Economic impacts of wind farms on Scottish tourism: report

Part 2 Methods

4 Intercept Survey

4.1 Intercept locations

The intercept study sought to investigate the reactions and views of tourists by personal interviews within Scotland. One of the key aims was to undertake interviews with individuals who had actual experience of wind farms (as opposed to mocked up pictures in before/after studies) in part because some held the belief that individuals inadvertently exaggerated their reactions. Thus intercept points had to be established as close as possible to actual Wind farm sites that were either operational or that had been approved for construction. Intercepting a significant number of visitors on the actual sites of Wind farms would not have been reasonable due to their location. Therefore certain criteria were set to decide intercept locations in order to optimise response levels and ensure a representative sample:

• safe and convenient for respondents to stop
• maximise intercepting people who have made a tourist visit decision
• maximise the likelihood that respondents will have seen the local Wind farm(s)
• recognised as tourist destinations
• provide a reasonable spread of locations throughout Scotland

As shown in Table 4-1, four areas were chosen for the survey covering five operational Wind farms and one approved Wind farm. The intercept locations were a combination of local Tourist Information Centres ( TICs), visitor attractions or transport hubs. This ensured that the majority of people interviewed would be tourists. Questionnaire design ensured that those people who were not in the area for tourist reasons would not form part of the survey sample (see Appendix I for questionnaire).

Table 4-1 Visitor Destinations, Wind farm Sites and Intercept Locations

Wind farm Name & Location (Grid Reference in brackets)	Intercept Locations
Stirlingshire & Perthshire Braes of Doune Wind farm ( NN 718 105), near Doune/Callander	Stirling Castle, Callander TIC, Tullibardine Visitor Centre (Blackford),
Caithness & Sutherland Buolfruich Wind farm ( ND 160 355), Causeymire Wind farm ( ND 155 505) and Forss Wind farm ( ND 019 695)	Thurso TIC, Scrabster Harbour
Scottish Borders Dunlaw Wind farm ( NT 466 572), near Lauder	Thirlestane Castle and Melrose TIC
Dumfries & Galloway Dalswinton Wind farm, near Dumfries Grid Ref. ( NX 945 893)	Dumfries TIC and Kircudbright TIC

An initial pilot survey was undertaken at two of the Stirlingshire/Perthshire intercept locations (Callander TIC and Tullibardine Distillery & Visitor Centre) to test the questionnaire

The full survey was undertaken at the intercept lcoations during the summer months of July, August and September. The purpose of using the summer months was twofold:

• the wind farm sites were at maximum visual impact, due to the most favourable weather conditions relative to the rest of the year.
• being the high season for tourism in Scotland, this would help maximise response levels

4.2 Questionnaire design

4.2.1 Objectives of Design

The two key research questions for the intercept survey were as follows:

• what were the attitudes of visitors seeing Wind farms in the landscape
• what were the return visit intentions of visitors prior to and after knowledge of the existence of a Wind farm at the destination

4.2.2 Attitude Questions

To answer the first research question, the survey adapted a question from the Wind farm report commissioned by VisitScotland ¹¹ in 2001, which asked respondents to indicate how certain features in the landscape affected their tourist experience.

This question was presented and recorded as follows:

Table 4-2 Structure of Question on Attitudes

" Q17. How do you feel the following structures impact on your experience of Scotland's scenery?"

This provided an indication not only of popular attitudes towards Wind farms, but also allowed comparison with other built features to establish the relative position of Wind farms in terms of public opinion.

4.2.3 Impact of Development on Tourist Intentions

To answer the second research question, respondents were asked to indicate their likely future visit intentions to both the local area and Scotland as a whole. Using the slide-rule device shown in Figure 4-1 respondents were asked to indicate their likelihood of returning to the Area and to Scotland by sliding the indicator to a point between 0% (Definitely Will Not Return) and 100% (Definitely Will Return). Based on the figure below, the Area score is 50% and Scotland score is roughly 75%. The purpose of using the slide-rule was to overcome the weakness of providing arbitrary scales (e.g. 0-25-75-100, or even 10-20-30-…90-100), so that respondents could more intuitively indicate their intentions.

