Public Perceptions of Offshore Wind Farms
Caroline Hattam, Tara Hooper and Nicola Beaumont (PML)
Marine Research Report
i
Public Perceptions of Offshore Wind Farms
Caroline Hattam, Tara Hooper and Nicola Beaumont
Plymouth Marine Laboratory (PML)
© Crown copyright 2015
ISBN: 978-1-906410-66-7
Published by The Crown Estate
The basis of this report was work undertaken by Caroline Hattam, Tara Hooper and
Nicola Beaumont of the Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Plymouth, UK, on behalf of The
Crown Estate.
Disclaimer
The opinions expressed in this report are entirely those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the view of The Crown Estate. The Crown Estate is not liable for the
accuracy of the information provided or responsible for any use of the content.
Dissemination Statement
This publication (excluding the logos) may be re-used free of charge in any format or
medium. It may only be used accurately and not in a misleading context. The material
must be acknowledged as The Crown Estate copyright and use of it must give the title of
the source publication. Where third party copyright material has been identified,
further use of that material requires permission from the copyright holders concerned.
Suggested Citation
Hattam, C., Hooper, T. and Beaumont, N. 2015. ‘Public Perceptions of Offshore Wind
Farms’, The Crown Estate, 50 pages, ISBN: 978-1-906410-66-7
This report is available on The Crown Estate website at www.thecrownestate.co.uk
ii
Contents List
Page
Executive Summary
1.
Introduction
2.
Aims of the study
3.
Method
3.1 Data collection
3.2 Data preparation
3.3 Methods of data analysis
4.
Results
4.1 Differences between the UK-wide sample and the East Coast sample
4.2 Familiarity with the issues
4.3 General perceptions of offshore wind farms, their costs and benefits and
future role
4.4 Impacts of socio-demographic variables on OWF perceptions
4.5 Perceptions of energy sources, energy security and climate change and
their impact on OWF perceptions
4.6 Impacts of experiences of on- and offshore wind farms and their impact
on OWF perceptions
4.7 Perceptions of the role of OWFs in the UK energy mix
4.8 Perceived barriers to further OWF development
5.
Discussion
5.1 Public perceptions of OWF in UK waters and their impact on individual
well-being
5.2 The potential role for OWF in the UK’s energy mix and barriers to further
developments
5.3 Limitations
6.
Conclusions
References
Annex 1: Survey findings by question
v
1
2
2
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
11
16
17
18
22
23
23
24
25
25
26
29
iii
iv
Executive Summary
Hattam et al. (2015) identify that the impacts of the offshore wind industry on
individual well-being are poorly understood, have been little studied, and that most
empirical research in the field has focused on the potential visual impact from
hypothetical or proposed developments. Given the more than 1300 turbines in 24
offshore wind farms (OWFs) in UK waters, there is a need and an opportunity to explore
in greater depth the actual impacts of OWFs on individual well-being and the wider
opinions held by members of the public. Information of this kind is critical to informing
the continued debate over the viability of OWF development.
This study had three main aims:
1) To understand public perceptions of actual OWFs in UK waters and their impacts
on individual well-being.
2) To examine the potential role for OWFs in the UK’s energy mix.
3) To identify the perceived barriers to further OWF development.
Data were collected through an online questionnaire undertaken during the first week
of July 2015, with a sample of 1078 respondents from across the UK and 494 from the
East Coast of England. The latter sample was expected to have had greater exposure to
the offshore wind industry. While this was indeed the case, there were few statistically
significant differences in responses between the two samples. Across both samples
unfamiliarity with the issues presented in the questionnaire was at times high, for
energy issues in general as well as those specific to OWFs.
Perceptions among respondents of OWFs and their impacts were generally favourable.
A clear majority of respondents (from both samples) felt that OWFs do not harm human
health, are an efficient way to generate electricity, contribute significantly to the UK
economy, create local jobs, and do not affect fishermen’s incomes. Opinion was more
evenly divided as to whether OWFs have a positive effect on coastal tourism, benefit
local communities, harm wildlife or spoil the view. There were statistically significant
differences between UK and East Coast responses to questions about visual impacts of
OWFs and effects on the image of the coast, with those from the East Coast holding more
favourable opinions. Questions were rarely dominated by strong opinions and the
majority reported that OWFs had no impact (either positive or negative) on their
quality of life.
Analysis was undertaken to explore how variables such as socio-demographics and
experiences of OWF influence perceptions. Younger people are associated with more
pro-OWF opinions, as were respondent who: i) had an energy tariff that already
included renewable energy sources, ii) had deliberately visited an OWF, iii) had
favourable attitudes towards offshore wind as a source of electricity, and iv) were
concerned about UK energy dependency on other countries. Anti-OWF opinions were
more associated with i) having deliberately avoided an area with an OWF, ii) having a
v
favourable attitude towards coal, iii) negative attitudes towards OWFs and hydro as
sources of energy, and iv) being concerned about power cuts in future. Concern about
climate change influences both pro- and anti-OWF opinions, suggesting that some
respondents do not see OWF as a solution to climate change. The majority of other
variables used to measure experiences of OWFs (such as whether respondents had seen
an OWF or could see one from their house) had no significant effect. Similarly, there was
no significant effect of variables measuring individual well-being (such as self-reported
health and overall life satisfaction).
Consistent with the findings of other public attitude surveys, renewable energies were
viewed more favourably than fossil fuels and nuclear. Offshore wind was the third most
favourable electricity source with 83% of both the UK and East Coast sample viewing it
as either favourable or very favourable. 42% (34%) of the East Coast (UK) sample
would like to see at least 30% of their electricity produced by offshore wind. However,
OWFs performed less well against other electricity sources in a multi-criteria analysis
that considered specific attributes of the energy systems (namely cost per unit, negative
environmental impact, reliability of supply and contribution to UK jobs). In this analysis,
OWFs scored lowest behind nuclear, gas and solar for the combined sample of
respondents. Other energy sources were preferred primarily because they were
considered more reliable: the perceived minimal environmental impact of OWFs was
not sufficient to compensate for the perceived lack of reliability.
Respondents identified a lack of public support as the most significant barrier to OWF
developments. Improving the perceived reliability of OWFs may go some way to
addressing this issue. This is coupled with a need to improve public awareness about
OWFs and electricity generation more generally, as this survey highlighted that
respondents are often poorly informed. This presents an opportunity for the offshore
wind industry (as well as a significant task) to better inform the public about its impacts
if it is to build upon the broadly positive attitudes that members of the public already
have towards the industry.
vi
1. Introduction
This report complements Hattam et al. (2015) which reviews the current literature on
the impacts of the offshore wind industry on well-being. Hattam et al. (2015) focused
primarily on changes to objective measures of well-being, relating to material living
conditions, and links to the broad domains of well-being described by the Office for
National Statistics (Randall et al. 2014). The review identified that the impacts of the
offshore wind industry on individual (or subjective) well-being, relating to issues of
quality of life, are poorly understood and have been little studied. There is also little
understanding of the impacts of OWFs on cultural ecosystem services and the wider
values that people associate with the coast. Existing research focuses largely on
hypothetical situations based on planned offshore wind farms (e.g. Busch et al. 2011;
Devine Wright and Howes 2010; Gee and Burkhard 2010). Only two studies were
identified where actual impacts of offshore wind farms (OWFs) on individuals have
been explored (Vanhulle et al. 2010 and Infomart GfK, 2008), focusing primarily on
visual impacts.
Studies of hypothetical OWFs suggest that the greatest negative effect perceived by the
public is the visual impact (Devine Wright and Howes 2010; Gee and Burkhard 2010;
Waldo 2012). Teisl et al. (2015) found that perception of visual amenity degradation
predicts the general attitude of individuals to OWFs. In contrast, Gee (2010) reports
that visual impacts cannot alone account for attitudes towards OWFs. Nevertheless,
OWFs are considered less intrusive than their onshore counterparts (Busch et al. 2011;
Ladenburg 2010; Haggett 2011). In relation to an actual OWF, however, Vanhulle et al.
(2010) found that for Belgian OWFs, turbines were not considered to disturb the view,
although there is a saturation point in terms of number of individual turbines, after
which the acceptability of the wind farm to respondents decreases. The study by
Infomart GfK (2008) showed similar results, although suggests that opinions may differ
by nationality (Germans were more positive than Dutch respondents) and that opinions
became more positive over time.
Opposition to OWFs is reported to be based on a perception that OWFs are unprofitable
and inefficient (Waldo 2012), that they may affect property prices (Teisl et al. 2015) and
concerns over environmental impact (Busch et al. 2011). Negative attitudes are also
linked to values for the ocean in general and specific sea areas (Kempton et al. 2005;
Gee 2010), and to disturbance to sense of place (Devine-Wright and Howes 2010).
Haggett (2011) states that opposition (and support) is largely based on visual/aesthetic
impact; the social, political and historical context of the site; a disjuncture between local
OWFs and climate change; OWF ownership and the relationship between communities
and developers; and trust within the decision-making process.
Evidence from the literature indicates that support for OWFs is primarily motivated by
offshore wind being an environmentally sound energy source that does not harm
1
wildlife, that creates jobs and leads to economic growth (Gee and Burkhard 2010;
Vanhulle et al. 2010; Waldo 2012). Support increases when respondents are provided
with information detailing community benefits of the project, especially in relation to
local jobs and contracting, although community funds can be seen as bribes (Cass et al.
2010). Public involvement in OWF planning also increases its acceptability (Sorensen et
al. 2002).
Given the more than 1300 turbines in 24 offshore wind farms in UK waters, there is a
need and an opportunity to explore in greater depth the actual impacts on individual
well-being that these OWFs generate and the opinions members of the public hold for
OWFs. Information of this kind is critical to informing the continued debate over the
viability of developing OWFs. This study builds on the existing literature on perceptions
of planned wind farms to examine public perceptions of the actual impacts of OWFs on
individual well-being.
2. Aims of the study
This study has three main aims:
1) To understand public perceptions of actual OWFs in UK waters and their impacts on
individual well-being.
 What are the perceived costs and benefits of OWFs and how do these influence
individual well-being?
 How do perceptions of energy security and climate change affect perceptions of
OWFs?
 How do experiences of on- and offshore windfarms affect perceptions?
2) To examine the potential role for OWFs in the UK’s energy mix.
 What trade-offs are the public willing to take to ensure a clean, secure supply of
energy?
 What role does the public perceive that OWFs should play in this clean, secure
supply of energy?
3) To identify the perceived barriers to further OWF development.
 What do the public perceive to be the main barriers to further development of
OWFs in the UK?
3. Method
An online questionnaire was developed to collect the opinions of members of the UK
public about OWFs and their impacts on individual well-being. To facilitate the
comparability of the findings with existing studies, the questionnaire used questions
2
from existing surveys focusing on energy generation and energy security (e.g. Spence et
al. 2010) and previous studies on the hypothetical impacts of offshore wind farms (e.g.
Busch et al. 2011). It also used standard measures of self-reported health and wellbeing taken from national surveys (“Over the last 12 months would you say your health
has on the whole been…? Not good, fairly good, good” as used in the UK Census 2001 and
“How dissatisfied or satisfied are you with your life overall?” Scored on a scale of 1-7
where 1 means not satisfied and 7 means completely satisfied, as used in the British
Household Panel Survey). In addition, it included a series of questions that could be
used in multi-criteria analysis.
Multi-criteria analysis (MCA) is an approach that explicitly takes into consideration the
multiple attributes (or criteria) of an issue that need to be evaluated in a decisionmaking process. It allows exploration of the trade-offs made between these different
criteria irrespective of whether the criteria can be measured in the same units (DCLG,
2009). In this study it is used to provide insight into how respondents compare four
different electricity generation methods (gas, nuclear, solar and offshore wind)
according to four criteria, which can be associated with different domains of well-being
(cost per unit of electricity produced, negative environmental impact, reliability of
supply and contribution to UK jobs).
Data collection for the MCA is a two-step process. First, for each criterion respondents
are asked to score the four electricity generating methods on a scale of 0 to 10. A score
of 0 is given to the worst performing electricity generating method and a score of 10 to
the best performing. The remaining two electricity generating methods are then scored
on the same scale. Second, the criteria are weighted. Respondents are given 100 points
to distribute across the criteria according to the level of importance given to them (e.g.
25 points could be given to each criteria if they are considered of equal importance; or
the points may be distributed unevenly if the criteria are considered to vary in
importance, for example an allocation of 10, 20, 30 and 40). The scores and weights can
then be combined to identify which electricity generation method is considered to
perform the best for each criterion and, overall, which of the four methods is preferred
by the respondents.
