingent valuation. Methods based on the revealed actions of individuals are based either on Travel Cost or on property prices. Because of the variability in property characteristics a standard approach is based on multiple regressions and is known as Hedonic Pricing Analysis. Garrod and Willis (1992) provide a good example of its use in identifying the value of landscape.

Overall the values given in Moran (2005) to maintain the environment in areas like national parks are typically in the range £10 to £70 per household per year which will include both use and existence values and cover residents and visitors.

As shown in chapter 2 a decline in willingness to pay results in less expenditure and consequently has an economic impact. It is difficult, however, to directly translate figures that relate to a general value over an unspecified number of visits to the expenditure of a tourist on a single trip who might pass through a particular area for a short period other than to conclude that loss of values per head per day from scenery change are likely to be relatively small.

With specific reference to wind farm developments Farizo and Hanley (2002) examine the change in value associated with a wind farm development in the Ebro valley in Spain. They used two choice experiment structures, contingent valuation and choice experiment and four attributes, cliff protection, habitat and flora protection, landscape and cost. For landscape they used before and after photo montages of the wind farm development. The results suggested a loss of landscape value of between 3000 and 6000 pesetas (£12 to £24) per head loss of value. This is very similar to the figures in Moran's survey.

3.7 General conclusion

Most of the literature surveyed has not been refereed or formally published. Some of it is best described as advocacy; some of it rather poorly conducted opinion surveys.

One approach is to limit the results to either revealed behaviour, stated intentions or stated values of tourists (as opposed to locals). Using this limitation Table 3.17 summarises the literature which is on return intentions/economic impact and Table 3.18 that on the economic value change.

Turning first to Return Intentions none of the studies of tourist number change could find a significant effect. In most cases the stated intention studies showed wind farms affected only a small minority and that this small minority was almost equally split between those who were positively affected and those who were negatively affected. For 5 of the 7 studies the average positive proportion is 4.75% and 4.5% negative. Note that these are proportions affected and no study attempted to quantify the size of this reaction. The two outliers are the NFO studies in Scotland and Wales where they found 32% and 25% negatively affected. The problems of these studies suggest that they should be treated with caution.

We conclude that whilst there is evidence of a belief from local people prior to a development that it might be injurious to tourism there is virtually no evidence of significant change after development has taken place. However that is not to say that it could not have an effect, rather it reflects the undoubted fact that where outstanding scenery, with high potential tourist appeal, has been threatened, permission has been refused. The conclusion is that any effects we are likely to find in Scotland, if they exist, are likely to be small.

On the question of value the evidence is more ambiguous. Clearly people state they prefer scenery without intrusions such as wind farms and when asked to compare give small but significant negative values to wind farm developments. Empirically, however, these changes are so small relative to other socio-economic factors that they often cannot be directly identified in time series studies of property values. Over time the situation is also confused by sample selection bias; those who lose most will in time move out, those who object least will move in. Probably the best approach to reveal value loss is cross-section hedonic pricing analysis. The quoted study does provide some evidence of stated values being manifest in property prices, albeit without direct reference to wind farms.

In terms of economic impact, changes in property values should have no effect on expenditure in the area ⁹. However for transient visitors we would expect a change in value to be replicated in a change in accommodation price and a small negative impact on expenditure in an area.

Table 3-17 Summary of Studies of Wind Farm Impacts on Return Likelihood (excluding attitudes and local opinions of impacts)

Type	Study	Year	Location	Star Quality10	Size (if known)	Limitations	Findings
Revealed Likelihood	Cornwall Tourist Board	2000	Cornwall	3	4 years	Data & Collinearity	No Effect
	Nicolas Pearson Assoc	1996	Dealbole, Cornwall	3	5 years	Size and Area	No Effect
	Hinton	2006	Scotland	2	4 years	England/Scotland Comparison, Collinearity	No effect
	Nysted	2007	Nysted, Denmark	2	10 years	Area	No Effect
	Ashby	2006	Germany	2	2 years	Bavaria/Saxony Comparison, Collinearity	No Effect
Stated Likelihood	Aitchison	2004	Cornwall	4		Survey Size & Location	6.1% negative, 7.2% Positive
	Roberson Bell Assoc	1996	Cornwall	3		Survey Size & Location	94% indifferent. Majority of 6% +ve
	CSE	2002	Somerset	5	331		3.6% -ve, 3.9% +ve
	Campey et al	2003	Lake District	4	193		Majority Unaware.: Big Expansion then 3% +ve 22% -ve
	BWEA	1997	Wales	3			4% -ve
	NFO	2003	Wales	4		Methodology	21% -ve to wind farms; 32% -ve intention
	Hanley & Nevin	1999	North Assynt	3	76	Size, Location	5.3% +ve, 3.9% -ve
	NFO/System3	2002	Scotland	4	180	Methodology	25% -ve
	MORI	2002	Argyll & Bute	5	300		75% not aware. 4% +ve, 2% -ve
	Strachan	2004	Lochavich	2	100	Methodology, Location	70% would not return.