Figure 4-1 The Sliders Used to Assess Likelihood

At a later point in the interview - once the subject of the local Wind farm was introduced - respondents were shown the slide-rule again with the markers still where they had put them. They were then asked to indicate whether - now having knowledge of a Wind farm development - their likelihood of return would change. The extent of the change was indicated by sliding the indicators to a new position.

The visit intention was required from respondents three times based on three different visual situations:

4. having actually seen the Wind farm;

5. shown a photo-montage of the local landscape before and after the creation of the existing Wind farm;

6. shown a photo-montage of the local landscape illustrating the existing Wind farm and how the landscape would look if the Wind farm had been extended by 40%-50%

Any change recorded for each of the above situations would indicate the level of change in intention.

4.2.4 Estimating the Change in Intention

Prior to any discussion on wind farms the interviewee was asked about their intention to return to Scotland. In the figure above the respondent has indicated an initial intention of return to the area of 50% and to Scotland of 75%:

After discussion of wind farms the interviewee was required to state their return intentions in the following situations:

1. Having actually seen the Wind farm

New Slider Positions	Area = 25%	Scotland = 75%
Result: Change in intention	Area = 25%	Scotland = 0%

2. Shown a photo-montage of the local landscape before and after creation of the existing Wind farm

New Slider Positions	Area = 10%	Scotland = 75%
Result: Change in intention	Area = 40%	Scotland = 0%

3. Shown a photo-montage of the local landscape showing the existing Wind farm and how the landscape would look if the Wind farm had been extended by 40%-50%

New slider positions	Area = 0%	Scotland = 70%
Result: Change in intention	Area = 50%	Scotland = 5%

This methodology allows for the measurement of people's reaction not only to actual Wind farm developments but also to different levels of development. The latter has become more of an issue as the number of operations and applications for new or extended developments has increased significantly in recent years.

4.2.5 Other Questions

In addition to these two main research questions, a number of profiling questions were asked in order to test responses across different demographics and tourist motivations.

Finally, a set of four questions were asked at the end of the interview related in the main to planning policy considerations.

4.3 Survey results

4.3.1 Number and Location of Responses

There were a total of 380 responses from the four areas under analysis. As shown in Table 4-3, Stirlingshire & Perthshire accounted for nearly half (44.8%) of responses. The other three areas had a similar proportion of the remaining responses.

Table 4-3 Response by Interview Location

Interview Location		Frequency	Percent	Cumulative Percent
Stirlingshire & Perthshire	Callander TIC	77	20.3	44.8%
	Tullibardine Distillery	13	3.4
	Stirling Castle	80	21.1
Dumfries & Galloway	Kircudbright TIC	70	18.4	20.2%
	Dumfries TIC	7	1.8
Caithness & Sutherland	Scrabster	63	16.6	18.4%
	Thurso TIC	7	1.8
Scottish Borders	Melrose TIC	51	13.4	16.6%
	Thirlestane Castle	12	3.2
Total		380	100.0

4.3.2 Respondent Profile

Trip Type

Just over two-thirds (68%) of respondents identified themselves as being on some form of holiday with an overnight stay. This consisted of three holiday types: general holiday (59%); visiting friends and relatives ( VFR) (7%) and holidays as an extension of a business trip (2%).

14% of respondents were on a day trip of less than three hours, while a further 17% identified that their day trip lasted for 3 hours or more.

Figure 4-2 Trip Type

N= 380

Figure 4-3 shows that among overnight stay respondents only, 85% were on a general holiday and 11% were visiting friends and relatives.

Figure 4-3 Trip Type - Overnight Stays Only

N=223

Country of Origin

The distribution of country of origin among all respondents (n=380) shown Figure 4-4 illustrates that visitors from Scotland and England predominate - accounting for 80% of responses.

Figure 4-4 Country of Origin of All Respondents

N=380

Table 4-4 provides more detail on the home countries of overseas respondents.

