The Tourism Research Centre of UPEI conducted a paper and web based survey http://www.trc.upei.ca/files/Wind_Energy_Report.pdf of 1,676 residents and visitors to "capture perceptions of wind energy production and wind farms, and their perceived effects on the landscape."
Given there were 1.4 million visitors to the Island last year, a survey number of 1,313 visitors this summer seems rather small to be truly representative. Only 363 residents were surveyed, with a stated sampling error of 4.8% at 95%, these results verge on being barely statistically significant.
There is no indication as to whether the visitors surveyed were day trippers or cottagers. 145 (11%) of the surveys were conducted at Visitor Information Centres (VIC). These centres are mostly frequented by day trippers, not cottagers. The people who return year after year rarely require the services of a VIC. Also, the visitors are often referred to as "travelers". From this, one has to suspect that most of the non-resident people surveyed were short stay or day-trippers.
What we do know is the demographic composition of the travelers (mostly families and couples), whether they had been to the Island before (80.4% were repeat visitors) and what areas they visited. The report states: "Charlottetown and Anne’s Land are the two most popular areas to visit while on PEI. Fewer visitors travel to the eastern and western regions of PEI. Since these are the locations on PEI where the wind farms are located, it is expected that a bare majority, at best, would have seen a wind farm on PEI. " The report later states that only 51% of visitors had even seen a wind farm, while 83.3% of residents had seen one.
There were questions as to how energy should be produced and how much one would be prepared to pay for greener energy. There were more negative comments about wind turbines from residents than visitors.
Residents and long term seasonal residents are more likely to have experienced the positive or negative effects than day trippers. This is reflected when asked that the perception that PEI is "Canada's Green Province" where residents did not believe this to be true but visitors did.
The appendices A to E of verbatim and written comments appear to be unavailable for review.
One finding of the report was that "44% of both residents and visitors either agreed or strongly agreed that a wind farm adds to the attractiveness of the area it is based." In other words, 56% disagreed that they add to the attractiveness. The majority believed that wind energy is a good use of the land, but whether the original use of that land (forestry, farmland, cottage country or Anne's Land) was part of how these turbines are located was not part of the survey. While the majority believed there should be more wind energy produced, they were not asked where the turbines should be located.
Even if we can believe the results from this very small and incomplete survey as being statistically significant, the results cannot be applied to the Gulf Shore, because there is no indication that the same kind of visitors (or residents) have been surveyed. The report shows support for wind energy (as do we) but does not ask where this energy should be found.
Wind energy may be a good use of land, but it has to be the in an area that does not impact the neighbourhood and it's economy.
The Gulf Shore area is a long term seasonal visitor destination area. It is where people come an stay for long periods of time. Many retire here. We have our day-trippers, but by far the more important part of our economy is driven by the long term "visitors".
Wind energy may be a good use of land, but it has to be the in an area that does not impact the neighbourhood and it's economy.
The Gulf Shore area is a long term seasonal visitor destination area. It is where people come an stay for long periods of time. Many retire here. We have our day-trippers, but by far the more important part of our economy is driven by the long term "visitors".
4 comments:
As we are in the middle of a federal election, everyone should be conversant with the polling going on. Of the many poll companies at work, sample size varies between 1000 for Epsos and Strategic to 3427 for Ekos. Accuracy is +/- 3.1 to +/- 1.7 90 times out of 100.
The voting population of Canada is about 27,000,000. Polls with recognised accuracy are conducted with between .000037 and .0001269% of eligable voters quizzed.
PEI has a population of about 134,000. 363 is .0027089%. 1313 visitors out of 1,400,000 is .0009378.
As anyone can see, the TRC poll contacted many more people than needed for statsical accuracy. That is why the poll is concidered accurate 95 times out of 100 not 90. In fact Between 21 to 73 times the numbers questioned by Epsos or Ekos were polled in this PEI study. For visitors, it's 7 to 25 times. This poll cannot be criticised for using small sample size.
To to say that because 44% agreed , 56% disagreed is disengenuous. Each poll question offered 5 different responses; strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, strongly agree. Ms. Betts 56% figure ignors the middle response and is therefore false.
I do however find the beauty question confusing. It askes only if wind farms improve the beauty of PEI. A strongly disagree response does not automatically mean that the respondent thinks wind turbines are ugly: they may be merely stating that they have no affect on the beauty of PEI
The statement that this poll is incomplete is confusing. Just because it doesn't ask the questions one individual wants asked doesn't make it incomplete.
In my letter to the editor, Wednesday, I did not indicate that Kathy Langille didn't support your cause; I said exactly the oposite. Mr. Kempt's advertisement expresses his groups dissaproval of local politicians who did not support wind farms. Ms. Langille lost her chair in the recent Commission elecions. This seems to indicate that there is a level of wind support in Pugwash. We'll see if there is any effect in the council elections.
John McManus
The many holes, missing information and appendices in the tourism report are very clear. If there is a more full version of this report available, then further comment will shortly follow.
John, if you kept up with not just the Oxford Journal, but other communications regarding who is supporting what and whom, you would know that not only has Councilor Kathy Langille supported the GSPA, but so has most of her opponents, including Bill Kempt, thus making your comments rather nonsensical.
Why Kathy lost her position in the Village Commission is a little more complicated that your simplistic deduction. But then again, we in Pugwash are more aware of what is actually going on here.
You are right. I don't understand Pugwash politics. I read all the Pondering Pugwash Politics paid ads, read letters to the editor, read staff articles: Ihave spoken to politicians and contacted municipal staff. I still don't understand.
Most of the complaints in PPP's have nothing to do with Pugwash politics. The province controls voting rights for part time residents-Pugwash Village Commission can legally do nothing. Tax rolls are compiled through Land Registry and County Council- Pugwash Village Commission has no place in this process. Other PPP complaints are similarly misplaced.
Chances are that I will never understnd Pugwash politics no matter how much I make my head hurt. What I do know is the Mr. Kempt's last ad said that his group opposed politicians who opposed wind energy development.
Kathy has even asked me about my position. She knows I won't vote for someone who voted aginst the bylaw in My case, Kathy Redmnd )and does't support wind development.
John McManus
Is 'tourism' what we need to protect on the Gulf?
I think that the things that we should have protected are long, long gone. Just have a look at an A.F. Church map of the area from about 100 years ago. There were small industries, many farms, a church and school. What do we have now? A handful of people who actually live there full time and a hoard of others who own the majority of land, but are really only visitors in the sense that they do not hold a lifeline to the land.
What does this have to do with the development? Well, what is the future? Are we going to regress to being a theme park for neo-yuppies or should we start producing something? Granted, the question remains, how do we produce something safely and sustainably?
Post a Comment