Table 31.1. Main characteristics of the four study areas across Austria.
31 Preferences for Renewable Energy Sources Among Tourists in the European Alps
Institute of Landscape Development, Recreation and Conservation Planning, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria
*E-mail: alexandra.jiricka@boku.ac.at
Regarding the mitigation of climate change, the use of renewable energy sources is considered the most important factor in national and international strategies. Many alpine communities are accordingly implementing renewable energy installations. In winter tourism destinations, the production of renewable energy gains further importance in connection with the increased dependence on artificial snowmaking. In alpine skiing areas the percentage of ski slopes that are now being covered with artificial snow has significantly increased over the past 5 years. Major skiing resorts in Austria and Switzerland rely on artificial snowmaking for 80–100% of their snow cover (Zegg et al., 2010).
While the use of renewable energy is beneficial overall with regard to climate mitigation targets, it might create conflicts with ongoing efforts to foster multi-seasonal tourism offers. Many studies have shown that summer tourists consider the natural landscape in alpine regions as one of the most important factors for their choice of holidays (Österreich Werbung, 2009, 2012). The multitude of studies dealing with different groups of holidaymakers including climbers, hikers and random samples of holiday seekers, etc. support this aspect (Muhar et al., 2006; Pröbstl, 2010). The way landscapes are perceived, however, varies between different socio-demographic groups (Howley, 2011), as well as different nationalities (Bell et al., 2008).
A decrease in seasonality – as currently pursued by winter tourism destinations due to the effect of climate change – requires an infrastructure that suits the preferences of summer, as well as winter guests (TAC, 2011). Hence, it will become increasingly important for tourist destinations to maintain their landscapes’ appeal for visitors all year round. Consequently, the production of renewable energy in these regions will also have to comply with this goal.
The use of renewable energy could, however, also be a competitive advantage with regard to criticism concerning artificial snowmaking (as a measure skiing areas apply to adapt to the effects of climate change).
Against this background, we were interested in the tourists’ reaction to the development of renewable energy installations in the alpine area. In this chapter, we want to discuss the following questions:
• Which of the available infrastructure facilities used to generate renewable energy finds the greatest degree of acceptance among tourists?
• Which of these renewable energy installations could have an impact on further tourism development?
• Is there a difference between summer tourists’ and winter tourists’ acceptance of renewable energy?
• Could local production of renewable energy lead to a competitive advantage for tourist destinations and how important is the supply of renewable energy for tourists’ choice of destination?
Five main hypotheses derived from these considerations:
1. The particular holiday season (winter/summer) has a significant influence on tourists’ preferences for renewable energy sources.
2. Socio-demographics of tourists (especially age and nationality) have a considerable influence on the acceptance of renewable energy.
3. Energy supply by means of renewable energy is important for tourists’ choice of destination.
4. Local production of renewable energy could create a competitive advantage for destinations.
5. Tourists assess renewable energy facilities that are attached to existing structures (including buildings, existing infrastructure) more positively than systems that are set up independently.
So far, only a small number of studies have explicitly focused on the attitudes of tourists towards renewable energy production. Most of the available literature is in the field of wind energy studies (see, for example, BWEA, 2006; Davidson, 2010; Lilley et al., 2010; Frantál and Kunc, 2011). Many of the existing studies specifically focus on offshore wind farms (Ladenburg, 2010; Swofford and Slattery, 2010; Waldo, 2012; Westerberg et al., 2013).
Ladenburg (2010) conducted a survey with 1082 respondents including both residents and local day visitors to beaches close to offshore wind parks. The respondents’ attitudes were generally very positive towards the farms, although frequent walkers on the beach – representing those with a stronger connection to the area – displayed lower acceptance than ‘non-frequent’ (occasional) walkers. Ladenburg also suggests that demographics have an influence on the perception of the power plants – especially age. Other studies have shown that offshore wind parks even tend to have positive effects on tourism by attracting interested recreation seekers (Devine-Wright, 2005). BWEA (2006) also found that suitable marketing measures could substantially boost a region’s income.
Yet other studies argue that wind turbines have a negative impact on tourists’ perception of their destination’s landscape. In a presentation of their research on a Finnish wind park project, Tyrväinen et al. (2012) point out that tourists considered the wind turbines to have a negative impact on the landscape. Their mixed-method approach encompassed quantitative and qualitative methods such as picture samples that were evaluated by international, as well as domestic tourists. While locals engaging in recreational activities in the area perceived the wind turbines more positively, foreigners were more critical of the project. These opposing views held by locals versus non-local tourists have also been observed by Waldo et al. (2013). Lilley et al. (2010) came to similar conclusions in their study, as almost a quarter of their 1076 respondents found the effects of ‘turbines on the appearance of landscape’ to be negative or very negative. In both studies – Tyrväinen et al. (2012) and Lilley et al. (2010) – the tourists’ attitudes towards the specific projects in question did not correlate with their general attitudes towards wind energy. Only when they were confronted by a project located, or to be located in their favourite holiday destination, did they experience wind energy as disturbing. In a qualitative survey, Waldo (2012) addressed the correlation between preferred activities and the acceptance of offshore wind energy production. He observed that the majority of stakeholders were against two new sites for offshore wind parks installed in the area. General attitude concerning the efficiency of wind energy was found to have a strong influence on this point of view. Yet it was the aesthetic value of wind turbines that was judged most negatively. While discussing their attitudes towards installations for wind energy, activities such as ‘watching the sunset, relaxing and feeling free and [being] close to nature’ were mentioned as having been negatively impacted. These aspects seem to be essential in the assessment of renewable energy in touristic regions, especially since the abovementioned ‘activities’ constitute typical motivations in the choice of a holiday destination.
Many statements made by residents interviewed in Waldo’s study reflect the aesthetic problem of large renewable energy projects: ‘They’re not noisy or anything – but when you turn around and suddenly see them, they make you stop and think. It’s like you’re not in the countryside anymore, you’re at an industrial site. They take so much space that you find that you’re perhaps not thinking about the landscape, like you did before. We used to have an almost unbroken horizon’ (private citizen, interview 39, Waldo 2012, p. 697).
