For more information about EU blue economy sectors please visit the EU Blue Economy Observatory website. 

For more European statistics and data you can also visit the Eurostat website

One of the main challenges induced by the co-existence of tourism and offshore wind farms is linked to the fact that costs of renewable energy need to be competitive with other energy sources. This is especially relevant for fixed-bottom infrastructures: from a technical point of view, high water depths make it difficult to lay foundations and require larger infrastructure. Moreover, the electric losses associated with submarine cable transmission are corelated to the length of the cable (the longer the cable, the higher the losses and therefore the cost of electricity transportation). In a nutshell, the increased costs of construction and installation (deeper foundations), combined with the electrical losses due to the distance to land, added to the maintenance costs (on-site intervention time) would penalize projects located too far offshore.

Therefore, when developing offshore wind farms, planners and developers look for solutions to reduce costs, mainly by building closer to the shore which can be problematic for tourism activities in terms of visual impact.

Challenges related to co-locating tourism activities and offshore wind farms mostly arise over the attachment people have to a particular landscape, the fears of the visual impacts of wind turbines and more globally the access to sea areas.

Stakeholders related to beach and coastal tourism are often concerned that the visibility of offshore wind farms from the coast reduces the attractiveness of the place. This could negatively influence the number of visitors and with this, the local economy. Local property owners (residents and second homeowners) can be concerned that offshore wind farms might decrease the value of their houses, although there is no evidence for such a decrease.

The visual impact of offshore wind farms – whether real or expected – can give rise to emotional discussions. People can be very attached to a particular place and may strongly resent the visual intrusion caused by an offshore wind farm. However, this resentment and tension is often less intense than in cases where wind farms are planned on land, as there is even more proximity between turbines and housing. Although the conflict over a wind farm may appear small, it can quickly escalate if these concerns are not taken seriously. Such opposition can block the development of the project through public consultation, associated with the consenting and the environmental impact assessment process. 

This category is globally self-explanatory: offshore wind farms can block potential sailing routes, or restrict the available space for a wide range of nautical recreational activities, such as sailing, kitesurfing, diving, cruising, etc. This can also raise safety issues when navigating within and around offshore wind farms as vessels (commercial, nautical and cruise vessels) must divert to avoid related safety and exclusion zones. 

Minimizing the visual impact of offshore wind farms

The idea is to separate locations designed to receive tourism on the one hand and suitable sites for offshore wind farms on the other hand, in order to assign those two activities to specific zones that don’t overlap. In countries that use zoning, an obvious solution is to locate priority areas for offshore wind well away from the coast, or in areas where touristic flows are light. Another solution is to designate an exclusive tourism or recreational zone along the coast to prevent offshore wind farms from being built there. This can either have a fixed boundary or be linked to a policy related to visual impacts. As an example, in its first plan in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany designated a reserved area for tourism that encompassed all coastal waters out to 12 km. Offshore wind farms were restricted to specially designated “suitable areas” outside this zone. In the revised 2016 MSP plan, the principle was softened by introducing a qualification related to the visibility of “vertical structures” which could disturb the visual landscape experience. 

Sensitive sitting of offshore wind farms to minimize socio-cultural impacts

Not all areas around the coast have the same economic, social, or environmental significance. Areas with certain types of tourism, or valued for particular recreational purposes, may be more susceptible to the impacts of offshore wind farming than others, for example. During the planning phase of MSP, social dimensions can be considered by using the concept of culturally significant areas (CSA). This method was developed to identify places of cultural importance on the coast and in the sea. It identifies what is valued by people, where these values are located, when in time they are relevant and to whom, and which places, features or areas are particularly significant compared to others. 

Clear and transparent communication on the visibility of the OWF

Offshore wind turbines are tall structures and can be seen from a long distance especially at night with the lights used to signal their presence (aeronautical night lighting). It falls to the MSP authorities to seriously consider any concerns regarding their visibility, both in the MSP process and final plan. One way to communicate to local communities on the visual impact of offshore wind is to use interactive viewer tools or to include pictures from several viewpoints of the different offshore wind farms from the coast, as often used in EIA process. The text of the plan should also mention visibility and outline possible mitigation measures. Communication on the visual impact of offshore wind farms should be transparent and clear and not contain any mixed messages or conflicting statements from different authorities. It is helpful to work on a coherent strategy beforehand. 

The aim is to ensure the consideration of all local stakeholders’ views on the project (local population, retailers, marine professionals, fishermen, boaters and water sports enthusiasts, tourism professionals, local enterprises, etc.). The tourism sector being fragmented in terms of governance, it must be ensured that all its players are being represented, whatever their size or economic importance. On the one hand, this consultation must be dealt with at MSP level and during the entirety of the MSP process to involve stakeholders adequately and to clarify and acknowledge their concerns and points of view. On the other hand, this consultation, especially when it comes to offshore wind projects, must also be carried out at project level and for project-related challenges. This public debate is for example a good time to ensure clear and transparent communication on the visibility of the future OWF, notably by using interactive viewer tools including pictures from several viewpoints of the different offshore wind farms from the coast. Communication on the visual impact of offshore wind farms should be transparent and clear and not contain any mixed messages or conflicting statements from different authorities. It is helpful to work on a coherent strategy beforehand. 

More globally, a good strategy to increase the acceptance of offshore wind by those stakeholders is to use highly cooperative models such as those often used in Denmark (high level of stakeholder engagement). It must be noted that one should avoid duplicating consultation methods in an undifferentiated manner, as the specific characteristics of each region must be considered. 

