SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND PHYSICAL SCIENCES

ECONOMICS OF RENEWABLE ENERGY

WINDWORKS
PENTLAND HILLS DEVELOPMENT

Group A
Oluwaranmilowo Ajayi
Merlinda Andoni
Alasdair Auchterlonie
Jie Tang

December 2014

Table of Contents
1.

Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 3
1.1. Aim of report ................................................................................................................... 3
1.2. Energy in the Scotland .................................................................................................. 3
1.3. The Pentlands ................................................................................................................ 4

2.

Environmental costs and benefits ...................................................................................... 6

3.

Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 11
3.1. The Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) ................................................................ 12
3.2. Limitations, advantages and disadvantages ........................................................... 13

4.

Design of Questionnaire .................................................................................................... 15

5.

Scope of work...................................................................................................................... 16
5.1. Sampling frame ............................................................................................................ 16
5.2. Interpretation of responses......................................................................................... 16
5.3. Special instructions to pollsters ................................................................................. 17

6.

Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 18

7.

Bibliography ......................................................................................................................... 19

8.

Appendix I ............................................................................................................................ 20

9.

Appendix II ........................................................................................................................... 31

1. Introduction
1.1. Aim of report
This report is for Windworks Ltd in order to aid their proposed development of a wind
farm in the Pentland Hills, outside of Edinburgh. This report will outline the present
state of UK energy consumption and generation. It will then discuss and evaluate the
proposals as they stand from Windworks through a summary of an environmental
impact assessment. The report will then, in detail, discuss the methods used to gather
public opinion, as well as alternative techniques which could have been used. The
developed questionnaire is included and has been designed to be as objective as
possible to avoid misrepresenting the opinions that the survey finds. This is crucial as it
has been generally observed that failure to consult thoroughly with neighbouring
communities often increases objections to the proposed development.

1.2. Energy in the Scotland

The reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and the shift from a carbon based to low
carbon economy are currently among the Scottish Governments main priorities. Along
with much of Europe the UK has agreed to cut its emissions by 20% from 1990 levels
by the year 2020, however in Scotland the aims are much higher. It has plans to
generate the equivalent of 100% of the countrys electricity demand from renewable
sources by 2020, with 50% by next year, 2015 (Scottish Government, 2011), which is
one of the most ambitious targets in the world. Figure 1 shows that they are well on their
way to achieving this.

Figure 1 - Progress towards 2015 and 2020 energy targets- Scottish Government

There are many reasons for this drive to renewables. As well as the much publicized
and very real threats of climate change, with the associated requirements to cut
emissions drastically to keep within a 2 degree shift, the main priority is that of energy
security. Removing the ties to fossil fuels will help ensure that the country is not reliant
on fuel imports, with the associated uncertainties of price and supply that comes with
this. This is especially relevant in the current geopolitical climate with events in Eastern
Europe as well as the rapidly fluctuating prices of gas and oil. It will also allow for a
3

greater share of oil produced in Scotland to be sold, with huge potential benefits to the
wider economy.
There are however many challenges to achieving this, from the high costs and access
to finance demands, grid upgrades required, planning issues, public objections and
training, skills, research and development requirements. As a result the Scottish
Government as put into effect numerous schemes to help attract the estimated 30
billion (Scottish Government, 2011) investment required to realise these goals. This is
occurring through an enhanced version of the Renewable Obligation as well as
guaranteeing to continue maintaining the appropriate level of funding as it is replaced in
2017. As well as this there is the 70 million National Renewables Infrastructure Fund,
which helps to ensure the appropriate infrastructure that renewable projects require is in
place. This coupled with the lobbying of the UK government for grid enhancement and
expansion and initiatives such as simplification and streamlining of offshore planning
and wider focus on regulation and management of Crown Estate and seabed in Scottish
waters has provided many attractive investment opportunities within Scotland.
The environment discussed above, coupled with the high wind resource potential that
Scotland has (25% of the EU total) and the mature and proven technology mean that it
is possible to keep the costs of means that investing in wind energy in Scotland has
never been more attractive. The added value of wind farm development is also
recognised by planning committees throughout the process, allowing construction to
occur in areas that would otherwise be protected from developing further encourages
the process.

1.3. The Pentlands

The Pentland Hills are a range situated to the south west of Edinburgh. Covering an
area of 90km2 this regional park consists of a line of hills running from the edge of the
city south west towards Biggar. The hills span a number of council regions; South
Lanarkshire, Scottish Boarders, Midlothian, West Lothian and City of Edinburgh.
The park is a multiuse site and a popular location for recreation and agriculture. A
variety of activities including mountain biking, golf, horse riding, walking and dry slope
skiing taking place within its boundaries (Pentland Hills Regional Park, 2014). The land
itself is mainly upland pasture as well as a few areas of forestry plantations. There are
also numerous protected local biodiversity sites, which are home to a variety of
protected flora and fauna. There are also many reservoirs which supply the city of
Edinburgh with much of its drinking water. There are many settlements surrounding the
hills including the Edinburgh suburbs of Balerno, Juniper Green, Colington, Currie and
Oxgangs, as well as Penicuik, Kirknewton and Bilston as well as many smaller villages.

Figure 2: The Pentland Hills

There is controlled shooting during hunting season and periodic fire management
procedures. The ministry of Defence also have a rifle range located to the north of the
park. These uses in particular will require extensive consultation with both land owners
and park management to ensure the safety of machinery and workers at the site.
The proposed site for the project is on the north facing slope and along the ridgeline, as
shown
hown below. The proposed development is 60 x 2.5 megawatt wind turbines. The new
machines would have an 80m tower height and a 45m diameter rotor. The highlighted
zone shows a 5km zone of theoretical visibility, within this area anyone with a direct line
of sight would
ld be able to see the turbines.

