Gork view of Tourism Tax surveys

Gork

Analysis of Bias in the Two Survey Documents

Both documents are consultation surveys commissioned by Dumfries & Galloway Council (via independent firm 56 Degree Insight) on introducing a visitor levy (a "tourist tax" on overnight accommodation). The Business Survey targets tourism-related businesses (especially accommodation providers), while the Citizen Survey targets local residents. They share core content (e.g., levy explanation, spending ideas, objectives from the South of Scotland Responsible Tourism Strategy) but differ in framing, incentives, and question focus.

I'll identify biases in each, explain why I believe they exist (with evidence from language, structure, omissions, and design), and opine on what the bias directs audiences toward. Biases are primarily pro-levy framing biases (presenting the levy as inevitable, beneficial, and normalized) rather than neutral consultation. They stem from the council's interest in revenue generation and tourism growth, subtly shaping responses to favor implementation.

1. Shared Biases Across Both Surveys

These appear in introductory text, examples, and shared questions, creating a consistent pro-levy tilt.

Bias: Normalization and Inevitability Framing

Evidence: Both repeatedly describe the levy as a "small percentage rate" on overnight stays, with exemptions for disability benefits, and note it's "common across Europe and the US." The Business Survey adds: "Similar visitor taxes are already common..." and mentions consultation only after emphasizing powers under the 2024 Act. The Citizen Survey calls it a "tourist tax" that "helps destinations improve facilities and cope with visitors," with Highland Council's £10m forecast as "context." Earliest start is 2028, but no risks (e.g., business closures, visitor deterrence) are highlighted upfront.

Why Bias?: This uses anchoring (citing high rates like Edinburgh/Glasgow at 5%, Aberdeen at 7%) and social proof (international commonality) to make the levy seem standard and uncontroversial. Omits counter-evidence, like failed levies elsewhere or economic studies showing tourism declines (e.g., in some EU cities post-introduction). The council, as proponent, frames it as empowered legislation rather than a debatable policy.

Directs Audience Toward: Acceptance of the levy as a done deal. Businesses see it as adaptable to "local circumstances" (implying tweaks, not rejection); citizens view it as helpful for "coping" with tourism. Encourages conditional support (e.g., "how to design it") over outright opposition.

Bias: Positive Outcome Framing in Spending and Objectives

Evidence: Spending ideas (Q7/Q8 Business; Q13/Q14 Citizen) are all pro-tourism/infrastructure (e.g., "Promote the region," "Upgrade paths/public toilets," "Support local festivals"). Objectives (Q19 Business; Q18 Citizen) are pre-set from the council's strategy: growing the economy, protecting infrastructure, "responsible" benefits for all. No options for non-tourism uses (e.g., general tax relief, schools) or anti-growth ideas (e.g., reducing visitor numbers).

Why Bias?: Loaded options limit responses to levy-positive ideas, excluding negatives like administrative burdens or inequity (levy burdens accommodation but funds broader benefits). Objectives are phrased aspirational ("inspiring visitors year-round," "long-term collective benefit") without trade-offs (e.g., higher costs deterring low-income visitors).

Directs Audience Toward: Endorsing the levy for "shared benefits." Businesses prioritize reinvestment in tourism (their sector); citizens see it aligning with "responsible" growth, nudging agreement with pre-approved goals.

Bias: Scale and Rating Design Favoring Nuance Over Opposition

Evidence: Overall support scales (Q21 Business; Q20 Citizen) are 1-10, with 1 "Totally against" and 10 "Totally in favour," but include "Don't know." Follow-up (Q22 Business; Q21 Citizen) asks for "reasons" without prompting balanced pros/cons.

Why Bias?: 10-point scale allows granular pro-levy responses (e.g., 6-10 for mild support) but bins strong opposition at "1." No neutral midpoint label forces choice.

Directs Audience Toward: Moderate support or indecision, softening outright rejection. Open-ended follow-ups capture opposition but frame it as explainable, not default.

2. Biases Specific to the Business Survey

This targets accommodation providers (who collect the levy), so biases mitigate perceived burdens while soliciting "design" input.

