IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/marpol/v58y2015icp51-59.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An approach for analyzing the spatial welfare and distributional effects of ocean wind power siting: The Rhode Island/Massachusetts area of mutual interest

Author

Listed:
  • Hoagland, P.
  • Dalton, T.M.
  • Jin, D.
  • Dwyer, J.B.

Abstract

Coastal and marine spatial planning (CMSP) involves characterizing the potential socioeconomic consequences of locating one or more human uses in place of others in the coastal ocean. Most commonly, the focus of CMSP is on the siting of alternative uses across ocean space. This article examines the broader economic and distributional effects of the potential siting of a renewable energy facility (wind power) in a southern New England offshore area that also is used intensively for commercial fishing. For a leading siting alternative, a counterfactual involving the complete displacement of commercial fishing would result in estimated direct output impacts to the regional economy of $5 million, leading to $11 million in direct, indirect, and induced impacts and a corresponding loss of about 150 jobs. Total economic welfare losses were estimated at $14 million, reflecting not only output reductions but also the effects of price increases in the relevant markets. The welfare losses would be progressively distributed, such that households in mid- to high-income categories would likely bear the most significant impacts. Adjusting these welfare losses for society׳s aversion to income inequality, inequality-adjusted impacts would be more pronounced in areas that are not necessarily located in close proximity to the coastline. Individual low-income households located in five non-coastal census tracts would bear estimated median impacts (≥$140/year), which would be an order of magnitude larger than those borne by the next group of impacted households. When implementing CMSP, it is critically important to characterize not only the distribution of effects over the coastal ocean but also the distribution of impacts on coupled human communities onshore, including those communities that may not be considered strictly coastal.

Suggested Citation

  • Hoagland, P. & Dalton, T.M. & Jin, D. & Dwyer, J.B., 2015. "An approach for analyzing the spatial welfare and distributional effects of ocean wind power siting: The Rhode Island/Massachusetts area of mutual interest," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 51-59.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:marpol:v:58:y:2015:i:c:p:51-59
    DOI: 10.1016/j.marpol.2015.04.010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X15000925
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.04.010?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. Jin, Di & Hoagland, Porter & Wikgren, Brooke, 2013. "An empirical analysis of the economic value of ocean space associated with commercial fishing," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 74-84.
    2. Layard, R. & Mayraz, G. & Nickell, S., 2008. "The marginal utility of income," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(8-9), pages 1846-1857, August.
    3. Douvere, F. & Maes, F. & Vanhulle, A. & Schrijvers, J., 2007. "The role of marine spatial planning in sea use management: The Belgian case," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 182-191, March.
    4. Edwards, Steven, 2008. "Ocean zoning, first possession and Coasean contracts," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 46-54, January.
    5. Douvere, Fanny, 2008. "The importance of marine spatial planning in advancing ecosystem-based sea use management," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 762-771, September.
    6. Martin D. Smith & James E. Wilen, 2002. "The Marine Environment: Fencing the Last Frontier," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 24(1), pages 31-42.
    7. Atkinson, Anthony B., 1970. "On the measurement of inequality," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 244-263, September.
    8. Lester, Sarah E. & Costello, Christopher & Halpern, Benjamin S. & Gaines, Steven D. & White, Crow & Barth, John A., 2013. "Evaluating tradeoffs among ecosystem services to inform marine spatial planning," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 80-89.
    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. Joalland, Olivier & Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre, 2023. "Developing large-scale offshore wind power programs: A choice experiment analysis in France," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 204(PA).
    2. Qu, Yang & Hooper, Tara & Swales, J. Kim & Papathanasopoulou, Eleni & Austen, Melanie C. & Yan, Xiaoyu, 2021. "Energy-food nexus in the marine environment: A macroeconomic analysis on offshore wind energy and seafood production in Scotland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 149(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. Lu, Wen-Hai & Liu, Jie & Xiang, Xian-Quan & Song, Wei-Ling & McIlgorm, Alistair, 2015. "A comparison of marine spatial planning approaches in China: Marine functional zoning and the marine ecological red line," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 94-101.
    2. Blau, Jason & Green, Lee, 2015. "Assessing the impact of a new approach to ocean management: Evidence to date from five ocean plans," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 1-8.
    3. Marko Ledić & Ivica Rubil, 2021. "Beyond Wage Gap, Towards Job Quality Gap: The Role of Inter-Group Differences in Wages, Non-Wage Job Dimensions, and Preferences," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 155(2), pages 523-561, June.
    4. Simon Galle & Andrés Rodríguez-Clare & Moises Yi, 2023. "Slicing the Pie: Quantifying the Aggregate and Distributional Effects of Trade," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 90(1), pages 331-375.
    5. Layard, R. & Mayraz, G. & Nickell, S., 2008. "The marginal utility of income," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(8-9), pages 1846-1857, August.
    6. Dirk Van de gaer & Flaviana Palmisano, 2018. "Growth, Mobility and Social Welfare," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 988, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    7. Jonas Van der Slycken & Brent Bleys, 2020. "Cost-shifting Versus “Full” Accountability: Dealing with Cross-time and Cross-boundary Issues in the ISEW and GPI. An application to Belgium," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 20/1003, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    8. Antràs, Pol & de Gortari, Alonso & Itskhoki, Oleg, 2017. "Globalization, inequality and welfare," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 387-412.
    9. Sangiuliano, Stephen Joseph, 2017. "Turning of the tides: Assessing the international implementation of tidal current turbines," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 971-989.
    10. Andrew Aitken & Martin Weale, 2020. "A Democratic Measure of Household Income Growth: Theory and Application to the United Kingdom," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 87(347), pages 589-610, July.
    11. Landis, Florian & Fredriksson, Gustav & Rausch, Sebastian, 2021. "Between- and within-country distributional impacts from harmonizing carbon prices in the EU," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    12. Scott Farrow, 2011. "Incorporating Equity in Regulatory and Benefit‐Cost Analysis Using Risk‐Based Preferences," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(6), pages 902-907, June.
    13. Romina Boarini & Marc Fleurbaey & Fabrice Murtin & Paul Schreyer, 2022. "Well‐being during the Great Recession: new evidence from a measure of multi‐dimensional living standards with heterogeneous preferences," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 124(1), pages 104-138, January.
    14. Vidar Christiansen & Zhiyang Jia & Thor O. Thoresen, 2022. "Assessing income tax perturbations," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 29(2), pages 472-504, April.
    15. Artuc, Erhan & Porto, Guido & Rijkers, Bob, 2019. "Trading off the income gains and the inequality costs of trade policy," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 1-45.
    16. Aristei, David & Perugini, Cristiano, 2010. "Preferences for redistribution and inequality in well-being across Europe," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 176-195, March.
    17. repec:awi:wpaper:0722 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Florian Landis, 2019. "Cost distribution and equity of climate policy in Switzerland," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics, Springer;Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics, vol. 155(1), pages 1-28, December.
    19. Tymon Słoczyński, 2012. "Zastosowanie zasady równych ofiar do oceny sprawiedliwości taryfy podatku dochodowego od osób fizycznych (PIT) w Polsce," Gospodarka Narodowa. The Polish Journal of Economics, Warsaw School of Economics, issue 10, pages 23-47.
    20. Xin-Wei Li & Hong-Zhi Miao, 2022. "How to Incorporate Blue Carbon into the China Certified Emission Reductions Scheme: Legal and Policy Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-15, August.
    21. Dietz, Simon & Hepburn, Cameron, 2013. "Benefit–cost analysis of non-marginal climate and energy projects," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 61-71.

    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:marpol:v:58:y:2015:i:c:p:51-59. 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/marpol .

    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.