Figure 3 - Zone of theoretical visibility of the project

2. Environmental costs and benefits

Landscape and visual impacts
Firstly an assessment of landscape characteristics (e.g land cover, designations,
character areas) will be conducted. This will inform on the landscapes character and
quality, the likely effects on the visual amenity and the sensitivity of these to change.
This will follow standard guidelines for landscape assessment (e.g. (Landscape Institute
and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment, 2002, Scottish Natural
Heritage, 2002).
It is highly unlikely that a new wind farm proposal in the Pentlands will result in no
significant impacts on landscape and visual amenity. However, significant effects are
not necessarily unacceptably adverse. The acceptability of significant landscape effects
of wind farms is a subjective view. There is no consensus of opinion on the most
appropriate types of landscape in which to site the various scales of wind energy
development, nor on the threshold above which significant changes in the view would
have unacceptable effect on visual amenity. This will vary from person to person. Those
in favour of wind energy are more likely to accept greater changes to their visual
amenity than those who do not find wind turbines aesthetically pleasing. Some people
will see turbines as industrialising the landscape. Others will see them as sculptural, as
giving expression to a windy landscape, particularly when their movement is seen to be
doing good work.
Due to the large populations that surround the Pentlands which are likely to be able to
see the turbines (Balerno, Currie, Juniper Green, Bilston, Milton Bridge, Penicuik)
extensive consultation will be required. A computer generated Zone of Theoretical
Visibility (ZTV) which identifies those areas from which the wind farm will be visible, and
wire frame and photomontage representations from specific viewpoints illustrating
proposed views will be useful tools to express the likely impacts to the public and allow
for their feedback to be considered. This will allow design changes to be incorporated
into the wind farm design (e.g. remove or moving turbines, reducing turbines heights
etc) to address effects on particularly sensitive viewpoints or landscape areas identified.
Construction impacts
Assessment will need to be carried out on how the construction phase of the wind farm
will impact on the area. An assessment of the effects on roads and motorways, land
use, site access, local resources and waste will all need to be considered.

For this development there are good main road links to the Pentland hills as well as
numerous existing paths that be widened to allow access for works vehicles.
The Pentlands is a designated national park with a mix of forestry, recreational
space and farming, however due to the size of the area and the proximity of the
forested sections to the proposed site; it is unlikely that the construction will have a
large impact on land use. Post construction the land will be available again for use.
There should be no contamination to the site as there will be extensive operational
measures implemented to safeguard the integrity of the land.
A thought assessment will be conducted to ensure that there are no sensitive
ecological habitats put at risk before access track construction and/or exact
foundation locations.

It is estimated that the impacts of construction will be limited.

6

Archaeological impacts
Following discussion with local authorities it has been found that the hill tops are littered
with archaeological remains, most notably Castlelaw Hill Fort and Souterrain,
Caerketton Hill and Lawhead Hill Forts, with Cairns on Carnethy, and East and West
Cairn Hills at Harperigg. The Regional Park has 12 Scheduled Ancient Monuments and
a number of listed buildings within it. Each of these sites will be assessed individually to
attain the impact magnitude of the proposed development from very low (small land
take or unimportant part of cultural feature, no effect on historic integrity or surviving
evidence) to high (loss or physical damage likely to feature which is fundamental to the
historic character of the site).
In order to mitigate the majority of negative impacts associated with the development
discussion with the relevant stakeholders will vital. Techniques will likely involve
excavation and recording of notable sites and/or careful selection of foundation sites of
turbines.
Noise impacts
There are two forms of noise associated with wind farm developments; mechanical and
aerodynamic. Since this development will be using very modern turbines the
mechanical noise produced will be low and can be considered in conjunction with
aerodynamic noise. This aerodynamic noise is caused by the air flowing around and
over the blades of the rotor. While the modern design of the turbines will limit this, a
certain degree of noise is intrinsic.
To assess the noise impact manufacturer's data on noise the turbine produces will be
used. Noise levels will then be assessed for each property in the vicinity of the proposed
wind farm to attain the background noise levels for each of the properties affected.
These two data sets will be used to attain weather there are any properties which may
be unacceptably impacted.
In the Pentlands the building density is very low and as a result it is unlikely that this will
be of large significance, if however properties are found to be affected then it is likely
this can be addressed with careful selection of exact turbine locations.
Ecological impacts
Both the construction and operational phases need to be considered. Construction
requires access roads and on-site access tracks of at least 4m wide, temporary site
compounds, and turbine bases, cabling, grid connection. However, the land between
the turbines and access roads will remain unaffected.
In order to assess the ecological value of the site a Phase 1 Habitat Survey will need
to be conducted. This shall identify the habitats and species in the area, as well as
nesting sites, breeding sites, over wintering and migration times for bird populations in
the area. The data from this survey will allow the sensitivity and significance of each
habitat in the proposed development site to be attained and vulnerable ecosystems to
be identified. It will also examine whether there are any bird migration routes through
the area and weather these are likely to pose a risk to both the animals and the
turbines. In general evening, night time and dawn fliers are most at risk, as are larger
birds with poor manoeuvrability.
7

Some parts of the Pentland Hills have been designated and plan to be designated as
local biodiversity sites; this will give them further protection from development. It will be
unacceptable to propose turbine placement at these locations.
In order to mitigate the major impacts on the park a number of practices should be
implemented:

avoiding construction during breeding bird season

grouping turbines to avoid alignment perpendicular to main flight paths
constructing floating roads on sensitive wet habitats
Restoration of as much of access tracks and turbine bases as possible.
There are also positive management possibilities such as reducing stock numbers to
allow regeneration and providing scrapes or standing water.