Table 4-4 Country of Origin of Overseas Respondents

Country	N	%	Country	N	%
USA	16	23%	Austria	1	1%
Australia	15	22%	Belgium	1	1%
Canada	9	13%	France	1	1%
Germany	7	10%	Hungary	1	1%
Spain	4	6%	Japan	1	1%
Netherlands	3	4%	Lithuania	1	1%
Italy	2	3%	New Zealand	1	1%
Sweden	2	3%	Russia	1	1%
Switzerland	2	3%	South Africa	1	1%
N=69			Total	69	100%

However, looking at overnights stays only (n=223), as shown in Figure 4-5, visitors from Scotland and England make up 74% of the sample - with English visitors being significantly in the majority (45%). There is therefore some under-representation of Scottish overnight visitors if compared to the VisitScotland data shown in Table 4-5 Visitors from England and Overseas are slightly over-represented, both by 5%. However, we would suggest that the sample is still sufficiently representative to draw meaningful conclusions regarding opinions on Wind farm developments.

Figure 4-5 Country of Origin of Overnight Stay Visitors Only

N=223

Table 4-5 Country of Origin from VisitScotland Data

Country	Trips 2006 (m)	%
Scotland	6.35	40%
England	6.40	40%
Northern Ireland	0.38	2%
Wales	0.15	1%
Total Overseas Tourism	2.73	17%
Total	16.01	100%

Source: VisitScotland (2007), Tourism in Scotland 2006

Numbers on First Trip to Scotland or the Area

Almost 9 out 10 of respondents (86%) had made a trip in Scotland before. It was the first trip to Scotland for a total of 52 respondents, with 39 from overseas, 10 from England and 3 from Scotland.

Table 4-6 Q4 First Trip to Scotland?

	Frequency	%
Yes	52	14%
No	327	86%
Total	379	100%

N=379

Of those staying overnight (n=222), it was the first trip for 41 of them. 31of these respondents were from overseas and 10 were from England.

Table 4-7 Q4 First Trip to Scotland - Overnight Stays Only

	Frequency	Percent
Yes	41	18%
No	181	82%
Total	222	100%

N=222

First trippers were much more in evidence in Stirlingshire/Perthshire, Caithness & Sutherland and the Scottish Borders, compared to Dumfries & Galloway. This is mainly a function of a greater proportion of overseas respondents in these areas - 23%, 19% and 24% respectively - compared with only 3% in Dumfries & Galloway.

Table 4-8 Q5 First Trip to Area, by Area

	Q5 First Trip to Area?		% first trip to area	Total
	Yes	No
Stirlingshire & Perthshire	64	106	38%	170
Caithness & Sutherland	29	41	41%	70
Scottish Borders	20	42	32%	62
Dumfries & Galloway	12	65	16%	77
Total	125	254	33%	379

Of the 222 overnight stays, it was the first trip to the area for 93 of them. Of these, 38 were from overseas and 38 were from England, with the remainder coming from Scotland (14) and Wales (3).

Table 4-9 Q5 First Trip to Area? - Overnight Stays Only

	Frequency	Percent
Yes	93	42%
No	129	58%
Total	222	100%

N=222

Most areas, with the exception of Dumfries & Galloway, had a similar proportion of overnight stay visitors on their first trip.

Table 4-10 Q5 First Trip to Area, by Area - Overnight Stays Only

	Stirlingshire & Perthshire	Caithness & Sutherland	Borders	D&G	Total
Yes	46	28	8	11	93
No	52	38	9	30	129
Total	98	66	17	41	222
% first trip	47%	42%	47%	27%	42%

4.3.3 Main Activities Undertaken

The main activities undertaken by respondents were similar to tourists in general (see VisitScotland data ¹²). The proportion of respondents attending events was higher than normal because the intercepts occurred when most areas had their main summer season events.

Figure 4-6 Main Activity Undertaken

n=357

4.3.4 Travel Group Profile

The most represented visitor group type among respondents was those in a couple (35%). The next equal largest groups were 'Other members of your family' (19%), 'Family and Friends' (18%) and 'Friends (12%). These three close informal groups overall accounted for 49% of respondents. Evidence from most Scottish destinations identifies the couples market as the largest market, ranging from one-third to well over a half.

Figure 4-7 Travel Group Profile

n=380

4.3.5 Age Range and Gender

There is some over representation in the older age ranges, but in general we believe the distribution of respondents is acceptable for the purposes of this project.