Table 3-18 Summary of Studies of Wind Farm Impacts on Value (excluding attitudes and local opinions of impacts)

Type	Study	Year	Location	Star Quality	Size	Limitations	Results
Revealed Value (Property Price)	Nysted	2007	Nysted, Denmark	2		Limited Area	No Change
	Sterzinger	2002	US	3	30	Methodology	No Effect (+ve)
	Boone	2007	Lincoln, Wisconsin	3		Limited Area	-ve effect; 25% fall 1km, 18% more than mile
	Garrod & Willis	1992	Welsh Borders	3		Hedonic Price Not Windfarm	Urban View -5.7% fall in value of property
Stated Value	Hanley and Nevin	1999	North Assynt	3	45	Residents Only	Mean Value p.a.of landscape £15.6 (caculated)
	Ladenburg et al	2005	Denmark	5	1400		Max Value form moving 8-12km: £7-£15 per km
	Fabrizo & Hanley	2002	Ebro, Spain	5			£12-£24 loss per head from farm
	Moran	2005	Europe	4		Review Study of Landscape Value ( CVM) Not Windfarm	£13-£85 pp/pa value for conserved landscape

The overall conclusion is that we might expect a negative reaction from a small percentage of the tourists (of the order of 5%) and assuming they are simply less likely to come (as opposed to definitely would not come), a reduction in expenditure smaller than this. There is no evidence of the size of that change.

Similarly we might expect a small reduction in prices charged in affected accommodation that has a small economic impact in the local area.

3.8 Bibliography

UK

Aitchison (2004) ' Fullabrook Wind Farm Proposal, North Devon -evidence gathering of the impact of wind farms on visitor numbers and tourist experience', University of the West of England 2004

Birnie, R. V., Osman, C. H., Leadbeater, S. and Smith, M. (1999) A review of the current status of wind energy developments in Scotland. Scottish Geographical Journal 115:4 , pp. 283-295

Braunholtz, S. (2003) Public Attitudes to Wind farms: A Survey of Local Residents in ScotlandMORI Scotland, for Scottish Executive Social Research , Edinburgh

Briscoe Bob (2004) Local impact of onshore wind-farms
http://www.homefarmparham.co.uk/Wind farms/Wind farmInfo.html.

Busbridge J (2004) Grim Days Ahead for Isles Tourism? The Views of Scotland Newsletter 2 (2) October 2004 www.viewsofScotland.org

Campey, V. et al (2003) [Star Consultants] A Study into the Attitude of Visitors, Tourists and Tourism Organisations towards Wind farms on the Boundaries of the Lake District National Park, Leeds Metropolitan University, Oct 2003

Centre for Sustainable Energy, Martin's Hill Tourism Survey, 2002

Chris Blandford Associates (1994) A social survey of public attitudes towards three wind farm sites in Wales, for the Countryside Council for Wales February 1994

Cornwall Tourist Board (2000), Cornwall Holiday Survey, 2000

Devine-Wright, P. (2005a) Local aspects of UK renewable energy development: exploring public beliefs and policy implications Local Environemnt 10(1) 57-69

Devine-Wright, P. (2005b) Beyond NIMBYism: towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy. Wind Energy 8 - 2005

Elliott, D. (2003) Energy, Society and Environment, second edition Routledge , London

ETSU (1994) Cemmaes Wind Farm Sociological Impact Study'

Habron, D. (1998) Visual perception of wild land in Scotland. Landscape and Urban Planning 42:1 , pp. 45-56

Hanley N. and Niven C. (1999) Appraising renewable energy developments in remote communities: the case of the North Assynt Estate, Scotland Energy Policy
Volume 27, Issue 9, September 1999, Pages 527-547

Hinton A (2006) Wind Farm Public Attitudes and Tourism Studies in Scotland Report by Natural Power Consultants for Fred Olsen Renewables Oct 2006

Jones B. and Strauss-Jones L. (2007) Comments on the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement ( SDEIS) for the Cohocton Wind Power Project by Canandaigua Power Partners, LLC ( CPP)
http://batr.net/cohoctonwindwatch/CohoctonSDEISBrad.doc

Khan, J. (2003) Wind Power Planning in three Swedish Municipalities Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 46:4 , pp. 563-582.