These mitigation measures are also suitable for addressing effects on the hydrological
regime of a wind farm site.
Electromagnetic Interference and Air Safeguarding
Wind turbines towers and rotating blades can possibly affect telecommunication signals,
by blocking or scattering (echoes and Doppler effect). Systems that might be affected
include primary radar systems, aircraft landing systems, radio and microwave links,
seismological recording equipment etc. (ODPM, 2004), (Ministry of Defence, 2014).
Early consultation is advised with electromagnetic transmission operators, including
mobile operators, TV links and radio. Moreover, special permit has to be taken by
NATS (National Air Traffic Services) and Civil Aviation Authority, since the proposed
development is in close proximity to the Edinburgh Airport.
Mitigation measures might include wind turbines being removed away from
telecommunication routes to avoid interference. 100 m clearance from EMI links is in
general advised. When it comes to TV links, there might be the requirement of installing
a new local repeater or cable connection. Installation of additional radars or special
shaping of the tower might be required, in order to mitigate interference with radar
systems.
Public Access, Recreation, Safety
The Pentland Hills is a location offering the opportunity of various recreational activities:
hiking, horse-riding, picnic etc. While determining the layout of the turbines any possible
disruption of those activities should be taken into account. Possible impacts should be
considered in both construction and operational phases. Special care should be given
in possible crossover of paths and public roads.
Early consultation with the Local Planning Authority is advised. The turbines will be
located at least 'fall-over' distance + 10m away from public access areas. Safety plans
are seriously considered such as provision of signs etc.. No driver's distraction is
considered.
Shadow Flicker
Depending on geographical position, wind turbine geometry and time of day,
neighbouring properties to the wind farm might be affected by shadow flicker.
Consultation with the Local Planning Authority is recommended. In general, the
8

operating frequency of a wind turbine will be relevant in determining whether or not

shadow flicker can cause health effects in human beings. The frequency at which
photosensitive epilepsy may be triggered is generally between 2.5 and 30 Hz. Most
commercial wind turbines in the UK have a rotating frequency between 0.3 to 1.0 Hz.
Possible mitigation measures include the installation of special control equipment and
sunlight sensors, so that the operation of the wind turbine is terminated when a potential
shadow flicker arises. Empirical data suggest that a distance over ten rotor diameters is
enough as to consider shadow flicker effect negligible.
Socio-economic Impacts
Socio-economic are of the most important impacts. One of the most important positive
impacts relates to jobs created by the development. This includes all stages of the
development. In the pre-construction phase jobs will be created in the fields of wind
farm design, consultancy or the stage of Environmental Impact Assesment. In the
construction phase there will be civil works contracts with local or regional companies,
contracts with wind turbines suppliers and electrical equipment companies and grid
connection works. In the operational phase, safe operation of the plant and
maintenance are among the most important.
Several studies have been introduced to quantify the number of jobs created. (Simasa
and Paccaa, 2014) have estimated about 13.5 persons-year equivalent for each MW
installed between manufacture and first year of operation of a 24.5 persons-year
equivalent over the wind farm lifetime. One rough index is jobs created per MW installed
in UK (G. Blanco, I. Kjaer, 2008):
4000
= 9.4 /
427 2007
Part of the jobs are created and maintained locally, so this is likely a significant factor to
consider when it comes to the local community.
=

During the construction of a wind farm local businesses may be disrupted and its
operation may also have a negative effect on them. In the Pentland Hills area we
encounter various businesses such as the Lothianburn Golf course and club and the
Midlothian Snow Sport Centre. The Pentland Hills Regional Park has fisheries, pubs,
restaurant and accommodation. The impacts have to be taken seriously into
consideration from the initial stage of the project.
Property prices
There are some reports with contrary results. It can be concluded that there is
insufficient evidence that the house prices are affected by the proximity of a wind farm,
although this is more likely to be one of the major concerns to the local community and
it can be one of the main reasons of opposing the development of the project
(Sterzinger, Beck and Kostiuk, 2003), (LLP, 2005).
Environmental impacts
Some of the benefits include the reduction of water consumption and CO2 emissions.
Conventional power plants use huge amounts of water for the condensation of the
thermodynamic cycle. Wind farms and renewable energy in general, reduce fuel-based
9

power generation and do not contribute to global climate change.

emissions are estimated (Abdul, Abdul and Chamhuri, 2009):

The carbon

0.3 8760 640

1000
= 252,288

where P is the installed capacity, 30% is a typical capacity factor, 8760 the hours in one
year and 640 g CO2/kWh the carbon emission factor.

10

3. Methodology
This report seeks to quantify the impacts (positive and negative) and environmental
qualities of the proposed Pentland Hills Wind farm.
Environmental quality is a non-market good and quantifying its economic value is a
challenging task. The total economic value of environmental goods comprise

Aesthetic and cultural value : the value an individual places in the utility gained by
physical presence at a site (visual appreciation, spiritual/cultural significance)
Option Value: the value the individual places on having the choice to consume the
good in the future
Existence value: the value the individual puts in the knowledge that a certain aspect
of the environment exists and is being protected even if there is no expectation of
personal benefit by the good in question

Various environmental valuation techniques have been developed to capture an

individuals willingness to pay (WTP) for environmental quality. They are primarily
categorized in Revealed Preference Techniques (RP) and Stated Preference
Techniques (SP). Some of the most important environmental valuation schemes
developed over time are:
I.)

Shadow Project Method. This method summarises the costs of replacing

something which is damaged or destroyed. It is useful in environmental terms as the
results can be compared with local residents WTP or a companys mitigation budget.
Two drawback of this system are that larger more established ecosystems cannot be
recreated and that often the location and atmospherics of an area add significantly to
the attraction (For example the Giants Causeway would not be the same if it were
moved inland.) Neither of these objections would greatly affect the techniques use
in this project.