The final questionnaire comprised five subsections:


Part one: levels of concern regarding future energy security in the UK and
climate change and the favourability of different electricity generating methods
(both renewable and non-renewable).
Part two: multi-criteria questions where four electricity generating methods
(gas, nuclear, offshore wind and solar) are scored against four criteria (cost per
unit of electricity generated, negative environmental impact, reliability of supply
and contribution to UK jobs).
3



Part three: opinions about offshore wind farms (impacts, costs, benefits and
barriers to further development)
Part four: experiences of windfarms both on- and offshore.
Part five: socio-demographics including measures of life satisfaction and selfreported health (as indicators of individual well-being).
3.1 Data collection
Ethical approval for this survey was granted by Plymouth University Faculty for Health
and Human Sciences Research Ethics Committee.
The questionnaire was piloted online with 144 respondents on the 21st May, 2015. The
survey was carried out by Cint, a market research company, which accesses
respondents through a number of different online panels (total population size
>850,000). Using a quota sampling approach, the sample was drawn from across the UK
and was broadly census representative in terms of age and gender. The data collected
were summarised to identify how well the questions worked and whether question
instructions were understandable. Questions considered to be redundant or unclear
were either removed or amended.
Initial analysis of the multi-criteria data was undertaken and indicated that few
respondents had satisfactorily followed the question instructions. It also suggested that
individuals were unfamiliar with some of the electricity sources included in the
question. The multi-criteria questions were therefore modified, reducing the number of
electricity sources that individuals needed to score (from 7 to 4) and the instructions
simplified.
An online survey was undertaken with 1572 members of the public during the first
week of July 2015, again carried out by Cint. A census representative sample in terms of
age and gender of 1078 respondents was drawn from across the UK. A second booster
sample of 494 was collected from the east coast of England, selected from postcode
areas running along the coast from Hartlepool in Durham to Deal in Kent. The
expectation was that respondents from the east coast may have had greater exposure to
the offshore wind industry and offshore wind farms, and may therefore respond
differently to the questionnaire.
It was anticipated that many respondents would be unfamiliar with many of the energy
and offshore wind farm related issues presented in the questionnaire. To quantify the
extent to which respondents were unfamiliar with the issues, ‘don’t know’ and ‘no
opinion’ were explicitly included among the response options in the majority of
questions. Where response scales were used (e.g. ranging from strongly disagree to
strongly agree), instead of using a five item scale, the neutral mid-point (which can be
ambiguous to interpret) was removed and substituted with ‘don’t know’ and ‘no
4
opinion’ options. The result was a six point scale: strongly disagree, disagree, agree,
strongly agree, no opinion and don’t know. This meant that respondents were not
forced to answer questions for which they had no answer or opinion.
3.2 Data preparation
In preparing the data for analysis, certain respondents were removed to ensure robust
analysis. Respondents under the age of 18 were disqualified from completing the full
survey and their answers to the initial screening questions were removed. The
responses given by 12 respondents had become misaligned with the question numbers
during the process of data transfer and were also omitted. To ensure only answers from
respondents who had given appropriate attention to the survey questions were
included in the analysis, the sample was trimmed, in accordance with best practice. The
5% of respondents at either end of the distribution for the survey duration were
therefore removed from the sample. Although there is not yet accepted guidance for
selecting the optimum cut off point for inattention based on survey duration, the
exclusion of the 5% of respondents at either end of the distribution is in line with the
work of Maniaci and Rogge (2014). They excluded the slowest 7% of respondents as
outliers, and identified the optimum cut off for those completing the survey too quickly
as roughly half of the 5% trimmed mean completion time.
This resulted in the exclusion of those who had taken less than six minutes to complete
the survey and of those taking longer than 35 minutes or 50 minutes for the East Coast
and UK subsamples respectively (as each sample was considered discretely). The
samples were also assessed for nonsense answers and ‘straightlining’ respondents
(individuals who selected the same response across multiple questions or parts of
questions) were also excluded. This resulted in a final sample of 436 respondents for
the East Coast case study and 922 for the wider UK sample.
3.3 Methods of data analysis
Data were first described and frequency distributions calculated. This data description
includes the respondents who answered ‘don’t know’ or ‘no opinion’ as it is illustrative
to identify the proportion of respondents answering this way. In subsequent analysis,
however, ‘don’t know’ or ‘no opinion’ responses are treated as missing variables. ‘Don’t
know’ and ‘no opinion’ options were used instead of a neutral mid-point for questions in
the survey using a response scale. As ‘don’t know’ or ‘no opinion’ responses cannot be
considered the same as a neutral position, they do not fit within the response scale.
Doing so could be a considerable threat to validity (Sturgis et al. 2014). They must
therefore be considered separately. Removing the ‘don’t know’ and ‘no opinion’
responses, however, substantially reduces the sample size available for analysis. Sample
sizes are reported with each stage of the analysis below.
Analysis of the data was undertaken using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) followed by
Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression analysis. EFA is used to identify common
5
underlying factors that reflect what the variables collected in the survey share in
common (i.e. it condenses the information from the original variables into a smaller
sub-set of variables (factors), with minimal loss of information; Hair et al. 2006). The
technique is useful because it reduces the volume of data into more a manageable
amount that can be more readily used in subsequent data analysis.
Variables that are seen to group together are said to ‘load’ onto each factor. How
variables load onto each factor can then be used to describe the factor. For example, if
variables relating to the environmental impact of OWFs load into one factor (e.g.
impacts on wildlife, the view and commercial species), this factor may then be described
as representing opinions on environmental impacts of OWFs. Factor loadings are
numerical; loading values over 0.4 are considered the minimum for factor
interpretation. All of the question statements used here have loadings of over 0.5, which
can be considered practically significant (Hair et al. 2006).
Once the factors have been identified, individual factor scores can be calculated.
Individual factor scores can be interpreted as how an individual has scored on each of
the factors. This can be considered analogous to how an individual would have
responded if the individual questions that make up the factors could have been asked as
a single question.
Explanatory variables can be regressed upon individual factor scores using Ordinary
Least Squares (OLS), to show how characteristics such as age, income or recreational
use of coastal areas influence attitudes towards those factors. Variables with significant
beta coefficients (a statistical output of the OLS model) can be interpreted as predictors
of the individual factor scores. A unit increase in a variable with a significant positive
(negative) beta coefficient (at the 1% or 5% confidence level) would lead to a
corresponding increase (decrease) in the factor score of the size of the beta coefficient.
4. Results
Frequency distributions for each question are presented in Annex 1.
4.1 Differences between the UK wide sample and the East Coast boost sample
Statistically significant differences between the UK wide sample and the East Coast
boost sample were identified using chi squared tests. Individuals answering ‘don’t
know’ or ‘no opinion’ were removed from the analysis, although the proportion of
individuals responding this way is reported for each question. Statistically significant
differences between groups are colour coded in the tables in Annex 1. Where p values
are less than 0.01 (i.e. significant at the 1% level), the question and its associated
frequency distribution are coloured green, where p values are between 0.01 and 0.05
(i.e. significant between the 1 and 5% level), the question and its associated frequency
distribution are coloured yellow and where p values are between 0.05 and 0.1 (i.e.
6
significant between the 5 and 10% level), the question and its associated frequency
distribution are coloured orange. Responses to questions with no colouring show no
statistically significant difference between the two target groups.
Key significant differences detected between the groups are also highlighted below.
4.2 Familiarity with the issues
As expected, unfamiliarity with the issues presented in the questionnaire was at times
high. The proportion of respondents answering ‘don’t know’ or ‘no opinion’ ranged
from approximately 3% relating to questions about energy security to over 50%
relating to a question about impacts of OWFs on commercially important species. Other
questions with a high percentage of respondents stating ‘don’t know’ or ‘no opinion’
focused on OWF impacts on wildlife, their contribution to the UK economy and local
jobs, and their impacts on recreational experiences.
4.3 General perceptions of offshore wind farms, their costs and benefits and
future role
Perceptions of offshore windfarms were gauged using a series of questions focusing on
the perceived impacts of offshore wind farms and their social and economic costs and
benefits (questions 12, 13 and 24, Annex 1). Opinions across the UK and East Coast
samples are broadly similar. Percentage figures reported below reflect the proportion
of respondents agreeing/strongly agreeing to the statements in the question. Where
statements in the survey were written in a negative formation, response scales reported
below have been reversed, for example, 50.9% of respondents from the UK sample
disagreed or strongly disagreed to the statement “Offshore wind farms harm wildlife”
In terms of the impact of OWFs (question 12), individual perceptions were that they:
 Do not harm wildlife (UK: 50.9%, East Coast: 48.7%)
 Do not spoil the view (UK: 47.0%, East Coast: 54.8%)*
 Do not harm human health (UK: 73.6%, East Coast: 80.1%)
 Contribute significantly to the UK economy (UK: 59.8%, East Coast: 67.7%)
 Create local jobs (UK: 54.8%, East Coast: 67.2%)
 Benefit local communities (UK: 48.9%, East Coast: 53.5%)
 Do not affect fishermen’s incomes (UK: 33.8%, East Coast: 39.2%)
 Do not have a positive effect on coastal tourism (UK: 45.2%, East Coast 48.7%).
 Are an efficient way to generate electricity (UK: 70.9%, East Coast: 66.5%)
* Statistically significant differences between the UK and East Coast samples.
It should be noted that large proportions of both samples answered ‘don’t know’ or ‘no
opinion’ to the questions about benefit to local communities, impacts on fishermen’s
incomes and positive effect on coastal tourism. For example, in relation to fishermen’s
incomes, 39.6% in the UK sample and 33.9% in the east coast sample answered either
‘don’t know’ or ‘no opinion’ to this question.
7
A high number of ‘don’t know’ or ‘no opinion’ answers were also found when examining
OWF impacts in more detail (question 24, Annex 1), particularly for aspects of cultural
ecosystem services (Table 1). In terms of how OWF affect the image of the coast, there is
agreement that they make the coast more modern, and that they detract from the
traditional image of the coast (as reported by Busch et al. 2011), but respondents are
split over whether they negatively affect the wilderness image of the sea. Responses to
these three questions were significantly different between respondents from the UK
and East Coast samples. East Coast respondents were more likely to agree or strongly
agree that OWFs give the coast a modern image (45.9% compared to 41.9% from the UK
sample), but less likely to agree that OWFs detract from the traditional image of the
coast (46.5% compared to 51.6% from the UK sample) or that OWFs negatively affect
the wilderness image of the sea (38.5% compared to 40.6% from the UK sample).
In relation to recreational activities, respondents agree that OWFs do generate new
recreational opportunities, but that OWFs have a negative impact on recreational
experiences. With respect to the latter point, there is a large proportion of respondents
who do not know or have no opinion on this matter (42% East Coast sample compared
to 44.5% from the UK sample). This statement is also true for responses to statements
about OWFs having negative impacts on sea birds and mammals, and beneficial impacts
on commercially important fish and shellfish species. Those respondents who do have
an opinion on the impacts of OWFs on sea birds and mammals and on commercially
important fish and shellfish species are equally split over whether these impacts are
positive or negative.
Opinions on the future development of offshore wind (question 13 in Annex 1) across
the two sub-samples were, primarily, not statistically significantly different. There was
general agreement that:
 More OWFs are needed to tackle climate change (UK: 65.3%, East Coast: 64.6%)
 More OWFs would reduce the need for imported fuel for electricity generation
(UK: 65.3%, East Coast: 64.6%)
 We should continue building OWFs (UK: 74.2%, East Coast: 75%)
 The benefits of OWFs outweigh the disadvantages (UK: 64.2%, East Coast: 65.4%)
 OWFs should only be built if they are not visible from land (UK: 51.3%, East Coast:
59.9%)
There were also indications that:
 It is only through OWFs that the UK will meet its renewable energy targets (UK:
46.7%, East Coast: 53.9%)
 OWFs are not viable without government subsidies (UK: 43.8%, East Coast:47.7%)
Large proportions of the sample, however, responded ‘don’t know’ or ‘no opinion’ to
these questions (UK: 31% and East Coast: 23% with respect to renewable energy
targets and UK: 37.5% and East Coast 34.2% with respect to subsidies).