Krohn, S. and Damborg, S. (1999) On public attitudes towards wind power. Renewable Energy 16:1-4 , pp. 954-960.

MORI Scotland (2002) Tourist Attitudes Towards Wind Farms, Research Study Conducted for Scottish Renewables Forum and British Wind Energy Association, Summary Report, MORI, 2002

NFO System Three (2002), Investigation into the Potential Impact of Wind Farms on Tourism in Scotland Final Report, prepared for Visit Scotland, 2002

NFO (2003) Investigation into the potential Impact of Wind Farms on Tourism in Wales, for Wales Tourist Board, 2003

Nicholas Pearson Associates, Delabole Wind Farm May 1996

Pasqualetti, M. J., Gipe, P. and Righter, R. W. (Pasqualetti, M. J., Gipe, P. and Righter, R. W. eds.) (2002a) A landscape of power. Wind Power in View: Energy Landscapes in a Crowded World. Academic Press 2002

Redlinger, R. Y., Andersen, P. D. and Morthorst, P. E. (2002) Wind Energy in the 21st Century: Economics, Policy, Technology and the Changing Electricity Industry Palgrave Publishers , Basingstoke

Robertson Bell Associates (1996) 'North Cornwall Tourists Survey', September 1996

Robertson Bell Associates (2002) Lambrigg Residents Survey April 2002

Robertson Bell Associates (1997) Taff Ely Residents Survey, December 1997

SEDD (2002) Planning Advice Note 45: Renewable Energy Technologies Scottish Executive Development Department , Edinburgh

SEI (2003a) Attitudes Towards the Development of Wind farms in Ireland Sustainable Energy Ireland , Bandon

Strachan, Peter A. and Lal, David (2004) 'Wind Energy Policy,

Planning and Management Practice in the UK: Hot Air or a Gathering Storm?',

Regional Studies, 38:5, 549 - 569

TMS (The Market Specialists) (2005) Western Isles Tourist Board Wind Farm Research; Final ReportWITB March 2005

Warren C; Lumsden C; O'Dowd S and Birnie R 'Green On Green': Public perceptions of wind power in Scotland and Ireland Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 48(6) November 2005 , pages 853 - 875

Wolsink, M. (2000) Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support. Renewable Energy 21 , pp. 49-64.

NORWAY AND DENMARK

AUSWEA (2004). Fact Sheet 4 - Wind Farming & Tourism [online].
Available from: http://www.auswea.com.au/WIDP/assets/4Tourism.pdf [retrieved 17 May 2007]

DKvind (2007). Faktablad M 6 - Danskernes mening om vindmøller. 6 May [online].
Available from: http://www.dkvind.dk/fakta/pdf/M6.pdf [retrieved 10 May 2007]

DNT (2006). DNT advarer mot vindmøllepark på Møre. 7 June [online].
Available from: http://www.turistforeningen.no/article.php?ar_id=8366&fo_id=13 [retrieved 2 May 2007]

Energistyrelsen (2007e). Rapport fra den tværministerielle arbejdsgruppe om forsøgsmøller på land. February [online].
Available from: http://www.skovognatur.dk/NR/rdonlyres/34E4A8E3-6179-4A5A-8A8D-CBB6A03E8687/39870/Samlet_Rapport_forsoegsmoeller_febr07.pdf [retrieved 29 April 2007]

Fornybar (2007). Viktig med kunnskap om fornybar energi. 22 March [online].
Available from: http://www.fornybar.no/sitepageview.aspx?articleID=150 [retrieved 20 May 2007]

Forsvaret (2006). Vindkraft i Norge - Høring med tematisk konfliktvurdering av 53 meldinger og konsesjonssøknader - vurdering fra Forsvaret. 3 July [online].
Available from: http://www.nve.no/admin/FileArchive/308/200300085_445.pdf [retrieved 19 May 2007]

Havgul (2007a). Lokalisering [online].
Available from: http://www.havsul.no/Index.asp?Lang=Nor&Meny=6&id=160 [retrieved 20 April 2007]