II.)

Hedonic Valuation Method. More suited to valuing a physical product through

establishing component costs and attributes of an item. This is not a good method
for environmental issues.

III.)

Travel Cost Method (TCM). The Travel Cost method is primarily used in
determination of economic value of ecosystems or places used for recreation
purposes and could have been used in our case study since some of the land use
patterns on the Pentland Hills include walking, camping, mountaineering etc. in other
words recreational activities and is based on the concept that the time and money
people are willing to invest in the various aspects of access to a particular site
provides a good indication of the economic value of the site in question, although
this method offers a good valuation option it is not best suited for this valuation for
various reasons; One being that recreation is not the only land use at site of interest
and most users of the Pentlands are locals and are not there for recreational
reasons. Another reason being that this method is also highly expensive if a
comprehensive valuation is to be done and lastly it does not value existence and
option values.

IV.)

Contingent Choice method. This is another method which could have been
possibly used, it is uses a hypothetical method similar to the Contingent Valuation
method differs from Contingent Valuation in that it does not directly request money
value from participants, instead it infers the money value choices or trade-offs that
11

people make. It was not used for our approach because firstly economic values
could not be directly obtained, secondly that this method may capture preferences
instead of actual behavioural intentions
V.)

Contingent Valuation (CV) Method (Preferred method). This is an economic tool

commonly used to quantify the non-market value of improvements to the
environment or to quantify environmental costs associated with harmful activities
and it is used to estimate economic values for all kinds of ecosystem and
environmental services.

3.1. The Contingent Valuation Method (CVM)

The CV method offers higher flexibility, allowing the valuation of a wider variety of nonmarket goods and services than is possible with any other non-market valuation
technique. It achieves this by asking people to directly state their values, rather than
inferring values from actual choices, as the other methods do. It sidesteps the absence
of markets for environmental goods by presenting consumers with hypothetical markets
in which they have the opportunity to pay for the good in question.
The hypothetical market may be modelled after either a private goods market or a
political market. Thus, it can be used to estimate both use and non-use values, and it is
the most widely used method for quantifying non-use values. These help to quantify the
Aesthetic (use value), Option and Existence values (non-use values) of the Pentland
Hills, as it is used for a wide range of activities and offers several environmental
benefits.
This method is key to this report as it allows us to associate a value that people affected
by the wind farm place on the different environmental impacts.
The contingent valuation method can further be broken down into Willing-to-pay WTP or
Willing-to-Accept (WTA). The WTP is the maximum amount that an individual states
they are willing to pay for a good or service while the WTA is the opposite the amount
an individual is willing to accept for a good or service. The WTP is generally the
preferred method for CVM valuations (Hosking at al., Journal of Energy in Southern
Africa, 2012)
We chose WTP method in order to eliminate strategic bias, where respondents
exaggerate their WTA in order to receive additional compensation and most especially
how WTP like all market goods and services are limited by income unlike the WTA
method which is in no way limited by respondents spending power. WTP methods
leave room for respondents to also understate their WTP but with the use of the
Iterative bidding game an effective range of values can be estimated and excessively
low values can be easily gleaned from data and eliminated
This helps us determine how much economic value is attached to the important social
and environmental costs of a wind farm project in Pentland hills.
Also, WTP was considered a good approach because once economic value was found,
this could then be used to make a cost-benefit analysis for the developers to analyse
whether the project is a profitable one, socially, economically and environmentally

There are several elicitation methods that may be used with the CVM approach;
12

Open-ended,
Dichotomous,
Iterative bidding approach,
Payment cards and
Contingent ranking

The use of the Iterative Bidding approach is best suited for this project valuation as we
believe using this method produces uninflated values that would be expected in an
Open-ended type question while the dichotomous method would most likely produce
quantity (demand) estimates rather than value estimates and the payment card method
might limit individuals to a set amount on a card. This approach basically starts with a
normal style dichotomous question but then follows up with subsequent questions to
determine a respondents maximum WTP. This method is not without its fault as it is
prone to starting point bias but we believe with careful analysis and study of foregone
projects an effective starting point can be attained and by offering respondents a wider
range of values this can be effectively eradicated.

3.2. Limitations, advantages and disadvantages

Contingent Valuation method is the most widely used to estimate economic values for
all kinds of ecosystem and environmental services. Also, it is the most widely used
method for estimating non-use values. Because of that, this method is becoming
controversial of the non-market valuation methods. The survey aims to extract publics
opinion about Windworks wind farm development. One of the limitations might be that
people not related to Pentland Hills, no residents or visitors, have limited perception of
the project details or similar projects, for example how noisy a wind turbine is, or
whether the noise is more disturbing than the visual impact. As a result comparing the
two is subjective.
In more details, limitations and major pros and cons of the method are introduced.
Limitations(Dennis M. King, 2000)

Although the Contingent Valuation method has been widely used for the past two
decades, but still have a considerable controversy over whether it adequately
measure peoples willingness to pay for environmental quality.
The approach is especially based on information that was provided by the Pentland
Hills Regional Park, there is not much technical information about older wind farms
used. The survey is based on that what people think, but we cannot consider all of
the sides.
All of the long term effect of the wind turbine farms is not known. Although, many
surveys said when live close to the wind farm can make so much noisy and even
auditory problem. But these problems are not only affecting the people living near
this area, but also the animals. So it means that not all impacts of the wind turbines
can be considered in our survey. Some important ones for people living near the
Pentland hills might be overseen.
The expressed answers to a willingness to pay question may be biased because the
respondent is actually answering a question which is not intended. Compare to
expressing value for the good, the respondent might actually rather be expressing
their feelings about the scenario. For example, the respondents will express a
positive willingness to pay because they think it is a good act for the social good,
13