8
Table 1: Impacts of offshore wind farms on cultural ecosystem services (question 24)
Percentage of respondents*
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
No
opinion
Don't
know
No
answer
Offshore wind
farms give the
coast a modern
image**
East
Coast
13.8
20.0
38.3
7.6
15.6
3.9
0.9
UK
7.8
22.5
34.5
7.4
19.4
7.8
0.7
Offshore wind
farms create new
recreational
opportunities
(e.g. boat trips,
viewing)
East
Coast
9.4
16.3
41.7
7.1
11.2
14.0
0.2
UK
5.9
18.8
37.4
7.5
13.2
16.9
0.3
Offshore wind
farms improve
the quality of
recreational
experiences
East
Coast
10.6
26.4
17.0
3.7
22.5
19.5
0.5
UK
8.5
26.6
16.1
4.2
22.0
22.5
0.2
Offshore wind
farms have a
negative impact
on sea birds and
mammals
East
Coast
7.1
26.8
23.2
10.3
6.0
26.1
0.5
UK
5.3
25.3
24.2
7.8
7.3
29.7
0.4
Offshore wind
farms are
beneficial to
commercially
important fish
and shellfish
East
Coast
7.3
20.9
15.6
3.9
11.7
40.1
0.5
UK
5.5
15.9
15.9
4.6
13.9
43.2
1.0
Offshore wind
farms detract
from the
traditional image
of the coast**
East
Coast
8.5
32.1
29.1
17.4
7.6
4.8
0.5
UK
5.5
25.2
37.9
13.7
9.7
7.9
0.2
Offshore wind
farms negatively
affect the
wilderness image
of the sea**
East
Coast
9.4
33.5
24.1
14.4
8.7
9.4
0.5
UK
7.4
28.1
29.4
11.2
10.8
12.4
0.8
* East Coast n=436 and UK n=922
**Using Chi squared tests, responses to these questions show statistically significant differences
between the UK and east coast sub-samples (p≤0.05).
9
Respondents were equally split over the statements “The electricity produced by OWFs
is too expensive” and “Offshore wind farm developers can be trusted to listen to the
communities in which they operate”. These two statements, also attracted large
proportions of ‘don’t know’ or ‘no opinion’ responses (UK: 47.1%, East Coast: 38.8%
with respect to expense and UK: 36.1%, East Coast: 27.3% with respect to trust in
developers). The statement about trust in developers is the only statement from
question 13 to elicit a statistically significant difference between the two samples. The
East Coast sample was more likely to disagree or strongly disagree that developers can
be trusted (41.5% compared to 32% for the UK sample).
On the whole, based on the findings above, perceptions of OWFs among respondents are
generally favourable, with the East Coast sample being slightly more favourable than
the UK sample (although this difference is not always statistically significant). This is
further demonstrated by the fact that the majority of respondents (UK: 58.7%, East
Coast: 67.4%) indicated that they would not strongly oppose an OWF near where they
lived or go on holiday. When asked about the impacts of OWFs on their quality of life
(Figure 1), however, East Coast respondents are more likely to say no impact or
negative impact than their UK sample counterparts (these differences are statistically
significantly different: Chi square = 24.5064, p = 0.000). The vast majority state that
OWFs have had no impact on their quality of life.
90
Percentage of respondents
80
70
60
50
East Coast
40
UK
30
20
10
0
Strong
positive
impact
Positive No impact Negative Strong
impact
impact negative
impact
Don’t
know
Figure 1: Responses to question 27 “What impact, if any, have offshore wind farms had on
your quality of life?”.
10
4.4 Impacts of socio-demographic variables on OWF perceptions
To explore how other variables, such as socio-demographics and experiences of OWFs
may influence perceptions, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was undertaken followed
by Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression analysis. As stated in section 3.3, EFA is a
method for condensing the volume of information contained in multiple variables into a
smaller number of variables known as factors. Individuals answering don’t know to one
or more of the questions included in the EFA were removed from the sample. Given the
high level of unfamiliarity with some of the question topics, this reduced the sample size
to 257, combining responses from both the UK and East Coast samples1.
Using the variables from questions 12, 13 and 24, the EFA identified two factors (i.e. the
23 statements are condensed into two factors). Each variable will load onto both factors
but, for the results to be readily interpretable, the loading should be stronger for one
factor than the other. What is important about these factor loadings is that they are over
0.4 (indicating that each variable makes a meaningful contribution to each factor). The
factor loadings are presented in Table 2. Only the highest loading for each variable is
included. Each factor can be interpreted according to these factor loadings. Variables
loading on to factor 1 are all positive statements about OWFs. Factor 1 is therefore
labelled as ‘pro-OWFs’. In contrast factor 2 is constituted of negative statements about
OWFs and is therefore labelled as ‘anti-OWFs’.
Factor scores are then calculated for individual respondents, indicating how their
responses to the variables used in the EFA relate to each factor. To reiterate, these
factor scores represent how an individual would have responded had it been possible to
ask a single question representing all the individual questions making up each factor. When
individual factor scores for both the pro-OWFs and anti-OWFs factors are plotted
together (Figure 2), it can be seen that for most people, a positive score for one factor
corresponds with a negative score for the other: i.e. respondents whose opinions load
more strongly onto the pro-OWF factor are less likely to hold strong anti-OWF views,
and vice versa. There are some people, however, who show characteristics of both
factors (i.e. they score high (low) on both factors)2. This suggests that some individuals
have opinions that are equally spread across both positive and negative aspects of
OWFs.
Combining the samples is considered justifiable given the non-statistically significant differences
between the samples in relation to the questions included in the EFA.
2 These individuals were further examined to identify whether they were ‘straightlining’ through the
questions used in the EFA. None of these individuals were found to do so, however, the subsequent
regression analyses were also undertaken with 23 of these individuals removed in case they were
outliers. The findings remained the same for regression models including socio-demographics and
experiences of wind farms. There were minor changes in the regression model incorporating opinions on
electricity sources, energy security and climate change, but model fit was poorer with the 23 individuals
excluded. Consequently all analyses presented include these individuals with characteristics of both the
pro and anti OWF factors.
1
11
Table 2: Factor loadings for each of the factors identified from questions 12, 13 and 24
Variable*
We need more offshore wind farms to tackle climate change
Factor 1
‘Pro-OWFs’
0.778
Offshore wind farms give the coast a modern image
0.761
The benefits of offshore wind farms outweigh the disadvantages
0.752
Offshore wind farm developers can be trusted to listen to the
communities in which they operate
Offshore wind farms are an efficient way to generate electricity
It is only through the construction of offshore wind farms that the
UK will meet its renewable energy targets
Local communities benefit financially from offshore wind
developments
The development of offshore wind farms contributes significantly
to the UK economy
Offshore wind farms create new recreational opportunities (e.g.
boat trips, viewing)
Offshore wind farms have a positive effect on coastal tourism
More offshore wind farms would reduce our need to import fuel
for generating electricity from other countries
The development of offshore wind farms creates local jobs
Offshore wind farms are not viable without subsidies from the
government
We should only build offshore wind farms if they are not visible
from land
Offshore wind farms detract from the traditional image of the coast
Offshore wind farms negatively affect the wilderness image of the
sea
Offshore wind farms harm wildlife
The electricity produced by offshore wind farms is too expensive
Offshore wind farms harm people’s health
Offshore wind farms negatively affect fishermen’s incomes
Offshore wind farms spoil the view
We should stop building offshore wind farms
I would strongly oppose an offshore wind farm built near where I
live or go on holiday
Factor 2
‘Anti-OWFs’
0.752
0.745
0.719
0.711
0.707
0.682
0.645
0.642
0.584
0.520
0.613
0.641
0.648
0.653
0.677
0.701
0.706
0.718
0.767
0.790
*To increase the sample size, three items from question 24 were dropped from this analysis as they were
associated with large proportions of respondents stating ‘don’t know’ or ‘no opinion’. These relate to the
quality of the recreational experience and impacts on sea birds, mammals and commercially important
species.
12
3
Individual factor scores 'anti OWFs'
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-3
-2
-1
0
1
Individual factors scores 'pro OWFs'
2
3
Figure 2: Individual factor scores for factor 1 (pro OWFs) plotted against individual
factor scores for factor 2 (anti OWFs)
Explanatory variables, such as socio-demographic variables, can be regressed upon
individual factor scores using Ordinary Least Squares. Variables with significant beta
coefficients can be interpreted as predictors of the individual factor scores. A unit
increase in a variable with a significant positive (negative) beta coefficient would lead
to a corresponding increase (decrease) in the factor score of the size of the beta
coefficient. For example, in Table 3, the variable Tariff (referring to the level of
importance of having renewable energy as part of an electricity tariff) has a significant
positive beta coefficient of 0.357 in relation to the pro-OWF factor. A unit increase in
Tariff would lead to a 0.357 increase in individual pro-OWF factor score. In contrast age
has a significant negative beta coefficient of -0.151. A unit increase in age therefore
leads to a decrease in individual factor score of -0.151 for the pro-OWF factor. As
expected, given the lack of statistically significant difference between responses from
respondents in the two samples, location has no statistically significant effect on
individual factor scores. This means that concern over having renewables as part of an
electricity tariff increases pro-OWF perceptions while increasing age decreases proOWF perceptions; location has no effect.
13
Table 3: OLS regression effects of socio-demographic variables on individual factor
scores. Figures in bold indicate statistically significant results where p≤0.01, bold and
italics indicate statistically significant findings where 0.01<p≤0.05
Factor 1: 'Pro-OWF'
Location
Gender
Age
Household <18
Tariff
Constant
R2
Adjusted R2
Prob>F
N
Factor 2: 'Anti-OWF'
β coef.
Std. Err.
p value
β coef.
Std. Err.
p value
-0.080
-0.016
-0.151
0.063
0.357
-0.585
0.359
0.345
0.000
227
0.111
0.114
0.036
0.056
0.042
0.310
0.474
0.885
0.000
0.258
0.000
0.061
0.150
0.079
0.025
0.093
-0.126
-0.008
0.040
0.018
0.111
227
0.135
0.138
0.044
0.067
0.051
0.376
0.267
0.569
0.566
0.170
0.013
0.983
Only Tariff has a significant negative effect on the anti-OWF factor, but as the model fit
is poor (R2 = 0.04) and the model cannot be considered significant (p value for the F
statistic is >0.05), the effect of Tariff on anti-OWF factor scores cannot be interpreted
with confidence. It is therefore not possible to say which socio-demographic variables
affect anti-OWF perceptions, if any do at all. Table 4 gives a full description of the
variables included in this and subsequent regressions models.
Variables measuring individual well-being, such as self-reported health and overall life
satisfaction were also included in previous versions of the regression model. No
significant relationship was found between these well-being variables and individual
factor scores.
14
Table 4: Description of variables included in the regression models
Variable
name
Location
Description
Response options
Location of respondent
1 = East Coast and 2 = UK
Gender
Gender of respondent
1 = male and 2 = female
29
Age
Age of respondent
30
Household
<18
Tariff
Number of household residents
under 18 years of age
Importance that energy tariff
includes renewable energy
Favourability of coal as an electricity
source
Favourability of nuclear as an
electricity source
Favourability of biomass as an
electricity source
Favourability of hydro as an
electricity source
Favourability of OWF as an
electricity source
Level of informedness about OWF
1 = 18-24, 2 = 25-34, 3 = 35-44, 4 = 45-54,
5 = 55-64 and 6 = 65+
Continuous variable
1 = very unimportant, 2 = unimportant,
3 = important and 4 = very important
1 = very unfavourable, 2 = unfavourable,
3 = favourable and 4 = very favourable
1 = very unfavourable, 2 = unfavourable,
3 = favourable and 4 = very favourable
1 = very unfavourable, 2 = unfavourable,
3 = favourable and 4 = very favourable
1 = very unfavourable, 2 = unfavourable,
3 = favourable and 4 = very favourable
1 = very unfavourable, 2 = unfavourable,
3 = favourable and 4 = very favourable
1 = not at all informed, 2 = not very well
informed, 3 = quite well informed, 4 = well
informed and 5 = very well informed
1 = not at all concerned, 2 = not very concerned
3 = fairly concerned and 4 = very concerned
1 = not at all concerned, 2 = not very concerned
3 = fairly concerned and 4 = very concerned
1 = not at all concerned, 2 = not very concerned
3 = fairly concerned and 4 = very concerned
38
Coal
Nuclear
Biomass
Hydro
Offshore
wind
OW
informed
Unaffordable
Power cuts
Energy
dependent
FF run out
Invest in
alternatives
Concern
about CC
Causes CC
Deliberately
visited
Deliberately
avoided
Work OWF
Community
projects
OWF
recreation
Level of concern that electricity will
become unaffordable in future
Level of concern that there will be
power cuts in future
Level of concern that the UK will
become too dependent on energy
from other countries
Level of concern that fossil fuels will
run out in future
Level of concern that the UK is not
investing fast enough in alternative
sources of energy
Level of concern about climate
change
Opinion about the cause of climate
change
Respondent has deliberately visited
a coastal area because OWF are
visible
Respondent has deliberately
avoided a coastal area because
OWF are visible
Respondent or member of
respondents family works in
offshore wind industry
Community projects within the
respondent’s area have received
funding from an OWF developer
Respondent has undertaken a
recreational activity within an OWF
Question
no.