While Broekel and Alfken (2015) confirm the negative impact, in particular by offshore wind turbines for German tourists, Landry et al. (2012) previously revealed a more differentiated picture by a revealed preference (RP) and stated preference (SP) approach. Westerberg et al. (2013) also investigated the contradictory effects of offshore wind farms with regard to different tourist segments. This study highlighted two major points: First, it concluded that holiday activity, age, nationality and loyalty towards holiday destination each have a direct influence on tourists’ perception of renewable energy production. Second, the distance of the energy production site to the place of observation was shown to have a major effect – an aspect that will also be highly relevant in the discussion concerning alpine areas. In contrast to the constellation onshore/offshore, mountainous areas provide a variety of different angles from which to observe the landscape that do not allow for a simple restriction of vantage points. Furthermore, the high degree of mobility increases the different visual perceptions alpine tourists experience over the course of their holiday. Nevertheless, offshore wind parks, wind parks in coastal areas and wind parks in open – less diversified (heterogeneous) – landscapes are seen differently in comparison with wind energy constructions in highly diversified touristic landscapes such as landlocked mountainous regions in Central Europe. Frantál and Kunc (2011) examined tourists’ and entrepreneurs’ acceptance of wind energy in two selected regions of the Czech Republic. The number of respondents in favour of wind turbines – stating that turbines could be used effectively to support further development of tourism – equalled the number of respondents against wind turbines. Yet it seems surprising that 90% of visitors did not see their future visits to the area affected by new wind parks. Still, more than 20% of tourists stated that wind turbines had a relatively negative impact on their holiday experience. This seems to indicate somewhat ambivalent views as well as a capacity to adapt to new infrastructure projects at the preferred holiday destination.
In contrast, a handful of studies from Australia, including Dalton et al. (2008) and Lothian (2008), deal with the valorization of renewable energies as criteria for the choice of sustainable holiday options. Dalton et al. (2008) asked hotel guests at four different Australian locations about their attitude towards micro-generation renewable energy supply (RES) implemented in the hotels they were staying at. Face-to-face interviews, as well as distributed questionnaires, were used to survey a total of 280 respondents. The collected data revealed that more than 80% of the respondents considered it important for accommodations to utilize renewable energy sources. However, less than half were willing to pay more for RES. In contrast to Ladenburg’s findings (2010), age played only a minor role in the degree of acceptance of renewable energy, though acceptance varied between different nationalities.
Kelly et al. (2007) support these findings on tourists’ preference for a resort that uses renewable energy over one that does not, arguing that day tourists, especially, consider it as a means of increasing eco-efficiency. On the other hand, tourists staying on a weekly basis took a more ambivalent stance. With regard to destination choice, a study carried out by Needham and Little (2013) found that only a small number of tourists (12–13% of their respondents) preferred a destination that used renewable energy sources and made efforts to reduce its energy consumption.
In the alpine context, there is, however, a distinct lack of in-depth studies adopting a comprehensive approach that takes the diverse effects caused by renewable energies into account and compares summer and winter tourists’ perceptions. The on-site survey in the four large-scale skiing destinations both in winter and in summer provided an opportunity to survey the perception of alpine tourists who are both familiar with the landscape and were just experiencing it while responding to the questionnaire. Although the study was carried out 7 years ago research about renewable energies in alpine skiing destination is still scarce.
An extensive survey was conducted in four large Austrian skiing destinations in the winter season of 2010/11, leading to a sample size of 1165 participants. A questionnaire was developed within the Alps research project ADAPT, which deals with efficient and highly accepted RES systems for winter sports destinations. This survey was carried out in the destinations Lech am Arlberg, Schladming, Zell am See and Silvretta Montafon, which to a large extent, each rely on artificial snow coverage. The characteristics of each of these skiing regions are presented in Table 31.1. These resorts cover the existing range of Austrian skiing regions with regard to their geographical distribution in the main winter sport regions in Austria. Each, moreover, differs in their target groups, altitude, access to the area and size. Larger resorts (i.e. medium to large in comparison with the Austrian ‘average’) were chosen because of their potential financial and management capacity to introduce and integrate renewable energies into their overall energy concept.
In order to allow a comparison between winter and summer guests, the survey was repeated during the summer season of 2012. The questionnaire was, again, available in two languages. In total, the summer survey included 1016 respondents from the four different regions.
At the beginning of the questionnaire, tourists were asked about the most common summer activities in alpine holiday areas in Austria. These were sourced by cross-reading relevant studies concerned with activities in mountainous regions (such as Weiermair, 1999; Latu et al., 2010), sports tourism (Ritchie and Adair, 2004), as well as studies on general activities in Austrian summer tourism (Österreich Werbung, 2012), thereby compiling a suitable and compact list of activities to choose from. Multiple answers were possible.
The study is characterized by a very high response rate in summer and winter compared with other studies in outdoor recreation and tourism research. Table 31.2 describes both the winter (WS) and summer surveys (S1) in detail, including sample size, gender distribution, age distribution, type of visit according to duration of stay, nationality and main activities carried out within the region.
Table 31.2. Sample description.
| Winter study (WS) | Summer study (S1) | |
| Response rate | 70% | 87% |
| Sample size (n) | 1165 | 1016 |
| Sample size per tourist area (n) | Schladming: 188 Zell am See: 228 Lech: 206 Silvretta/Montafon: 543 |
Schladming: 257 Zell am See: 260 Lech: 234 Silvretta/Montafon: 265 |
| Time of survey | Mostly weekdays 2010/2011 | Mostly weekdays July 2012 |
| Gender distribution | 35.4% female 60.7% male 3.9% no value |
45.7% female 46.9% male 7.5% no value |
| Type of visitor | 79% week tourists 13% day tourists 4% locals 2% skiing instructors/travel guides 2% others |
74% week tourists 17% day tourists 3% locals 2% seasonal workers/travel guides 3% others 1% no value |
| Age distribution | 8.7% (age 14–17) 8.3% (age 18–24) 7.4% (age 25–29) 16.9% (age 30–39) 38.7% (age 40–49) 11.7% (age 50–59) 5.3% (age 60+) |
5.2% (age 14–17) 7.8% (age 18–24) 7.2% (age 25–29) 12.9% (age 30–39) 20.4% (age 40–49) 20.1% (age 50–59) 22.4% (age 60+) 4.0% (no value) |
| Nationality of visitors | 27.8% Austria 54.2% Germany 7.3% Netherlands 2.7% Switzerland 7.8% others |
17.6% Austria 45.0% Germany 5.5% Netherlands 4.8% Switzerland 5.0% Great Britain 4.8% Scandinavia 6.4% Slavic countries + Hungary 2.7% Arab countries + India 2.0% no value |
| Main activity | 87% skiing 12% snowboarding 1% others (single choice only) |
60.8% relaxation 13.5% cultural activities 73.5% hiking 13.3% bicycle riding 7% climbing 11.9% socializing 63% experiencing nature 6.4% others (multiple answers possible) |
Table 31.2 shows similarities and differences between the two samples. Germany and Austria are the main countries of origin among the respondents. Summer tourists are slightly older than those surveyed during the winter season. In winter, we also had more male respondents. These differences are still reflective of the current conditions in each season and are in line with Austrian tourism statistics (Österreich Werbung, 2012).