Figure 4-8 Age Profile of Respondents

N=375

There was a highly even balance of respondents by gender, with 194 males and 186 females.

4.4 Attitude to structures in the landscape

42% of respondents had some level of positive opinion towards Wind farms, while one-quarter (25%) indicated some level of negative response. One-in-ten respondents (37 responses) indicated that they were strongly negative.

Figure 4-9 Q17 Opinion of Structures in the Landscape - Wind farms

In terms of positive attitudes, Wind farms were behind only Upland Trails and Tracks (55%) and Planted Forestry and Felling (46%). If taken along with 'No Impact' responses, three-quarters of respondents (75%) believe that Wind farms have a positive or neutral impact on the landscape.

On the other hand, the level of negative response (25%) towards Wind farms was the fourth highest of the 11 structures in the landscape upon which an opinion was sought - behind Pylons (49%), Mobile Telephone Masts (36%) and Power Stations (26%).

Table 4-11 Opinion of Structures in the Landscape - All Structures

	Strongly Positive	Slightly Positive	No impact	Slightly Negative	Strongly Negative	+ve rank	-ve rank
Pylons	2%	5%	44%	32%	17%	10	1
Wind farms	14%	25%	36%	15%	10%	3	4
Mobile Telephone Masts	1%	3%	59%	27%	9%	11	2
Ski Facilities	3%	16%	73%	6%	2%	6	9
Planted Forestry/Felling	15%	31%	36%	15%	3%	2	7
Telephone Wires/Poles	2%	8%	69%	17%	3%	9	6
Hydro-electric Dams	10%	18%	66%	5%	2%	4	10
Power Station	4%	7%	63%	20%	6%	8	3
Fish Farms	4%	18%	67%	8%	3%	5	8
Quarries	3%	10%	64%	16%	7%	7	5
Uplands Trails/Tracks	23%	32%	41%	3%	1%	1	11

The extent to which these opinions have an impact on visitor intentions to return to an area is explored in the next section.

As shown in Table 4-12, the proportion Scottish and English respondents who displayed a negative view of Wind farms was almost twice that of overseas visitors. A high proportion of overseas visitors were also neutral on the subject. All groups had similar proportions indicating a positive disposition towards Wind farms and their impact on the landscape.

Table 4-12 Opinion of Wind farms by Country of Origin

	Strongly Positive	Slightly Positive	No impact	Slightly Negative	Strongly Negative	Total
Scotland	16%	23%	34%	18%	9%	182
England	11%	30%	30%	16%	13%	116
Wales	20%	40%	20%	0%	20%	5
N Ireland	25%	0%	50%	0%	25%	4
Overseas	13%	22%	49%	9%	6%	67

Day Trip visitors were also slightly more negative towards Wind farms than holiday visitors (overnight stays), illustrating perhaps that people are perhaps more negative towards Wind farms the closer they live to them. That is, overseas are the least negative, while domestically overnight stay visitors (who by definition live further away than day visitors) are less negative than day visitors.

Table 4-13 Opinion of Wind farms by Trip Type

	Strongly Positive	Slightly Positive	No impact	Slightly Negative	Strongly Negative	n
Day Trip less than 3 hours	19%	23%	32%	19%	8%	53
Day Trip more than 3 hours	9%	23%	36%	17%	14%	69
On Holiday	14%	25%	37%	14%	10%	218
VFR On Holiday	24%	40%	20%	12%	4%	25
Holiday as Part of Business Trip	11%	11%	56%	11%	11%	9

N=374

Analysis of attitudes based on the main visitor activity undertaken by respondents is shown in Table 4-14. Only a small number of these categories had sufficient responses to provide meaningful analysis and within these it can generally be concluded that none deviated significantly from the figures for the sample as a whole.

Interestingly, the proportion of respondents whose main activity was indicated as walking/hillwalking (where the landscape is a major of the experience) and who indicated a negative attitude towards Wind farms (19%) was lower than the overall figure of 25%. This group also had the most positive attitude (45%) among those categories where the sample size was of sufficient size for analysis.