although they never consider the good is important or not. They are willing to pay for
the project in order to show the support of the environmental improving. On the other
hand, the project may have influences on taxes (tax increasing) and other side of the
society, thus part of the respondents are against to the project.
There are differences between the ways people make actual decisions compared to
hypothetical decision. For instance, people may in a rush when they are filling the
survey, thus there is a possibility that people did not treat this survey seriously.
The rated and Yes or No questions were the types of questions used in the survey.
Compare to the multi-choice questions, these types of questions were easier to
answer, but they also have limitation. For example, the multi-choice questions give
more choice and can be close to respondents minds when respondents answer the
survey. But if respondents answer the Yes or No questions when they cannot find
the answer they want, the survey cant have an accuracy result.
The meaning of contingent valuation can be confusing for some people. Without a
better understanding to the method, peoples answer will be easily effect by their
mind. For instance, the willingness to pay can be higher than what they actually can
pay, under this circumstance, respondents intend to give the answer more towards
to their mind.

Advantages(Dennis M. King, 2000)(Rahim, 2008)

Contingent Valuation method is accepted by most people, and it can use on

everything. The estimate that contingent valuation provides has high accuracy. Its
best at estimating values for goods and services, which can be easily understood by
the users of this method.
Contingent valuations is based on the economic utility theory, it is good at estimating
total economic value, which is accepted widely around the world. In principle,
willingness to pay and willingness to accept responses elicited by CVM's equal
theoretically correct monetary measures of utility changes.
Since this method has been widely used, there are plenty of researchers studying
and trying to improve this method. If the survey is carefully designed, the biases that
discussed above such as 'answers will be influence by individual's opinions' can be
eliminated. Thus, this method will be more reliable than other methods.
By using this method, it can show us how the public will react to the project, thus it is
easier for the researchers to present the project in a more public-preferable way to
the public.

Disadvantages(Rahim, 2008)

The hypothetical answers of the method can lead to understatement or

overstatement compare to the true value of the project. Respondents may feel not
bind to the project's survey, they may not take the survey question seriously.
Therefore their answers can be not truthful enough, and lead to
over/understatements.
Researchers who write the survey need to consider different designs of the survey,
which type of questions need to be used and what kind of questions need to be
answered. Respondents are more likely to answer short and simple surveys
compare to long ones. Therefore, researchers need to estimate and make
assumptions for the survey. Since the econometrics is complex, its difficult for
researchers to make assumptions.
Respondents may be unfamiliar with the good/service being valued and not have
enough basic knowledge for estimating its true value.
Respondents could give answers that are inconsistent with economic theory.
14

4. Design of Questionnaire
In the context of the wind development assessment a CVM questionnaire was designed
presenting the respondent with a description of the wind farm and its most important
benefits and impacts.
The questionnaire is divided in three main sections:
Section A : Personal Information (Socio-economic - Demographic Data)
General information of the respondents is needed to have the ability to filter the answers
and check for check for inconsistencies. The number of questions was minimised in
order to achieve higher response rates. Simple and straight-forward approach was
chosen for better analysis.
This section includes some questions about the
respondents income, as indicator of the respondents socio-economic status. Average
annual income was chosen so that differences between different types of employment,
payments etc are avoided.
Section B: The second section includes questions that aim to draw conclusions about
the respondents environmental awareness, their knowledge about the energy sector,
their views on renewable energy and their relationship to the Pentland Hills.
Section C: In the third section the respondent is introduced to the CV hypothetical
scenario. There is a small part that includes a brief description of the project, including
key-factors, main impacts and benefits. In this section the respondent is asked the
developed WTP questions. The payment vehicle was the establishment of lump sum
charge levied on the quarterly electricity bill for each household. The respondents were
randomly assigned to bid levels in order to minimize the possibility of starting point bias.
The respondents are then asked if they are willing to pay double or halved the amount.
This aims to avoid negative or positive answers derived only by the level of the levy.
Statistical analysis will determine the weighted/representative mean and median WTP
values from the population surveyed. The questionnaire is shown in full in the Appendix.
The WTP questions are shown for 2, 4, 6, 8 or 12 initial levy.

15

5. Scope of work
Conclusions derived from the conducted survey will be used to define the opinion of the
local community to the proposed project. The developed questionnaire will be used to
determine the main reasons in favour or in opposition to the Pentland Hills
development. Windworks will benefit by the information concluded, in order to alter the
wind farms characteristics, such as profile, size, layout and to develop possible
mitigation techniques, in order to avoid conflict.
The objective of the designed survey is to establish the public feelings or opinions for
the proposed wind farm in an impartial and balanced way. The questionnaire will be
addressed to all affected parts of the community and social groups.
The results of the questionnaire shall be implemented in the time frame and budget set
by Windworks, as agreed. Manpower needed to conduct the survey will be agreed with
the polling organisation.
Special care has been taken to respect privacy of the respondents. Part of the
questions include general personal information about the respondents background and
their general views to aspects related to Windworks proposed project, information that is
necessary to derive conclusions.

