IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v109y2017icp191-198.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Accounting for local impacts of photovoltaic farms: The application of two stated preferences approaches to a case-study in Portugal

Author

Listed:
  • Botelho, Anabela
  • Lourenço-Gomes, Lina
  • Pinto, Lígia
  • Sousa, Sara
  • Valente, Marieta

Abstract

Renewable energy sources for electricity generation are unequivocally more environmentally friendly than the traditional sources, but are not impact-free. Given the potential for solar photovoltaic energy to contribute to the energy mix in some countries, it is timely to carefully consider the potential environmental costs of operation of photovoltaic farms, which are experienced by the local population, while the general benefits accrue to all. We apply the contingent valuation method to a sample of local residents close to three selected photovoltaic farms in Portugal. Also, we design a discrete choice experiment to elicit the valuation of specific adverse impacts of electricity generation through photovoltaic energy by national residents. Our results show that the value elicited in the vicinity of the photovoltaic farms is non-negligible. On the other hand, national residents ponder the trade-offs implied by the choice sets and value positively the different adverse local impacts. Both of these estimates, in conjunction or independently, can be used to fully account for this often neglected cost of solar energy. Furthermore, we argue that when studying the public acceptance of renewables, using stated preference methods explicitly presents the trade-offs between negative impacts and costs, contributing to more realistic portrayal of public opinion.