n/a
33
4.1
4.3
4.6
4.11
4.13
11
1.1
1.2
1.3
1 = not at all concerned, 2 = not very concerned
3 = fairly concerned and 4 = very concerned
1 = not at all concerned, 2 = not very concerned
3 = fairly concerned and 4 = very concerned
1.4
1 = not at all concerned, 2 = not very concerned
3 = fairly concerned and 4 = very concerned
1 = entirely natural, 2 = mainly natural, 3 =
equally natural and human, 4 = mainly human,
5 = entirely human
1 = yes, 0 = no
2
18
1 = yes, 0 = no
19
1 = yes, 0 = no
20
1 = yes, 0 = no
21
1 = yes, 0 = no
17
1.6
3
15
4.5 Perceptions of energy sources, energy security and climate change and their
impact on OWF perceptions
Using the approach described in section 4.4, perceptions of different energy sources,
energy security and climate change are regressed on individual factor scores for both
the pro- and anti- OWF factors. Table 5 shows that having a favourable attitude towards
OWFs, being informed about OWFs, being concerned that the UK will become too
dependent on energy from other countries, and having a higher level of concern about
climate change all have a positive effect on pro-OWF individual factor scores, while a
greater favourability for hydro power and concerns about the affordability of electricity
in the future have a negative effect on pro-OWF individual factor scores.
Table 5: OLS regression effects of perceptions of energy sources, energy security and
climate change on individual factor scores. Figures in bold indicate statistically
significant results where p≤0.01, bold and italics indicate statistically significant findings
where 0.01<p≤0.05
Factor 1: 'Pro OWF'
Coal
Nuclear
Biomass
Hydro
Offshore wind
OW informed
Unaffordable
Power cuts
Energy dependent
FF run out
Invest in alternatives
Concern about CC
Causes CC
Constant
R2
Adjusted R2
Prob>F
N
β coef.
0.015
-0.072
0.003
-0.221
0.524
0.156
-0.154
0.113
0.223
0.081
0.116
0.207
0.064
-2.927
0.455
0.422
0.000
228
Std. Err.
0.052
0.044
0.060
0.078
0.064
0.052
0.068
0.079
0.083
0.070
0.075
0.068
0.052
0.513
p value
0.765
0.109
0.964
0.005
0.000
0.003
0.025
0.152
0.008
0.247
0.120
0.002
0.225
0.000
Factor 2: 'Anti OWF'
β coef.
0.211
0.029
0.080
-0.187
-0.380
-0.022
-0.016
0.259
0.101
-0.071
-0.095
0.208
0.240
-0.477
0.381
0.344
0.000
228
Std. Err.
0.000
0.552
0.232
0.032
0.000
0.700
0.831
0.003
0.274
0.359
0.249
0.006
0.000
0.402
p value
0.000
0.696
0.154
0.024
0.000
0.722
0.802
0.003
0.283
0.371
0.226
0.008
0.000
0.732
In contrast having a favourable opinion of coal and being concerned about power cuts in
future have a positive impact on anti-OWF individual factor scores, as does a higher
level of concern about climate change and having the opinion that humans are the main
cause of climate change. These latter two points are somewhat counterintuitive, but
may reflect that individuals who would score highly on the anti-OWF factor prefer other
16
renewable energies to OWFs3 (it is also indicative of the relatively low proportion of
people who report not to be concerned about climate change: 11% and 9.8% for the
East Coast and UK samples respectively). In addition higher levels of favourability for
OWFs and hydro power have a negative effect on anti-OWF individual factor scores.
4.6 Impacts of experiences of on- and offshore wind farms and their impacts on
OWF perceptions
Experiences of OWFs have limited impacts on individual factor scores (Table 6).
Deliberately visiting an OWF has a positive relationship with pro-OWF factor scores
while deliberately avoiding a location with an OWF has a negative effect. Deliberately
avoiding a location with an OWF does, however, have a positive impact on anti-OWF
individual factor scores. The proportion of respondents who have deliberately visited
(UK: 8.7%, East Coast: 8.0%) or deliberately avoided (UK: 5.1%, East Coast: 5.7%) an
area where an OWF is visible is small, suggesting OWFs have limited impact on tourism.
Working in the offshore wind industry (or having a member of the family do so), having
a community project in your area being funded by an OWF developer and having taken
part in a recreation activity in an OWF has no statistically significant effect on either
pro- or anti- OWF individual factor scores.
Table 6: OLS regression effects of wind farm experiences on individual factor scores.
Figures in bold indicate statistically significant results where p≤0.01, bold and italics
indicate statistically significant findings where 0.01<p≤0.05
Factor 1: 'Pro OWF'
Deliberately visited
Deliberately avoided
Work OWF
Community projects
OWF recreation
Constant
R2
Adjusted R2
Prob>F
N
Factor 2: 'Anti OWF'
β coef.
Std. Err.
p value
β coef.
Std. Err.
p value
0.763
-0.613
0.465
0.365
0.164
-0.144
0.149
0.128
0.000
200
0.199
0.226
0.327
0.224
0.149
0.076
0.000
0.007
0.156
0.104
0.272
0.061
0.069
1.247
0.278
0.118
-0.183
-0.159
0.205
0.184
0.000
200
0.198
0.225
0.326
0.223
0.148
0.076
0.727
0.000
0.393
0.597
0.219
0.037
Earlier versions of the regression model included whether respondents had seen a wind
farm, both on- and offshore, and whether they could see an on- or offshore wind farm
from their house. Neither variable was found to be significant. This further supports the
Other renewable energies were included in earlier versions of the regression analysis but were found
not to be statistically significant.
3
17
idea that pro- and anti-OWF attitudes are not related to location or general experiences
of OWFs (or wind farms in general).
4.7 Perceptions of the role of OWFs in the UK energy mix
As shown in section 4.3 opinions on the future development of offshore wind were
positive. This is supported by the finding that 42% of those on the East Coast and 34%
of the UK sample would like to see at least 30% of their electricity provided by offshore
wind (Figure 3). There was a statistically significant difference between the samples,
although it should also be noted that responses suggesting a more negative perception
of OWFs also differed: 5.5% of the East Coast sample preferred no electricity from
OWFs, compared to 2.9% of the wider UK sample.
30
Percentage
25
20
15
10
East Coast
UK
5
0
Figure 3: The proportion of electricity survey respondents would like to see provided by
offshore wind energy
Offshore wind also scores well when compared in terms of favourability with a suite of
electricity generation sources including fossil fuels, nuclear and renewable sources
(question 4, Annex 1). Overall the electricity source that is considered the most
favourable is solar power with 89.6% of UK-wide respondents (90.9% of the East Coast
sample) stating that they viewed solar power favourably or very favourably. Offshore
wind is the third most favourable electricity source with 83% of both the UK and East
Coast sample viewing it as either favourable or very favourable. In general, all
renewable energies were viewed more favourably than fossil fuels and nuclear.
Fracking is the least favourable source followed by coal and oil. This is consistent with
18
the findings of the most recent DECC survey on public attitudes to energy issues (DECC,
2015) as well as those of Spence et al. (2010) and Poortinga et al. (2006).
The role of OWFs in a future energy mix can be further examined through multi-criteria
analysis (MCA). The data collection for the MCA was a two-step process. First,
respondents were asked to score four electricity generating methods (gas, nuclear,
OWFs and solar) with regard to four criteria (cost per unit, negative environmental
impact, reliability of supply and contribution to UK jobs) (questions 6-9, annex 1).
Secondly the respondents were asked to weight these criteria. Despite following
standard and well-practised procedures (DCLG, 2009) many respondents were unable
to successfully undertake the scoring exercise. This is most likely due to the lack of
knowledge (as indicated in section 4.2) regarding the electricity sector. Many
respondents were unable to indicate which electricity source they considered to
perform the best or worst for each criterion. For these respondents, the relative
importance of the scores across the different electricity sources cannot be identified.
Consequently, these respondents were removed from the multi-criteria analysis. This
left a sample of 164 for use in analysis, 45 from the East Coast sample and 119 from the
UK wide sample.
A total “MCA score” is calculated for each of the four electricity sources using Equation
1. This equation was applied in two ways: i) using the means of individual scores (i.e. an
MCA is undertaken for each individual and the individual results are then combined and
averaged); and ii) sample mean scores (i.e. means of criteria scores and weights are
calculated and a single MCA is undertaken using these means).
Equation 1
Total MCA score for electricity source =
(cost per unit electricity score * cost per unit weight / 100)
+ (neg. environment impact score* neg. environment impact weight / 100)
+ (reliability of supply score * reliability weight / 100)
+ (contribution to jobs score * contribution to jobs weight / 100)
The MCA results are presented in Table 7 for a combined sample and in Table 8 for the
East Coast and UK samples. Where all data are combined (Table 7), solar power obtains
the highest total MCA score, meaning it is perceived to be the best when the four criteria
are combined. The solar MCA score is followed in order by gas, nuclear and OWFs.
There are differences between the East Coast and UK samples, however (Table 8). The
UK sample shows the same scoring pattern as the whole sample combined, while the
East Coast sample retains solar as the most preferred electricity source, followed by gas,
but OWFs take third place and nuclear fourth.
19
Table 7: Multi-criteria scores and weights, all data combined
Mean scores
Scoring criteria:
Cost per
unit*
Negative
enviro.
Impact*
Reliability
of supply
Contribution to
UK jobs
Total**
(individual
scores)
4.6
3.5
4.5
6.9
31.2
2.3
3.0
7.4
8.4
25.3
7.9
8.1
3.1
2.7
29.0
8.3
6.7
3.4
2.4
14.4
5.4
5.2
4.7
5.6
Gas
Nuclear
OWF
Solar
Mean weight
Total***
(sample
mean
scores)
5.5
5.2
4.7
5.4
n=164 (all incorrect answers removed)
* Scores for these items have been reversed, so that 10 = cheapest energy source and least negative
environmental impact
** MCA calculated for each individual and mean taken of all MCA scores.
*** Calculated using mean score for each electricity source weighted by mean criteria scores.
Table 8: Multi-criteria scores and weights according to sub-sample
Mean scores
Scoring
criteria:
Sub-sample:
Gas
Nuclear
OWF
Solar
Mean weight
Cost per
unit*
EC
3.8
2.8
5.1
7.2
UK
5.0
3.7
4.3
6.8
Negative
enviro.
Impact*
EC
2.5
3.1
6.8
8.0
UK
2.2
3.0
7.6
8.6
Reliability
of supply
Contribution to
UK jobs
Total**
(individual
scores)
EC
7.8
7.4
3.9
2.6
EC
7.8
6.7
4.5
2.9
EC
5.2
4.9
5.0
5.5
UK
7.9
8.4
2.7
2.7
UK
8.4
6.6
3.0
2.3
UK
5.5
5.3
4.5
5.7
Total***
(sample
mean
scores)
EC
UK
5.4
5.6
4.9
5.3
5.0
4.4
5.3
5.5
30.7 31.4 22.7 26.3 30.1 28.6 16.5 13.6
East coast n=45 and UK n=119 (all incorrect answers removed)
* Scores for these items have been reversed, so that 10 = cheapest energy source and least negative
environmental impact
** MCA calculated for each individual and mean taken of all MCA scores.
*** Calculated using mean score for each electricity source weighted by mean criteria scores.
In terms of criteria, cost per unit is weighted the highest and can therefore be
considered the most important to respondents (Table 7). This is closely followed by
reliability of supply, negative environmental impact and contribution to UK jobs. These
weightings suggest that cost and reliability of supply are approximately twice as
important among respondents as contribution to UK jobs. This pattern is the same in
both the sub-samples, but the East Coast sample puts less weight on environmental
impact and more on contribution to jobs than does the UK sample (Table 8).
