IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/aue/wpaper/1606.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

An Integrated Approach for Sustainable Environmental and Socio-Economic Development Using Offshore Infrastructure

Author

Listed:
  • Phoebe Koundouri
  • Amerissa Giannouli
  • Ioannis Souliotis

Abstract

Seas and oceans offer a vast renewable energy resource and production possibilities with great potential for innovation and growth. Multi-purpose offshore platforms are ocean energy and aquaculture synergies developed in order to achieve efficient use of marine space. Regarding the construction and operation of such infrastructures, environmental and socio-economic benefits should be taken into account. This chapter uses the Ecosystem Services approach and the total economic framework for evaluating different designs of multi-purpose offshore platforms and a participatory approach to ensure their public acceptability.

Suggested Citation

  • Phoebe Koundouri & Amerissa Giannouli & Ioannis Souliotis, 2016. "An Integrated Approach for Sustainable Environmental and Socio-Economic Development Using Offshore Infrastructure," DEOS Working Papers 1606, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    • Handle: RePEc:aue:wpaper:1606
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://wpa.deos.aueb.gr/docs/integrated.approach.for.sustainable.pdf
    File Function: First version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Russell, Clifford S., 2001. "Applying Economics to the Environment," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195126846, Decembrie.
    2. Ahtiainen, Heini, 2009. "Valuing international marine resources: A meta-analysis on the Baltic Sea," Discussion Papers 48915, MTT Agrifood Research Finland.
    3. Ian Bateman & Georgina Mace & Carlo Fezzi & Giles Atkinson & Kerry Turner, 2011. "Economic Analysis for Ecosystem Service Assessments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(2), pages 177-218, February.
    4. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    5. Pamela Kaval, 2010. "A Summary of Ecosystem Service Economic Valuation Methods and Recommendations for Future Studies," Working Papers in Economics 10/02, University of Waikato.
    6. Zaharia Rodica Milena & Grundey Dainora & Stancu Alin, 2008. "Qualitative Research Methods: A Comparison Between Focus-Group And In-Depth Interview," Annals of Faculty of Economics, University of Oradea, Faculty of Economics, vol. 4(1), pages 1279-1283, May.
    7. Ian J. Bateman & Richard T. Carson & Brett Day & Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Tannis Hett & Michael Jones-Lee & Graham Loomes, 2002. "Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2639.
    8. Barry, John & Proops, John, 1999. "Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 337-345, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Wenting Chen & Phoebe Koundouri & Osiel Gonzalez Davila & Claire Haggett & David Rudolph & Shiau-Yun Lu & Chia-Fa Chi & Jason Yu & Lars Golmen & Yung-Hsiang Ying, 2020. "Social acceptance and socioeconomic effects of Multi-Use Offshore Developments:Theory and Applications in MERMAID and TROPOS projects," DEOS Working Papers 2021, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    2. Xiaobin Qu & Yingxue Yao & Jianjun Du, 2021. "Conceptual Design and Hydrodynamic Performance of a Modular Hybrid Floating Foundation," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-17, November.

    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. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    2. Asinyaka Michael, 2019. "Willingness to Pay for Energy Efficient Refrigerating Appliances in Accra, Ghana: A Choice Experiment Approach," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 70(1), pages 15-39, April.
    3. Giacomo Pallante & Adam Drucker, 2014. "Niche Markets for Agrobiodiversity Conservation: Preference and Scale Heterogeneity Effects on Nepalese Consumers’ WTP for Finger Millet Products," SEEDS Working Papers 1414, SEEDS, Sustainability Environmental Economics and Dynamics Studies, revised May 2014.
    4. Anabela Botelho & Lina Lourenço-Gomes & Lígia M. Costa Pinto & Sara Sousa & Marieta Valente, 2018. "Discrete-choice experiments valuing local environmental impacts of renewables: two approaches to a case study in Portugal," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 145-162, December.
    5. Pfarr, Christian & Schmid, Andreas, 2013. "The political economics of social health insurance: the tricky case of individuals’ preferences," MPRA Paper 44534, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Pfarr, Christian & Schmid, Andreas & Ulrich, Volker, 2013. "You can't always get what you want - East and West Germans' attitudes and preferences regarding the welfare state," MPRA Paper 47240, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Figini, Paolo & Vici, Laura, 2012. "Off-season tourists and the cultural offer of a mass-tourism destination: The case of Rimini," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 825-839.
    8. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.
    9. Bartczak, Anna, 2015. "The role of social and environmental attitudes in non-market valuation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 357-365.
    10. Novikova, Anastasija & Rocchi, Lucia & Vitunskienė, Vlada, 2017. "Assessing the benefit of the agroecosystem services: Lithuanian preferences using a latent class approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 277-286.
    11. Ondřej Vojáček & Iva Pecáková, 2010. "Comparison of Discrete Choice Models for Economic Environmental Research," Prague Economic Papers, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2010(1), pages 35-53.
    12. Juan Carlos Martín & Concepción Román & Cira Mendoza, 2018. "Determinants for sun-and-beach self-catering accommodation selection," Tourism Economics, , vol. 24(3), pages 319-336, May.
    13. Rakatama, Ari & Pandit, Ram & Iftekhar, Sayed & Ma, Chunbo, 2018. "Heterogeneous public preference for REDD+ projects under different forest management regimes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 266-277.
    14. Koistinen, Laura & Pouta, Eija & Heikkila, Jaakko & Forsman-Hugg, Sari & Kotro, Jaana & Makela, Jarmo & Niva, M., 2011. "Impact of meat type, methods of production, fat content, price and carbon footprint information on meat choice," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114710, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. Anabela Botelho & Lina Lourenço-Gomes & Lígia Pinto & Sara Sousa & Marieta Valente, 2016. "Using stated preference methods to assess environmental impacts of forest biomass power plants in Portugal," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 18(5), pages 1323-1337, October.
    16. Siti Aznor Ahmad* & Shamsul Bahrain Rawi & Bakti Hassan Basri & AmizamArzemi, 2018. "Crop Insurance Scheme Among Paddy Farmers in Kedah, Malaysia: Are They Willing to Pay?," The Journal of Social Sciences Research, Academic Research Publishing Group, pages 1167-1173:6.
    17. Matthew Oliver Ralp Dimal & Victor Jetten, 2020. "Analyzing preference heterogeneity for soil amenity improvements using discrete choice experiment," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 1323-1351, February.
    18. Federico Pontoni & Daniel Vecchiato & Francesco Marangon & Tiziano Tempesta & Stefania Troiano, 2016. "Choice experiments and environmental taxation: An application to the Italian hydropower sector," ECONOMICS AND POLICY OF ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2016(3), pages 99-118.
    19. Glenk, Klaus & Schaafsma, Marije & Moxey, Andrew & Martin-Ortega, Julia & Hanley, Nick, 2014. "A framework for valuing spatially targeted peatland restoration," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 20-33.
    20. del Saz Salazar, Salvador & Hernandez Sancho, Francesc & Sala Garrido, Ramon, 2009. "Estimación del valor económico de la calidad del agua de un río mediante una doble aproximación: una aplicación de los principios económicos de la Directiva Marco del Agua," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 9(01), pages 1-27.

    More about this item

    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:aue:wpaper:1606. 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: Ekaterini Glynou (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/diauegr.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.