The sampling method for both surveys included data collection conducted in cooperation with cable car enterprises and at main tourist areas, such as market places, tourist offices and in pedestrian zones at the respective resorts. In each case, the selected areas had been chosen on the basis of recommendations by cable car management in an effort to maximize the number of guests participating in the study. Questionnaires and pens were handed out to tourists at the base stations. They were asked to fill in the questionnaires during their cable car ride, after which the sheets were collected at the mountain top either by local staff or by our team. The data collection at other places was handled in the same manner, by distributing printed questionnaires to several people simultaneously and collecting them after completion.
In this particular survey, the applied technique of on-site self-completion had two major advantages. First, the possibility of approaching a large number of people who might otherwise be rather unwilling to interrupt their current activities to answer questions; second, no bias occurs in contrast to face-to-face interview situations, in which respondents are confronted with an interviewer. However, respondents may be influenced by other guests sharing the same cable car or other people at a restaurant table. Overall, 3 days were spent collecting data in each holiday destination.
The quantitative questionnaires consisted of 14 predominantly closed questions (apart from minor exceptions). For most questions, a high degree of comparability could be maintained between the winter questionnaire and the questionnaire adapted for the summer season. The surveyed independent variables concerned the respective visitor group, holiday activities, country of origin, age and gender. The remaining questions relevant for this study assessed tourists’ evaluation of different types of renewable energy production in terms of their impact on the landscape, environment and emissions, as well as tourists’ perception of destinations that use different strategies for energy production.
In order to ask tourists about RES, we first had to explain the possible options. Several studies, including Dalton et al. (2007) and Tyrväinen et al. (2012), used pictures of possible production facilities and asked respondents to rate them in order to ensure they were aware of the impact the plants would have on the landscape. To avoid a potential bias, we decided not to use such photographs or drawings. Using visual aids would have required four different sets of pictures – one set for each region accounting for differences in the landscape – which would have compromised comparability between the regions. Had we only used one set of images, on the other hand, the regions’ differences in landscape, cityscape, etc. would not have been reflected.
The selection of RES facilities was based on the possibilities currently on offer and in use in alpine ski resorts and cable car enterprises (Zegg et al., 2010).
We tried to describe the potential size and location as clearly as possible and presented the following options (hereafter described as categories of energy production):
• small compact wind turbines (max. 5 m high) at suitable sites;
• small compact wind turbines next to facility sites/parking lots;
• tall efficient wind turbines in exposed places;
• modification of existing water reservoirs for the implementation of hydroelectric power stations;
• hydroelectric power generated by damming of local rivers;
• photovoltaic or solar systems installed on south-orientated slopes;
• photovoltaic or solar systems installed on buildings;
• large, efficient biogas plants;
• small biogas plants that are integrated into the landscape; and
• geothermal energy used to heat buildings.
These ten different options were evaluated by tourists participating in the survey in relation to their possible impacts: first, on the environment; second, on landscape aesthetics; and third, regarding possible emissions. Furthermore, the importance of environmental aspects – including the share of renewable energy in the overall energy supply, as well as the reduction of energy consumption – were evaluated as to their role in the selection of a holiday destination.
SPSS 18.0 was used to record and evaluate the collected data. Mean values, frequencies, one factorial ANOVA, as well as Chi-Square were the main statistical tools applied throughout the study. Yet, after detailed analysis including testing skewness, as well as kurtosis of the data and applying quick-tests (Miles and Shevlin, 2001), it was decided that Chi-Square was better suited than ANOVA or a possible t-test. This decision was made in order to achieve a more accurate understanding of each individual distinctness, rather than assessing only mean value distributions.
For the tests, a significance level of 95% (α = 0.05) was accepted. This means that differences between the results of the winter and the summer study, as well as independent data’s influence on perceptions of renewable energy, were each required to have p values of p < 0.05. The null hypotheses that were generated with the applied test were subsequently analysed in order to re-evaluate the outcome of the study’s research questions and hypotheses. The main test used for assessment is indicated in the figures’ labelling. The use of p < 0.05 or p < 0.01 is additionally indicated within the charts with either one star (*) or two stars (**), respectively.
Previously, the distribution of the sample group (SG) has been displayed. To ensure the study’s comparability with existing tourism research as well as to ensure a higher degree of transparency, ‘week tourists’ (WT) were analysed separately. This step entailed an exclusion of the following groups: ‘day tourists’, ‘locals’, ‘skiing instructors’, ‘seasonal workers’, ‘others’ and ‘no value’, in order to distinguish the group of WT from other visitor groups. However, a comparison between cross-tabulations of perceptions among WT and SG revealed that both categories generated very similar results. This study will, therefore, focus on the larger sample size (SG).
Tourists were asked to rank criteria for the selection of a holiday destination according to their relevance to their personal decision making process (see Table 31.3 for a comparison between summer and winter study). The criteria were ranked according to their importance for the selection of a holiday destination using the following system: 1 = very important, 2 = important, 3 = neutral, 4 = rather unimportant, 5 = unimportant. The selection criteria were compiled on the basis of surveys, such as Ritchie and Adair (2004), Latu et al. (2010) or Österreich Werbung (2012), combined with environmental aspects most relevant to alpine tourist destinations (Österreichischer Seilbahnverband, 2012).
Table 31.3. Criteria set for the summer and winter survey and related mean values (1 = very important to 5 = unimportant).
The comparison between the criteria for choosing a holiday destination in the summer study and the winter study revealed several major differences (see Fig. 31.1). On the one hand, winter tourists evaluated the ‘price performance ratio’ as more important, as well as aspects related directly to the performance of their sport activities (such as the quality and length of slopes). On the other hand, summer guests rated the criteria ‘atmosphere’ and ‘maintenance of attractive landscape’ significantly higher than the guests included in the winter survey. Especially the criterion ‘beauty of the landscape’ showed striking differences. Around 80% of S1 rated this aspect as very important, almost doubling the percentage derived from the winter survey (around 40%).
Fig. 31.1. Comparison of WS and S1 regarding the importance of different criteria for the selection of a holiday destination (chi2: α = 0.05, *p < 0.05).
Fig. 31.2. Comparison of S1 and WS on possible effects of renewable energy on landscape (mean value (MV): 1 = highly acceptable, 2 = neutral, 3 = negative).