5.1. Sampling frame

Respondents are to be selected according to two main criteria, the proximity of their
place of residence to the location of the project and the reason why they have an
interest or visit the region of the Pentlands. The questionnaire is designed in that way
that this information is obtained in a straight-forward way, so subsequent analysis can
be achieved easily.
The survey will aim to include respondents that live in the zone of visibility of the project
and others that have relations to the region. A sample of 1000 respondents was
chosen. Among the respondents there are:

young age group (18-24)

residents within 1 km
residents within 1km-3km
local businessmen, farmers, etc that have an economic activity related to the
Pentlands
visitors of the area for recreational reasons

5.2. Interpretation of responses

A detailed analysis will follow the survey. Special weight has to be given to different
responses according to the group in which respondents belong. For example, concerns
about recreational activities of the area from visitors of the area should be given the
analogous weight. These key conclusions will be those that hold the most validity and
that will be of most use during the planning process and during the negotiations of any
mitigation that will probably take place.
In more details the responses will be sorted by socioeconomic indicators, location,
attitudes to environmental issues etc. (Hosking at al., Journal of Energy in Southern
Africa, 2012). The validity of data obtained will be checked (Sanson and Westwood,
2003) including enumerator bias in case of face to face/telephone interview. Patterns
16

will be found to connect responses and socioeconomic indicators, graph responses

statistical analysis to try to come up with an adequately weighted/representative mean
and median WTP values from the population surveyed. The data will also be used to
conduct Cost-Benefit analysis in terms of costs (including WTP) and emission savings
(Koundouri, Kountouris and Remoundou, 2009)

5.3. Special instructions to pollsters

All the questions of the survey are designed to be relevant to evaluating attitudes
and opinions. Additional questions should not be added by the pollsters.
The distribution of the questionnaire should be according to the sampling frame.
Responses of the questionnaire should be encouraged but pollsters should not in
any case try to influence the respondents in any way.
Pollsters will have to be specially trained in order to perform their duties in the best
possible way.
The majority of the questionnaires should be distributed personally, in face-to-face
visits. Although this is the most costly method, it is likely to present the highest level
of responses. Other ways might be included such as by post or phone calls and emails, if a personal visit cannot be achieved.
A price incentive might be addressed to obtain higher rates of responses.
Bias has to be avoided. Apart from the information given in the questionnaire,
pollsters should not give additional information to avoid bias.

17

6. Conclusions
This report aimed to present the advantages and the disadvantages of Windworks
proposed development and the environmental costs and benefits concerned. The
project is likely to be controversial. A survey was developed with the strategy of the
Contingent Valuation, so that publics opinion can be detected. A questionnaire was
developed to obtain respondents background and general information, their relation to
the Pentland Hills area and the environmental evaluation technique.
The report contains the description of the method along with a discussion about
limitations, advantages and disadvantages of the strategy used and finally scope of
work for pollsters. The conclusions of the survey will determine the viability of the
project and mitigation techniques used by Windworks, in order to achieve the project
approval and consensus.

18

7. Bibliography
Abdul, H., Abdul, Q. and Chamhuri, S. (2009) 'Environmental impact of alternative fuel mix in
electricity generation', Renewable Energy, vol. 33, pp. 2229-2235.
Dennis M. King, M.J.M. (2000) Contingent Valuation Method, [Online], Available:
http://www.ecosystemvaluation.org/contingent_valuation.htm [26 Nov 2014].
G. Blanco, I. Kjaer (2008) Wind at work: wind energy and job creation in the EU, EWEA.
LLP, K.F. (2005) Public Attitudes to Wind Energy in the UK, BWEA.
Ministry of Defence (2014) www.gov.uk, 23 October,
https://www.gov.uk/mod-safeguarding [November Jan 2014].

[Online],

Available:

ODPM (2004) Planning for Renewable Energy: A Companion Guide to PPS22.

Pentland Hills Regional Park (2014), [Online], Available: http://www.pentlandhills.org/ [2014].
Rahim, K.A. (2008) Contingent Valuation Method, 24 March, [Online], Available:
http://www.unepscs.org/Economic_Valuation_Training_Materials/03%20Techniques%20for%2
0Valuing%20Coastal%20Habitat%20Goods%20and%20Services/21-Contigent-ValuationCoastal-Habitats-Reading.pdf [2 Dec 2014].
Scottish Government (2011) Routemap for Renewable Energy in Scotland Scottish
Government Policy.
Simasa, M. and Paccaa, S. (2014) 'Assessing employment in renewable energy technologies: A
case study for wind power in Brazil', Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 31,
March, pp. 83-90.
Sterzinger, G., Beck, F. and Kostiuk, D. (2003) The Effect of Wind Development on Property
Values Renewable Energy Policy Project Renewable Energy Policy Program.
www.ecosystemvaluation.org/contingent_choice.htm

19

8. Appendix I
The developed questionnaire.

Questionnaire
Before answering the following questions please keep in mind your current expenditure on
energy bills and your household budget.
Brief description
"The Scottish government has set itself the ambitious target of reducing its carbon dioxide
emissions by 42% by 2020. A key aspect of this increasing the amount of energy produced from
renewable sources. The government target of 80% renewable generation by 2020 is ambitious
but achievable.
Renewable energy is defined as energy that comes from resources which are replaced naturally
on a human timescale. Sources such as sunlight, wind, rain, tides, waves and geothermal heat
are all considered renewable whereas fossil fuels are not. Renewable energy replaces
conventional fuels in four distinct areas: electricity generation, water and space heating, fuels
for transport and other motors and off grid generation.
In line with these aims WindWorks is proposing to develop a wind farm in the Pentland Hills
outside of Edinburgh. The proposed site is on eastern end of the Pentland Hills along the ridge
line and down the northerly facing slope. The development proposal is for 60 x 2.5 megawatt
wind turbines. The new machines would have a 80m tower height and a 45m diameter rotor. It
is estimated that the turbines would be visible for approximately 5km where there is a direct
line of sight, with noise levels from the farm negligible at distances of 300m and more. The
exact placement of the turbines will be chosen such that the impact on biodiversity and
landscapes will be minimised. This development will provide clean, zero carbon energy to
84,000 households."

