Landscapes are an important tourism resource, so it is unrealistic for tourism stakeholders to offer unequivocal support for wind farms. For this reason, battles to stop wind farm development around tourism attractions continue, while at the same time opinions about wind farms continue to diverge. For example, there is opposition to the recently erected wind turbine on Grouse Mountain in Vancouver(2) and to the proposed wind farm near Mont St. Michel, a UNESCO World Heritage Area in France, even though the turbines would be situated some 15 km from it.(3)

Wind turbines as tourist attractions?

For some people, wind turbines are symbols of sustainable development and valued for producing clean energy. Perhaps this attitude can give wind turbines some recognition for being part of modern heritage. Windmills, the predecessors of modern wind turbines, were also contested when introduced to the European landscape around the 12th century. In countries like Holland, windmills today are a visual part of the nation’s heritage and in Québec, many are also tourist attractions, notably on Île Perrot and Île aux Coudres.

However, wind turbines are unlikely to be a major tourism draw in their own right, especially since they are now increasingly part of the cultivated landscape in many countries. In some cases, they diversify the attraction base of a destination, like Cap Chat in the Gaspé Peninsula, where a visitor centre showcases the highest vertical-axis wind turbine in the world. Similar interpretation centres worldwide offer guided tours; in Denmark, for example, there are boat tours to see the offshore wind farms at Middelgrunden near Copenhagen. Preferences and attitudes towards modern wind farms are likely to evolve over time as people get accustomed to their presence, but it is unlikely that they will appeal to everyone in the future.

Visitor preferences

A Scottish report reviewing a number of studies evaluating the impact of wind farms on tourism suggests limited overall negative impacts.(4) However, tourists generally prefer wind energy projects to be located away from accommodation areas, historic sites, scenic areas and viewpoints, and places of natural beauty. The proportion of visitors who flatly oppose wind turbines near tourism attractions appears to be a minority, according to some reports. For example, a broad national survey in France showed 22% of the population thought wind turbines affected tourism negatively, while the rest were positive or neutral.(5) Similarly, in the Languedoc-Roussillon Region, a survey showed only 16% of visitors thought wind turbines degraded the landscape in general.(6) In a more recent study from Scotland, about 20% to 30% of tourists preferred landscapes without wind farms and the rest were mainly positive or neutral.(4) Tourist perceptions were also evaluated in a study in the Gaspé Region of Québec, where visitors generally expressed a positive attitude towards wind farms.(6) However, when asked about the establishment of new wind farms in the future, 56.4% preferred to see a concentration of wind turbines (more than 12 turbines) in a few places, rather than fewer turbines (less than 12) in multiple locations. Furthermore, 5.6% of visitors surveyed did not want to see any wind turbines in the Gaspé Region.(7)

Economic impact

While preference studies show broadly similar patterns, very few quantitative studies published to date have established empirical links between wind farms and the net economic impact on tourism. (8) Several studies use hypothetical scenarios to assess future preferences, thus indicating likely impacts on tourism.(9,10) Such studies tend to show that visitors would not change their travel patterns to an area if a wind farm were established, as 92% of visitors indicated in a survey in Southwest England, for example.(9) Overall, there is limited evidence to suggest that wind farms have a serious negative economic impact on tourism.

A report from Scotland estimated the net economic impact of potential wind farm development by calculating the combined effect of the changing number of tourists going to an area when a wind farm is constructed and the subsequent change in expenditures, and the lowered willingness to pay for a “room with a view” in an accommodation facility affected by the construction. The study looked at four areas in Scotland that represent about 12% of the country’s tourist activity and found that, in total, 81% to 98% of the tourists to these areas would be affected.(4) It also estimated the proportion of accommodation facilities in the same areas that would be impacted by the proposed wind farms, and this ranged from 9.83% to 32.40%. In the visitor survey part of the study, 63% of tourists preferred a landscape free of wind turbines from the hotel bedroom, while 28% were neutral and 9% were positive. The authors suggest visitor perceptions about wind farms are based on where they are. Thus, opinions about wind farms are likely to change if one has a passing view for a few seconds while driving by compared to having a longer, static view from a hotel room. For accommodation establishments with affected views, the study found a reduction in use by 4.9% to 16.20% and estimated a net expenditure reduction of between 0.48% to 1.59% respectively. The study also found proposed wind farm development may lead to a 2.5% loss due to fewer returning tourists visiting the area.(4)

Conclusion

In most places, like Québec, a variety of legislative and planning tools help minimize the social and environmental impact of wind farms.(11) In addition to its visual impact, wind farm development continues to push the limits of social acceptability in terms of its planning, management, operational control and fairness with regard to the distribution of benefits.(12) The few studies mentioned here suggest that even though the majority of tourists may appear positive about wind farms, one must look closer at preferences with regard to visiting places and choosing accommodations. In this context, it would be worthwhile to independently assess the effects of wind farms on tourism at the local and regional scale in Québec.