Table 4-14 Opinion of Wind farms by Main Activity

	Strongly Positive	Slightly Positive	No impact	Slightly Negative	Strongly Negative	n
Visiting Castles, Monuments, Churches	12%	25%	38%	15%	9%	138
Hiking, Hillwalking...	26%	19%	37%	10%	9%	70
Attending an Event	10%	22%	42%	18%	8%	60
Other	17%	28%	17%	21%	17%	29
Visiting Museums, Galleries, Heritage Centres	11%	22%	39%	22%	6%	18
Cycling, mountain biking	29%	14%	14%	29%	14%	7
Visiting Gardens, Forests...	17%	50%	17%	0%	17%	6
Water based sports	0%	40%	40%	0%	20%	5
Swimming	20%	60%	20%	0%	0%	5
Fishing	0%	25%	50%	0%	25%	4
Watching Wildlife	0%	0%	67%	0%	33%	3
Golf	0%	33%	0%	33%	33%	3
Visiting Theme Parks, Activity Parks	0%	50%	0%	50%	0%	2
Watching Performing Arts	100%	0%	0%	0%	0%	1

N=351

4.5 Likelihood of return

4.5.1 Initial Estimate of Return to the Area and Scotland

Prior to asking respondents direct questions about their opinion of Wind farms, they were asked to indicate their likelihood of return to the area in which the intercept was taking place. These responses would provide a zero base from which to compare how people's intentions to return were affected once the issue of Wind farms was explored directly.

As shown in Table 4-15 only 6 respondents to this question had indicated that they were unlikely to return to any of the four the areas, with 4 respondents indicating this in Stirlingshire/Perthshire and 2 respondents in Caithness & Sutherland. Of these, one person provided a reason which was that they 'Don't visit places twice".

Dumfries & Galloway had the highest proportion of respondents indicating a 100% likelihood of returning to the area, at 88%, followed by the Scottish Borders (54%), Caithness & Sutherland (46%) and Stirlingshire/Perthshire (45%). This again reflects the profile of respondents in each area, with Dumfries & Galloway having 97% of the sample being domestic visitors compared to levels of around three-quarters to four-fifths in the other areas.

Table 4-15 Frequency of Likelihood of Return to Each Area

Likelihood	Caithness & Sutherland		Perth, Kinross & Stirling		The Scottish Borders		Dumfries & Galloway		All
	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%
0	4	2%	2	3%	0	0%	0	0%	6	2%
5	3	2%	1	1%	0	0%	0	0%	4	1%
10	4	2%	1	1%	1	2%	0	0%	6	2%
15	0	0%	1	1%	0	0%	0	0%	1	0%
20	4	2%	4	6%	1	2%	1	1%	10	3%
30	1	1%	5	7%	2	3%	0	0%	8	2%
40	0	0%	2	3%	0	0%	0	0%	2	1%
50	26	16%	7	10%	8	13%	0	0%	41	11%
60	9	5%	1	1%	2	3%	0	0%	12	3%
70	16	10%	3	4%	1	2%	0	0%	20	5%
75	4	2%	1	1%	2	3%	2	3%	9	2%
80	13	8%	2	3%	4	6%	1	1%	20	5%
85	0	0%	1	1%	3	5%	2	3%	6	2%
90	8	5%	5	7%	4	6%	2	3%	19	5%
95	0	0%	0	0%	1	2%	0	0%	1	0%
99	0	0%	1	1%	0	0%	1	1%	2	1%
100	75	45%	31	46%	34	54%	68	88%	208	55%
	167	100%	68	100%	63	100%	77	100%	375	100%

90% of respondents in Stirlingshire/Perthshire indicated a 50% or above likelihood of returning to the area, while the proportion in the areas of Caithness & Sutherland, Scottish Borders and Dumfries & Galloway were 76%, 94% and 99% respectively.

All respondents to this question, save for one, indicated some level of intention to return to Scotland, with four-fifths (80%) definitely returning. 97% of respondents indicated a 50% or above likelihood of returning.