Sensitivity analysis can be undertaken by setting criteria to equal 0 in the MCA. The
effect of this on preferences can then be investigated (Figure 4). Calculation of the mean
20
individual MCA scores with the cost per unit criteria set to 0 (i.e. cost is assumed the
same across all electricity sources) means that solar power is no longer the preferred
electricity source. For the East Coast sample it is gas and for the UK sample it is nuclear.
Setting the negative environmental impact criterion to 0 makes gas the preferred
electricity source for both sub-samples. Similarly setting the reliability of supply
criterion to 0 makes solar the preferred electricity source, followed by OWFs, for both
sub-samples. Solar becomes the preferred source for both the East Coast and UK
samples when the contribution to UK jobs criterion is set to 0. This is followed by OWFs
for the East Coast, but nuclear for the UK sample.
When all criteria are included in the MCA, all electricity sources perform relatively
similarly. Differences between them become more apparent as criteria are removed.
OWFs performs particularly badly when costs are considered equal across electricity
sources and when negative environmental impacts are considered equal. This suggests
that for OWFs to become a preferred electricity source, perceptions of reliability of
supply of OWFs in particular (as a more highly weighted criterion) need to be
strengthened, as do perceptions of OWFs contribution to UK jobs.
6.0
5.0
MCA score
4.0
3.0
Gas
2.0
Nuclear
OWF
1.0
Solar
East coast
MCA: jobs=0
MCA: reliab=0
MCA: enviro=0
MCA: cost=0
Total MCA
MCA: jobs=0
MCA: reliab=0
MCA: enviro=0
MCA: cost=0
Total MCA
0.0
UK
Figure 4: Sensitivity analysis of MCA scores indicating how preferences for electricity
sources change when individual criteria are set to 0.
21
4.8 Perceived barriers to further OWF development
Respondents were presented with six potential barriers to future OWF development
(Table 9): the cost of construction, operation and maintenance; environmental impact;
technological constraints; availability of a workforce with the right skills; political
support; and public support. The barrier perceived to be the most significant was
considered to be public support, with 73% of both the UK and East Coast sub-samples
agreeing or strongly agreeing. This was followed by the cost of construction (UK: 67%
and East Coast: 68% agreeing or strongly agreeing) and political support (62% in both
sub-samples agreeing or strongly agreeing). The least important barriers were
considered to be technological constraints and availability of a skilled workforce.
Differences in opinions are apparent between sub-samples. Statistically significant
differences can be seen with respect to cost of construction, environmental impacts,
technological constraints, and availability of workforce with right skills (Chi squared
test, p≤0.05). The UK sample generally sees these barriers to be a greater problem.
Table 9: Responses to question 14: “To what extent do you agree or disagree that the
following are barriers to increased future development of offshore wind farms?
Percentage of respondents*
Strongly
Strongly
No
Don't
No
Disagree Agree
Disagree
Agree opinion know answer
Cost of construction,
operation and
maintenance**
Environmental
impact**
Technological
constraints**
Availability of
workforce with the
right skills**
Political support
Public support
East
Coast
4.1
11.7
48.2
19.0
4.8
10.1
2.1
UK
1.7
12.3
51.1
16.6
4.8
12.9
0.7
East
Coast
8.5
28.7
34.6
12.4
5.3
9.6
0.9
UK
6.2
26.6
41.2
9.0
5.4
11.2
0.4
East
Coast
6.7
29.1
29.4
10.8
6.2
15.8
2.1
UK
5.9
26.6
36.9
7.5
5.7
17.0
0.4
East
Coast
7.6
31.4
33.3
9.9
5.7
11.5
0.7
UK
4.3
27.9
38.3
7.9
5.7
14.9
1.0
East
Coast
3.2
13.5
48.2
14.2
6.9
13.5
0.5
UK
2.9
14.5
45.0
16.8
7.8
12.0
0.9
East
Coast
2.5
10.3
50.2
22.9
4.1
8.7
1.1
UK
2.0
9.1
56.4
17.4
5.4
9.0
0.8
* East coast n=436 and UK n=922
**Using Chi squared tests, responses to these questions show statistically significant differences between
the UK and east coast sub-samples (p≤0.05).
22
5. Discussion
Existing literature on public perceptions of OWFs identifies the main drivers of negative
perceptions of OWFs as visual impacts, concerns over profitability and efficiency,
impacts on ocean values, a disjuncture in the link between local OWFs and climate
change and lack of trust in OWF developers (Busch et al 2011; Devine Wright and
Howes 2010; Gee and Burkhard, 2010; Haggett, 2011; Waldo, 2012). In contrast the
main causes of positive perceptions are reported to be the environmentally benign
nature of OWF with limited harm to wildlife, job creation, economic growth and
community benefits (Gee and Burkhard 2010; Vanhulle et al. 2010; Waldo 2012). All of
these drivers can be linked to the Office for National Statistics (ONS) domains of wellbeing (Randall et al. 2014), be it individual well-being or closely related domains, such
as what we do, where we live and the economy.
5.1 Public perceptions of OWF in UK waters and their impacts on individual wellbeing
A causal relationship between perceptions of OWFs and measures of individual wellbeing such as self-reported health, life satisfaction and impact on quality of life could
not be identified through this survey. This is not to say that the OWF do not impact upon
individual well-being, but that among the sample used in this study there is no
detectable effect. Furthermore, the measures used in this survey (self-reported health,
life satisfaction) are also relatively crude single item measures, while well-being is
complex and multi-faceted. It may be that further investigation into the impacts of
OWFs on specific components of well-being (e.g. perceived restorativeness,
connectedness to nature, and psychological benefits) could generate more nuanced
findings.
This survey does, however, provide a more detailed understanding of the components
of pro- and anti-OWF perceptions. Using exploratory factor analysis, the constituents of
positive perceptions of OWFs were found to include opinions that OWFs benefit the
economy, will support future energy security and modernise the image of the coast.
Economic benefits included, for example, creation of local jobs, financial benefits to local
communities, positive impacts on coastal tourism and the creation of new recreational
activities. Support for future energy security includes opinions that OWFs are an
efficient way to produce electricity, the need for more OWFs to tackle climate change
and reduce our need to import fuel for electricity generation from other countries.
Negative (or anti) OWF perceptions were linked to concerns over impacts on wildlife
and the view as well as concerns about the impact of OWFs on the traditional and
wilderness image of the coast. Concerns about the viability of the offshore wind
industry without Government subsidies and the cost of the electricity produced were
also associated with anti-OWF perceptions. These findings are largely supportive of the
studies of hypothetical OWFs, supporting their validity.
23
Links between pro- and anti-OWF perceptions and socio-demographic variables, as well
as perceptions of electricity sources, energy security and climate change, and
experiences of wind farms (both on and offshore) were also examined. Younger age
groups and those who consider having renewables as part of their energy tariff are
more likely to be associated with pro-OWF perceptions, as are those who have
deliberatively visited a coastal area where an OWF is present. An exploration of the link
between concern for climate change and perceptions of OWFs produces ambiguous
findings. Individuals who are concerned about climate change are found to be
simultaneously more and less in favour of OWFs. In the context of pro-OWF perceptions,
concern about climate change is coupled with a favourable perception of offshore wind,
considering oneself to be well informed about offshore wind and being concerned about
the UK becoming more dependent for energy on other countries. For anti-OWF
perceptions, concern about climate change is coupled with a favourable perception of
coal as a source of energy, an unfavourable perception of offshore wind, concern over
power cuts in the future and attribution of the causes of climate change to mainly or
entirely human activity. It is possible for individuals to hold both pro-and anti-OWF
perceptions at the same time, as indicated by figure 2. It is therefore feasible that
individuals who are concerned about climate change may be both pro- and anti-OWFs.
In the context of anti-OWFs, the energy solutions they may prefer to climate change may
include renewable sources other than OWFs (e.g. solar or biomass).
In general, perceptions of OWFs among the respondents appear to be positive,
irrespective of location and experience of OWFs. The majority of respondents consider
that OWFs do not spoil the view and that they can be considered an efficient way to
produce electricity. This complements the findings of Vanhulle et al. (2010) for Belgian
OWFs. This survey does highlight that lack of trust in developers is a potential problem
for the offshore wind industry however. Respondents were evenly split over the
statement “offshore wind farm developers can be trusted to listen to the communities in
which they operate”, although this statement was associated with pro-OWF perceptions.
This lack of trust has been noted elsewhere in the literature (Aitken 2010a,b; Haggett
2008, 2011) and could partially contribute to the perception that the greatest barrier to
future OWF development is public support.
5.2 The potential role for OWF in the UK’s energy mix and barriers to further
developments
The positive perception of OWFs needs to be put in the context of alternative options for
the generation of electricity. When asked how favourable different electricity sources
are, OWFs score well, and positive support is found for future OWF development. This
disguises the fact that people may perceive that OWFs (and other electricity sources)
perform differently against different components of well-being. This was examined
using multi-criteria analysis in which four electricity sources (gas, nuclear, solar and
OWF) were scored against four criteria (cost per unit, negative environmental impact,
reliability of supply and contribution to UK jobs). This analysis places OWF in fourth
24
position when all responses are considered together (although OWFs are slightly
preferred to nuclear among East Coast respondents). This indicates that despite the
positive perceptions of OWFs, other energy sources are preferred, primarily because
they are considered more reliable. The perceived minimal negative environmental
impact of OWFs does not compensate for a perceived lack of reliability, compounded by
a mediocre score for cost per unit of electricity produced. Offshore wind is also
considered to contribute relatively little to UK jobs compared to gas and nuclear, but
this is perhaps of lesser importance as this criteria was weighted less by respondents.
This finding indicates that the cleaner, greener image of OWFs is traded-off against
concerns over reliability of electricity supply and to a lesser extent concerns about
contribution to jobs and cost per unit of electricity produced. Understanding this tradeoff may be important for garnering public support for future OWF development,
especially as public support was identified in this survey to be the greatest barrier to
future development of OWFs.
5.3 Limitations
The main limitation with this research relates to the small sample sizes used in the
exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and the multi-criteria analysis. In the context of the
EFA and subsequent regression analyses, the small-sample size is a trade-off between
explicitly identifying those who don’t know or have no opinion from those who do
genuinely hold an opinion. This trade-off was considered necessary because, as
anticipated, respondents were very unfamiliar with certain aspects of OWFs and their
impacts. Forcing these individuals to make a guess could have undermined the validity
of the findings. This suggests, however, that larger sample sizes may be necessary to
establish more robust and nationally representative findings. The small proportion of
the sample that correctly completed the multi-criteria analysis is also indicative of the
limited knowledge of electricity generation held by the majority of the respondents.
6. Conclusions
The issues surrounding perceptions of OWFs are complex, and there is a broad range of
opinions amongst survey respondents. While the majority of respondents report that
OWFs have had no impact on their own quality of life, they do hold views on the wider
costs and benefits of OWF development. Positive opinions of OWFs result from
perceptions of positive impacts on the economy through job creation and the
development of new tourism and recreation opportunities, strengthening energy
security and by giving the coast a more modern image. Negative perceptions arise from
concerns over harm to wildlife, the view and the traditional and wilderness image of the
coast. This is augmented by concerns about the cost of electricity production from
OWFs, the viability of the industry without Government subsidies and a lack of trust in
developers. These findings largely support those found in the literature on the potential
impacts of hypothetical OWFs.
25
High levels of support, however, were reported for a significant proportion of UK
electricity to be generated by OWFs. In general, renewable energies were viewed more
favourably than fossil fuels and nuclear, with OWFs ranked third (behind solar and
hydro). Nevertheless, respondents compare the performance of offshore wind
unfavourably with other electricity sources with respect to specific criteria such as cost
per unit and reliability of supply, and this not outweighed by the perceived minimal
environmental impact.
Respondents identified a lack of public support as the most significant barrier to OWF
developments. Improving the perceived reliability of OWFs may go some way to
addressing this issue. This is coupled to a need to improve public awareness about
OWFs and electricity generation more generally, as this survey highlighted that
respondents are often poorly informed. This presents an opportunity for the offshore
wind industry (as well as a significant task) to better inform the public about its
impacts, if it is to capitalise upon the broadly positive attitudes that members of the
public already have towards the industry.
References
Aitken, M. (2010a). Wind power and community benefits: Challenges and opportunities.
Energy Policy 38: 6066-6075.
Aitken, M. (2010b). Why we still don’t understand the social aspects of wind power: a
critique of key assumptions within the literature. Energy Policy 38: 1834-1841.
Busch, M., Gee, K., Burkhard, B., Lange, M. and Stelljes, N. (2011). Conceptualizing the
link between marine ecosystem services and human well-being: the case of
offshore wind farming. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem
Services & Management, 7(3): 190-203.