Sources:

(1) Ministère du Développement durable, Environnement et Parcs (2006). L’énergie pour construire le Québec de demain. La Stratégie énergétique du Québec 2006-2015. Québec: Gouvernement du Québec. 138 p.

(2) Colebourn, J. (2009). “Wind turbine power project installed atop Grouse Mountain,” in the Province. September 25. Accessed online 10 Oct. 2009. Http://www.theprovince.com/story_print.html?Id=2035719&sponsor=

(3) nouvelobs (2009). “Manifestation anti-éolien au Mont-Saint-Michel,” in Le Nouvel Observateur. September 26. Accessed online 10 Oct. 2009.
Http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/depeches/sciences/20090926.SCI7308/manifestation_antieolien_ au_montsaintmichel.html
(4) Riddington, G., Harrison, T., mcarthur, D., Gibson, H., and Millar, K. (2008). “The economic impacts of wind farms on Scottish tourism. A report for the Scottish Government.” Accessed online 16 Oct. 2009. Www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/214910/0057316.pdf

(5) Synovate (2003). Perception et répresentation de l’énergie éolienne en France. Ademe. 18 p.

(6) Institute CSA (2003). Impact potentiel des éoliennes sur le tourisme en Languedoc-Roussillon, France. Synthèse de Sondage. 5 p.

(7) Richard Guay Consultants (2004). Étude de marketing auprès des touristes de la Gaspésie afin de connaître leurs attitudes face à l’installation d’éoliennes. A report presented to technocentre Éolien Gaspésie-les-Îles. Québec. 37 p.

(8) Riddington, G., mcarthur, D., Harrison, T. And Gibson, H. (2009). “Assessing the economic impact of wind farms on tourism in Scotland: GIS, surveys and policy outcomes,” International Journal of Tourism Research. Published online in Wiley Interscience. DOI: 10.1002/jtr.750 http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122609399/abstract

(9) visitbritain (2006). Foresight. Issue 33. July. Strategy and Communications Division.

(10) mori Scotland (2002). Tourist Attitudes towards wind farms. research study conducted for the Scottish Renewables Forum and the British Wind Energy Association. Final Report. Edinburgh. 24 p.

(11) Ministère des Affaires municipales et des Régions (2007). Guide d’intégration des éoliennes au territoire : vers de nouveaux paysages. Québec: Gouvernement du Québec. 38 p.

(12) Saucier, C., Côté, G., Fortin, M.-J., Jean, B., Lafontaine, D., Feurtey, É., Guillemette, M., Méthot, J.-F. And Wilson, J. (2009). Développement territorial et filière éolienne. Des installations éoliennes socialement acceptables : élaboration d’un modèle d’évaluation de projets dans une perspective de développement territorial durable. Rimouski: Université du Québec à Rimouski. 227 p.

With the arrival of the austral summer in November, tourists – more specifically, cruise passengers – are once again heading to Antarctica.

The majority of Antarctic cruises take place in the Peninsula area, which is blessed with a less severe climate and a greater diversity of attractions (i.e. fauna, flora and a large number of scientific bases and historic sites). In contrast, the other tourism area, the more remote Ross Sea region, features almost exclusively historic sites.

In addition to the more traditional cruise programs combining observation and hikes ashore, a variety of new activities have started to appear in recent years, including scuba diving, sea kayaking, rock climbing, skiing, snowboarding and camping. It is impossible to say, at this point, if these new activities are the result of the arrival of younger and more active visitors, or if the new tourism profile is emerging in response to the products offered by tour operators. What is certain, however, is that Antarctic tourism is growing.

Figures

Compared to the last austral summer (2005-2006), the number of cruise tourists has risen by 12%⁽⁴⁾ . This year, the International Association of Antarctic Tour Operators (IAATO), which represents 95% of the organizers involved in Antarctic tourism, expects nearly 38,000 visitors to Antarctica from mid-November to early March⁽⁴⁾:

• 27,575 tourists will participate in an Antarctic cruise with shore excursions (mainly in the Peninsula area)
• 7,500 tourists will take part in a cruise only (no shore excursion)
• 1,050 tourists will purchase a land tour (skiing, alpinism, etc., in the Antarctic’s interior)
• 1,600 tourists will participate in a sightseeing flight (these flights, generally based in Australia, do not land on the continent and involve large planes like the Boeing 737-200 and 747-400, flying at about 2000 feet (610 m) above the Antarctic coast)

More than any other, polar cruises continue to dominate the Antarctic tourism market, with the number of passengers increasing year after year (Figure 1).