To survey tourists’ perception of the possible impact of renewable energies, three categories of effects were considered:
• effects on landscape;
• effects on the environment; and
• possible effects of emissions.
In general, renewable energy plants that are added to existing infrastructure – like solar panels on buildings or hydroelectric power plants linked to existing water reservoirs – were rated significantly better than free-standing energy plants, such as tall wind turbines or solar systems close to slopes. Comparing the three aforementioned aspects (effects on the landscape/environment; emissions), the perception of renewable energy production differed the most between these types (i.e. attached vs. free-standing) with regard to their effects on the landscape.
When comparing the perception of ‘possible effects of renewable energy on landscape’ a significant difference between the summer and winter survey was observed for four types of renewable energy production (see Fig. 31.2). Both types of photovoltaic systems – namely ‘photovoltaic or solar systems on south orientated slopes’ and ‘photovoltaic or solar systems on buildings’ – were preferred by tourists in the winter study. ‘Small compact wind turbines at suitable sites’, as well as ‘geothermal energy for heating of buildings’ found more support among summer tourists. Also, fewer respondents described their impact on the landscape as ‘negative’ in the summer sample.
On the other hand, the assessment of ‘effects on the environment’ followed along similar lines in both the winter and the summer study. The only category displaying a significant difference was ‘geothermal energy for heating of buildings’. This aspect was assessed more positively in the summer study than in the winter study.
There is clear evidence that nationality has an influence on the evaluation of different types of renewable energy. Twelve out of 30 cases showed significant results, which demonstrated that tourists from different countries evaluated the given categories of renewable energy production differently.
Overall, Germans took the most negative view of renewable energy productions’ impact on landscapes. In addition, people from ‘Slavic countries + Hungary’ and The Netherlands were relatively critical of this aspect. These three nationalities evaluated the environmental impact of plants the most negatively. Swiss guests showed an affinity for biogas plants and, overall, they seemed to evaluate the environmental impact of renewable energy more positively. Austrian and British nationals were mostly in between, with Austrians showing a slightly more positive attitude than the British in most cases.
Figures 31.3 and 31.4 show a strong concern among German tourists regarding wind energy and its impacts on the landscape. This negative perception of the impact of renewable energy production on the landscape articulated by German tourists was also evident in all other categories. A total of 63% of Germans assessed ‘tall efficient wind turbines at exposed places’ as ‘bad’, while 50.6% held the same opinion of ‘photovoltaic or solar systems on south orientated slopes’. A little over 30% of German respondents were against ‘large efficient biogas plants’, showing a slightly more positive attitude in comparison with their reaction to wind and solar energy.
Fig. 31.3. Impact on landscape of tall efficient wind turbines assessed by different nationalities (ANOVA: F = 5.300, α = 0.05, p < 0.001; chi2 = 43.348, α = 0.05, p < 0.001).
Fig. 31.4. Impact on landscape of small compact wind turbines as assessed by different nationalities (ANOVA: F = 4.682, α = 0.05, p < 0.001; chi2 = 46.606, α = 0.05, p < 0.001).
Figure 31.5 depicts the way different nationalities evaluate the impact of ‘photovoltaic or solar systems on south orientated slopes’ on the landscape. Scandinavians assessed this type of energy most positively. This is interesting, since solar fields are less common in Scandinavian countries, because of their limited efficiency due to local weather conditions and solar radiation. However, overall, this kind of energy production was viewed rather negatively.
Fig. 31.5. Impact on landscape of photovoltaic or solar systems as assessed by different nationalities (ANOVA: F = 4.682, α = 0.05, p < 0.001; chi2 = 46.606, α = 0.05, p < 0.001).
‘Large efficient biogas plants’ were assessed less negatively than the photovoltaic systems mentioned above. A total of 54.5% of Swiss guests rated their impact on the landscape as ‘good’. Acceptance was relatively high among Austrian guests as well. However, the percentage of Austrian respondents categorizing their impact as positive was below 30%. As previously stated, Germans were again most critical of their impact on the landscape.
Results of the summer study are in line with those of the winter study. In general, German guests were more critical than Austrian tourists. Only hydroelectric power reversed this trend, as Austrian tourists were more critical of this particular form of renewable energy production.
There were nine categories within the summer study in which different age cohorts displayed significant differences in their perceptions of renewable energy in a holiday destination. Five of them concerned wind energy and showed marked differences between the age groups regarding their views on its impact on the environment. Differences were particularly pronounced between the age group ‘25–29’ and the over 60s.
Moreover, it became clearly evident that the age group ‘60 and older’ was the most critical. This category was persistently among the age groups that evaluated the given examples most negatively, with the notable exception of geothermal energy. Among the other two ‘older’ age groups, including 40–59-year-olds, the acceptance rates were similar, though not quite as negative.
The younger age groups, including 25–39-year-olds, were, on the whole, more positively inclined towards all types of renewable energy plants. They were also among the groups that rated wind energy the most positively.
The 18–24-year-olds were not located in the most extreme ranges of the results and could be described as taking a rather more positive stance than other groups. The results of the age group ‘14–17’ fluctuated the most, thereby indicating that formation of opinion within this age group is still ongoing and is particularly susceptible to outside influences.
Regarding the perceived effect on the environment, all of the three wind energy categories – ‘small compact wind turbines at suitable sites’, ‘small compact wind turbines next to facility sites/parking lots’ and ‘tall efficient wind turbines in exposed places’ – achieved the highest acceptance rates from the age group ‘25–29’ (see Fig. 31.6).
Fig. 31.6. Impact on environment of tall efficient wind turbines as assessed by different age groups (ANOVA: F = 7.532, α = 0.05, p < 0.001; chi2 = 61.798, α = 0.05, p < 0.01).
Finally the impact of ‘tall efficient wind turbines at exposed places’ on the landscape showed highly significant differences among the age groups (see Fig. 31.7). Again, the two oldest age groups were most critical (‘60 and older’, and ‘50–59’). In these age groups, more than 50% of the participants stated that wind turbines would have a negative impact on the landscape. The younger tourists, once more, rated wind energy more positively than older age groups. The 14–17-year-olds, closely followed by 25–29-year-olds, assessed this production facility the most positively.
Fig. 31.7. Impact on landscape of tall efficient wind turbines as assessed by different age groups (ANOVA: F = 2.850, α = 0.05, p = 0.010; chi2 = 28.215, α = 0.05, p = 0.005).
