IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eneeco/v67y2017icp328-336.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Local acceptance and heterogeneous externalities of biorefineries

Author

Listed:
  • Lee, Gi-Eu
  • Loveridge, Scott
  • Joshi, Satish

Abstract

Biofuels can potentially reduce lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from energy use and help address the climate change problem. However, the siting and operation of a biofuel production facility can impact the members of the host community both positively (e.g. local jobs and income) and negatively (e.g. pollution and noise). Such ambivalent and heterogeneous external impacts result in either local support or opposition to the facility, which in turn becomes a key factor affecting biorefinery location decisions, and subsequent success of biorefineries. While a number of prior studies have analyzed economic and environmental impacts of biofuels, systematic analysis of local acceptability of biofuel production facilities is lacking. Our study explores factors that influence community attitudes towards biofuel facilities. We assess the strength of acceptability or opposition by estimating the local community's willingness to pay (WTP) either to support or to oppose a proposed biorefinery. We posit that such WTP estimates provide a more comprehensive measure of local acceptability. Results also suggest that county level socio-economic characteristics significantly influence these attitudes and WTP.

Suggested Citation

  • Lee, Gi-Eu & Loveridge, Scott & Joshi, Satish, 2017. "Local acceptance and heterogeneous externalities of biorefineries," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 328-336.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:eneeco:v:67:y:2017:i:c:p:328-336
    DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2017.08.013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140988317302694
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.eneco.2017.08.013?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. Haab, Timothy C. & McConnell, Kenneth E., 1997. "Referendum Models and Negative Willingness to Pay: Alternative Solutions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 251-270, February.
    2. Catherine L. Kling & Daniel J. Phaneuf & Jinhua Zhao, 2012. "From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better Than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 3-26, Fall.
    3. Clinch, J Peter & Murphy, Anthony, 2001. "Modelling Winners and Losers in Contingent Valuation of Public Goods: Appropriate Welfare Measures and Econometric Analysis," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 111(470), pages 420-443, April.
    4. Wustenhagen, Rolf & Wolsink, Maarten & Burer, Mary Jean, 2007. "Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2683-2691, May.
    5. Jeffrey M Wooldridge, 2010. "Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 2, volume 1, number 0262232588, December.
    6. Horowitz, John K. & McConnell, Kenneth E., 2002. "A Review of WTA/WTP Studies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 426-447, November.
    7. Wolsink, Maarten, 2007. "Wind power implementation: The nature of public attitudes: Equity and fairness instead of 'backyard motives'," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 11(6), pages 1188-1207, August.
    8. Zhao, Jinhua & Kling, Catherine L., 2001. "A new explanation for the WTP/WTA disparity," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 73(3), pages 293-300, December.
    9. T. Randall Fortenbery & Steven C. Deller & Lindsay Amiel, 2013. "The Location Decisions of Biodiesel Refineries," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 89(1), pages 118-136.
    10. Soland, Martin & Steimer, Nora & Walter, Götz, 2013. "Local acceptance of existing biogas plants in Switzerland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 802-810.
    11. Wolsink, Maarten, 2000. "Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 49-64.
    12. Wolsink, Maarten, 2007. "Planning of renewables schemes: Deliberative and fair decision-making on landscape issues instead of reproachful accusations of non-cooperation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2692-2704, May.
    13. Nick Hanley & Sergio Colombo & Bengt Kriström & Fiona Watson, 2009. "Accounting for Negative, Zero and Positive Willingness to Pay for Landscape Change in a National Park," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(1), pages 1-16, February.
    14. Alok Bohara & Joe Kerkvliet & Robert Berrens, 2001. "Addressing Negative Willingness to Pay in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(3), pages 173-195, November.
    15. Laura Nahuelhual-Muñoz & Maria Loureiro & John Loomis, 2004. "Addressing Heterogeneous Preferences Using Parametric Extended Spike Models," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 27(3), pages 297-311, March.
    16. Timothy C. Haab & Kenneth E. McConnell, 1998. "Referendum Models and Economic Values: Theoretical, Intuitive, and Practical Bounds on Willingness to Pay," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 216-229.
    17. Timothy C. Haab & Kenneth E. McConnell, 2002. "Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2427.
    18. Cooper Joseph C., 1993. "Optimal Bid Selection for Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 25-40, January.
    19. Gi-Eu, Lee & Scott, Loveridge & Julie, Winkler, 2014. "Does a Warm Spell Influence Public Attitudes about Assisting Farmers in Climate Change Adaptation Policies? Evidence from a Natural Experiment from Michigan," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170161, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Douglas Macmillan & Elizabeth Duff & David Elston, 2001. "Modelling the Non-market Environmental Costs and Benefits of Biodiversity Projects Using Contingent Valuation Data," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 18(4), pages 391-410, April.
    21. Breukers, Sylvia & Wolsink, Maarten, 2007. "Wind power implementation in changing institutional landscapes: An international comparison," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2737-2750, May.
    22. Walton, D. & Thomas, J. A. & Cenek, P. D., 2004. "Self and others' willingness to pay for improvements to the paved road surface," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 483-494, August.
    23. Amigun, B. & Musango, J.K. & Brent, A.C., 2011. "Community perspectives on the introduction of biodiesel production in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 2502-2508.
    24. Loureiro, Maria L. & Loomis, John B. & Nahuelhual, Laura, 2004. "A comparison of a parametric and a non-parametric method to value a non-rejectable public good," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 61-74, September.
    25. Freedman, David A. & Sekhon, Jasjeet S., 2010. "Endogeneity in Probit Response Models," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(2), pages 138-150, April.
    26. Keith, John E. & Fawson, Christopher & Johnson, Van, 1996. "Preservation or use A contingent valuation study of wilderness designation in Utah," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 207-214, September.
    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. Fabio G. Santeramo & Monica Delsignore & Enrica Imbert & Mariarosaria Lombardi, 2023. "The Future of the EU Bioenergy Sector: Economic, Environmental, Social, and Legislative Challenges," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 17(1), pages 1-1–52, April.
    2. Jens Fyhn Lykke Sørensen & Henning Peter Jørgensen, 2022. "Rural Development Potential in the Bioeconomy in Developed Countries: The Case of Biogas Production in Denmark," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-18, September.
    3. Busse, Maria & Siebert, Rosemarie, 2018. "Acceptance studies in the field of land use—A critical and systematic review to advance the conceptualization of acceptance and acceptability," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 235-245.
    4. Zemo, Kahsay Haile & Panduro, Toke Emil & Termansen, Mette, 2019. "Impact of biogas plants on rural residential property values and implications for local acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 1121-1131.