Table 4-16 Q15 Likelihood of Return to Scotland

Likelihood	Frequency	%
0	1	0.3%
5	2	0.5%
10	3	0.8%
20	2	0.5%
25	1	0.3%
30	1	0.3%
40	2	0.5%
50	12	3.2%
60	6	1.6%
70	10	2.7%
75	4	1.1%
80	16	4.3%
85	1	0.3%
90	10	2.7%
95	1	0.3%
99	2	0.5%
100	299	80.2%
Total	373	100%

N=373

4.5.2 Affect on Decision to Visit Again Having Seen the Wind Farm

Numbers who had seen a Wind farm

This question was not asked to those respondents in Dumfries & Galloway as there is only a planned wind farm for that area. As such, the sample for this question was N=246.

Almost two-thirds (63%) of respondents had seen the wind farm en route to the intercept locations in the other three areas.

Table 4-17 Q18 Did you see a Wind farm in the AREA?

	Frequency	Percent
Yes	191	63%
No	111	37%
Total	302	100%

N=302

As shown below, wind farms around the Caithness & Sutherland intercept sites had the highest level of visibility among respondents with 90% having seen a Wind farm in the area. Two-thirds had seen the Braes of Doune Wind farm in Stirlingshire/Perthshire, while only one-quarter had seen the Dunlaw Wind farm near the Scottish Borders intercept sites.

Table 4-18 Q18 by Intercept Area

Area	Yes	No	Total	% Yes
Stirlingshire & Perthshire	113	56	169	67%
Caithness & Sutherland	63	7	70	90%
Scottish Borders	15	48	63	24%
	191	111	302	63%

N=302

Likelihood of Affecting Future Visit Intentions:

Of those who had seen a Wind farm in an area (191 respondents), 4 people (2%) indicated that it would affect their intention to visit the area again. It should be noted that all 4 of these respondents were intercepted in the Stirling/Perthshire area, so that none of the respondents in Caithness & Sutherland or in the Scottish Borders indicated that the Wind farm they had seen would affect their decision to visit the area again.

Table 4-19 Q19 Would this affect decision to visit AREA again?

	Frequency	Percent
Yes	4	2%
No	187	98%
Total	191	100%

Taking Stirlingshire/Perthshire alone, the proportion of those indicating a change in visit intention is slightly higher (4%).

Table 4-20 Stirlingshire/Perthshire - Q18 Did you see a Wind farm in the AREA?

	Frequency	Percent
Yes	96	68%
No	46	32%
Total	142	100%

Table 4-21 Stirlingshire/Perthshire - Q19 Would this affect decision to visit AREA again?

	Frequency	Percent
Yes	4	4%
No	92	96%
Total	96	100%

Of the 4 people who said that it would affect their decision, 2 indicated that the likelihood would decrease and 2 signalled that it would increase. No one indicated that they would definitely not return at all as a result of the Wind farm.

Of the two who confirmed that it would decrease, one indicated a change from 70% to 40% and one indicated a change from 100% to 80%. Of those who indicated an increase in likelihood to return, one indicated a change from 100% to >100% (shown as 101% below) and one indicated a change from 10% to 30%.

Table 4-22 Q13 Likelihood of Return to Area *vQ20 How much would it affect decision to visit AREA again? (Seen)

Green - increased intention, Cerise = decreased intention

All four respondents also indicated that it would affect their decision to visit Scotland as a whole again (Question 21). As shown below, again two respondents indicated a decrease in intention and two indicated an increase in intention.

Table 4-23 Q15 Likelihood of Return to Scotland v Q22 How much would thus affect decision to visit SCOTLAND? (Seen)

Green - increased intention, Cerise = decreased intention

The net result of the change in intentions - as indicated by the 4 respondents who would re-evaluate their intention to return - would be a 7.25% fall for the area and a 9.75% fall for Scotland. These percentages are of course related only to that 2% of respondents who had indicated a change. As such, the actual impact is virtually zero - 0.15% for the area and 0.2% for Scotland. Of course, the area in question is Stirlingshire/Perthshire as respondents at the other locations indicated no change to their visit intentions having seen the local Wind farm.

4.5.3 Affect of Before and After Photos on Future Visit Intentions

All respondents ¹³ were shown a photo montage of the local Wind farm showing how the landscape looked before the development and in its present form. 11 of the 379 respondents (3%) indicated that it would affect their future visit intentions.

Table 4-24 Q23 Would this affect decision to visit AREA again?

