Green vs. green: Measuring the compensation required to site electrical generation windmills in a viewshed
Proponents of wind power note that wind is a green energy source. Yet locating electrical generating windmills has become difficult in some localities because of potential negative externalities. We address why the NIMBY syndrome may arise when choosing site locations by addressing the perceived property rights of a viewshed, the role of compensation in a NIMBY impasse, and how concerns for the environment might lessen the compensation required. We use a willingness to accept framework to measure the compensation required to allow wind generation windmills to be built in the mountains of North Carolina. We find that individuals who perceive wind energy as a clean source of power require less compensation. Those who retire to the mountains or individuals who have ancestors from Watauga County require more compensation to accept windmills in their viewshed. In addition, we find in a bivariate-probit analysis that individuals who are more likely to participate in a green energy program are also more likely to allow electrical generation windmills in their viewshed, suggesting that the green vs. green environmental debate is overstated.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Steven B. Caudill & Peter A. Groothuis, 2005.
"Modeling Hidden Alternatives in Random Utility Models: An Application to "Don’t Know" Responses in Contingent Valuation,"
University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 81(3).
- Steven Caudill & Peter Groothuis, 2004. "Modeling Hidden Alternatives in Random Utility Models: An Application to Don’t Know Responses in Contingent Valuation," Working Papers 04-07, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
- Peter Groothuis & John Whitehead, 2002.
"Does don't know mean no? Analysis of 'don't know' responses in dichotomous choice contingent valuation questions,"
Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(15), pages 1935-1940.
- Peter A. Groothuis & John C. Whitehead, 2002. "Does Don't Know Mean No? Analysis of 'Don't Know Responses in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Questions," Working Papers 02-15, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
- Peter A. Groothuis & John C. Whitehead, . "Does Don't Know Mean No? Analysis of 'Don't Know' Responses in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Questions," Working Papers 9814, East Carolina University, Department of Economics.
- Carson, Richard T & Flores, Nicholas A, 2000.
"Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence,"
University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series
qt75k752s7, Department of Economics, UC San Diego.
- Kahn, Robert D., 2000. "Siting Struggles: The Unique Challenge of Permitting Renewable Energy Power Plants," The Electricity Journal, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 21-33, March.
- Trudy Ann Cameron & Michelle D. James, 1986.
"Efficient Estimation Methods for "Closed-Ended" Contingent Valuation Surveys,"
UCLA Economics Working Papers
404, UCLA Department of Economics.
- Cameron, Trudy Ann & James, Michelle D, 1987. "Efficient Estimation Methods for "Closed-ended' Contingent Valuation Surveys," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 69(2), pages 269-76, May.
- Charles Warren & Carolyn Lumsden & Simone O'Dowd & Richard Birnie, 2005. "'Green On Green': Public perceptions of wind power in Scotland and Ireland," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(6), pages 853-875.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Kunreuther, Howard & Kleindorfer, Paul & Knez, Peter J. & Yaksick, Rudy, 1987. "A compensation mechanism for siting noxious facilities: Theory and experimental design," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 14(4), pages 371-383, December.
- Peter A. Groothuis & George Van Houtven & John C. Whitehead, 1998.
"Using Contingent Valuation to Measure the Compensation Required to Gain Community Acceptance of a Lulu: the Case of a Hazardous Waste Disposal Facility,"
Public Finance Review,
, vol. 26(3), pages 231-249, May.
- Peter A. Groothuis & George Van Houtven & John C. Whitehead, . "Using Contingent Valuation to Measure the Compensation Required to Gain Community Acceptance of a LULU: The Case of a Hazardous Waste Disposal Facility," Working Papers 9709, East Carolina University, Department of Economics.
- Whitehead, John C. & Cherry, Todd L., 2007. "Willingness to pay for a Green Energy program: A comparison of ex-ante and ex-post hypothetical bias mitigation approaches," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 247-261, November.
- David Dickinson & Dee Von Bailey, 2004. "Willingness-to-Pay for Information: Experiex-post, have been developed to mitigate or eliminate the overstatement of hypothetical willingness to pay. The ex-ante approach addresses hypothetical bias i," Working Papers 04-21, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
- Cameron, Trudy Ann, 1988. "A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: Maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 355-379, September.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:36:y:2008:i:4:p:1545-1550. 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: (Zhang, Lei)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.