This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Green vs. green: Measuring the compensation required to site electrical generation windmills in a viewshed

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Groothuis, Peter A.
Groothuis, Jana D.
Whitehead, John C.

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

Proponents of wind power note that wind is a green energy source. Yet locating electrical generating windmills has become difficult in some localities because of potential negative externalities. We address why the NIMBY syndrome may arise when choosing site locations by addressing the perceived property rights of a viewshed, the role of compensation in a NIMBY impasse, and how concerns for the environment might lessen the compensation required. We use a willingness to accept framework to measure the compensation required to allow wind generation windmills to be built in the mountains of North Carolina. We find that individuals who perceive wind energy as a clean source of power require less compensation. Those who retire to the mountains or individuals who have ancestors from Watauga County require more compensation to accept windmills in their viewshed. In addition, we find in a bivariate-probit analysis that individuals who are more likely to participate in a green energy program are also more likely to allow electrical generation windmills in their viewshed, suggesting that the green vs. green environmental debate is overstated.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V2W-4S0B2TP-3/1/e0121bb8701b157ab7322c154042f9b6
File Format:
File Function:
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Publisher Info
Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Energy Policy.

Volume (Year): 36 (2008)
Issue (Month): 4 (April)
Pages: 1545-1550
Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:36:y:2008:i:4:p:1545-1550

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Heidi Boesdal).

Related research
Keywords:

Other versions of this item:

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
  1. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  2. Trudy Ann Cameron & Michelle D. James, 1986. "Efficient Estimation Methods for "Closed-Ended" Contingent Valuation Surveys," UCLA Economics Working Papers 404, UCLA Department of Economics. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  3. Peter A. Groothuis & George Van Houtven & John C. Whitehead, . "Using Contingent Valuation to Measure the Compensation Required to Gain Community Acceptance of a LULU: The Case of a Hazardous Waste Disposal Facility," Working Papers 9709, East Carolina University, Department of Economics. [Downloadable!]
  4. John C. Whitehead & Todd L. Cherry, 2004. "Mitigating the Hypothetical Bias of Willingness to Pay: A Comparison of Ex-Ante and Ex-Post Approaches," Working Papers 04-21, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University. [Downloadable!]
  5. Borchers, Allison M. & Duke, Joshua M. & Parsons, George R., 2007. "Does willingness to pay for green energy differ by source?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 3327-3334, June. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  6. Kunreuther, Howard & Kleindorfer, Paul & Knez, Peter J. & Yaksick, Rudy, 1987. "A compensation mechanism for siting noxious facilities: Theory and experimental design," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 14(4), pages 371-383, December. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Full references

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? RePEc also has a blog.

This page was last updated on 2009-11-7.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.