Suggested Citation

  • Botelho, Anabela & Lourenço-Gomes, Lina & Pinto, Lígia & Sousa, Sara & Valente, Marieta, 2017. "Accounting for local impacts of photovoltaic farms: The application of two stated preferences approaches to a case-study in Portugal," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 191-198.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:109:y:2017:i:c:p:191-198
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2017.06.065
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421517304263
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.06.065?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. Atse Louwen & Wilfried G. J. H. M. van Sark & André P. C. Faaij & Ruud E. I. Schropp, 2016. "Re-assessment of net energy production and greenhouse gas emissions avoidance after 40 years of photovoltaics development," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 7(1), pages 1-9, December.
    2. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April.
    3. Anna Alberini & James R. Kahn (ed.), 2006. "Handbook on Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1893.
    4. Nick Hanley & Susana Mourato & Robert E. Wright, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuatioin?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    5. 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.
    6. Torres-Sibille, Ana del Carmen & Cloquell-Ballester, Vicente-Agustín & Cloquell-Ballester, Víctor-Andrés & Artacho Ramírez, Miguel Ángel, 2009. "Aesthetic impact assessment of solar power plants: An objective and a subjective approach," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 13(5), pages 986-999, June.
    7. Susana Batel & Patrick Devine-Wright, 2015. "A critical and empirical analysis of the national-local 'gap' in public responses to large-scale energy infrastructures," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(6), pages 1076-1095, June.
    8. Welsch, Heinz, 2016. "Electricity Externalities, Siting, and the Energy Mix: A Survey," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 10(1), pages 57-94, November.
    9. Erin Baker & Meredith Fowlie & Derek Lemoine & Stanley S. Reynolds, 2013. "The Economics of Solar Electricity," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 5(1), pages 387-426, June.
    10. 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, August.
    11. Bergmann, Ariel & Hanley, Nick & Wright, Robert, 2006. "Valuing the attributes of renewable energy investments," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(9), pages 1004-1014, June.
    12. Guerin, Turlough F., 2017. "Evaluating expected and comparing with observed risks on a large-scale solar photovoltaic construction project: A case for reducing the regulatory burden," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 333-348.
    13. Turconi, Roberto & Boldrin, Alessio & Astrup, Thomas, 2013. "Life cycle assessment (LCA) of electricity generation technologies: Overview, comparability and limitations," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 555-565.
    14. Klaus S. Lackner & Jeffrey D. Sachs, 2005. "A Robust Strategy for Sustainable Energy," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 36(2), pages 215-284.
    15. Fthenakis, Vasilis M., 2000. "End-of-life management and recycling of PV modules," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(14), pages 1051-1058, November.
    16. Srinivasan, Sunderasan, 2009. "The food v. fuel debate: A nuanced view of incentive structures," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 950-954.
    17. 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.
    18. Severin Borenstein, 2012. "The Private and Public Economics of Renewable Electricity Generation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(1), pages 67-92, Winter.
    19. Gasparatos, Alexandros & Doll, Christopher N.H. & Esteban, Miguel & Ahmed, Abubakari & Olang, Tabitha A., 2017. "Renewable energy and biodiversity: Implications for transitioning to a Green Economy," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 161-184.
    20. Dupraz, C. & Marrou, H. & Talbot, G. & Dufour, L. & Nogier, A. & Ferard, Y., 2011. "Combining solar photovoltaic panels and food crops for optimising land use: Towards new agrivoltaic schemes," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(10), pages 2725-2732.
    21. John C. Whitehead, 2006. "A Practitioner's Primer on the Contingent Valuation Method," Chapters, in: Anna Alberini & James R. Kahn (ed.), Handbook on Contingent Valuation, chapter 3, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    22. Beylot, Antoine & Payet, Jérôme & Puech, Clément & Adra, Nadine & Jacquin, Philippe & Blanc, Isabelle & Beloin-Saint-Pierre, Didier, 2014. "Environmental impacts of large-scale grid-connected ground-mounted PV installations," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 2-6.
    23. Wiser, Ryan & Millstein, Dev & Mai, Trieu & Macknick, Jordan & Carpenter, Alberta & Cohen, Stuart & Cole, Wesley & Frew, Bethany & Heath, Garvin, 2016. "The environmental and public health benefits of achieving high penetrations of solar energy in the United States," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 472-486.
    24. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    25. Chiabrando, Roberto & Fabrizio, Enrico & Garnero, Gabriele, 2009. "The territorial and landscape impacts of photovoltaic systems: Definition of impacts and assessment of the glare risk," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 13(9), pages 2441-2451, December.
    26. Perpiña Castillo, Carolina & Batista e Silva, Filipe & Lavalle, Carlo, 2016. "An assessment of the regional potential for solar power generation in EU-28," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 86-99.
    27. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    28. Scognamiglio, Alessandra, 2016. "‘Photovoltaic landscapes’: Design and assessment. A critical review for a new transdisciplinary design vision," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 629-661.
    29. Hernandez, R.R. & Easter, S.B. & Murphy-Mariscal, M.L. & Maestre, F.T. & Tavassoli, M. & Allen, E.B. & Barrows, C.W. & Belnap, J. & Ochoa-Hueso, R. & Ravi, S. & Allen, M.F., 2014. "Environmental impacts of utility-scale solar energy," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 766-779.
    30. Tsoutsos, Theocharis & Frantzeskaki, Niki & Gekas, Vassilis, 2005. "Environmental impacts from the solar energy technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 289-296, February.
    31. Menegaki, Angeliki, 2008. "Valuation for renewable energy: A comparative review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 12(9), pages 2422-2437, December.
    32. 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.
    33. Sütterlin, Bernadette & Siegrist, Michael, 2017. "Public acceptance of renewable energy technologies from an abstract versus concrete perspective and the positive imagery of solar power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 356-366.
    34. Lakhani, Raksha & Doluweera, Ganesh & Bergerson, Joule, 2014. "Internalizing land use impacts for life cycle cost analysis of energy systems: A case of California’s photovoltaic implementation," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 253-259.
    35. Fernandez-Jimenez, L. Alfredo & Mendoza-Villena, Montserrat & Zorzano-Santamaria, Pedro & Garcia-Garrido, Eduardo & Lara-Santillan, Pedro & Zorzano-Alba, Enrique & Falces, Alberto, 2015. "Site selection for new PV power plants based on their observability," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 7-15.
    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. 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.
    2. Zhang, Haoran & Yan, Jinyue & Yu, Qing & Obersteiner, Michael & Li, Wenjing & Chen, Jinyu & Zhang, Qiong & Jiang, Mingkun & Wallin, Fredrik & Song, Xuan & Wu, Jiang & Wang, Xin & Shibasaki, Ryosuke, 2021. "1.6 Million transactions replicate distributed PV market slowdown by COVID-19 lockdown," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 283(C).
    3. Sánchez-Pantoja, Núria & Vidal, Rosario & Pastor, M. Carmen, 2018. "Aesthetic impact of solar energy systems," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 227-238.
    4. Lígia M. Costa Pinto & Sara Sousa & Marieta Valente, 2021. "Explaining the Social Acceptance of Renewables through Location-Related Factors: An Application to the Portuguese Case," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(2), pages 1-13, January.
    5. Geiger, Charlotte & Lehmann, Paul, 2021. "Managing the spatial externalities of renewable energy deployment: Uniform vs. differentiated regulation," UFZ Discussion Papers 1/2021, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    6. Knoblauch, Theresa A.K. & Trutnevyte, Evelina & Stauffacher, Michael, 2019. "Siting deep geothermal energy: Acceptance of various risk and benefit scenarios in a Swiss-German cross-national study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 807-816.
    7. Cohen, Jed J. & Azarova, Valeriya & Kollmann, Andrea & Reichl, Johannes, 2021. "Preferences for community renewable energy investments in Europe," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).