Cass, N., Walker, G. and Devine-Wright, P. (2010). Good neighbours, public relations and
bribes: the politics and perceptions of community benefit provision in renewable
energy development in the UK. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning,
12(3): 255-275.
DCLG. (2009) Multi-Criteria Analysis: A Manual. Department for Communities and Local
Government. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/12761/1/Multi-criteria_Analysis.pdf
(accessed 05/08/15).
DECC. (2015). DECC Public Attitudes Tracker – Wave 14. Summary of Key Findings.
August 2015. Department of Energy and Climate Change
Devine-Wright, P. and Howes, Y. (2010). Disruption to place attachment and the
protection of restorative environments: A wind energy case study. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 30(3): 271-280.
Gee, K. (2010) Offshore wind power development as affected by seascape values on the
German North Sea coast. Land Use Policy 27(2): 185-194.
26
Gee, K. and Burkhard, B. (2010). Cultural ecosystem services in the context of offshore
wind farming: a case study from the west coast of Schleswig-Holstein. Ecological
Complexity, 7(3): 349-358.
Haggett, C. (2008) Over the sea and far away? A consideration of the planning, politics
and public perceptions of offshore wind farms. Journal of Environmental Policy
and Planning 10 (3), 289-306.
Haggett, C. (2011). Understanding public responses to offshore wind power. Energy
Policy, 39(2), 503-510.
Hair, J. F., Black, B., Babin, B., Anderson, R. E. and Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate Data
Analysis. 6th ed. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson.
Hattam, C., Hooper, T. and Papathanasopoulou, E. (2015). Understanding the Impacts of
Offshore Windfarms on Well-being. Unpublished report prepared for The Crown
Estate
Infomart GfK (2008)The Perception of the Windfarm off the Coast of Egmond. Report
prepared for NoordzeeWind, Amsterdam.
Kempton, W., Firestone, J., Liley, J., Rouleau, T. and Whitaker, P. (2005) The offshore
wind power debate: views from Cape Cod. Coastal Management 33: 119-149.
Ladenburg, J. (2010). Attitudes towards offshore wind farms: the role of beach visits on
attitude and demographic and attitude relations. Energy Policy, 38(3): 12971304.
Maniaci, M. R., & Rogge, R. D. (2014). Caring about carelessness: Participant inattention
and its effects on research. Journal of Research in Personality, 48, 61-83.
Poortinga W., Pidgeon, N.F. and Lorenzoni, I. (2006). Public Perceptions of Nuclear
Power, Climate Change and Energy Options in Britain: Summary Findings of a
Survey Conducted during October and November 2005. Technical Report
(Understanding Risk Working Paper 06-02). Norwich: Centre for Environmental
Risk.
Randall, C., Corp, A. and Self, A. (2014). Measuring National Well-being: Life in the UK,
2014. Office for National Statistics.
Sorensen, L.K., Hammarlund, K. and Larsten, J.H. (2002) Experience with and strategies
for public involvement in offshore wind projects. International Journal of
Environmental and Sustainable Development 1(4): 327-336.
Spence, A., Venables, D., Pidgeon, N., Poortinga, W. and Demski, C. (2010) Public
perceptions of climate change and energy futures in Britain: Summary Findings
of a Survey Conducted from January to March 2010. Technical report
(Understanding Risk Working Paper 10-01). Cardiff: School of Psychology.
Sturgis, P., Roberts, C., & Smith, P. (2014). Middle Alternatives Revisited How the
neither/nor Response Acts as a Way of Saying “I Don’t Know”? Sociological
Methods & Research, 43(1), 15-38.
Teisl, M., McCoy, S., Marrinan, S., Noblet, C., Johnson, T., Wibberly, M., Roper, R. and
Klein, S. (2015). Will offshore energy face “fair winds and following seas”?
Understanding the factors influencing offshore wind acceptance. Estuaries and
Coasts 38 (Suppl 1):S279-S286.
27
Vanhulle, A., Houthave R.and Di Marcantonio, M. (2010). Seascape and socio-economic
study: final results. In: Degraer, S.; Brabant, R.; Rumes, B. (Ed.) (2010). Offshore
wind farms in the Belgian part of the North Sea: Early environmental impact
assessment and spatio-temporal variability. Royal Belgian Institute of Natural
Sciences. Management Unit of the North Sea Mathematical Models. Marine
Ecosystem Management Unit: Brussel. pp. 165-186
Waldo, Å. (2012). Offshore wind power in Sweden-A qualitative analysis of attitudes
with particular focus on opponents. Energy Policy, 41: 692-702.
28
Annex 1: Survey findings by question
Key: green = highly significant (p≤0.01)
yellow = significant (0.01<p≤0.05)
orange = slightly significant (0.05<p≤0.1)
Section 1. Your views about energy security and climate change
Q1. How concerned are you, if at all, about the following?
Percentage of respondents
Electricity will
become
unaffordable in
the future
There will be
power cuts in
the future
The UK will
become too
dependent on
energy from
other countries
In the future
supplies of fossil
fuels (e.g. coal,
oil and gas) will
run out
That the UK will
not meet its
renewable
energy targets
The UK not
investing fast
enough in
alternative
sources of
energy
Very
concerned
Fairly
concerned
Not very
concerned
Not at all
concerned
No
opinion
Don't
know
No
answer
East
Coast
27.5
42.7
20.0
4.1
2.1
3.0
0.7
UK
28.4
42.3
20.0
5.5
0.9
2.6
0.3
East
Coast
17.4
40.8
28.2
8.0
1.4
3.4
0.7
UK
21.0
40.8
24.8
8.6
2.1
2.2
0.5
East
Coast
32.8
44.5
14.7
3.4
1.8
2.8
0.0
UK
30.4
43.5
15.9
5.0
1.7
2.6
0.9
East
Coast
29.6
42.7
20.6
4.8
0.9
1.4
0.0
UK
27.1
44.0
18.9
6.9
1.2
1.2
0.7
East
Coast
17.4
38.8
24.8
10.8
3.0
4.6
0.7
UK
19.4
39.6
24.3
10.3
3.8
2.4
0.2
East
Coast
28.9
45.2
15.6
5.5
1.1
3.0
0.7
UK
29.0
44.7
15.7
5.4
2.1
2.8
0.3
Q2. How concerned, if at all, are you about climate change (sometimes referred to
as global warming)?
Percentage of respondents
Very
concerned
Fairly
concerned
Not very
concerned
Not at all
concerned
No
opinion
Don't
know
No
answer
East Coast
22.0
43.3
22.2
11.0
0.9
0.2
0.2
UK
26.2
44.9
17.9
9.8
0.7
0.4
0.1
29
Q3. Thinking about the causes of climate change, which, if any, of the following
best describes your opinion?
% of respondents
East Coast
UK
Climate change is entirely caused by natural processes
4.4
4.8
Climate change is mainly caused by natural processes
9.6
11.4
Climate change is equally caused by natural processes and by
human activity
42.0
33.9
Climate change is mainly caused by human activity
33.3
38.1
Climate change is entirely caused by human activity
4.1
5.1
I think there is no such thing as climate change
3.9
2.6
No opinion
1.4
1.8
Don’t know
1.1
2.2
No answer
0.2
0.1
Section 2. Your views about energy technologies
Q4. How favourable or unfavourable are your overall opinions or impressions of
the following energy sources for producing electricity currently?
coal
oil
nuclear
natural
gas
fracking
Percentage of respondents
Never
Mainly
Very
heard
unfavourable unfavourable
of it
No
opinion
Don't
know
No
answer
0.2
6.2
3.9
0.7
21.8
0.9
4.9
2.5
0.7
33.0
15.6
0.7
6.2
4.8
1.1
30.4
34.4
16.8
1.0
5.5
3.5
1.4
15.6
30.3
19.5
23.9
0.5
3.4
5.0
1.8
UK
15.2
26.9
24.2
21.6
1.4
3.9
5.7
1.1
East
Coast
17.0
47.7
14.4
8.3
1.6
5.3
5.3
0.5
UK
17.8
47.1
17.6
5.4
2.3
5.2
3.9
0.8
East
Coast
7.1
23.6
21.3
30.7
3.4
7.1
6.0
0.7
UK
8.6
19.6
23.3
28.4
4.1
7.5
7.8
0.7
Very
favourable
Mainly
favourable
East
Coast
7.3
27.1
34.2
20.4
UK
7.4
26.7
35.2
East
Coast
7.8
30.7
UK
7.0
East
Coast
30
Percentage of respondents
Never
Mainly
Very
heard
unfavourable unfavourable
of it
No
opinion
Don't
know
No
answer
4.4
3.7
3.2
0.5
4.0
5.2
5.2
4.4
0.9
3.2
1.8
5.0
4.1
4.1
0.7
36.3
4.2
1.4
6.5
3.6
3.0
1.3
32.3
38.1
4.6
1.8
9.9
6.0
7.1
0.2
UK
32.4
34.9
6.2
1.7
14.8
4.2
5.1
0.7
East
Coast
39.4
42.0
2.8
2.5
4.8
3.7
4.1
0.7
UK
42.6
35.5
5.3
2.3
5.9
3.8
3.9
0.8
solar
East
Coast
53.7
37.2
3.4
1.8
0.0
2.5
1.1
0.2
UK
57.9
31.7
4.8
1.5
0.4
1.8
1.2
0.7
hydro
East
Coast
45.9
43.1
3.0
0.5
1.4
3.2
2.5
0.5
UK
50.2
35.5
4.2
1.4
2.1
2.8
2.8
1.0
East
Coast
32.6
41.3
11.7
8.9
1.1
2.8
0.9
0.7
UK
37.7
38.7
10.6
7.4
0.5
2.6
2.0
0.4
Very
favourable
Mainly
favourable
biomass
East
Coast
27.3
49.1
8.7
3.2
UK
25.8
43.5
11.0
wave
East
Coast
42.9
38.1
UK
43.6
East
Coast
tidal
lagoons
tidal
current
onshore
wind
offshore
wind
East
Coast
45.2
37.8
7.3
5.0
0.2
2.5
1.1
0.7
UK
48.0
35.0
5.7
4.1
1.0
3.3
2.2
0.7
Q5.What proportion of your electricity would you like to be provided by wind
power generated at sea?
% of respondents
East Coast
UK
0%
5.5
2.9
up to 5%
2.3
3.3
between 5% and 10%
6.4
9.7
between 10% and 15%
10.6
10.7
between 15% and 20%
10.1
11.2
between 20% and 30%
9.9
12.6
between 30% and 50%
17.7
13.3
over 50%
24.3
20.7
Don't know
13.3
15.5
31
Q6. In your opinion, how do you think the different methods of generating
electricity currently compare in terms of the cost per unit of electricity produced?
Each energy source scored from 0 to 10, where 10 = high cost, environmental impact,
reliability and contribution to jobs
% of respondents
Gas
Score
EC
Nuclear
UK
EC
OWF
UK
EC
Solar
UK
EC
UK
0
14
12
3
5
5
5
11
13
1
8
7
3
3
6
6
9
7
2
15
13
6
4
9
8
13
11
3
14
12
5
6
12
9
10
9
4
10
12
6
10
10
11
9
10
5
16
16
15
14
16
15
15
13
6
10
7
11
11
9
11
6
10
7
5
8
13
11
11
10
10
8
8
3
3
16
12
8
10
7
7
9
2
2
7
9
6
5
3
5
10
3
7
15
16
10
10
6
6
Q7. In your opinion, how do you think the different methods of generating
electricity currently compare in terms of negative environmental impact?
% of respondents
Gas
EC
Nuclear
UK
EC
OWF
UK
EC
Solar
UK
EC
UK
0
17
18
25
24
3
5
4
4
1
9
9
7
11
3
3
1
2
2
13
14
12
10
4
4
4
3
3
15
14
12
9
4
5
6
3
4
13
11
8
9
6
5
4
5
5
15
15
11
13
12
9
9
8
6
5
7
7
7
8
10
6
7
7
5
7
4
5
9
13
9
7
8
4
3
7
5
17
15
11
13
9
1
1
3
3
18
15
17
18
10
3
2
4
4
16
16
29
30
32
Q8. In your opinion, how do you think the different methods of generating
electricity currently compare in terms of how reliable they are in producing
electricity day-to-day?