Havgul (2007b). Planområdene [online].
Available from: http://www.havsul.no/Index.asp?Lang=Nor&Meny=7&id=158 [retrieved 20 May 2007]

Kuehn, S. (2005). Annual Report 2003. Sociological Investigation of the Reception of Horns Rev and Nysted Offshore Wind Farms In the Local Communities. March [online].
Available from: http://www.ens.dk/graphics/Energiforsyning/Vedvarende_energi/Vind/havvindmoeller/vvm%20Horns%20Rev%202/Horns%20Rev/visuel%20og%20socio%F8konomisk%20betydning/Sociological_investigations_2003.pdf [retrieved 17 April 2007]

Ladenburg, J., Dubgaard, A., Martinsen, L. & Tranberg, J. (2005). Economic valuation of the visual externalities of off-shore wind farms [online].
Available from: http://www.hornsrev.dk/Miljoeforhold/miljoerapporter/ECONOMIC%20VALUATION%20OF%20THE%20VISUAL%20EXTERNALITIES%20OF%20OFF-SHORE%20WIND%20FARMS.pdf [retrieved 11 April 2007]

Mathisen, B., R. (2005). Kapitel 3 - Kysten, vår viktigste åker. [online].
Available from: http://www.imr.no/__data/page/6473/3.1_Sett_fra_et_politisk_staasted.pdf [retrieved 2 May 2007]

National Office of Building Technology and Administration (1999). Elektriske anlegg og kraftledninger - Temaveiledning. November 1999 [online].
Available from: http://www.be.no/beweb/regler/meldinger/99el/el.html#1 [retrieved 20 May 2007]

Nielsen, S. (2007). Fremtidens Havmølleplaceringer 2025 - Udvalget for fremtidens havmølleplaceringer. April [online].
Available from: http://www.ens.dk/graphics/Publikationer/Havvindmoeller/Fremtidens_Havvind_Final_240407.pdf [retrieved 25 April 2007]

Nysted Turistforening (2005). Kalender - Vindens Verden [online].
Available from: http://www.nysted-turistforening.dk/kalender.asp?m=8&y=2005&d=7 [retrieved 17 May 2007]

Nysted Turistforening (2007) Personal Communication

NVE (2007a). Anleggskonsesjonar. 19 April [online].
Available from: http://www.nve.no/modules/module_109/publisher_view_product.asp?iEntityId=2949 [retrieved 20 May 2007]

NVE (2002a). Bakgrunn for vedtak - Vindkraft på Smøla [online].
Available from: http://www.nve.no/FileArchive/308/199704484_164.pdf [retrieved 18 April 2007]

Smøla Kommune (2001). Arealdelen av kommuneplan - Kommuneplan vindkraft 2000 - 2012 [online].
Available from: http://www.smola.kommune.no/Filnedlasting.aspx?MId1=24&FilId=35&back=1 [retrieved 30 April 2007]

Tns Gallup (2007a). Befolkningens holdning til store vindmøller. April [online].
Available from: http://www2.tns-gallup.dk/tns_gallup/ugens_gallup/tekst/UG_12_2007_Store_Vindm%C3%B8ller.pdf [retrieved 4 May 2007]

TNS Gallup (2007b). Om TNS Gallup [online].
Available from: http://www2.tns-gallup.dk/om-tns-gallup.aspx [retrieved 14 May 2007]

Vern Kysten (2006). Store konflikter med vindkraft-parkar. 21 March [online].
Available from: http://www.vernkysten.no/files/documents/brev_til_regjeringa_om_vindkraft_mar-06.pdf [retrieved 2 May 2007]

Vestlandsforskning (2005). Barrierer mot vindkraft - en analyse av holdninger i lokalbefolkningen. Fase 1 [online].
Available from: http://www.vestforsk.no/www/show.do?page=12&articleid=1146 [retrieved 20 May 2007]

Viborg Amt (2005a). Debatoplæg om store vindmøller ved Hanstholm. April [online].
Available from: http://www.miljo.viborgamt.dk/graphics/Miljo/RPT8-05/Debatoplaeg/Debatoplaeg_m_billeder.pdf [retrieved 2 May 2007]

Viborg Amt (2005b). Regionplantillæg nr. 8. Store vindmøller, kystsikring og akvakultur ved Hanstholm Havn - Resumé af indkomne bemærkninger fra debatfasen [online].
Available from: http://www.miljo.viborgamt.dk/sw37159.asp [retrieved 2 May 2007]

