IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/apl/wpaper/10-14.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Wind Turbines and Coastal Recreation Demand

Author

Listed:
  • Craig E. Landry
  • Tom Allen
  • Todd Cherry
  • John C. Whitehead

Abstract

We examine the impact of coastal wind turbines on coastal tourism and recreation for residents of the northern CAMA counties in North Carolina. A combination of telephone and web survey data are used to assess the impact of coastal wind farms on trip behavior and site choice. Most of the respondents to our telephone survey claim to support offshore wind energy development, and independent survey data suggest that the observed levels of support may be indicative of the broader population in this region. Overall, we find very little impact of coastal wind turbines on aggregate recreational visitation; loss in consumer surplus associated with wide spread wind development in the coastal zone is insignificant at $17 (or about 1.5%). Results suggest that NC coastal residents are averse to wind farms in the near-shore zone; average compensating variation for wind farms one mile from the shore is estimated at $55 per household. On average, we find no evidence of aversion to wind farms 4 miles out in the ocean, or for wind farms located in coastal estuaries. For all wind farm scenarios, we find evidence of preference heterogeneity– some respondents find this appealing while others find it aversive. Key Words: Recreation demand, tourism, renewable energy

Suggested Citation

  • Craig E. Landry & Tom Allen & Todd Cherry & John C. Whitehead, 2010. "Wind Turbines and Coastal Recreation Demand," Working Papers 10-14, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    • Handle: RePEc:apl:wpaper:10-14
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://econ.appstate.edu/RePEc/pdf/wp1014.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Koundouri, Phoebe & Kountouris, Yiannis & Remoundou, Kyriaki, 2009. "Valuing a wind farm construction: A contingent valuation study in Greece," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 1939-1944, May.
    2. Bateman, Ian J. & Day, Brett H. & Jones, Andrew P. & Jude, Simon, 2009. "Reducing gain-loss asymmetry: A virtual reality choice experiment valuing land use change," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 106-118, July.
    3. John C. Whitehead & Christopher F. Dumas & Jim Herstine & Jeffery Hill & Bob Buerger, 2006. "Valuing Beach Access and Width with Revealed and Stated Preference Data," Working Papers 06-15, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    4. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    5. Joseph A. Herriges & Daniel J. Phaneuf, 2002. "Inducing Patterns of Correlation and Substitution in Repeated Logit Models of Recreation Demand," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(4), pages 1076-1090.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Hanley, Nick & Nevin, Ceara, 1999. "Appraising renewable energy developments in remote communities: the case of the North Assynt Estate, Scotland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(9), pages 527-547, September.
    9. Whitehead, John C. & Haab, Timothy C. & Huang, Ju-Chin, 2000. "Measuring recreation benefits of quality improvements with revealed and stated behavior data," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 339-354, October.
    10. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-719, November.
    11. Dimitropoulos, Alexandros & Kontoleon, Andreas, 2009. "Assessing the determinants of local acceptability of wind-farm investment: A choice experiment in the Greek Aegean Islands," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 1842-1854, May.
    12. Bergmann, Ariel & Colombo, Sergio & Hanley, Nick, 2008. "Rural versus urban preferences for renewable energy developments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 616-625, April.
    13. Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Ohl, Cornelia & Hartje, Volkmar, 2010. "Landscape externalities from onshore wind power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 82-92, January.
    14. Herriges, Joseph A. & Phaneuf, Daniel J., 2002. "Inducing Patterns Correlation and Substitution in Repeated Logit Model of Recreation Demand," Staff General Research Papers Archive 5035, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    15. Ladenburg, Jacob & Dubgaard, Alex, 2007. "Willingness to pay for reduced visual disamenities from offshore wind farms in Denmark," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 4059-4071, August.
    16. Joseph A. Herriges & Catherine L. Kling (ed.), 1999. "Valuing Recreation and the Environment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1315.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Soliño, Mario & Farizo, Begoña A. & Vázquez, María X. & Prada, Albino, 2012. "Generating electricity with forest biomass: Consistency and payment timeframe effects in choice experiments," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 798-806.
    5. Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Ohl, Cornelia & Hartje, Volkmar, 2010. "Landscape externalities from onshore wind power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 82-92, January.
    6. Strazzera, Elisabetta & Mura, Marina & Contu, Davide, 2012. "Combining choice experiments with psychometric scales to assess the social acceptability of wind energy projects: A latent class approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 334-347.
    7. Ek, Kristina & Persson, Lars, 2014. "Wind farms — Where and how to place them? A choice experiment approach to measure consumer preferences for characteristics of wind farm establishments in Sweden," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 193-203.
    8. 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.
    9. Vecchiato, Daniel & Tempesta, Tiziano, 2015. "Public preferences for electricity contracts including renewable energy: A marketing analysis with choice experiments," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 168-179.
    10. García, Jorge H. & Cherry, Todd L. & Kallbekken, Steffen & Torvanger, Asbjørn, 2016. "Willingness to accept local wind energy development: Does the compensation mechanism matter?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 165-173.
    11. Petter Gudding & Gorm Kipperberg & Craig Bond & Kelly Cullen & Eric Steltzer, 2018. "When a Good Is a Bad (or a Bad Is a Good)—Analysis of Data from an Ambiguous Nonmarket Valuation Setting," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-16, January.
    12. Kim, Kyung Jae & Lee, Hwarang & Koo, Yoonmo, 2020. "Research on local acceptance cost of renewable energy in South Korea: A case study of photovoltaic and wind power projects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    13. 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).
    14. Caporale, Diana & De Lucia, Caterina, 2015. "Social acceptance of on-shore wind energy in Apulia Region (Southern Italy)," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 1378-1390.
    15. Oehlmann, Malte & Glenk, Klaus & Lloyd-Smith, Patrick & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2021. "Quantifying landscape externalities of renewable energy development: Implications of attribute cut-offs in choice experiments," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Ladenburg, Jacob & Möller, Bernd, 2011. "Attitude and acceptance of offshore wind farms—The influence of travel time and wind farm attributes," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(9), pages 4223-4235.
    20. Mattmann, Matteo & Logar, Ivana & Brouwer, Roy, 2016. "Wind power externalities: A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 23-36.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    recreation demand; tourism; renewable energy;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
    • Q26 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Recreational Aspects of Natural Resources

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:apl:wpaper:10-14. 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: O. Ashton Morgan (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deappus.html .

    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.