	Frequency	Percent
Yes	11	3%
No	368	97%
Total	379	100%

N=379

As shown below, of those 11 respondents confirming a change in visit intention, 4 indicated an increase and 7 indicated a decrease. 2 respondents indicated an intention to definitely not return - one from 30% to 0% and one from 100% to 0%.

Table 4-25 Q13 Likelihood of Return to Area v Q24 How much would this affect decision to visit AREA again? Planned Farms

Green - increased intention, Cerise = decreased intention

4.5.4 Response to Photos of Actual and Extended Development

All respondents were shown a photo montage of the actual Wind farm development alongside that of an extended development of the Wind farm. 26 of the 379 respondents (7%) indicated that it would affect their future visit intentions.

Table 4-26 Q27 Would this affect decision to visit AREA again?

	Frequency	Percent
Yes	26	7%
No	353	93%
Total	379	100%

N=379

As shown overleaf, of those 26 respondents confirming a change in visit intention, 23 indicated a decrease and 3 indicated an increase. Of the 3 people who indicated an increase in visit intention, 2 were intercepted in Stirlingshire/Perthshire and 1 in Caithness & Sutherland.

7 respondents indicated an intention to definitely not return if the Wind farm was extended to the extent portrayed in the photo montage. 5 of these were from the Stirlingshire/Perthshire study and 2 from the Dumfries & Galloway intercept. Interestingly, one of the seven people who indicated that they would not return having seen the image of the extended development, had initially indicated that Wind farms had a Slightly Positive impact on the landscape. This suggests that for some people there is a natural tipping point at which a positive disposition can become negative as a development's visual impact increases.

Table 4-27 Location of Intercept and Future Visit Intention Based on Extended Wind farm

	+ve intention	-ve intention
Stirling/Perthshire	2	17
Caithness & Sutherland	1	0
Scottish Borders	0	2
Dumfries & Galloway	0	4
Total	3	23

N=26

Table 4-28 Q13 Likelihood of Return to Area v Q28 How much would this affect decision to visit AREA again? Enlarged Farms (prev 4.5.17)

Green - increased intention, Cerise = decreased intention

4.5.5 Response Summary

The net result of the change in intentions is shown in Table 4-29. This relates to the three scenarios reported on above, namely:

1. change in intention having seen a Wind farm locally

2. change in intention having seen the photo montage pre-development and actual development

3. change in intention having seen the photo-montage of the actual development and extension to actual development

This shows that the impact at both the area level and nationally is relatively small, with only the extended development scenario at the area level showing significant value (-2.54%). However, the figures do show that respondents became slightly more negative towards a Wind farm development as the visual impact increased. This is an important consideration for local authorities and the Scottish Executive in respect of applications for extensions to existing developments.

Table 4-29 Impact of Change in Intention of Three Visual Impact Scenarios

	ALL		Overnight
Having Seen	Area	Scotland	Area	Scotland
Number Sampled	191	191	137	137
Number Responding	4	4	3	3
Number Not Responding	187	187	134	134
Percent Responding	2.1%	2.1%	2.20%	2.20%
Change in Likelihood	-0.08%	-0.10%	-0.12%	-0.16%
Photo	Area	Scotland	Area	Scotland
Number Sampled	380	380	256	256
Number Responding	11	4	7	3
Number Not Responding	369	376	249	253
Percent Responding	2.89%	1.05%	2.73%	1.17%
Change in Likelihood	-0.73%	-0.05%	-0.70%	-0.10%
Extended	Area	Scotland	Area	Scotland
Number Sampled	380	380	256	256
Number Responding	26	5	19	4
Number Not Responding	354	375	237	252
Percent Responding	6.84%	1.32%	7.42%	1.56%
Change in Likelihood	-2.54%	-0.30%	-2.50%	-0.45%

4.6 Views on specific wind farm issues

4.6.1 Wind farms in the same view

A significant proportion of respondents (44%) agreed that they don't like to see several Wind farms in the same view. These results suggest that those respondents who have indicated having a neutral or even positive perspective on individual Wind farm sites are less likely to have a similar opinion on a landscape that has several developments in view.