Visit Nysted (2006). Referat af ordinær Generalforsamling [online].
Available from: http://www.visitnysted.dk/artikel.asp?menuID=8&subMenuID=5&subSubMenuID=0&artikel=56 [retrieved 17 May 2007]

WindSim (2003). + Wind resources in Norway. 1 September [online].
Available from: http://www.nve.no/vindatlas/eng_wind_resources_frame.html [retrieved 20 May 2007]

OTHER INTERNATIONAL EVIDENCE

Ashby M (2004) Winds Up: Planning the future now
http://www.windenergy.org.nz/documents/2004/040920-WindsUpFinal.pdf

AWEA(2007) Wind Power Myths vs. Facts
http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/050629_Myths_vs_Facts_Fact_Sheet.pdf

Boone J (2007) The Top Ten False and Misleading Claims the Windpower Industry makes for Projects in the Eastern United States
http://www.stopillwind.org/lowerlevel.php?content=topten_6

Goldberg, M.(2003) Wind Impact Model. Goldberg and Associates, 2003. ( NREL- JEDI)

NWEA(2002) Assessing the economic development impacts of wind power North West Economic Associates for National Wind Co-Ordinating Committee Wahington Feb 2002
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=822426

Schleede G.R.(2007) Errors and Excesses in the NREL's JEDI- WIM Model that provides estimates of the State or Local Economic Impact of "Wind Farms"
http://johnrsweet.com/Personal/Wind/PDF/Schleede-economicimpact20040428.pdf

Sinclair, Knight, Merz (2007) Socio Economic and Tourism Final Report; 5: Potential Impact of Wind Energy on Regional Tourism
http://www.pacifichydro.com.au/docs/VolC_SET_Pt5_1.pdf

Sterzinger G, Beck F, Kostiuk F (2003). The Effect of Wind Development on Local Property Values Renewable Energy Project : Analytical Report May 2003
http://www.repp.org/articles/static/1/binaries/wind_online_final.pdf

VALUE

Moran D. The economic valuation of rural landscapes Research Study AA211 SEERAD 2005

Alvarez-Farizo B and Hanley N (2002) Using conjoint analysis to quantify public preferences over the environmental impacts of wind farms. An example from Spain Energy Policy 30 (2002) 107-116