Figure 31.8 shows ‘photovoltaic or solar systems on south orientated slopes’ as assessed by different age groups. The age group ‘30–39’ (58.9%) evaluated the solar systems as ‘good’ most of the time. They were followed by the age group ‘14–17’. Again, it was the group ‘60 and older’ who ranked this energy category the worst in comparison with other age groups. However, even in this age group, the majority viewed solar systems on slopes as having a ‘good’ rather than a ‘bad’ impact.
Fig. 31.8. Impact on environment of photovoltaic or solar systems as assessed by different age groups (ANOVA: F = 2.639, α = 0.05, p = 0.015; chi2 = 28.245, α = 0.05, p = 0.005).
The impact of emissions caused by ‘tall efficient wind turbines at exposed places’ was the only included example that triggered significantly different responses among the various age groups when looking at emissions, as illustrated in Fig. 31.9. The three oldest age groups, ‘60 and older’, ‘40–49’ and ‘50–59’, rated emissions of tall wind turbines the worst, whereas the age group of ‘25–29’, again, took the least negative stance, followed by 18–24-year-olds and the age group ‘30–39’.
Fig. 31.9. Emissions of tall efficient wind turbines as assessed by different age groups (ANOVA: F = 4.521, α = 0.05, p < 0.001; chi2 = 45.994, α = 0.05, p < 0.001).
Figure 31.10 shows how many tourists would ‘prefer a holiday destination which produces its own energy’. About 60% of all summer guests replied either ‘absolutely’ or ‘yes’ when asked if they would prefer local energy production, while only 43.8% of winter tourists (who answered the question) shared this positive view.
Fig. 31.10. Comparison of S1 and WS regarding preference for a destination that produces its own energy (chi2: α = 0.05, p < 0.001).
The presented study was designed to gain a better understanding of tourists’ preferences concerning the use of renewable energy in Austrian alpine tourist destinations. Upfront, the primary assumption had been that both winter and summer tourists would display different attitudes towards different types of locally produced renewable energy. The results show that this assumption was correct.
A set of variables was tested to find out if they had any influence on the perception of renewable energy in tourist destinations. One such variable was the summer tourists’ main holiday activity. This category shows little evidence of correlation with any particular preference for renewable energy. Socio-demographic differences, specifically nationality and age, on the other hand, appear to be convincingly linked to varying attitudes towards renewable energy. For example, Germans and older age groups – both primary target groups for Austrian tourism – are very critical of various types of local energy production.
Furthermore, this survey investigated to what extent local production of renewable energy is a factor in tourists’ choice of a holiday destination. Even if it does not represent a primary criterion for tourists’ choices, it can be noted that tourists are becoming more and more aware of the importance of a reasonable and appropriate energy supply for their holiday destinations.
In the following section, the study’s findings will be discussed with respect to their implications for the initial hypotheses.
As previously stated, findings suggest that several other criteria are more important for tourists’ destination choice than local production of renewable energy. Summer tourists rank criteria such as ‘beauty of landscape’, ‘maintenance of this landscape’, ‘accessibility’ and ‘atmosphere’, much higher on their list of priorities than the use of renewable energy. This is in line with other studies (Österreich Werbung, 2009, 2012) that came to similar conclusions concerning both summer and winter guests. They place the above criteria among the most important for the choice of a holiday destination. In addition, this study has shown that there is a significant difference between summer and winter holiday selection regarding price–performance ratio, which plays a major role in the selection of a winter holiday but has only minor importance for the selection of a summer holiday.
Through a further line of questioning, this study has also found that renewable energy production is relatively unimportant for the selection process in comparison with other environmental criteria. So far, the results point towards the conclusion that renewable energy production plays no significant role in tourists’ choice of destination. However, when asked directly about the importance of renewable energy production in a tourism destination, a high proportion of both winter and summer guests considered it ‘preferable’ or even ‘absolutely preferable’. Furthermore, tourists rate a destination that uses renewable energy produced in the region far better than a destination that uses imported renewable energy, while a destination using predominantly conventional energy sources fares worst. Critical voices may argue that these responses are the result of leading questions; however, they can still be seen as proof that tourists – particularly summer tourists – are aware of the increasing need for more sustainable energy sources.
In summary, similar to findings by Westerberg et al. (2013), only a very small percentage of tourists classify local production of renewable energy as a primary factor in their choice of a holiday destination. Several other criteria, including beauty of landscape, maintenance of landscape, price and atmosphere, are considered more important. However, the first two criteria mentioned raise a note of caution when it comes to investing in renewable energy sources especially with regard to summer guests. As our results have shown, tourists perceive some sources of renewable energy as far more disruptive to the environment and landscape than others. Those perceived as most detrimental could prevent tourists from choosing a particular destination. Voltaire et al. (2017) confirm this risk and warn of welfare loss due to displacement of tourists because of wind farms. Their results of a revealed and SP analysis refer to the Catalonian coast with mountainous areas near scenic beaches. The hypotheses ‘(H3): Local production of renewable energy is important for the tourists’ destination choice’ and ‘(H4): Local production of renewable energy could lead to a competitive advantage for destinations’ should, therefore, not be entirely rejected. Nevertheless, a full confirmation of H3 is also not possible, as results show that renewable energy is, for the most part, not actively considered in tourists’ destination choices.
The study has proven that both summer and winter tourists clearly differentiate between distinct types of renewable energy production in touristic regions. The results have shown that alpine tourists have a clear preference for smaller plants over larger facilities. Furthermore, tourists rate renewable energy installations connected to existing structures (including buildings, existing lakes, existing infrastructure) more positively than systems constructed on natural sites (i.e. standalone structures). Several studies (see, for example, Gordon, 2001) highlight the importance of designing plants that fit into the existing landscape.
Accordingly, the study could verify the hypothesis ‘(H5): Tourists evaluate renewable energy constructions that are attached to existing structures (including buildings, existing lakes, existing infrastructure) better than standalone models installed on natural sites’.
Verification of H5 does not come as a surprise, since the use of existing structures carries several objective advantages. These include a reduction of resource use, less damage to natural landscapes and less impact on natural scenery. However, constructions that are attached to existing structures also require careful planning. According to Gabel (2004), renewable energy installations can also harm the appearance of existing structures and cultural sites. Yet, there are national, as well as local policies that have the potential to prevent possible harm. Building codes, as published in Alpbach (Pikkemaat et al., 2006; European Forum Alpbach, 2010), and the spatial planning laws of the federal state of Vorarlberg that make Environmental Impact Assessments obligatory (County Government of Vorarlberg, 2007) are two examples. The existence of such regulatory policies further supports the focus on construction of renewable energy plants attached or adjacent to existing structures, wherever possible.
