IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v173y2020ics0921800919303787.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Trading off visual disamenity for renewable energy: Willingness to pay for seaweed farming for energy production

Author

Listed:
  • Demel, Simona
  • Longo, Alberto
  • Mariel, Petr

Abstract

We studied people's preferences to support a renewable energy programme to grow seaweed for biogas production, using a choice experiment. Participants had to choose one among three alternatives, two of which were variations of a seaweed programme and the third was the status quo. The two alternatives were defined in terms of four attributes: the number of households powered, the percentage of coastline used to farm seaweed, the additional cost they would incur and perks, which were added to encourage people to participate in the programme. The choice experiment was conducted online in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland among 2016 respondents. The compensating variation from a renewable energy programme from seaweed that powers 85,000 households and covers 20% of the UK coastline is £16 per year in England, £16 per year in Scotland and £14 per year in Northern Ireland, respectively. We find that people are willing to use more coastline to farm seaweed in order to power more households. That is, they are willing to make a trade-off between the visual disamenity caused by the seaweed farms and producing more green energy. Lastly, both perks have negative effects on people's preferences for using seaweed as biogas.

Suggested Citation

  • Demel, Simona & Longo, Alberto & Mariel, Petr, 2020. "Trading off visual disamenity for renewable energy: Willingness to pay for seaweed farming for energy production," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:173:y:2020:i:c:s0921800919303787
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106650
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800919303787
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106650?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Abdullah, Sabah & Mariel, Petr, 2010. "Choice experiment study on the willingness to pay to improve electricity services," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 4570-4581, August.
    2. Grisolía, José M. & Longo, Alberto & Boeri, Marco & Hutchinson, George & Kee, Frank, 2013. "Trading off dietary choices, physical exercise and cardiovascular disease risks," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 130-138.
    3. Lim, Seul-Ye & Lim, Kyoung-Min & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2014. "External benefits of waste-to-energy in Korea: A choice experiment study," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 588-595.
    4. Boeri, Marco & Longo, Alberto, 2017. "The importance of regret minimization in the choice for renewable energy programmes: Evidence from a discrete choice experiment," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 253-260.
    5. Soliño, Mario & Prada, Albino & Vázquez, María X., 2010. "Designing a forest-energy policy to reduce forest fires in Galicia (Spain): A contingent valuation application," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), pages 217-233, August.
    6. Mariel, Petr & Ayala, Amaya de & Hoyos, David & Abdullah, Sabah, 2013. "Selecting random parameters in discrete choice experiment for environmental valuation: A simulation experiment," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 44-57.
    7. Mario Farsky & Oliver Schnittka & Henrik Sattler & Björn Höfer & Carina Lorth, 2017. "Brand-anchored discrete choice experiment (BDCE) vs. direct attribute rating (DAR): An empirical comparison of predictive validity," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 231-240, June.
    8. Chaikaew, Pasicha & Hodges, Alan W. & Grunwald, Sabine, 2017. "Estimating the value of ecosystem services in a mixed-use watershed: A choice experiment approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 228-237.
    9. 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.
    10. Adamowicz, Wiktor & Dupont, Diane & Krupnick, Alan & Zhang, Jing, 2011. "Valuation of cancer and microbial disease risk reductions in municipal drinking water: An analysis of risk context using multiple valuation methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 213-226, March.
    11. Francisco J. Bahamonde-Birke & Uwe Kunert & Heike Link & Juan de Dios Ortúzar, 2017. "About attitudes and perceptions: finding the proper way to consider latent variables in discrete choice models," Transportation, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 475-493, May.
    12. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    13. Longo, Alberto & Markandya, Anil & Petrucci, Marta, 2008. "The internalization of externalities in the production of electricity: Willingness to pay for the attributes of a policy for renewable energy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 140-152, August.
    14. Armin Falk, 2007. "Gift Exchange in the Field," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 75(5), pages 1501-1511, September.
    15. Zemo, Kahsay Haile & Termansen, Mette, 2018. "Farmers’ willingness to participate in collective biogas investment: A discrete choice experiment study," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 87-101.
    16. Susaeta, Andres & Lal, Pankaj & Alavalapati, Janaki & Mercer, Evan, 2011. "Random preferences towards bioenergy environmental externalities: A case study of woody biomass based electricity in the Southern United States," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 1111-1118.
    17. Boeri, Marco & Longo, Alberto & Grisolía, José M. & Hutchinson, W. George & Kee, Frank, 2013. "The role of regret minimisation in lifestyle choices affecting the risk of coronary heart disease," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 253-260.
    18. Solomon, Barry D. & Johnson, Nicholas H., 2009. "Valuing climate protection through willingness to pay for biomass ethanol," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(7), pages 2137-2144, May.
    19. 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.
    20. Gregory L. Poe & Kelly L. Giraud & John B. Loomis, 2005. "Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(2), pages 353-365.