20

1st Section
In this part of the questionnaire we would like to ask you some general personal information,
valuable for understanding your attitude towards the implementation of the wind farm in
Pentland Hills.
Personal Information
1. What is your gender?
Male

Female

under 21

21-29

30-39

40-49

50-59

60+

2. What is your age?

3. What is the highest level of education you have achieved as of today?

Illiterate

Primary school

High School

University Degree

Master degree

Doctorate Degree

4. What is your marital/civil partnership status?

Single

Married

Divorced

Widowed

5. How many children do you have?

None

More than 4

6. What is your current employment status?

Employed

Self-employed

Unemployed

Student

Part-time

Retired
7. Your current job is:
Full-time

21

8. Do you usually work at home?

Yes

No

9. What time of the day do you usually work?

In the morning

At night

In the evening

Irregular hours

10. What is your annual income ()?

Up to 10,000

10,000 - 20,000

20,000 - 40,000

40,000 - 60,000

60,000 - 80,000

80,000 - 100,000

More than 100,000

I prefer not answer

11. Which one of these areas do you live in?

Edinburgh city centre

Less than one mile from the Pentland Hills

Edinburgh suburbs

Scotland

UK
12. Are you a permanent resident?
Yes

No
13. Is the house you are living in:
Private rent accommodation
Owned
of the family

Council rent accommodation

by

yourself/member

14. If your house in rented, how much is the monthly rent ()?

15. What is approximately the area of your house?

Up to 30m2

30-50m2

50-70m2

70-100m2

100-200m2

More than 200m2

22

16. How many bedrooms are there in your house?

1

4+

17. What is the number of members of your household?

1

3-4

5-6

More than 7
18. How many cars do you and other members of your household have?
None

4+
19. What is your average annual car mileage?
Up to 2,000

2,001-5,000

5,001-8,000

8,001-12,000

12,001-15,000

More than 15,001

20. How often do you use public transport?

Never

Rarely

Sometimes

Often

Daily
21. Would you be willing to increase your usage of public transport?
Yes

No

22. What is your average monthly electricity bill?

23

2nd Section
In this part of the questionnaire we would like to ask you some questions about your knowledge
in topics related to energy, renewable technologies, fossil fuels, global climate change, energy
policies and environment.
23. How well informed do you feel you are about environmental issues? (1=no
knowledge, 5=high knowledge)
1

24. How well informed do you feel you are about energy issues? (1=no knowledge, 5=high
knowledge)
1

25. How well informed do you feel you are about renewable energy technologies? (1=no
knowledge, 5=high knowledge)
1

26. Did you know that fossil fuels are finite?

Yes

No

27. In your opinion is global warming a concern?

Yes

No

28. Do you believe that human activity is to blame about climate change?
Yes

No

29. Do you agree with the reduction of CO2 emissions?

Yes

No

30. How strongly do you support the development of renewable energy technologies?
(1=not at all, 5=very strongly)
1

24

31. Do you believe the benefits of renewable energy outweigh the possible environmental
and economical cost?
Yes

No
32. Did you know that the Scottish government has set the target of 100% renewable
generation by 2030?
Yes

No

33. Do you agree with the government policy about renewable energy?
I agree

I disagree

I don't know
34. In your opinion, should renewable energy be given a priority against fossil - fuel?
Yes

No

35. Do you support wind energy in Scotland?

Yes

No

36. In your opinion, please state the importance of the following problems related to
fossil-fuel power generation. (1=Not important, 5=Very Important)
1

Climate change
Environmental Pollution
Waste
Health
Scarcity of resources
Increasing fuel prices

37. Are you willing to act on reducing your personal carbon footprint?

Yes

No

25

38. Which of the following measures are you willing to undertake in order to reduce your
energy consumption?

Install smart meters

Replacement of bulbs with economical ones
Less usage of heating/cooling
House Insulation Improvement/Windows
Reduce car usage/Increase public transportation
Install renewable energy system
39. Have you ever seen a wind farm or a wind turbine?

Yes

No
40. In your opinion, do you think the wind farm will affect your area?

Yes

No
41. Is you or any other of your family a member of an environmental organisation?

Yes

No
42. Is you or any other of your family a member of an outdoors activity organisation?

Yes

No

26

3rd Section
In this part of the questionnaire we would like to ask you about Pentland Hills Regional Park and
the wind project development in Pentland Hills.
43. Do you know where Pentland Hills Regional Park is located?
Yes

No

44. How many times a year do you visit Pentland Hills?

Never

Less than 6

Less than 12

Less than 24

More than 24

45. What is the main reason for visiting Pentland Hills?

Recreational activities

Sport

Resident

Local business/Facilities

Personal

Environmental activities

Other

46. Do you have view of Pentland Hills from your house?

Yes

No

47. In your opinion, please state how much you think the wind farm development would
have the following beneficial effects, in your area? (1=None, 5=Very much)
1
Mitigate

environmental

pollution
Reduce CO2 emissions
Promote

government

policy
Improve energy security
Increase employment
27

Increase green value of

your area

48. In your opinion, please state how much you think the wind farm development would
have the following negative effects, in your area? (1=None, 5=Very much)
1

Visual impact
Noise
Wildlife
Local tourism
Business disruption
Agriculture and livestock
Reduce property prices
Quality of life

49. Do you think that wind project development will affect recreational activities in your
area?

Yes

No
50. Do you think that wind project development will improve the quality of your life?

Yes

No

51. Imagine a similar visual result in Pentland Hills area as shown in the following picture.
How do you feel about the visual impact compared to the benefits of a similar
project?

28

The benefits are more important than the visual impact.

The visual impact is more important than the benefits.

The visual impact does not affect my opinion about the project.

I don't know.

29

3rd Section
In order to fund this scheme a small levy on utility bills proposed over the course of a year (4
bills). The money collected from this charge will be exclusively used for the construction of the
wind farm and ensuring that the local area is returned to its original condition to minimise
impact on the local ecosystem.
52. Would you be willing to pay a small levy of x (2, 4, 6, 8, 12) on your quarterly
electricity bills in order to fund this clean energy development?