% of respondents
Gas
EC
Nuclear
UK
EC
OWF
UK
EC
Solar
UK
EC
UK
0
2
2
4
3
9
9
9
11
1
1
0
2
1
3
4
6
4
2
2
2
2
3
6
7
8
7
3
4
3
3
3
8
8
5
11
4
4
5
5
5
12
12
10
10
5
13
11
12
10
17
19
20
18
6
8
10
7
9
13
13
11
13
7
15
15
13
12
12
10
9
8
8
16
22
17
17
8
8
9
6
9
16
14
12
13
6
5
6
5
10
19
17
24
24
6
5
7
7
Q9. In your opinion, how do you think the different methods of generating
electricity currently compare in terms of their contribution to providing UK jobs?
% of respondents
Gas
EC
Nuclear
UK
EC
OWF
UK
EC
Solar
UK
EC
UK
0
2
2
3
3
5
8
10
9
1
1
1
3
1
7
6
7
6
2
1
2
4
3
8
8
9
10
3
3
3
4
5
11
10
12
11
4
8
6
7
8
13
11
12
14
5
17
15
17
18
19
22
19
19
6
12
13
11
13
9
12
11
10
7
18
15
15
16
12
9
8
7
8
16
16
15
14
7
6
4
6
9
7
8
9
8
3
3
4
4
10
15
19
13
11
7
5
5
4
33
Q10. How important to you are each of the four criteria you have just considered?
Each criteria is scored on a scale from 0 to 100, scores across the four criteria should
add to 100
Mean weight
(all data
combined)
Mean weight
(per subsample)
East
UK
Coast
Cost per unit
Negative environmental
impact
31.2
Reliability of supply
Contribution to UK jobs
Cost per unit
Negative environmental
impact
30.7
31.4
22.7
26.3
29.0
Reliability of supply
30.1
28.6
14.4
Contribution to UK jobs
16.5
13.6
25.3
Section 3. Your views about offshore wind farms: wind power from turbines at sea
Q11. How well informed do you think you are about the generation of wind power
from turbines at sea (also called offshore wind farms)?
% of respondents
East Coast
Very well informed
UK
4.4
4.4
Well informed
11.9
11.4
Quite well informed
34.9
28.6
Not very well informed
43.1
45.9
5.5
9.2
Not at all informed
34
Q12. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about
the impacts of offshore wind farms?
Percentage of respondents
Strongly
Agree
No
opinion
24.5
4.4
3.9
15.8
0.5
40.7
24.9
3.5
5.2
17.4
0.3
15.1
39.7
23.4
13.8
3.9
3.7
0.5
UK
13.9
33.1
30.5
11.7
5.3
5.0
0.5
Offshore wind farms
harm people’s
health
East
Coast
39.0
41.1
4.4
2.5
3.2
8.7
1.1
UK
35.4
38.2
6.4
3.1
4.1
11.9
0.9
The development of
offshore wind farms
contributes
significantly to the
UK economy
East
Coast
5.0
12.4
48.4
19.3
4.4
10.3
0.2
UK
2.7
12.4
43.4
16.4
6.8
17.9
0.2
The development of
offshore wind farms
creates local jobs
East
Coast
3.0
16.5
50.0
17.2
3.2
9.4
0.7
UK
2.4
13.0
49.9
14.9
5.4
14.2
0.2
Local communities
benefit financially
from offshore wind
developments
East
Coast
7.3
18.1
41.3
12.2
3.9
16.7
0.5
UK
3.7
16.1
37.4
11.5
7.7
22.8
0.9
Offshore wind farms
negatively affect
fishermen’s incomes
East
Coast
5.7
33.5
20.6
5.7
7.1
26.8
0.5
UK
6.3
27.5
18.7
7.4
8.0
31.6
0.5
Offshore wind farms
have a positive
effect on coastal
tourism
East
Coast
12.2
36.5
13.3
4.1
14.9
17.9
1.1
UK
13.6
31.6
14.8
6.2
12.6
20.8
0.5
Offshore wind farms
are an efficient way
to generate
electricity
East
Coast
8.5
11.5
42.0
24.5
3.0
10.3
0.2
UK
3.8
8.4
47.1
23.8
4.7
11.7
0.7
Offshore wind farms
harm wildlife
Offshore wind farms
spoil the view
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
East
Coast
8.9
42.0
UK
8.0
East
Coast
Agree
Don't
know
No
answer
35
Q13. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about
the future development of offshore wind farms?
Percentage of respondents
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
No
opinion
Don't
know
No
answer
It is only through the
construction of offshore
wind farms that the UK
will meet its renewable
energy targets
East
Coast
6.2
16.7
41.7
12.2
4.4
18.6
0.2
UK
4.9
16.4
36.1
10.6
8.8
22.2
1.0
We need more offshore
wind farms to tackle
climate change
East
Coast
7.8
10.3
43.3
21.3
5.7
10.6
0.9
UK
5.9
8.5
42.6
22.7
8.6
11.5
0.3
More offshore wind farms
would reduce our need to
import fuel for generating
electricity from other
countries
East
Coast
5.3
7.8
51.4
23.6
2.8
8.9
0.2
UK
3.5
6.7
52.4
21.8
5.1
10.0
0.5
The electricity produced
by offshore wind farms is
too expensive
East
Coast
4.8
23.6
21.6
11.0
6.7
32.1
0.2
UK
4.7
23.6
15.7
8.4
9.1
38.0
0.5
Offshore wind farms are
not viable without
subsidies from the
government
East
Coast
4.6
13.3
34.2
13.5
4.8
29.4
0.2
UK
2.5
15.4
31.9
11.9
8.0
29.5
0.8
I would strongly oppose an
offshore wind farm built
near where I live or go on
holiday
East
Coast
28.0
39.4
10.6
10.6
5.3
5.7
0.5
UK
22.1
36.6
13.9
8.9
8.7
8.7
1.2
East
Coast
30.7
38.3
9.4
9.6
4.8
6.4
0.7
UK
30.3
36.2
9.2
6.1
8.1
9.5
0.5
We should stop building
offshore wind farms
The benefits of offshore
wind farms outweigh the
disadvantages
East
Coast
7.3
10.1
46.1
19.3
2.3
14.2
0.7
UK
4.9
8.4
43.1
21.1
6.6
15.4
0.5
We should only build
offshore wind farms if they
are not visible from land
East
Coast
17.2
42.7
18.6
9.2
6.2
5.5
0.7
UK
14.5
36.8
22.1
8.1
10.7
7.2
0.5
Offshore wind farm
developers can be trusted
to listen to the
communities in which they
operate
East
Coast
14.7
26.8
24.5
5.7
8.7
18.6
0.9
8.8
23.2
26.0
5.4
11.2
24.9
0.4
UK
36
Q14. To what extent do you agree or disagree that the following are barriers
to increased future development of offshore wind farms?
Percentage of respondents
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
No
opinion
Don't
know
No
answer
East
Coast
4.1
11.7
48.2
19.0
4.8
10.1
2.1
UK
1.7
12.3
51.1
16.6
4.8
12.9
0.7
Environmental impact
East
Coast
8.5
28.7
34.6
12.4
5.3
9.6
0.9
UK
6.2
26.6
41.2
9.0
5.4
11.2
0.4
Technological constraints
East
Coast
6.7
29.1
29.4
10.8
6.2
15.8
2.1
UK
5.9
26.6
36.9
7.5
5.7
17.0
0.4
East
Coast
7.6
31.4
33.3
9.9
5.7
11.5
0.7
UK
4.3
27.9
38.3
7.9
5.7
14.9
1.0
East
Coast
3.2
13.5
48.2
14.2
6.9
13.5
0.5
UK
2.9
14.5
45.0
16.8
7.8
12.0
0.9
East
Coast
2.5
10.3
50.2
22.9
4.1
8.7
1.1
UK
2.0
9.1
56.4
17.4
5.4
9.0
0.8
Cost of construction,
operation and
maintenance
Availability of workforce
with the right skills
Political support
Public support
Q14a. What other barriers, if any, do you think there may be to future increased
development of offshore wind farms?
Key themes emerging as barriers include:
For the East Coast








Preferences for other sources of electricity over OWF (e.g. shale gas or tidal
energy)
The cost of OWF construction, including non-monetary costs such as carbon
footprints
Visual impacts and community dissatisfaction
Energy companies unwilling to invest in OWF/lack of industrial backing
Public backing
Climate change meaning OWF become unviable due to e.g. increased storminess
Concerns over the efficiency of OWFs
Concerns over impacts on other industries (e.g. fisheries and shipping)
37
In addition to the above, the UK sub-sample also identified:











Availability of suitable sights.
Turbine reliability and efficiency
Security of installations
Europe and its dictates
Global financial collapse.
Lack of infrastructure to move electricity from the turbine to the Grid
Lack of political backing
Lack of skilled workforce
Lack of willing investors
Lack of wind
Short-comings in the supply chain
Section 4. Your experience of wind farms (both on land and at sea)
Q15. Have you seen a wind farm?
% of respondents
East Coast
UK
On land
88.3
85.4
At sea
83.7
56.8
Q16. Can you see a wind farm from your home?
% of respondents
East Coast
UK
On land
14.4
14.0
At sea
24.3
3.6
Q17. Have you ever taken part in the following recreational activities within an
offshore wind farm?
% of respondents
East Coast
UK
Angling
Scuba
diving
Sailing
4.8
4.6
2.5
3.1
5.7
4.7
Boat trip
13.8
11.6
5.5
3.0
Other*
* responses received for “Other” were generally things like walking that related to onshore wind. Realistic
possibilities were kayaking, flying and surfing
38
Q18. In planning a visit to the coast, have you ever deliberately visited an area
because there are offshore wind turbines visible from the shore?
% of respondents
East Coast
UK
Yes
8.0
8.7
No
92.0
91.3
Q19. In planning a visit to the coast, have you ever deliberately avoided visiting
an area because there are offshore wind turbines visible from the shore?
% of respondents
East Coast
UK
Yes
5.7
5.1
No
94.3
94.9
Q20. Do you or anyone in your family work in the offshore wind energy industry
(e.g. in the research and development, planning, construction, operation and
maintenance of offshore wind turbines?)
% of respondents
East Coast
UK
Yes
2.5
3.3
No
97.5
96.7
Q21. Have any community projects in your area received funding from an
offshore wind farm developer?
% of respondents
East Coast
Yes
No
Don’t
know
No
answer
UK
7.3
3.7
33.7
54.6
58.7
41.1
0.2
0.7
39
Q22. What are the community project(s) that have received funding from an
offshore wind farm developer?
Responses include (nonsensical responses removed):
East Coast



a farm and fishing development near Mablethorpe, lincolnshire
Cannot remember but Great Yarmouth has a lot to do with this type of thing and
up and coming future projects.
charitable participation
clacton wind turbines
development in the town
general community funding
harwich quay
Local Docks
local farms on cliff tops
Local Training Centre
MO Museum Sheringham. Grants to community
Not sure of any names but locally inland and on coast wind farms development is
ongoing.
Not sure what project got the money, but an offshore wind farm is being built
were I live and when the company runs over they give a sum of money to a
community fund.
Park
Redcar Offshore Windfarm
Sailing club
the local rnli have received money to move their headquarters due to the
location of our wind farm which is right on the coast
unsure of name but it was in the local newspaper















Boys brigade, local under 15s football team
Caerphilly Big Cheese Annual Event
Children's charity
community hall and school
Financial support for the local community
Forest centre
I am not sure but I know there are some
I can't remember though I did see it mentioned in the local press
Local school - And activity centres
Local scouts groups
Opening up the countryside. Yet another invasive deterioration
RenewableUK
talk of county down coast line
tourism projects in Conwy
WindUK















UK
40
Q23. What effect, if any, has this community project, or projects, had on you?
Responses include (nonsensical responses removed):
East Coast











a good one
Better informed about the projects.
I am employed by a company that was directly linked to the building of them.
Involved RNLI who I do voluntary work for
less jobs as project closed
none, lower council bills
not a lot, a nicer town to visit perhaps
Not affected me at all. I am pleased that something is going to happen
(hopefully) without people complaining about "blots on the landscape".
Windmills are lovely to watch and makes me feel good that natural resources are
being used to create electricity. I would love one in my garden just for my use of
household electricity and hopefully one day every house hold will have their own
windmill.
Not sure yet but sure we will benefit.