The study’s respondents were clearly able to distinguish between the impact of renewable energy production on the local landscape and its impact on the environment and potential emissions. These results perfectly demonstrate that renewable energy production’s impact on landscapes is assessed more critically than other impacts. When it comes to climate change adaptation, alpine destinations need to keep the different sensibilities of summer and winter tourists in mind, particularly with respect to the preservation of a landscape’s beauty and their efforts to decrease seasonality.
A number of variables were tested as to whether they had any impact on summer tourists’ perception of renewable energy.
In contrast to Westerberg et al. (2013), who examined tourists’ main holiday activities, this study did not find any clear evidence that holiday activities had any influence on the perception of different types of energy sources. Definitive proof would have benefited tourist destinations by establishing a first indication of their target groups’ specific preferences for renewable energy. Yet the number of statistically significant results is insufficient to allow such conclusions. This topic, nevertheless, merits further research, not least because a better understanding of its target group would enable destination management to make informed decisions in relation to renewable energy provision. In order to achieve more conclusive results on this issue, a different approach may be better suited, namely the use of single-choice answers rather than the multiple answers that were available in our study’s questionnaire.
Another assumption we put forth was that summer tourists’ age and nationality influence their acceptance of renewable energy. As previously discussed, Ladenburg (2010) observed that age substantially influenced the perception of wind parks. The study presented here also found age to influence the acceptance of different types of renewable energy production. Older age groups were particularly critical towards most of the categories.
This finding becomes especially relevant for alpine destinations with regard to seasonality – considering that many summer destinations strongly rely on hiking tourists with a high percentage of mature guests. A cross-tabulation also shows that Germans – the largest guest group in the summer survey – make up a comparatively large share of the three oldest tourist groups. This leads us to another central aspect: the influence of nationality. Perceptions have been shown to vary according to respondents’ countries of origin. However, there seem to be similarities between the responses of German guests and those of older age groups. It has been established that both groups individually comprise a large percentage of the SG. Further studies will need to clarify if these two variables reinforce each other or function independently.
Nevertheless, there is some evidence in support of the theory that the country of origin plays a crucial role in perceptions of renewable energy. As mentioned, German nationals were shown to be very critical of wind as well as solar power. Germany is one of the world’s leaders in these two types of renewable energy production (Jacobsson and Lauber, 2004; Gross, 2007; Fried et al., 2011; VEND, 2012). On the contrary, geothermal energy is in its infancy in Germany, though it has recently received a boost in support and is widely regarded as holding unique potential for Germany’s future energy production (Bürgermeister, 2008; Purkus and Barth, 2010). Have Germans seen enough of wind and solar power? Are they eager to see other means of renewable energy production at their holiday destination? Does this provide an explanation of the study’s results and conclusive proof of the influence of nationality on the way renewable energy is perceived? Broekel and Alfken (2015) confirm the negative perception of large-scale wind turbines by Germans. In their home country German tourists tend to displace from their favourite villages and shoreline if the number of wind turbines increases. Recently Langer and Wooliscroft (2018) surveyed lower acceptance by Germans for wind energy production as well in the cross-country comparison between Germany and New Zealand.
In conclusion, hypothesis (H2) can be verified: ‘Socio-demographics (especially age) and nationality have an influence on the acceptance of different types of renewable energy production’. Evaluation of the age variable indicates a growing acceptance of renewable energy sources, as younger age groups detected only minor negative impacts. The nationality variable remains controversial and could not definitively establish a positive effect of ‘habituation’ (i.e. a constant exposure in the home country). Frequent exposure to renewable energy constructions may have the potential to influence individual perception. Yet further research is required to find out to what extent it influences acceptance levels. As of now, certain values attributed to different forms of energy supply appear more likely to influence attitudes, as argued by Westerberg et al. (2013) in their comparison of guests from northern and southern European countries.
As publications by Scott et al. (2009), TAC (2011) and many others have shown, it will be of immense importance for tourist destinations to overcome seasonality. These studies also highlight the need to create an infrastructure that suits the demands of both summer and winter guests. Only then can a balance be achieved that supports sustainable development in tourist regions. The production of renewable energy in tourist regions will also have to meet these requirements and find acceptance among both winter and summer tourists.
A comparison between winter and summer tourists has shown that in most cases perceptions of renewable energy’s impacts are quite similar. The only divergences have been observed in the fields of solar energy and geothermal energy. The former found more favour among winter tourists, the latter among summer tourists. Furthermore, summer tourists were more inclined to support local production of renewable energy. However, this study has also shown that diverging responses among winter and summer guests are likely linked to differences in socio-demographic variables. In light of this, the hypothesis ‘(H1): The holiday season (winter/summer) has a significant influence on tourists’ preferences for renewable energy’ cannot be fully confirmed. The observed differences in perceptions of energy infrastructure between the two seasons were not significant enough to warrant such a conclusion, since both winter and summer tourists agreed in their preference for renewable energy installations close to existing infrastructure over large and exposed infrastructure. Yet one more aspect needs to be considered in this discussion: summer tourists rate the importance of (a pristine) landscape highly in their choice of destination. Deviating from key priorities cited by winter tourists, this aspect constitutes one of the three most important criteria when choosing an alpine holiday experience in the summer. Regarding the aim of multi-seasonality, it is important to keep this difference in mind.
The aim of this study was to gain further, in-depth knowledge of tourists’ perceptions of renewable energy production in alpine tourist destinations. The study shows that tourists who visit the alpine regions generally have a positive view of local production of renewable energy. However, they perceive some plants as having a more negative impact than others. Especially the impact of constructions on local landscapes has the potential to deter some tourist segments. Therefore, investments in alpine destinations should be carefully planned, particularly regarding type and location. The aim should be to install energy systems that are suitable for the region in a number of ways. Not only should they be well integrated into existing structures and landscapes, they should also be designed to find approval among different touristic target groups. In particular, larger, starkly visible facilities and systems that are not attached to existing structures are more likely to trigger a negative response. In view of the study’s results, future designs for RES in touristic alpine regions may need to consider doing without tall wind turbines in exposed sites.
Furthermore, it has become clear that constructions of photovoltaic systems on meadows, large biogas plants and hydroelectric power produced by dams in natural rivers are highly sensitive issues. On the other hand, geothermal energy, photovoltaic and solar thermal systems attached to pre-existing buildings and hydroelectric power generated by modification of existing water reservoirs are, in general, assessed rather positively.