Yes

No

53. Would you be willing to pay an increased levy of 2x (4, 8, 12, 16, 24) on your
quarterly electricity bills in order to fund this clean energy development?

Yes

No

54. Would you be willing to pay a decreased levy of 0.5x (1, 2, 3, 4, 6) on your quarterly
electricity bills in order to fund this clean energy development?

Yes

No

30

9. Appendix II
Reflective summary
On reflection our group performed extremely well together. All meetings were well attended
with each member of the group contributing frequently and to a high level. All tasks that were
assigned within the group were completed by the member it was assigned to and on time. After
the exam period when we came to write the report one member of the group (Mohamed
Ajmal) preferred to write his paper individually. As a result the remaining four (Merlinda
Andoni, Oluwaranmilowo Ajayi, Alasdair Auchterlonie, Jie Tang) worked together to produce
this report. Again all work allocated and meeting times scheduled were met with strong input
from all. All in all the group functioned extremely well.

Minutes

Windworks Project Group 1 - Meeting 1

Minutes

OCTOBER 22, 2014

12:00

CRUSH AREA, JAMES NASMYTH BUILDING

Meeting called by Group Members

Type of meeting

First Informal Meeting

Facilitator
Note taker

Mohamed Ajmal

Timekeeper
Attendees

Merlinda Andoni, Mohamed Ajmal, Oluwaranmilowo Ajayi, Alasdair

Auchterlonie

Agenda topics
1 hour

Meeting team members, discussing

project requirements

GROUP MEMBERS

Discussion
Project requirements and prompt on Vision
Contingentent Valuation and how it pertains to our project
Likely relevant issues to locals at project site, Pentland Hills

Conclusions
It was decided that since most members of the team were not very familiar with an EIA prior to
this, they must read up on the topic individually to get some background information
Members would focus their research on EIAs in general, the Contingent Valuation method in
particular and reconvene to discuss how to tackle this particular project
31

Action items

Person responsible

Individual research on EIA components, Contingent

All
Valuation and local factors in Pentland Hills

Deadline
Next week

Book a group room in library for next meeting

Observers
Resource persons
Special notes

Jie missed meeting as there was confusion over which group he was in

Windworks Project Group 1 - Meeting 2

OCTOBER 29, 2014

Minutes

12:00

CRUSH AREA, JAMES NASMYTH BUILDING

Meeting called by Group Members

Type of meeting
Facilitator
Note taker

Mohamed Ajmal

Timekeeper
Attendees

all

Agenda topics
1 hour

GROUP MEMBERS

Discussion
Contingentent Valuation and how it pertains to our project
Likely relevant issues to locals at project site, Pentland Hills
Discussion of various types of valuation

Conclusions
EIA research allocated
CV research allocated
Action items

Person responsible

Deadline

Individual research

All

Next week

Book a group room in library for next meeting

32

Observers

Merlinda Andoni, Oluwaranmilowo Ajayi, Alasdair Auchterlonie, Jie Tang

Resource persons
Special notes

Windworks Project Group 1 - Meeting 3

NOVEMBER 5, 2014

Minutes

12:00

CRUSH AREA, JAMES NASMYTH BUILDING

Meeting called by Group Members

Type of meeting
Facilitator
Note taker

Mohamed Ajmal

Timekeeper
Attendees

all

Agenda topics
1 hour

Meeting team members, discussing

project requirements

GROUP MEMBERS

Discussion
EIA
CV approach refinement
Payment vechical discussion
Questionnaire design

Conclusions
WTP
EIA approved
Action items
Payment vechical options assigned
Questionaies design assigned

Person responsible

Deadline

All

Next week

Book a group room in library for next meeting

Observers
Resource persons
33

Special notes

Windworks Project Group 1 - Meeting 4

NOVEMBER 12, 2014

Minutes

12:00

CRUSH AREA, JAMES NASMYTH BUILDING

Meeting called by Group Members

Type of meeting

First Informal Meeting

Facilitator
Note taker

Mohamed Ajmal

Timekeeper
Attendees

all

Agenda topics
Meeting team members, discussing
project requirements

1 hour

GROUP MEMBERS

Discussion
Question review
Descion on payment vechical
Limitations advantages and disadvantage of method
methodologies
Scope of work

Conclusions

Action items

Person responsible

Deadline

All

Next week

Methodology assigned
Scope of work assigned
Limitations add and diss assigned
Book a group room in library for next meeting
Observers

all

Resource persons
Special notes
34

Windworks Project Group 1 - Meeting 5

NOVEMBER 19, 2014

Minutes

12:00

CRUSH AREA, JAMES NASMYTH BUILDING

Meeting called by Group Members

Type of meeting
Facilitator
Note taker

Mohamed Ajmal

Timekeeper
Attendees

all

Agenda topics
Meeting team members, discussing
project requirements

1 hour

GROUP MEMBERS

Discussion
presentation

Conclusions

Action items

Person responsible

Deadline

Slides assigned

All

Next week

Book a group room in library for next meeting

Observers

all

Resource persons
Special notes

Windworks Project Group 1 - Meeting 6

Minutes

NOVEMBER 26, 2014

12:00

CRUSH AREA, JAMES NASMYTH BUILDING

Meeting called by Group Members

35

Type of meeting

Run through of presentation

Facilitator
Note taker

Mohamed Ajmal

Timekeeper
Attendees

all

Agenda topics
Meeting team members, discussing
project requirements

1 hour

GROUP MEMBERS

Discussion
presentation

Conclusions
running order
practices
Action items

Observers

Person responsible

Deadline

all

Resource persons
Special notes

36