    21. Naik, S.N. & Goud, Vaibhav V. & Rout, Prasant K. & Dalai, Ajay K., 2010. "Production of first and second generation biofuels: A comprehensive review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 578-597, February.
    22. Higgins, Christopher D. & Mohamed, Moataz & Ferguson, Mark R., 2017. "Size matters: How vehicle body type affects consumer preferences for electric vehicles," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 182-201.
    23. Kosenius, Anna-Kaisa, 2010. "Heterogeneous preferences for water quality attributes: The Case of eutrophication in the Gulf of Finland, the Baltic Sea," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 528-538, January.
    24. Oehlmann, Malte & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Mariel, Petr & Weller, Priska, 2017. "Uncovering context-induced status quo effects in choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 59-73.
    25. Grisolía, José M. & Longo, Alberto & Hutchinson, George & Kee, Frank, 2018. "Comparing mortality risk reduction, life expectancy gains, and probability of achieving full life span, as alternatives for presenting CVD mortality risk reduction: A discrete choice study of framing ," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 164-174.
    26. 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.
    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. Faulques, Martin & Bonnet, Jean & Bourdin, Sébastien & Juge, Marine & Pigeon, Jonas & Richard, Charlotte, 2022. "Generational effect and territorial distributive justice, the two main drivers for willingness to pay for renewable energies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    2. Gorton, Matthew & Yeh, Ching-Hua & Chatzopoulou, Elena & White, John & Tocco, Barbara & Hubbard, Carmen & Hallam, Fiona, 2023. "Consumers' willingness to pay for an animal welfare food label," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    3. Petr Mariel & Simona Demel & Alberto Longo, 2021. "Modelling welfare estimates in discrete choice experiments for seaweed-based renewable energy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(11), pages 1-22, 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. Zhao, Xiaoli & Cai, Qiong & Li, Shujie & Ma, Chunbo, 2018. "Public preferences for biomass electricity in China," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 242-253.
    2. Alló, Maria & Loureiro, Maria L., 2014. "The role of social norms on preferences towards climate change policies: A meta-analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 563-574.
    3. Lim, Seul-Ye & Lim, Kyoung-Min & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2014. "External benefits of waste-to-energy in Korea: A choice experiment study," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 588-595.
    4. 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.
    5. Martínez-Cruz, Adán L. & Núñez, Héctor M., 2021. "Tension in Mexico's energy transition: Are urban residential consumers in Aguascalientes willing to pay for renewable energy and green jobs?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    6. Campbell, Robert M. & Venn, Tyron J. & Anderson, Nathaniel M., 2016. "Social preferences toward energy generation with woody biomass from public forests in Montana, USA," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 58-67.
    7. Campbell, Robert & Venn, Tyron & Anderson, Nathaniel, 2015. "Quantifying Social Preferences toward Woody Biomass Energy Generation in Montana, USA," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205678, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    8. 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.
    9. Zhao, Xiaoli & Cai, Qiong & Ma, Chunbo & Hu, Yanan & Luo, Kaiyan & Li, William, 2017. "Economic evaluation of environmental externalities in China’s coal-fired power generation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 307-317.
    10. Soon, Jan-Jan & Ahmad, Siti-Aznor, 2015. "Willingly or grudgingly? A meta-analysis on the willingness-to-pay for renewable energy use," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 877-887.
    11. Oerlemans, Leon A.G. & Chan, Kai-Ying & Volschenk, Jako, 2016. "Willingness to pay for green electricity: A review of the contingent valuation literature and its sources of error," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 875-885.
    12. 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.
    13. Dombi, Mihály & Kuti, István & Balogh, Péter, 2014. "Sustainability assessment of renewable power and heat generation technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 264-271.
    14. Nguyen, Thanh Cong & Le, Hoa Thu & Nguyen, Hang Dieu & Ngo, Mai Thanh & Nguyen, Hong Quang, 2021. "Examining ordering effects and strategic behaviour in a discrete choice experiment," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 394-413.
    15. Broberg, Thomas & Daniel, Aemiro Melkamu & Persson, Lars, 2021. "Household preferences for load restrictions: Is there an effect of pro-environmental framing?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    16. Christian A. Oberst & Reinhard Madlener, 2015. "Prosumer Preferences Regarding the Adoption of Micro†Generation Technologies: Empirical Evidence for German Homeowners," Working Papers 2015.07, International Network for Economic Research - INFER.
    17. 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.
    18. Sundt, Swantje & Rehdanz, Katrin, 2015. "Consumers' willingness to pay for green electricity: A meta-analysis of the literature," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 1-8.
    19. Menegaki, Angeliki N., 2012. "A social marketing mix for renewable energy in Europe based on consumer stated preference surveys," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 30-39.
    20. Carsten Herbes & Lorenz Braun & Dennis Rube, 2016. "Pricing of Biomethane Products Targeted at Private Households in Germany—Product Attributes and Providers’ Pricing Strategies," Energies, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-15, March.

    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:ecolec:v:173:y:2020:i:c:s0921800919303787. 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/ecolecon .

    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.