IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v94y2016icp104-113.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Energy projects in Iceland – Advancing the case for the use of economic valuation techniques to evaluate environmental impacts

Author

Listed:
  • Cook, David
  • Davíðsdóttir, Brynhildur
  • Kristófersson, Daði Már

Abstract

Decision-making in Iceland has occurred without reference to economic valuations of the environmental impacts of energy projects. Environmental Impact Assessments, a legal requirement for nearly all energy projects in Iceland since 1994, have played an important role in identifying the environmental impacts of energy projects, and proposing mitigation measures. However, a purely qualitative description of environmental impacts is insufficient to ensure that they are accounted for equivalently with all of the other costs and benefits of a proposed project. Instead, as monetary information concerning the welfare gains or losses of proposed projects is not currently required to be provided to the licensing body, Orkustofnun, there is the potential for sub-optimal decision-making to occur. As this paper sets out, a broad variety of non-market valuation techniques already exist and could be applied to estimate the value of environmental benefits sacrificed to accommodate such developments. These methods and their outcomes could be incorporated within mandatory cost-benefit assessments for proposed Icelandic energy projects, communicating an estimate of the full welfare implications of approvals to decision-makers and the public alike, and fulfilling an OECD demand for the country to commence such processes.

Suggested Citation

  • Cook, David & Davíðsdóttir, Brynhildur & Kristófersson, Daði Már, 2016. "Energy projects in Iceland – Advancing the case for the use of economic valuation techniques to evaluate environmental impacts," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 104-113.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:94:y:2016:i:c:p:104-113
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2016.03.044
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151630146X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.03.044?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. Koundouri, Phoebe & Kountouris, Yiannis & Remoundou, Kyriaki, 2009. "Valuing a wind farm construction: A contingent valuation study in Greece," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 1939-1944, May.
    2. Pearce, David, 1998. "Cost-Benefit Analysis and Environmental Policy," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 14(4), pages 84-100, Winter.
    3. 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.
    4. Richard Carson & Robert Mitchell & Michael Hanemann & Raymond Kopp & Stanley Presser & Paul Ruud, 2003. "Contingent Valuation and Lost Passive Use: Damages from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(3), pages 257-286, July.
    5. Ronald G. Cummings & Laura Osborne Taylor, 1998. "Does Realism Matter in Contingent Valuation Surveys?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 203-215.
    6. Timothy C. Haab & Matthew G. Interis & Daniel R. Petrolia & John C. Whitehead, 2013. "From Hopeless to Curious? Thoughts on Hausman's "Dubious to Hopeless" Critique of Contingent Valuation," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 35(4), pages 593-612.
    7. Ole Bonnichsen & S�ren B�ye Olsen, 2016. "Correcting for non-response bias in contingent valuation surveys concerning environmental non-market goods: an empirical investigation using an online panel," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 59(2), pages 245-262, February.
    8. Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr & Pascual, Unai & Etxano, Iker, 2012. "Valuing a Natura 2000 network site to inform land use options using a discrete choice experiment: An illustration from the Basque Country," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 329-344.
    9. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    10. Marcella Veronesi & Anna Alberini & Joseph Cooper, 2011. "Implications of Bid Design and Willingness-To-Pay Distribution for Starting Point Bias in Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 49(2), pages 199-215, June.
    11. Cameron, Trudy Ann & Huppert, Daniel D., 1989. "OLS versus ML estimation of non-market resource values with payment card interval data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 230-246, November.
    12. Michael Hanemann & John Loomis & Barbara Kanninen, 1991. "Statistical Efficiency of Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 73(4), pages 1255-1263.
    13. Fleming, Christopher M. & Cook, Averil, 2007. "The recreational value of Lake McKenzie: An application of the travel cost method," 2007 Conference (51st), February 13-16, 2007, Queenstown, New Zealand 10382, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    14. Hanemann, W. Michael, 1989. "Information and the concept of option value," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 23-37, January.
    15. Lazo, Jeffrey K & McClain, Katherine T, 1996. "Community perceptions, environmental impacts, and energy policy : Rail shipment of coal," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 531-540, June.
    16. John W. Duffield & David A. Patterson, 1991. "Inference and Optimal Design for a Welfare Measure in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 67(2), pages 225-239.
    17. Steven Caudill & James Long, 2010. "Do former athletes make better managers? Evidence from a partially adaptive grouped-data regression model," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 275-290, August.
    18. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L., 1992. "Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 57-70, January.
    19. Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2011. "Are Internet surveys an alternative to face-to-face interviews in contingent valuation?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(9), pages 1628-1637, July.
    20. Richard T. Carson, 2012. "Contingent Valuation: A Practical Alternative When Prices Aren't Available," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 27-42, Fall.
    21. Peter A. Diamond & Jerry A. Hausman, 1994. "Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 45-64, Fall.
    22. Georgios Tentes & Dimitrios Damigos, 2012. "The Lost Value of Groundwater: The Case of Asopos River Basin in Central Greece," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 26(1), pages 147-164, January.
    23. Jerry Hausman, 2012. "Contingent Valuation: From Dubious to Hopeless," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 43-56, Fall.
    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. Horowitz, Kelsey A.W. & Palmintier, Bryan & Mather, Barry & Denholm, Paul, 2018. "Distribution system costs associated with the deployment of photovoltaic systems," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 420-433.
    2. repec:eco:journ2:2017-04-01 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Dongli Tan & Yao Wu & Zhiqing Zhang & Yue Jiao & Lingchao Zeng & Yujun Meng, 2023. "Assessing the Life Cycle Sustainability of Solar Energy Production Systems: A Toolkit Review in the Context of Ensuring Environmental Performance Improvements," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-37, July.
    4. Cook, David & Davíðsdóttir, Brynhildur & Kristófersson, Daði Már, 2018. "Willingness to pay for the preservation of geothermal areas in Iceland – The contingent valuation studies of Eldvörp and Hverahlíð," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 116(PA), pages 97-108.
    5. Callegari, C. & Szklo, A. & Schaeffer, R., 2018. "Cost overruns and delays in energy megaprojects: How big is big enough?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 211-220.
    6. Olivier JOALLAND & Tina RAMBONILAZA, 2017. "Valeur touristique des aménités environnementales et nuisances associées aux infrastructures d’énergie renouvelable : une approche hédonique spatiale," Region et Developpement, Region et Developpement, LEAD, Universite du Sud - Toulon Var, vol. 46, pages 93-115.

