IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eneeco/v33y2011i6p1111-1118.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Random preferences towards bioenergy environmental externalities: A case study of woody biomass based electricity in the Southern United States

Author

Listed:
  • Susaeta, Andres
  • Lal, Pankaj
  • Alavalapati, Janaki
  • Mercer, Evan

Abstract

This paper contrasts alternate methodological approaches of investigating public preferences, the random parameter logit (RPL) where tastes and preferences of respondents are assumed to be heterogeneous and the conditional logit (CL) approach where tastes and preferences remain fixed for individuals. We conducted a choice experiment to assess preferences for woody biomass based electricity in Arkansas, Florida, and Virginia. Reduction of CO2 emissions and improvement of forest habitat by decreasing risk of wildfires and pest outbreaks were presented to respondents as attributes of using green electricity. The results indicate that heterogeneous preferences might be a better fit for assessing preferences for green electricity. All levels of both attributes were positive contributors to welfare but they were no statistically significant. Respondents expressed a positive mean marginal willingness to pay (WTP) for each attribute level. The total WTP for green electricity per kilowatt hour was $0.049kWh or $40.5 per capita year−1 when converted into future total annual expenditures.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:eneeco:v:33:y:2011:i:6:p:1111-1118
    DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2011.05.015
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140988311001204
    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. Kataria, Mitesh, 2009. "Willingness to pay for environmental improvements in hydropower regulated rivers," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 69-76, January.
    2. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
    3. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, May.
    4. Gan, Jianbang, 2007. "Supply of biomass, bioenergy, and carbon mitigation: Method and application," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(12), pages 6003-6009, December.
    5. Roe, Brian & Teisl, Mario F. & Levy, Alan & Russell, Matthew, 2001. "US consumers' willingness to pay for green electricity," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(11), pages 917-925, September.
    6. Laura O. Taylor & Ronald G. Cummings, 1999. "Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 649-665, June.
    7. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    8. Rolfe, John & Bennett, Jeff, 2009. "The impact of offering two versus three alternatives in choice modelling experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(4), pages 1140-1148, February.
    9. Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Johan Lagerkvist, Carl, 2005. "Using cheap talk as a test of validity in choice experiments," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 147-152, November.
    10. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Swait, Joffre & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1996. "A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 243-253, September.
    11. Hanley, Nick & Mourato, Susana & Wright, Robert E, 2001. " Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuation?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    12. Arne Risa Hole, 2007. "A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(8), pages 827-840.
    13. Prins, Mark J. & Ptasinski, Krzysztof J. & Janssen, Frans J.J.G., 2006. "More efficient biomass gasification via torrefaction," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 31(15), pages 3458-3470.
    14. Caussade, Sebastián & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios & Rizzi, Luis I. & Hensher, David A., 2005. "Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice experiment estimates," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 621-640, August.
    15. Bruce McCarl & Darius Adams & Ralph Alig & John Chmelik, 2000. "Competitiveness of biomass‐fueled electrical power plants," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 94(1), pages 37-55, January.
    16. 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.
    17. William S. Breffle & Robert D. Rowe, 2002. "Comparing Choice Question Formats for Evaluating Natural Resource Tradeoffs," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(2), pages 298-314.
    18. Bergmann, Ariel & Hanley, Nick & Wright, Robert, 2006. "Valuing the attributes of renewable energy investments," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(9), pages 1004-1014, June.
    19. Fredrik Carlsson & Peter Frykblom & Carl Johan Lagerkvist, 2007. "Consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare: mobile abattoirs versus transportation to slaughter," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 34(3), pages 321-344, September.
    20. Mendelsohn, Robert & Dinar, Ariel & Williams, Larry, 2006. "The distributional impact of climate change on rich and poor countries," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(02), pages 159-178, April.
    21. Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Liljenstolpe, Carolina, 2003. "Valuing wetland attributes: an application of choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 95-103, November.
    22. Marta-Pedroso, Cristina & Freitas, Helena & Domingos, Tiago, 2007. "Testing for the survey mode effect on contingent valuation data quality: A case study of web based versus in-person interviews," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(3-4), pages 388-398, May.
    23. Shrestha, Ram K. & Alavalapati, Janaki R. R., 2004. "Valuing environmental benefits of silvopasture practice: a case study of the Lake Okeechobee watershed in Florida," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 349-359, July.
    24. Gan, Lin & Eskeland, Gunnar S. & Kolshus, Hans H., 2007. "Green electricity market development: Lessons from Europe and the US," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 144-155, January.
    25. 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.
    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. 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;Western Agricultural Economics Association.
    2. Herbes, Carsten & Friege, Christian & Baldo, Davide & Mueller, Kai-Markus, 2015. "Willingness to pay lip service? Applying a neuroscience-based method to WTP for green electricity," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 562-572.
    3. Ladenburg, Jacob, 2014. "Dynamic properties of the preferences for renewable energy sources – A wind power experience-based approach," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 542-551.
    4. Popkin, Jennifer H. & Duke, Joshua M. & Borchers, Allison M. & Ilvento, Thomas, 2013. "Social costs from proximity to hydraulic fracturing in New York State," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 62-69.
    5. 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.
    6. repec:fan:efeefe:v:html10.3280/efe2017-001013 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Ma, Chunbo & Rogers, Abbie A. & Kragt, Marit E. & Zhang, Fan & Polyakov, Maksym & Gibson, Fiona & Chalak, Morteza & Pandit, Ram & Tapsuwan, Sorada, 2015. "Consumers’ willingness to pay for renewable energy: A meta-regression analysis," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 93-109.
    10. Menegaki, Angeliki, N. & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Tsagarakis, Konstantinos P., 2016. "Towards a common standard – A reporting checklist for web-based stated preference valuation surveys and a critique for mode surveys," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 18-50.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Kaenzig, Josef & Heinzle, Stefanie Lena & Wüstenhagen, Rolf, 2013. "Whatever the customer wants, the customer gets? Exploring the gap between consumer preferences and default electricity products in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 311-322.
    16. 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.
    17. Mattmann, Matteo & Logar, Ivana & Brouwer, Roy, 2016. "Hydropower externalities: A meta-analysis," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 66-77.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Choice experiment; Willingness to pay; Woody biomass; Electricity;

    JEL classification:

    • C25 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions; Probabilities
    • Q23 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Forestry
    • Q41 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Demand and Supply; Prices
    • Q57 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Ecological Economics

    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:eee:eneeco:v:33:y:2011:i:6:p:1111-1118. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eneco .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.