Bias: Mitigation of Costs and Administrative Burden

Evidence: Q16/Q17 discuss providers retaining 1-2% (citing Edinburgh/Glasgow) to "offset costs" like quarterly reports. Q10 offers rate options up to "More than 8%" or "None... under any circumstances," but examples minimize impact (e.g., £100 stay → £105 at 5%). Q18 proposes a "Visitor Levy Forum" with business reps for "transparent engagement" and "influence."

Why Bias?: Downplaying negatives—acknowledges costs but frames retention as fair compensation, not a flaw. Forum implies businesses can "shape" the levy, but it's post-decision (council "would establish" it). Detailed business profiling (Q1-Q6: sector, size, turnover) segments responses but risks identifying opponents via optional name (Q2).

Directs Audience Toward: Conditional acceptance. Businesses feel empowered to tweak (e.g., caps, exclusions in Q11-Q15) rather than oppose, viewing the levy as a partnership for "reinvestment" benefiting their economy.

Bias: Assumption of Tourism Dependency

Evidence: Targets "businesses in Dumfries & Galloway" but drills into accommodation (Q2-Q3 conditional on Q1). Spending priorities (Q8) heavily tourism-focused (e.g., "Grants... for tourism businesses").

Why Bias?: Selection bias in sampling (likely via tourism networks) and questions assume levy revenue boosts their sector, ignoring non-tourism businesses harmed (e.g., retail from fewer visitors).

Directs Audience Toward: Seeing the levy as pro-business growth, encouraging support for rates/caps that minimize their pain while funding marketing/events.

3. Biases Specific to the Citizen Survey

This targets residents, with lighter tourism focus and an incentive (prize draw), biasing toward engaged/pro-tourism locals.

Bias: Leading Questions on Tourism Positivity

Evidence: Early questions (Q1-Q2) ask if D&G has "too few/many" visitors and tourism impacts ("Extremely positive" to "negative"). Q7-Q8 probe event attendance/interest (listing popular festivals). Levy intro (post-Q12) frames it as coping with visitors, with European commonality.

Why Bias?: Priming effect—positive tourism questions first build a narrative of under-visitation or balanced benefits before levy details. Events list highlights cultural upsides funded by tourism. Prize draw (local hamper) appeals to proud residents, potentially skewing sample to pro-local economy views. No questions on levy negatives (e.g., price sensitivity beyond Q16 scale).

Directs Audience Toward: Viewing the levy as fixing "too few" visitors or managing positives. Residents (especially event-goers) support funding festivals/infrastructure, seeing it as community-enhancing.

Bias: Visitor Perspective Inclusion with Low Stakes

Evidence: Q3-Q6 ask about personal overnight stays (as "visitors" in their region), Q10-Q12 on levy experiences elsewhere, Q16 on personal deterrence (with minimized examples: £100 → £105).

Why Bias?: Treats residents as dual stakeholders (locals + occasional payers), but most stays are rare/leisure. Anonymity + prize incentivizes participation without cost fear.

Directs Audience Toward: Empathy for levy as "small" and experiential (e.g., if paid elsewhere without issue), favoring low rates for "year-round" growth.

Overall Opinion on Bias Direction

These surveys exhibit institutional bias from the council (revenue seeker) and strategy alignment, using framing, omission, and leading design to consult while steering toward implementation. They're not fraudulent but lack balance—no equal space for anti-levy arguments, risks (e.g., 5-10% tourism drop in similar schemes), or neutral experts.

For Businesses: Directs toward pragmatic support ("design it to benefit us"), viewing opposition as extreme ("none under any circumstances"). Aims for buy-in via forums/retention, justifying levy as tourism investment.

For Citizens: Directs toward enthusiasm for "responsible" growth and facilities, framing opposition as anti-community/environment. Prize and event focus recruit pro-tourism voices, building consensus for revenue to "cope" and enhance local pride.

Ultimately, biases nudge both groups toward approving a 3-5% levy by 2028, funded by visitors but controlled locally, aligning with council goals over pure public will. True neutrality would include balanced pros/cons, diverse spending options, and equal anti-levy prompts.