    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. Langer, Katharina & Decker, Thomas & Roosen, Jutta & Menrad, Klaus, 2016. "A qualitative analysis to understand the acceptance of wind energy in Bavaria," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 248-259.
    2. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    3. Bass, Daniel A. & McFadden, Brandon R. & Messer, Kent D., 2021. "A case for measuring negative willingness to pay for consumer goods," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    4. Eltham, Douglas C. & Harrison, Gareth P. & Allen, Simon J., 2008. "Change in public attitudes towards a Cornish wind farm: Implications for planning," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 23-33, January.
    5. Bidwell, David, 2013. "The role of values in public beliefs and attitudes towards commercial wind energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 189-199.
    6. Feurtey, Évariste & Ilinca, Adrian & Sakout, Anas & Saucier, Carol, 2016. "Institutional factors influencing strategic decision-making in energy policy; a case study of wind energy in France and Quebec (Canada)," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 1455-1470.
    7. Scherhaufer, Patrick & Höltinger, Stefan & Salak, Boris & Schauppenlehner, Thomas & Schmidt, Johannes, 2017. "Patterns of acceptance and non-acceptance within energy landscapes: A case study on wind energy expansion in Austria," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 863-870.
    8. Cousse, Julia, 2021. "Still in love with solar energy? Installation size, affect, and the social acceptance of renewable energy technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    9. Pepermans, Yves & Loots, Ilse, 2013. "Wind farm struggles in Flanders fields: A sociological perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 321-328.
    10. Paul Mwebaze & Jeff Bennett & Nigel W. Beebe & Gregor J. Devine & Paul Barro, 2018. "Economic Valuation of the Threat Posed by the Establishment of the Asian Tiger Mosquito in Australia," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(2), pages 357-379, October.
    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. Eduardo Martínez-Mendoza & Luis Arturo Rivas-Tovar & Luis Enrique García-Santamaría, 2021. "Wind energy in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec: conflicts and social implications," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(8), pages 11706-11731, August.
    13. 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.
    14. Groth, Theresa M. & Vogt, Christine, 2014. "Residents' perceptions of wind turbines: An analysis of two townships in Michigan," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 251-260.
    15. Carlisle, Juliet E. & Kane, Stephanie L. & Solan, David & Bowman, Madelaine & Joe, Jeffrey C., 2015. "Public attitudes regarding large-scale solar energy development in the U.S," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 835-847.
    16. Slattery, Michael C. & Johnson, Becky L. & Swofford, Jeffrey A. & Pasqualetti, Martin J., 2012. "The predominance of economic development in the support for large-scale wind farms in the U.S. Great Plains," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(6), pages 3690-3701.
    17. Zerrahn, Alexander, 2017. "Wind Power and Externalities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 245-260.
    18. Bertsch, Valentin & Hyland, Marie & Mahony, Michael, 2017. "What drives people's opinions of electricity infrastructure? Empirical evidence from Ireland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 472-497.
    19. Simón, Xavier & Copena, Damián & Montero, María, 2019. "Strong wind development with no community participation. The case of Galicia (1995–2009)," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    20. Swofford, Jeffrey & Slattery, Michael, 2010. "Public attitudes of wind energy in Texas: Local communities in close proximity to wind farms and their effect on decision-making," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 2508-2519, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Local acceptance; Biorefinery; Willingness to pay; Climate change;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q18 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy; Animal Welfare Policy
    • Q49 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Other
    • Q54 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Climate; Natural Disasters and their Management; Global Warming

    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:67:y:2017:i:c:p:328-336. 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/eneco .

    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.