IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v39y2011i6p3845-3854.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Combining spatial modeling and choice experiments for the optimal spatial allocation of wind turbines

Author

Listed:
  • Drechsler, Martin
  • Ohl, Cornelia
  • Meyerhoff, Jürgen
  • Eichhorn, Marcus
  • Monsees, Jan

Abstract

Although wind power is currently the most efficient source of renewable energy, the installation of wind turbines (WT) in landscapes often leads to conflicts in the affected communities. We propose that such conflicts can be mitigated by a welfare-optimal spatial allocation of WT in the landscape so that a given energy target is reached at minimum social costs. The energy target is motivated by the fact that wind power production is associated with relatively low CO2 emissions. Social costs comprise energy production costs as well as external costs caused by harmful impacts on humans and biodiversity. We present a modeling approach that combines spatially explicit ecological-economic modeling and choice experiments to determine the welfare-optimal spatial allocation of WT in West Saxony, Germany. The welfare-optimal sites balance production and external costs. Results indicate that in the welfare-optimal allocation the external costs represent about 14% of the total costs (production costs plus external costs). Optimizing wind power production without consideration of the external costs would lead to a very different allocation of WT that would marginally reduce the production costs but strongly increase the external costs and thus lead to substantial welfare losses.

Suggested Citation

  • Drechsler, Martin & Ohl, Cornelia & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Eichhorn, Marcus & Monsees, Jan, 2011. "Combining spatial modeling and choice experiments for the optimal spatial allocation of wind turbines," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3845-3854, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:39:y:2011:i:6:p:3845-3854
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421511002989
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Punt, Maarten J. & Groeneveld, Rolf A. & van Ierland, Ekko C. & Stel, Jan H., 2009. "Spatial planning of offshore wind farms: A windfall to marine environmental protection?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 93-103, November.
    2. Hondo, Hiroki, 2005. "Life cycle GHG emission analysis of power generation systems: Japanese case," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 30(11), pages 2042-2056.
    3. Moran, Dominic & Sherrington, Chris, 2007. "An economic assessment of windfarm power generation in Scotland including externalities," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2811-2825, May.
    4. Möller, Bernd, 2011. "Continuous spatial modelling to analyse planning and economic consequences of offshore wind energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 511-517, February.
    5. Alvarez-Farizo, Begona & Hanley, Nick, 2002. "Using conjoint analysis to quantify public preferences over the environmental impacts of wind farms. An example from Spain," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 107-116, January.
    6. Stephane Hess & John Rose, 2009. "Should Reference Alternatives in Pivot Design SC Surveys be Treated Differently?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 42(3), pages 297-317, March.
    7. Möller, Bernd, 2006. "Changing wind-power landscapes: regional assessment of visual impact on land use and population in Northern Jutland, Denmark," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 83(5), pages 477-494, May.
    8. Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Ohl, Cornelia & Hartje, Volkmar, 2010. "Landscape externalities from onshore wind power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 82-92, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Drechsler, Martin & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Ohl, Cornelia, 2012. "The effect of feed-in tariffs on the production cost and the landscape externalities of wind power generation in West Saxony, Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 730-736.
    2. Mirasgedis, S. & Tourkolias, C. & Tzovla, E. & Diakoulaki, D., 2014. "Valuing the visual impact of wind farms: An application in South Evia, Greece," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 296-311.
    3. Polinori, Paolo, 2019. "Wind energy deployment in wind farm aging context. Appraising an onshore wind farm enlargement project: A contingent valuation study in the Center of Italy," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 206-220.
    4. Gracia, Azucena & Barreiro-Hurlé, Jesús & Pérez y Pérez, Luis, 2012. "Can renewable energy be financed with higher electricity prices? Evidence from a Spanish region," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 784-794.
    5. Sagebiel, Julian & Müller, Jakob R. & Rommel, Jens, 2013. "Are Consumers Willing to Pay More for Electricity from Cooperatives? Results from an Online Choice Experiment in Germany," MPRA Paper 52385, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Molnarova, Kristina & Sklenicka, Petr & Stiborek, Jiri & Svobodova, Kamila & Salek, Miroslav & Brabec, Elizabeth, 2012. "Visual preferences for wind turbines: Location, numbers and respondent characteristics," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 269-278.
    7. Anders Dugstad & Kristine Grimsrud & Gorm Kipperberg & Henrik Lindhjem & Ståle Navrud, 2020. "Scope elasticity and economic significance in discrete choice experiments," Discussion Papers 942, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    8. Landry, Craig E. & Allen, Tom & Cherry, Todd & Whitehead, John C., 2012. "Wind turbines and coastal recreation demand," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 93-111.
    9. Peri, Erez & Becker, Nir & Tal, Alon, 2020. "What really undermines public acceptance of wind turbines? A choice experiment analysis in Israel," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    10. Zerrahn, Alexander, 2017. "Wind Power and Externalities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 245-260.
    11. Andrew D. Krueger & George R. Parsons & Jeremy Firestone, 2011. "Valuing the Visual Disamenity of Offshore Wind Power Projects at Varying Distances from the Shore: An Application on the Delaware Shoreline," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(2), pages 268-283.
    12. Kim, Hyo-Jin & Kim, Ju-Hee & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2019. "Social acceptance of offshore wind energy development in South Korea: Results from a choice experiment survey," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 1-1.
    13. Zaunbrecher, Barbara S. & Linzenich, Anika & Ziefle, Martina, 2017. "A mast is a mast is a mast…? Comparison of preferences for location-scenarios of electricity pylons and wind power plants using conjoint analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 429-439.
    14. Brennan, Noreen & Van Rensburg, Thomas M, 2016. "Wind farm externalities and public preferences for community consultation in Ireland: A discrete choice experiments approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 355-365.
    15. Bengart, Paul & Vogt, Bodo, 2021. "Fuel mix disclosure in Germany—The effect of more transparent information on consumer preferences for renewable energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    16. Boyle, Kevin J. & Boatwright, Jessica & Brahma, Sreeya & Xu, Weibin, 2019. "NIMBY, not, in siting community wind farms," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 85-100.
    17. Varun & Prakash, Ravi & Bhat, Inder Krishnan, 2009. "Energy, economics and environmental impacts of renewable energy systems," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 13(9), pages 2716-2721, December.
    18. Graham, Jessica B. & Stephenson, Janet R. & Smith, Inga J., 2009. "Public perceptions of wind energy developments: Case studies from New Zealand," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(9), pages 3348-3357, September.
    19. Ladenburg, Jacob & Lutzeyer, Sanja, 2012. "The economics of visual disamenity reductions of offshore wind farms—Review and suggestions from an emerging field," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(9), pages 6793-6802.
    20. Anders Dugstad & Kristine M. Grimsrud & Gorm Kipperberg & Henrik Lindhjem & Ståle Navrud, 2021. "Scope Elasticity of Willingness to pay in Discrete Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 80(1), pages 21-57, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:39:y:2011:i:6:p:3845-3854. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.