Annex: Summary table of relevant landscape demand studies

Author	Country	Environmental Good	Proposed Good	Reference scenario	Population	Survey type	Relevant area	Method	Payment vehicle	Scenario devices	Year	Landscape category or attributes	Average values
Alvarez et al. (1999)	Scotland	Landscape and biodiversity: Grassland, cultivated Machair , dune systems, rare birds and flowers	Preservation Of traditional Agriculture with ESA	Current condition of Machair	UK public	Postal & face to face	ESA, Machair in the Uists	CVM (O/E)	Income tax	Photos	1995	Agricultural landscape	13.44£/per s/yr (358)*
Bishop (1992)	Wales	Landscape and biodiversity	Preservation of agricultural land	Current	Park visitors	Face to face	Local park	CVM (O/E)	Entry price			Agricultural landscape	0.42£/visit (100)
					Park visitors	Face to face	Local park	CVM (O/E)	Annual entry			Agricultural landscape	18.53£/per s/yr (100)
Bishop (1992)	Wales	Landscape and biodiversity	Preservation of peri urban forest	Current	visitors	Face to face	Local park	CVM (O/E)	Entry price			Agricultural landscape	0.54£/visit (100)
				Park	Park visitors	Face to face	Local park	CVM (O/E)	Annual entry			Agricultural landscape	27.03£/per s/yr (100)
Bonnieux & Le Goffe (1997)	France	Landscape biodiversity And ecological functions	Préservation du bocage =traditional small fields and hedgerows	Current	Park visitors Residents of the lower Normandy regioal national park	Face to face	Regional national park of Lower Normandy	CVM ( DC)	Local Tax	Photos	1995	Landscape de bocage	201 FF/hh/ yr (400)
					Residents on periphery
Bullock and Kay (1997)	Scotland	Southern uplands Landscape = Heather and tree coverage ; Biodiversity change as a result of grazing intensity	Reduction of intensive grazing	Current but respondents had to indicate their perceived status quo	Residents in Southern and central Scotland	Postal. Face to face	ESA	CVM ( DC)	Income tax	Photos	1994	Rural landscape rural (agriculture and forestry)	83£ /pers/yr (459)
				Current	Residents of the region	Postal Face to face	ESA	CVM (O/E)	Income tax	Photos	1994	Rural landscape (agricultural & forestry)	69£/pers/yr (88)
				Current	ESA visitors	Postal Face to face	ESA	CVM ( DC)	Income tax	Photos	1994	Rural landscape (agricultural & forestry)	55£/pers/yr (459)
				Current	ESA visitors	Postal Face to face	ESA	CVM (O/E)	Income tax	Photos	1994	Rural landscape (agricultural & forestry)	49£/pers/yr (88)
Colson et Stenger (1996)	France	Landscape	Restauration des bocages	Current	Residents	Postal	Département of Lorie Atlantique	CVM (O/E)		Photos	1994	Landscape bocager	103F/yr/mge
			Préservation des bocages			Postal	All agricultural Land	CVM (O/E)		Photos	1994	Landscape bocager	607F/yr/mge
Drake (1992)	Denmark	Landscape, species diversity	Preservation of agricultural land instead of spruce forest	Current Residents	Whole population	Face to face	Agricultural land in whole country	CVM (O/E)	Income tax	Photos	1986	Agricultural landscape	4685 crowns/pers/yr (1089)
				Current	Regional residents n.r Uppsala	Face to face	Agricultural land in whole country	CVM (O/E)	Income tax	Photos	1986	Agricultural landscape	68655 crowns/pers/yr (152)
Garrod et Willis (1995)	G.B.	Landscape	Conservation of agricultural landscapes	Current	Population	Face to face	ESA	CVM	Tax	Photos	1992	Rural landscape	67.42£/hh/yr (237)
				Current	Population	Face to face	All ESAs	CVM	Tax	Photos	1992	Rural landscape	27.52£/hh/yr (218)
				Current	Visitors	Face to face	ESA	CVM	Tax	Photos	1992	Rural landscape	94.29£/per s/yr (237)
				Current	Visitors	Face to face	All ESAs	CVM	Tax	Photos	1992	Rural landscape	19.47£/per s/yr (220)
Gianni et al. (2000)	Italy	Landscape	Préservation of agricultural landscaps	Current	Tourists	Face to face	National park	CVM ( DC)	Daily charge	Photos	1997	Agricultural landscape	1euro/day/visit (344)
Hanley (1989)	Scotland	Landscape	Forest preservation	Current	Visitors	Face to face	Regional park	CVM (O/E)	Entry price	Description	1987	Forest landscape	0 .80£/visit (1148)
Hanley et al. (1998)	Scotland	Landscape	Conservation and enhancement of landscape quality	Current	Residents	Face to face	ESA	CVM ( DC)	Income tax	Photos	1995	Agricultural landscape	60£/hh/yr (249)
			Conservation and enhancement of landscape quality	Current	Residents	Postal	ESA	CVM ( DC)	Income tax	Photos	1995	Agricultural landscape	47£/hh/yr (325)
			Conservation and enhancement of landscape quality	Current	Visitors	Face to face	ESA	CVM ( DC)	Income tax	Photos	1995	Agricultural landscape	98£/hh/yr (325)