    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. Cook, David & Davíðsdóttir, Brynhildur & Kristófersson, Daði Már, 2018. "Willingness to pay for the preservation of geothermal areas in Iceland – The contingent valuation studies of Eldvörp and Hverahlíð," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 116(PA), pages 97-108.
    2. 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.
    3. Whitehead, John C., 2016. "Plausible responsiveness to scope in contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 17-22.
    4. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. 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.
    6. Tonin, Stefania, 2018. "Citizens’ perspectives on marine protected areas as a governance strategy to effectively preserve marine ecosystem services and biodiversity," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 189-200.
    7. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    8. Caffey, Rex H. & Wang, Hua & Petrolia, Daniel R., 2014. "Trajectory economics: Assessing the flow of ecosystem services from coastal restoration," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 74-84.
    9. Moisés Carrasco Garcés & Felipe Vasquez-Lavin & Roberto D. Ponce Oliva & José Luis Bustamante Oporto & Manuel Barrientos & Arcadio A. Cerda, 2021. "Embedding effect and the consequences of advanced disclosure: evidence from the valuation of cultural goods," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 1039-1062, August.
    10. Felix Schläpfer, 2021. "Inadequate Standards in the Valuation of Public Goods and Ecosystem Services: Why Economists, Environmental Scientists and Policymakers Should Care," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-10, January.
    11. Sawe, Nik, 2017. "Using neuroeconomics to understand environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 1-9.
    12. Powe, N. A. & Bateman, I. J., 2003. "Ordering effects in nested 'top-down' and 'bottom-up' contingent valuation designs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 255-270, June.
    13. Diane Dupont, 2003. "CVM Embedding Effects When There Are Active, Potentially Active and Passive Users of Environmental Goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(3), pages 319-341, July.
    14. Ndebele, Tom & Forgie, Vicky, 2017. "Estimating the economic benefits of a wetland restoration programme in New Zealand: A contingent valuation approach," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 75-89.
    15. Artem Korzhenevych & Charles Kofi Owusu, 2021. "Renewable Minigrid Electrification in Off-Grid Rural Ghana: Exploring Households Willingness to Pay," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-17, October.
    16. Helga Fehr-Duda & Robin Schimmelpfennig, 2018. "Wider die Zahlengläubigkeit: Sind Befragungsergebnisse eine gute Grundlage für wirtschaftspolitische Entscheidungen?," ECON - Working Papers 297, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Dec 2018.
    17. Ana Faria Lopes & Gorm Kipperberg, 2020. "Diagnosing Insensitivity to Scope in Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 77(1), pages 191-216, September.
    18. 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.
    19. John C. Whitehead, 2024. "They doth protest too much, methinks: Reply to “Reply to Whitehead”," Working Papers 24-04, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    20. Timothy C. Haab & Matthew G. Interis & Daniel R. Petrolia & John C. Whitehead, 2013. "From Hopeless to Curious? Thoughts on Hausman's 'Dubious to Hopeless' Critique of Contingent Valuation," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 35(4), pages 593-612.

    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:94:y:2016:i:c:p:104-113. 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.