    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. 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.
    2. Anabela Botelho & Lina Sofia Lourenço-Gomes & Lígia Costa Pinto & Sara Sousa & Marieta Valente, 2016. "Accounting for local impacts of photovoltaic farms: two stated preferences approaches," NIMA Working Papers 64, Núcleo de Investigação em Microeconomia Aplicada (NIMA), Universidade do Minho.
    3. Scognamiglio, Alessandra, 2016. "‘Photovoltaic landscapes’: Design and assessment. A critical review for a new transdisciplinary design vision," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 629-661.
    4. Sánchez-Pantoja, Núria & Vidal, Rosario & Pastor, M. Carmen, 2018. "Aesthetic impact of solar energy systems," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 227-238.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Oudes, D. & Stremke, S., 2021. "Next generation solar power plants? A comparative analysis of frontrunner solar landscapes in Europe," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    8. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    12. Buryk, Stephen & Mead, Doug & Mourato, Susana & Torriti, Jacopo, 2015. "Investigating preferences for dynamic electricity tariffs: The effect of environmental and system benefit disclosure," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 190-195.
    13. Contu, Davide & Strazzera, Elisabetta & Mourato, Susana, 2016. "Modeling individual preferences for energy sources: The case of IV generation nuclear energy in Italy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 37-58.
    14. 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.
    15. Alexandra Vrînceanu & Ines Grigorescu & Monica Dumitrașcu & Irena Mocanu & Cristina Dumitrică & Dana Micu & Gheorghe Kucsicsa & Bianca Mitrică, 2019. "Impacts of Photovoltaic Farms on the Environment in the Romanian Plain," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-18, July.
    16. Halkos, George & Galani, Georgia, 2016. "Assessing willingness to pay for marine and coastal ecosystems: A Case Study in Greece," MPRA Paper 68767, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Anabela Botelho & Lina Sofia Lourenço-Gomes & Lígia Costa Pinto & Sara Sousa & Marieta Valente, 2015. "Annoyance and welfare costs from the presence of renewable energy power plants: an application of the contingent valuation method," NIMA Working Papers 60, Núcleo de Investigação em Microeconomia Aplicada (NIMA), Universidade do Minho.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. Jan Vanstockem & Liesbet Vranken & Brent Bleys & Ben Somers & Martin Hermy, 2018. "Do Looks Matter? A Case Study on Extensive Green Roofs Using Discrete Choice Experiments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-15, January.

    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:enepol:v:109:y:2017:i:c:p:191-198. 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/enpol .

    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.