Figure 1

Source: IAATO (2006b)

While polar cruise tourism will continue to increase in the Antarctic Peninsula during the 2006-2007 season, the number of visitors to the Ross Sea region is expected to decline slightly⁽⁴⁾. Compared to the 42 million visitors who entered the United States in 2004⁽⁷⁾, the data regarding tourism in Antarctica – a continent 30% larger than the surface of the USA, may appear insignificant. To understand the importance of the figures presented above, it is necessary to put them into the proper polar tourism context.

A sensitive continent

Antarctica is a continent like no other. This continent, the only one without an indigenous human population, also has extremely limited surface flora and fauna (in species diversity). In summer, when the seas surrounding the polar continent are free of ice, Antarctica and its Sub-Antarctic islands cover an area of 13.6 km². More than 98% of the continent’s surface is permanently hidden under a cover of ice⁽¹⁾⁽³⁾. This ice sheet – the biggest on Earth – may reach a thickness of up to 4.7 km in certain areas and contains no less than 90% of the plant’s fresh water reserves⁽³⁾.

Tourism, like most other human activities, takes place during the very brief polar summer. This is also the reproduction season for most of the continent’s animal species, which are very abundant at this time of year. As a result, the less than 2% of Antarctic and Sub-Antarctic island lands free of ice and snow become very precious for both fauna and visitors (scientists and tourists alike). In such a context, there is a very good chance that fauna (and, to a lesser degree, flora) could be negatively impacted. The scientific community, however, remains divided over the extent of this impact.

Negative Impact

In addition to the pollutants released when tourism vehicles (ships, inflatable boats, helicopters, large and small airplanes) burn fossil fuel, the main disruptions directly attributed to tourism activities include soil disturbances (more limited in the Antarctic than in the Arctic) and fauna harassment (mainly birds). It is important to stress, however, that atmospheric pollution remains the biggest threat to polar ecosystems. Apart from the pollution caused by burning fuel to transport tourists, most of the air pollutants affecting Antarctica are produced outside area and can therefore not be attributed directly to tourism.

Trying to protect the very resources the industry depends upon, the IAATO has created a visitor’s code of conduct entitled “Guidance for Visitors to the Antarctic.” This recommends, among other things, the distances one should respect when observing the various fauna species. In the past, some observers⁽²⁾⁽⁶⁾ have stressed that the guidelines are not applied consistently. The problem is that the code is enforced by guides, who must also see to their customers’ satisfaction. Many of these customers have a hard time containing their enthusiasm once ashore. Other visitors, who have invested considerable sums of money to reach these natural areas, sometimes feel they have earned the right to approach wildlife beyond the distances allowed. According to IAATO⁽⁴⁾, however, the activities of its members have “no more than a minor or transitory impact on the Antarctic environment.”⁽⁴⁾

The organization worries, however, about the 5% of Antarctic operators who have not joined IAATO and therefore do not apply the visitors’ code of conduct. During the 2005 2006 austral summer, 4,639 visitors and an unknown number of small boat passengers set foot on Antarctica with no public record of their visit ⁽⁴⁾. In its annual report, IAATO⁽⁴⁾ expressed concern over two non-member vessels, each carrying 500 passengers, who made shore excursions in spite of the IAATO regulation limiting site access to ships carrying more than 200 passengers.

The tourism forecasts made by IAATO for the 2006-2007 austral summer indicate that the travelling public’s desire for Antarctic adventures knows no limits other than those imposed by the number of ships and places available for such journeys. Negative impacts, as well as incidents involving tourism activities such as the sinking of the Bahia Paraiso in 1989, remind us, however, that tourism growth in such a remote and isolated place as Antarctica requires safe, sustainable management approaches.

Sources:
⁽¹⁾ – Cessford, Gordon (1997) “Antarctic Tourism – A Frontier for Wilderness Management,” International Journal of Wilderness, Vol. 3, No. 3, USA, pp. 7-11.
⁽²⁾ – GRENIER, Alain A. (1998) “Ship-Based Polar Tourism in the Northeast Passage: A Case Study, ” Publication in the social sciences, University of Lapland, Rovanieni, Finland.
⁽³⁾ – HANSOM, James D. and GORDON, John E. (1998) “Antarctic Environments and Resources – A Geographical Perspective,” Longman: UK.
⁽⁴⁾ – IAATO (2006a) “IP 86 IAATO Overview of Antarctic Tourism 2005-2006 Rev 1,” International Association of Antarctic Tour Operators (Website), 21 p.[http://image.zenn.net/REPLACE/CLIENT/
1000037/1000116/application/msword/Trends1992-2007.doc]
⁽⁶⁾ – VUILLEUMIER, François (1996) “Negative Impact of Tourism on Antarctic Animals and Plants,” Southern Connection Newsletter, July, No. 10.
⁽⁷⁾ – WTO (2005) “Tourism Market Trends, 2005 Edition, Annex,” World Tourism Organisation. [http://www.unwto.org/facts/menu.html]