This clear result compares with analysis in the previous section where there was a small increase in the negative response as the visual impact increased for an individual Wind farm development. This suggests that people see one large scale development in an area as preferable to several smaller scale developments dotted on the landscape.

On the other hand, both sets of results also confirm that a definite tipping point exists where Wind farm development becomes untenable for a significant number of visitors.

Table 4-30 Q31 - I don't like to see several Wind farms in the same view

	Frequency	%
Agree Strongly	70	19%
Agree Slightly	94	25%
Neither Agree nor Disagree	99	26%
Disagree Slightly	74	20%
Disagree Strongly	40	11%
Total	377	100%

4.6.2 'I like to see Wind farms'

Nearly half (48%) of respondents agreed with the statement 'I like to see Wind farms'. 28% disagreed with the statement. The remaining 24% of respondents were neutral on this statement; therefore overall almost three-quarters (72%) were positive or neutral to this statement. This corresponds to the responses given at Question 17 regarding the impact of structures on the landscape, were exactly three-quarters (75%) of respondents indicated that Wind farms either had a positive impact or no impact on their experience of the landscape.

Table 4-31 Q31 - I don't like to see Wind farms

	Frequency	Percent
Agree Strongly	100	27%
Agree Slightly	81	21%
Neither Agree nor Disagree	91	24%
Disagree Slightly	44	12%
Disagree Strongly	61	16%
Total	377	100%

N=377

4.6.3 I think they should be painted to make them less visible

Exactly half (50%) of respondents did not agree that Wind farms should be painted, with only 29% agreeing to this statement. This is a strong indication that the painting of Wind farm structures, even with the intention of making them less visible, would actually increase the level of negative opinion from that which exists towards their present form. Indeed, a larger proportion of both respondents who are positive and negative towards Wind farms disagreed with this statement.

Table 4-32 Q31 - I think they should be painted to make them less visible

	Frequency	Percent
Agree Strongly	40	11%
Agree Slightly	68	18%
Neither Agree nor Disagree	75	20%
Disagree Slightly	102	27%
Disagree Strongly	87	23%
Don't Know	5	1%
Total	377	100%

4.6.4 A well sited Wind farm does not ruin the landscape

A significant proportion (68%) agreed that a well sited Wind farm did not ruin the landscape, while one-fifth (20%) disagreed with this statement. Interestingly, of the 105 respondents that had disagreed with the statement 'I like to see Wind farms', 40 of them agreed that a well sited Wind farm did not ruin the landscape. However, of the 181 respondents that had agreed with statement 'I like to see Wind farms', 12 actually disagreed that a well sited Wind farm did not ruin the landscape. This suggests that even among those who like to see Wind farms, for some of them there will be certain settings or locations where they would not like to see such a development. It could be argued nonetheless that the existing planning regime already acknowledges this fact and that guidelines attempt to stop such developments.

Table 4-33 Q31 - A well sited Wind farm does not ruin the landscape

	Frequency	Percent
Agree Strongly	111	29%
Agree Slightly	146	39%
Neither Agree nor Disagree	45	12%
Disagree Slightly	40	11%
Disagree Strongly	33	9%
Don't Know	2	1%
Total	377	100%

4.7 Conclusion on Intercept Methodology

The approach chosen was largely successful in obtaining the views of a representative sample of tourists in significantly different areas most of whom had had some experience of viewing a wind farm development. The results confirm that a sizeable minority of tourists did not like wind farms, but only a small minority were so offended as to change their intentions about revisiting Scotland. The impact is consequently likely to be very small.

Importantly those who had seen a farm were less hostile than those who had not, suggesting that previous intention type surveys such as NTS/System3 (2002) and indeed the Internet Survey conducted as part of this research, may have exaggerated the impact. It is believed that this may reflect a "protest vote" response by some who have negative views about wind farms and the landscape and who wish to register those views in some way whilst, in practice, continuing to holiday in Scotland.

One major surprising finding was that those who had had most exposure, specifically those who had driven very close to the wind farms in Caithness (Causeymire) and in the Borders (Dun Law) were possibly even less affected than those who had viewed them at some distance e.g. the Braes of Doune from Stirling Castle. The initial plan to classify tourists by level of exposure was, as a consequence, altered and all exposure was treated similarly.