Hanley et al. (1998)	G.B.	Landscape	Forest management			Face to face	National forest area	CE	Income tax			Essence	12.89£/hh/yr (284)
												Forme	13.90/hh/yr
					Population							Diversité des espèces	11,36/hh/yr
Hanley et al. (1998)	G.B.	Landscape	Forest management			Face to face	National forest area	CVM (O/E)	Income tax	Photos		Essence	11.73£/hh/yr (284)
												Forme	12.75/hh/yr
					Population							Species diversity	11.24/hh/yr
Hanley et al. (2001)	England	Landscape	Hedgerows	Current	Population	Face to face	All agricultural land	CVM (O/E)	Donation	Description	2000	Hedgerows (10% increase)	1.56£/hh/yr (70)
													1.93£/hh/yr (130)
Hanley et al. (2001)	England	Landscape	Quality of field margins	Current	Population	Face to face	All agricultural land	CVM (O/E)	Donation	Description	2000	Field margins (10% increase)	2.84£/hh/yr (70)
													3.20£/hh/yr (130)
Nunes (2002)	Portugal	Landscape	Park protection from tourist pressure	Current	Tourists	Face to face	National park	CVM ( DC)	Donation	Description	1997	Managed rural	38euros/hh/yr
					Tourists	Face to face	National park	CVM ( DC)	Donation	Description	1997	Landscape Wild rural landscape	49euros/hh/yr
Pruckner (1995)	Austria G.B.	Landscape	Conservation of agriultural landscapes	Current	Tourists	Face to face	Tourist area	CVM ( DC)	Transport costs (parking. bus. etc..)	Description	1991	Agricultural landscape	0.70 ecu /pers/day (2110)
Taylor et al. (1997)	G.B.	Landscape	Characteristics and quality of forest landscape	Uncertain	Resident Population	Face to face	Whole country	CVM (O/E)	Tax	Sketches	1997	Essence	10.97£/hh/yr (638)
												forêt organique	12.75£/hh/yr (638)
												Species diversity	11.24£/hh/yr (638)
												Ideal forest	29.16£/hh/yr (638)
Taylor et al. (1997)	G.B.	Landscape	Characteristics and quality of forest landscape	Uncertain	Resident population	Face to face	Whole country	CE	Tax	Sketches	1997	Essence	12.89£/hh/yr (284)
												forêt organique	13.90£/hh/yr (284)
												Species diversity	11.36£/hh/yr (284)
												Ideal forest	38.15£/hh/yr (284)
Tempesta (1998)	Italy	Landscape	Conservation of rural landscape			Face to face	Region	CVM (O/E)	Tax	Photos		Landscape rural	87.662lires/hh/yr
Santos (1998)	Portugal	Landscape	Preservation of rural landscape	Current	Tourists	Face to face	National park	CVM ( DC)	Income tax	Photos	1994	Agricultural landscape	72.05£/hh/yr (2295)
Santos (1998)	G.B.	Landscape	Preservation of agricultural landscape	Current Residents	Tourists	Face to face	National park	CVMDC	Income tax	Photos	1994	Agricultural landscape	11559escudos /hh/yr (3782)
Willis & Garrod (1993)	G.B.	Landscape	Conservation of current landscape	Uncertain	Residents	Face to face	National park	CVM (O/E)	Tax	Photos	1990	Agricultural landscape	26.03£/hh/yr (300)
					Visitors	Face to face	National park	CVM (O/E)	Tax	Photos	1990	Agricultural landscape	22.12£/hh/yr (300)
Willis & Garrod (1993)	G.B.	Landscape	Loss of traditional farms	Uncertain	Residents	Face to face	National park	CVM (O/E)	Tax	Photos	1990	Agricultural landscape	7.67£/hh/yr (300)
					Visitors	Face to face	National park	CVM (O/E)	Tax	Photos	1990	Agricultural landscape	23.75£/hh/yr (300)
Willis & Garrod (1993)	G.B.	Landscape	Conservation and enhancement of agricultural landscape	Uncertain	Residents	Face to face	National park	CVM (O/E)	Tax	Photos	1990	Agricultural landscape	13.38£/hh/yr (300)
					Visitors	Face to face	National park	CVM (O/E)	Tax	Photos	1990	Agricultural landscape	18.18£/hh/yr (300)
Willis & Garrod (1993)	G.B.	Landscape	Conversion of farms for tourism purposes	Uncertain	Residents	Face to face	National park	CVM (O/E)	Tax	Photos	1990	Forest landscape And meadow	22.50£/hh/yr (300)
					Visitors	Face to face	National park	CVM (O/E)	Tax	Photos	1990	Forest landscape And meadows	33.67£/hh/yr (300)
Willis & Garrod (1993)	G.B.	Landscape	Farm woodland	Uncertain	Residents	Face to face	National park	CVM (O/E)	Tax	Photos	1990	Forest landscape	29.75£/hh/yr (300)
					Visitors	Face to face	National park	CVM (O/E)	Local tax	Photos	1990	Forest landscape	34.20£/hh/yr (300)
Willis & Whitby (1985)	England	Landscape	Loss of peri urban green space	Uncertain	Residents	Local		CVM (O/E)	Local tax	Verbal description	1982	Forest landscape	104£/hh/yr (103)

CVM : Contingent valuation method ; CE : Choice Experiment ; (O/E) : open-ended question ; ( DC) : Discrete choice ; ESA : Environmentally Sensitive Area ; /hh : perhousehold; /pers : per person ; * : number of observations in brackets.