This solution of free access for boaters (boating, yachting, recreational fishing, etc.) appears a simple and accessible way to solve potential conflict between touristic activities and OFW, notably when it comes to the obstruction of sailing routes that was highlighted in the previous related challenges section. In the United Kingdom and Denmark, wind farms are open for transit, for both commercial and recreational use, with no special requirements regarding vessel equipment or limits on the vessel size.  Other countries, such as Belgium and Germany do not allow recreational vessels to pass through offshore wind farms because of potential damage to the turbines and insurance-related issues. In 2018, the Netherlands opened some of its offshore wind farms to recreational vessels, but there are additional rules that need to be complied with: recreational vessels need to have an AIS (satellite) transponder, access is only possible during day time, vessels can have a maximum length of 24 meters, they must keep a distance of 50 meters from a turbine and 500 meters from a high voltage station, they are not allowed to anchor within the wind farm, and it is prohibited to go diving, kite surfing, or to dispose of any garbage [5]. 

More specifically, OWF can be opened to the public for visits, as it is for example the case for the offshore wind park of Saint-Brieuc (Brittany, France). Since June 2023, a boat company organizes tours around the offshore wind farm, during which the tour operator provides insights on the parc to the visitors [6]. This emerging “industrial tourism” also aims at informing citizens on the offshore wind farm and its functioning. 

The need for offshore wind farming to be as cost-effective as possible drives infrastructures closer to the shore and enables conflicts to emerge (visual impact, physical obstruction, etc.).. As explained previously, the increased costs of construction and installation (deeper foundations), combined with the electrical losses due to the distance to land, added to the maintenance costs (on-site intervention time) require offshore wind farms to be located close to the shore, which creates issues in the coexistence with tourism activities. Future innovations, especialy floating wind turbines, but also energy islands with Power-to-Gas possibilities, as well as sea basin grids could decrease costs and would provide opportunities to construct wind farms further offshore. The MSP process can also be an enabler, fostering innovation, as illustrated by the MSP processes in Belgium and the Netherlands. Within the Dutch MSP process, the North Sea Energy Lab has been developed: this initiative provides input for the Dutch MSP process and can speed up the development of new technologies by using a social network approach. Moreover, such innovations could fuel a more sustainable tourism as they could provide a greater green energy supply for local touristic activities and facilities.

Data on recreation and tourism activities in coastal waters is often lacking when the MSP process begins. A solution could be to create a bottom-up database of important recreation areas, to map such locations and avoid, where possible, potentially unsuitable locations for the development of offshore wind farms. In areas with high levels of tourism activity, MSP authorities could take measures to decrease the impact of offshore wind farms, such as changing their location or design. A relevant example is the Danish project “Vandfuglefriluftsliv” (http://www.vandfuglefriluftsliv.dk/), designed to assist the Danish MSP process on the topic of tourism. It consists of an open-source database where anyone can add recreational sites or routes, such as areas where they go to kayak, to surf or watch nature. 

Tourist Impact Statements are statements by developers on the likely impacts of their development on the local tourist industry. They also set out the methods that can be used to minimize any negative impacts on local tourism and maximize any possible benefits (e.g., access arrangements). In the Scottish regional planning processes Tourist Impact Statements are already a recognized (although informal) part of the planning process. Tourist Impact Statements could be integrated into environmental impact assessments wherever tourism plays a major role. The statements include information such as the number of tourists travelling, views from tourist accommodation, the scale of tourism and the outdoor activities around the proposed development, etc. 

Regional and municipal authorities as well as local enterprises often resist offshore wind farm projects near the coast because of the possible negative effects on tourism, recreation and the local economy. As such, it must be demonstrated that the offshore wind farm project will, on the contrary, actively contribute to the local/regional economy. Concerning tourism professionals, visiting an offshore wind farm can actually provide an added value to existing boat tours and make them more attractive and cost-effective (industrial tourism, etc.). It also gives tour operators an opportunity to offer additional promotional products, such as the possibility for angling. Other tourism activities could include facilities for divers such as offshore wind farms functioning as artificial reefs.  Offshore wind visitor centers may serve as additional tourist attractions, serving an educational purpose related to knowledge and the image of the green energy sector as well as promoting the sector to young persons and thus potential future employees. Examples of offshore wind and tourism multi-use include wind farms in England: Scroby Sands Farm in Great Yarmouth, for example, attracts over 35,000 people visiting the OWF facilities. In the case of the Gwynt y Mor Farm, a £690,000 fund was designated by the offshore wind developer to support initiatives aiming to boost the local tourist industry in the surrounding area (new harbor project, navigation buoy, piers, cycling routes, etc.). The Estonian case (Riigikogu amendments to the Natural Gas Act) also provides a good example, with an agreement achieved on financial compensation for residents and the local government, jobs for maintenance and training, a compensation scheme for natural sites/ NGOs, the use of renewable energy for the region, and a wind farm design that reduced visibility of the turbines to a minimum.

Instead of designing an offshore wind specifically for optimum wind energy generation alone (single use), it could be an option to consider multi-use combinations with tourism in the early phases of the process. In case a government is tendering an offshore wind farm, it could for example include requirements for a new offshore wind farm to establish facilities for recreational boating. In this way easy navigation routes could be developed for recreating boating within the wind farm.