A residents' association in a coastal town published the following statement on its website: 'The proposed construction of a large wind farm three kilometre...

(a) The perspective and textual evidence [2]

The statement is written from a local perspective [1]. Evidence: it focuses specifically on the impact on the town's tourism industry and references a survey of local business owners, rather than addressing national energy policy, climate targets, or the country's overall energy mix [1].

(b) Two limitations of the residents' association survey [4]

Any two of the following, each worth [2]:

1. Narrow sample: The survey includes only business owners, not all residents. Business owners are likely to be disproportionately concerned about tourism revenue, so their views may not represent the full community, which could include residents who would welcome construction jobs or lower energy bills [1+1].
2. Potential question bias: The residents' association opposes the project and may have framed the survey questions in a way that encouraged negative responses (e.g. leading questions about "destroying" views rather than neutral questions about preferences) [1+1].
3. Unknown sample size: 78% of respondents opposed the project, but the total number of respondents is not given. If only 20 business owners replied, the figure is statistically meaningless. Without knowing the sample size, the percentage cannot be properly evaluated [1+1].
4. Excluded perspectives: The survey does not include people who might benefit from the project, such as construction workers, energy sector employees, or residents who prioritise environmental concerns over tourism aesthetics [1+1].

(c) How the government's perspective differs from the residents' association [3]

The national government is taking a national perspective focused on the country's overall carbon emissions reduction targets and climate commitments [1]. The residents' association prioritises the economic wellbeing and visual amenity of one specific coastal community [1]. The government weighs benefits that are spread across the entire population (cleaner energy, reduced emissions, energy security) against costs concentrated in one locality, whereas the local group focuses on those concentrated costs and does not address the broader environmental gains [1].

(d) How an individual fisher's perspective might differ from both [3]

An individual fisher might support or oppose the wind farm based on direct livelihood concerns: turbine foundations could create restricted fishing zones, alter marine habitats, or conversely act as artificial reefs that attract fish [1]. This differs from the residents' association because the fisher is concerned with their own daily working ability and income rather than the town's tourism revenue and sea views [1]. It also differs from the government because the fisher is unlikely to weigh national emission targets or energy policy goals, focusing instead on the practical question of whether they can still catch enough to earn a living [1].