Some complain about the view but a pragmatic approach is held by myself and
most people I know.
unsightly complaints
UK







helped us to provide a better communty given funding for fun days ect
lower electricity prices
More increase on energy from a renewable source
Positive Effect. Very positive effect.
progressive lifestyle
Slightly improvement in school facilities
the major breakdown on the cost of electric being generated instead of using
products that cannot be reused.
41
Q24. To what extent do you agree or disagree to the following statements about
offshore wind farms?
Percentage of respondents
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
13.8
20.0
Strongly
Agree
No
opinion
38.3
7.6
15.6
3.9
0.9
Agree
Don't
know
No
answer
Offshore wind farms
give the coast a modern
image
East
Coast
UK
7.8
22.5
34.5
7.4
19.4
7.8
0.7
Offshore wind farms
create new recreational
opportunities (e.g. boat
trips, viewing)
East
Coast
9.4
16.3
41.7
7.1
11.2
14.0
0.2
UK
5.9
18.8
37.4
7.5
13.2
16.9
0.3
Offshore wind farms
improve the quality of
recreational experiences
East
Coast
10.6
26.4
17.0
3.7
22.5
19.5
0.5
UK
8.5
26.6
16.1
4.2
22.0
22.5
0.2
Offshore wind farms
have a negative impact
on sea birds and
mammals
East
Coast
7.1
26.8
23.2
10.3
6.0
26.1
0.5
UK
5.3
25.3
24.2
7.8
7.3
29.7
0.4
Offshore wind farms are
beneficial to
commercially important
fish and shellfish species
East
Coast
7.3
20.9
15.6
3.9
11.7
40.1
0.5
UK
5.5
15.9
15.9
4.6
13.9
43.2
1.0
Offshore wind farms
detract from the
traditional image of the
coast
East
Coast
8.5
32.1
29.1
17.4
7.6
4.8
0.5
UK
5.5
25.2
37.9
13.7
9.7
7.9
0.2
Offshore wind farms
negatively affect the
wilderness image of the
sea
East
Coast
9.4
33.5
24.1
14.4
8.7
9.4
0.5
UK
7.4
28.1
29.4
11.2
10.8
12.4
0.8
Q25. What impact, if any, have offshore wind farms had on your quality of life?
% of respondents
East Coast
Strong positive
impact
Positive impact
No impact
Negative impact
Strong negative
impact
Don’t know
UK
2.5
2.4
6.0
10.5
82.1
76.5
5.3
2.3
0.5
0.8
3.4
7.4
42
Section 5. Information about you
Q26. Approximately how often do you visit the UK coast in a typical year?
% of respondents
East Coast
I live by the coast
UK
62.4
12.1
Daily
2.1
1.2
Weekly
6.2
3.3
Fortnightly
3.4
3.3
Monthly
4.1
7.9
6-10 times per year
6.9
10.2
2-5 times per year
9.6
30.6
Once per year
2.3
14.4
Less than once per year
I have never visited the UK
coast
2.3
14.4
0.5
2.3
Q27. When you visit the UK coast, do you typically take part in any of the
following activities?
% of respondents
East Coast
UK
Walking
91.3
87.0
Relaxing on the beach
57.3
66.2
Swimming
20.0
25.5
3.0
4.4
Angling/crabbing
12.6
8.4
Wildlife watching
34.4
27.4
Non-powered water sports (e.g. kayaking, wind surfing,
sailing)
6.2
6.2
Powered water sports (e.g. waterskiing, jetskiing, power
boating)
2.8
3.0
Snorkelling/scuba diving
Q28. What is the first half of your postcode?
43
Q29. Are you...?
% of respondents
East Coast
UK
Male
47.0
48.9
Female
52.8
50.9
Q30. What is your age?
% of respondents
East Coast
UK
18-24
8.9
11.1
25-34
14.7
19.2
35-44
14.7
18.7
45-54
21.6
16.4
55-64
23.4
22.2
Over 65
16.7
12.3
Q31. How dissatisfied or satisfied are you with your life overall? (where 1 means
not satisfied at all and 7 means completely satisfied)
% of respondents
East Coast
UK
1 (not satisfied at all)
1.4
1.3
2
3.0
3.8
3
7.8
5.9
4
13.3
12.5
5
28.7
32.8
6
34.2
31.3
7 (completely satisfied)
11.2
12.4
44
Q32. Over the last 12 months would you say your health has on the whole been...?
% of respondents
East Coast
UK
Not good
19.3
16.5
Fairly good
52.5
50.3
Good
28.0
33.2
Q33. How many people in your household are in each of the following age groups?
Average number per household
East Coast
UK
Under 18
0.5
0.6
18-64
1.8
1.8
Over 65
0.4
0.4
All occupants
2.5
2.7
Q34. What is your household's yearly total income (before tax and other
deductions)?
% of respondents
East Coast
UK
Under £10,000
14.4
11.0
£10,000 - £19,999
25.9
18.7
£20,000 - £29,999
22.0
21.7
£30,000 - £39,999
14.4
20.0
£40,000 - £49,999
11.9
10.5
£50,000 or more
10.8
16.6
Q35. Are you responsible for paying the energy bills for your household?
% of respondents
East Coast
Yes
80.7
UK
81.0
Q36. Have you ever switched energy supplier?
% of respondents
East Coast
Yes
65.6
UK
63.4
45
Q37. Why did you switch?
% of responses
East Coast
UK
The new supplier was cheaper
62.0
61.0
To increase the proportion of
energy from renewable sources
2.7
4.1
13.2
12.3
5.0
6.9
15.1
13.5
2.0
2.1
Poor customer service
Inaccurate billing
Moving house
No reason given
Q38. How important is it to you that your energy tariff includes energy generated
from renewable sources?
% of respondents
East Coast
UK
Very important
11.2
15.2
Important
39.9
39.8
Unimportant
17.9
15.3
6.0
6.6
No opinion
18.8
15.8
Don't know
6.2
6.7
No answer
11.2
15.2
Very unimportant
46
Q39. Do you have any further comments about how electricity is produced in the
UK, or offshore wind farms?
In addition to comments on offshore wind farms, a large number of comments were also
received in favour of solar, nuclear and to a lesser extent tidal power. A small number of
comments on the need to revive the coal industry were also made.
Selected East Coast comments:














I wish there was more alternatives generated electricity. We need to harness as
much natural power as possible, to protect our environment and also because
fossil fuels have a limited supply.
As I have said before, when taking in to account the energy used to produce and
maintain wind turbines they are not a low carbon production of energy. The
maintenance at sea of these things is going to be extremely costly in money and
carbon emissions, when taking into account the manufacture erection and the
maintenance; spare parts, travel to the turbines etc. There are better alternatives
to wind turbines on land or sea.
Hopefully there will be more of it to save the environment
I don’t see a problem with offshore windfarms. I think they are visually pleasant.
I feel that more of the electricity that we use should be from wind farms
i HATE the offshore wind farms - the beach near me use to be beautiful and
peaceful now when i visit the wind farm is large ugly and oppressive - I have
stopped visiting that beach which is a shame as I had regularly visited the beach
for over 10 years
i hope all the negative publicity about the cost of production of energy from wind
farms is not accurate and they will produce energy at an affordable price after
the initial costs as in my opinion we have already raped the earth of fuel sources
and will run out of coal gas etc and be back to Fred Flintstone times very soon
whether wind farms are with us or not
I personally think that the offshore wind farms can look very futuristic and quite
stunning.
I see a large offshore wind farm everyday while walking the dog. I can
understand why some people do not like the sight of them, but we need
renewable energy for the future.
I think all this moaning about wind farms are pointless and egoistic.
I think it is important to educate on the relative efficiencies of different
electricity supplies and to teach more of the general principles in schools.
It would be good if wind turbines could be much more community owned - so if
my village had its own turbine I feel the perceived impact of the turbine would
be less to the local community since the benefits would be felt. With the current
set up of groups of turbines I would imagine people feel that they are been
singled out to provide the nation though in reality that is probably not the case.
Perhaps if our statement showed the percentage of how the electricity company
gets its electric more people might take more of an interest. I tend not to trust
what is shown in the statement at present because it is too complicated, maybe a
quarterly or half yearly report would make people think more about this
The biggest problem is that foreign companies control our power supplies to
make money for foreign governments and investors. We need to out law this and
47


take our power back in to UK control. Unfortunately the only real solution for UK
power needs that will not be dependent on other countries is nuclear
the greater need far outweighs any other argument either for or against.
They will become part of the landscape and largely unnoticed. I am sure that in
the past, this applied to windmills here in Norfolk. Now that many have
disappeared the ones left are tourist attractions. When they were built, locals
may have disliked them too!
Selected UK comments:














A push needs to be made to switch our existing nuclear reactors into thorium
fuelled reactors. The initial cost will be high, but will be quickly earned back, and
this type of reactor is impossible to meltdown or weaponise.
As well as the traditional windfarms, they should develop wind tunnels with the
ability to harness the power of the wind. - in mountainous regions of the
highlands for example.
Change is always happening. - - If wind turbines are the answer i would rather
see the landscape change for green energy that being destroyed by pollution and
ugly power plants
don't know why people have such negative opinions of them, far safer than
nuclear energy, and better looking than ugly electrical pylons in housing areas
damaging health and throughout the countryside
Down with wind farms. Awful things.
Energy companies should have more compulsion to use renewables, and there
should be increasingly less subsidies for non renewables and more for
renewables..
Forget Wind turbines completely. Nuclear is the way forward with such limited
impact yet great job creation
get rid of all of them they are highly inefficient and cost the taxpayer a lot of
money into PRIVATE businesses pockets
Hope there are no blackouts because of a shortage
I don't think that it is fair the 'greener' energy costs more than fossil fuels - it
seems wrong that the consumer should have to pay more to save the planet energy producers should constantly try and use renewable energy as their duty,
rather than charge us extra for the privilege
I feel more emphasis should be placed upon means of reducing our demand for
electricity, such as higher energy efficiency standards (ie, insulation) in
construction of homes and commercial buildings, including, where practicable,
renewal energy technologies such as ground/air source heating, solar panel
roofs, etc.
I think more enlightenment should be done regarding the development of
offshore wind farms. They're highly reliable and cost efficient in the long run. For
starters, there's always wind out at sea so energy generation is more or less
guaranteed. The fact that wind farms have low negative impact on the
environment makes their development something everyone should consider.
I think some sacrifices have to made; we can keep using the NIMBY argument,
but eventually there will be nothing nice left to preserve. I would welcome a
wind farm near me, on-shore or off-shore
I think the turbines should be manufactured and constructed in the UK.
48









I think they give an air of mystery to the sea and I love them. I had a lovely view
of them where I previously had a beach hut.
i would like to learn more, maybe see a bit more about it in adverts on tv.
just bewilderment at the brain-dead morons who would prefer to have Gazprom
supplying us with energy rather than having wind turbines or fracking 'spoiling
their view' ...... and the spineless gutless appeasers who sit in Westminster
churning out their sanctimonious drivel afraid to upset the apple cart
renewables can't grow until government stops subsidising nuclear and fossil
fuels(currently globally direct financial support to the fossil fuel industry
amounts to $492 billion per year) and invests in wind, wave,.
solar, etc.
So long as profit is the prime motivator of energy generation, the lowest cost
energy (cradle to grave cost) will be preferred, even if that means importing coal
or gas from halfway around the world. As such renewable sources cannot
compete with gas. Energy is a necessity and in the UK we have sufficient option
to invest in higher cost renewable sources if we maintain the bulk of the work
required within the UK. The higher costs will directly benefit the economy via
wage packets and we will maintain control of the technical skills required for
their development.
The government should make increasing the percentage of energy supplied from
renewable sources a priority. They should also keep the green levy on energy
bills.
We don't need more wind farms. We need to invest in power storage systems.
Wind farms, whether on land or offshore are a monumental con and only benefit
the owners and operators of the site. Government subsidies to them should stop
altogether.
49
London
The Crown Estate
16 New Burlington Place
London
W1S 2HX
T 020 7851 5000
Edinburgh
The Crown Estate
6 Bell’s Brae
Edinburgh
EH4 3BJ
T 0131 260 6070
Glenlivet
Main Street
Tomintoul
Banffshire
AB37 9EX
T 01479 870 070
Windsor
The Crown Estate
The Great Park
Windsor, Berkshire
SL4 2HT
T 01753 860 222
www.thecrownestate.co.uk
@TheCrownEstate
ISBN: 978-1-906410-66-7