It was also shown that renewable energy production and other environmental criteria are not yet priorities in the choice of a holiday destination. Scenery, atmosphere and price–performance ratio still constitute the main incentives. Renewable energy plants that strongly interfere with the alpine landscape could, therefore, place a destination at a competitive disadvantage.
Nevertheless, tourists generally take a positive view of local renewable energy production. It appears that the majority also prefers a holiday destination that produces its own energy in comparison with imported renewable energy or conventional energy. This is in line with the direction in which responsible tourism development has been going in recent years. Numerous studies (see, for example, Kaae, 2001; Dalton et al., 2008; Needham and Little, 2013) confirm an increasing interest in environmentally friendly tourism. They, moreover, underline the need for destinations to implement measures reducing the impact of tourism on the environment. De Sousa et al. (2015) address the potential to market wind energy production as ‘green tourism’. Frantál and Urbánková (2017) even point out the potential of renewables as a touristic attraction themselves.
Constructions of additional infrastructure for renewable energy production can help mitigate negative environmental effects including CO2 emissions, which are a main driver of climate change. This objective also requires alpine skiing destinations to establish independence from external energy suppliers – an important aspect considering the increased energy demand linked to climate change adaptation as well as efforts to remain competitive in terms of pricing.
In conclusion, when planning an investment in renewable energy production, destinations should take additional aspects into account. One major concern should be the different attitudes adopted by summer and winter guests. Even though it was shown that attitudes are, to a certain degree, guided by socio-demographic characteristics, the study could still detect a higher demand for an intact landscape among summer tourists. It has been widely acknowledged that bad infrastructural decisions can have a severe impact on the landscape, particularly in areas that are already overloaded with winter sport infrastructure. Consequently, this situation could further aggravate summer tourists’ apprehension regarding new renewable energy plants. At the same time, summer tourism is said to become more and more important in alpine areas in relation to intensified efforts to counteract seasonality. In particular in the context of climate change adaptation a shift from winter to summer tourism is desired by several alpine destinations (Abegg and Steiger, 2011; Pröbstl-Haider et al., 2015; Steiger et al., 2016).
Research in the fields of sustainable rural development and RES, as well as studies on the role of environmental criteria in destination choice, have created an awareness of the topic. Educating and raising awareness may not see quick and direct results, but in the long run, these measures could prove to be vital. In this context, the strategies alpine destinations choose to build awareness among their guests are crucial. Though the study was conducted more than 5 years ago the situation in Austrian skiing areas is still comparable. Many of them struggle between the aim to provide a more climate-friendly tourism product and the fear of negative impacts of large-scale energy infrastructure. The way they approach their customers on the topic of RES could have a substantial influence on their perceptions and acceptance though in the future.
Abegg, B. and Steiger, R. (2011) Will Alpine summer tourism benefit from climate change? A review. IGF-Forschungsberichte 4, 268–277.
Bell, S., Simpson, M., Tyrväinen, L., Sievänen, T. and Pröbstl, U. (2008) European Forest Recreation and Tourism. Taylor & Francis, London.
Broekel, T. and Alfken, C. (2015) Gone with the wind? The impact of wind turbines on tourism demand. Energy Policy 86(C), 506–519. DOI:10.1016/j.tourman.2009.11.005
Bürgermeister, J. (2008) Geothermal electricity booming in Germany. Available at: https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2008/06/geothermal-electricity-booming-in-germany-52588.html (accessed 16 July 2019).
BWEA (British Wind Energy Association) (2006) The impact of wind farms on the tourist industry in the UK. Available at: www.oddzialywaniawiatrakow.pl/upload/File/BWEA%20krajobraz.pdf (accessed 8 February 2019).
County Government of Vorarlberg (2007) Leitbild 2010+ Tourismus Vorarlberg. Available at: https://vorarlberg.at/web/land-vorarlberg/contentdetailseite/-/asset_publisher/qA6AJ38txu0k/content/tourismusleitbild-des-landes?article_id=140833 (accessed 30 January 2019).
Dalton, G.J., Lockington, D.A. and Baldock, T.E. (2008) A survey of tourist attitudes to renewable energy supply in Australian hotel accommodation. Renewable Energy 33(10), 2174–2185. DOI:10.1016/j.renene.2007.12.016
Davidson, M. (2010) Impact of wind farms on tourism in Skamania county. Available at: https://topslide.net/view-doc.html?utm_source=impact-of-wind-farms-on-tourism-in-skamania-county-washington-prepared-by-michael-davidson-june (accessed 8 February 2019).
De Sousa, A.J.G. and Kastenholz, E. (2015) Wind farms and the rural tourism experience – problem or possible productive integration? The views of visitors and residents of a Portuguese village. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 23(8–9), 1236–1256. DOI:10.1080/09669582.2015.1008499
Devine-Wright, P. (2005) Beyond NIMBYism: towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy. Wind Energy 8(2), 125–139. DOI:10.1002/we.124
European Forum Alpbach (2010) Built Environment Symposium: 3–4 September 2010. Available at: https://www.alpbach.org/en/event/baukulturgesprache-2 (accessed 5 February 2019).
Frantál, B. and Kunc, J. (2011) Wind turbines in tourism landscapes Czech Experience. Annals of Tourism Research 38(2), 499–519. DOI:10.1016/j.annals.2010.10.007
Frantál, B. and Urbánková, R. (2017) Energy tourism: an emerging field of study. Current Issues in Tourism 20(13), 1395–1412. DOI:10.1080/13683500.2014.987734
Fried, L., Shukla, S. and Sawyer, S. (2011) Global Wind Report. GWEC Global Wind Energy Council, Brussels, Belgium.
Gabel, G. (2004) Beeinträchtigungen des Landschaftsbilds durch Windenergieanlagen–- Kompensation durch Ersatzzahlung? Natur und Landschaft 79(11), 507–510.
Gordon, G. (2001) Wind energy, landscape: reconciling nature and technology. Philosophy and Geography 4(2), 169–184. DOI:10.1080/10903770124626
Gross, M. (2007) Germany goes for solar. Current Biology 17(16), 616–617. DOI:10.1016/j.cub.2007.07.053
Howley, P. (2011) Landscape aesthetics: assessing the general publics‘ preferences towards rural landscapes. Ecological Economics 72, 161–169. DOI:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.09.026
Jacobsson, S. and Lauber, V. (2004) The politics and policy of energy system transformation – explaining the German diffusion of renewable energy technology. Energy Policy 34(3), 256–276. DOI:10.1016/j.enpol.2004.08.029
Kaae, B.C. (2001) The perceptions of tourists and residents of sustainable tourism principles and environmental initiatives. In: McCool, S.F. and Moisey, R.N. (eds) Tourism, Recreation and Sustainability: Linking Culture and the Environment. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 289–313.
Kelly, J., Haider, W., Williams, P.W. and Englund, K. (2007) Stated preferences of tourists for eco-efficient destination planning options. Tourism Management 28(2), 377–390. DOI:10.1016/j.tourman.2006.04.015
Ladenburg, J. (2010) Attitudes towards offshore wind farms – the role of beach visits on attitude and demographic and attitude relations. Energy Policy 38(3), 1297–1304. DOI:10.1016/j.enpol.2009.11.005
Landry, C.E., Allen, T., Cherry, T. and Whitehead, J.C. (2012) Wind turbines and coastal recreation demand. Resource and Energy Economics 34(1), 93–111. DOI:10.1016/j.reseneeco.2011.10.001
Langer, K. and Wooliscroft, B. (2018) The acceptance of wind energy in a leading country and low deployment country of wind energy: a cross-national comparative analysis. Renewable Energy Focus 27, 111–119. DOI:10.1016/j.ref.2018.09.003
Latu, C., Boghinciuc, M., Coca, A., Ibánescu and Munteanu, A. (2010) Preliminary study of active tourism stages. In: Dornelor Basin, Romania, Proceedings of the 5th WSEAS International Conference on Economy and Management Transformation. vol. 1, 24–26 October 2010, West University of Timisoara, Timisoara, Romania.
Lilley, M.B., Firestone, J. and Kempton, W. (2010) The effect of wind power installations on coastal tourism. Energies 3(1), 1–22. DOI:10.3390/en3010001
Lothian, A. (2008) Scenic perceptions of the visual effects of wind farms on South Australian landscapes. Geographical Research 46(2), 196–207. DOI:10.1111/j.1745-5871.2008.00510.x
Miles, J. and Shevlin, M. (2001) Applying Regression and Correlation – a Guide for Students and Researchers. Sage, London.
Muhar, A., Schauppenlehner, T., Brandenburg, C. and Arnberger, A. (2006) Trends und Handlungsbedarf im Sommer-Bergtourismus. University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna.
Needham, M.D. and Little, C.M. (2013) Voluntary environmental programs at an alpine ski area: visitor perceptions, attachment, value orientations, and specialization. Tourism Management 35, 70–81. DOI:10.1016/j.tourman.2012.06.001
Österreich Werbung (2009) T-Mona (Tourism Monitor Austria): Urlauber in Österreich Winter 2008/2009. Österreich Werbung, Vienna.
Österreich Werbung (2012) T-Mona (Tourism Monitor Austria): Urlauber in Österreich Sommer 2011. Österreich Werbung, Vienna.
Pikkemaat, B., Peters, M. and Weiermair, K. (2006) Innovationen im Tourismus. Erich Schmidt Verlag, Berlin.
Pröbstl, U. (2010) Natura 2000, Sport und Tourismus in Europa – Herausforderungen, Optimierungspotenziale und beispielhafte Lösungen – Natura 2000, sports, and tourism in Europe – challenges, potential for optimisation, and examples of solutions. Natur und Landschaft 85(9/10), 402–407. DOI:10.17433/9.2010.50153043.402-407
Pröbstl-Haider, U., Haider, W., Wirth, V. and Beardmore, B. (2015) Will climate change increase the attractiveness of summer destinations in the European Alps? A survey of German tourists. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 11, 44–57. DOI:10.1016/j.jort.2015.07.003
Purkus, A. and Barth, V. (2010) Geothermal power production in future electricity markets – a scenario analysis for Germany. Energy Policy 39(1), 349–357. DOI:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.10.003
Ritchie, B.W. and Adair, D. (2004) Sport Tourism: Interrelationships, Impacts and Issues. Channel View Publications, Bristol, UK.
Scott, D., de Freitas, C.R. and Matzarakis, A. (2009) Adaptation in the tourism and recreation sector. In: Ebi, K.L., Burton, I. and McGregor, G.R. (eds) Biometeorology for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 171–194.
Steiger, R., Abegg, B. and Jänicke, L. (2016) Rain, rain, go away, come again another day. Weather preferences of summer tourists in mountain environments. Atmosphere 7(63), 1–12. DOI:10.3390/atmos7050063
Swofford, J. and Slattery, M. (2010) Public attitudes of wind energy in Texas: local communities in close proximity to wind farms and their effect on decision-making. Energy Policy 38(5), 2508–2519. DOI:doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.12.046
TAC (Tourism Advisory Committee) (2011) Annual tourism report 2010: Austria. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/11658/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/pdf (accessed 7 May 2019).
Tyrväinen, L., Järviluoma, J., Nikkola, K. and Silvennoinen, H. (2012) Selvitys matkailijoiden suhtautumisesta Mielmukkavaaran tuulipuistohankkeeseen. Metlan työraportteja 237. METLA, Vantaa, Finland.
VEND consulting GmbH (2012) Summary: Photovoltaikstudie Österreich/Deutschland. VEND, Nürnberg, Germany.
Voltaire, L., Loureiro, M.L., Knudsen, C. and Nunes, P.A.L.D. (2017) The impact of offshore wind farms on beach recreation demand: policy intake from an economic study on the Catalan coast. Marine Policy 81, 116–123. DOI:10.1016/j.marpol.2017.03.019
Waldo, Å. (2012) Offshore wind power in Sweden – a qualitative analysis of attitudes with particular focus on opponents. Energy Policy 41, 692–702. DOI:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.11.033
Waldo, Å., Johansson, M., Ek, K. and Persson, L. (2013) Wind power in open landscape, forest, mountain and sea – an interdisciplinary study. In: Swedish EPA (ed.) Book of Abstracts Conference on Wind Power and Environmental Impacts, Stockholm, 5–7 February, Report 6546. Swedish EPA, Stockholm, pp. 102–104.
Weiermair, K. (1999) The tourism practices of city-dwellers in the Alps. Revue de géographie alpine 87(1), 119–130.
Westerberg, V., Bredahl Jacobsen, J. and Lifran, R. (2013) The case for offshore wind farms, artificial reefs and sustainable tourism in the French Mediterranean. Tourism Management 34, 172–183. DOI:10.1016/j.tourman.2012.04.008
Zegg, R., Küng, T. and Grossrieder, R. (2010) Energiemanagement Bergbahnen – Studie und Handbuch 2010. Seilbahnen Schweiz, Bern, Switzerland.