IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/rensus/v121y2020ics1364032120300095.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The offshore-onshore conundrum: Preferences for wind energy considering spatial data in Denmark

Author

Listed:
  • Ladenburg, Jacob
  • Hevia-Koch, Pablo
  • Petrović, Stefan
  • Knapp, Lauren

Abstract

Installed wind energy capacity has been increasing steadily across the world and is expected to continue to do so in the future, in response to lowering costs of technology as well as increased renewable energy goals put forth by governments. Nonetheless, public opposition has been increasing and the discussion regarding siting wind turbines onshore or offshore is consistently present in public discourse. In combining a stated preference study with spatial data processed via GIS (Geographic Information Systems), spatial preferences for onshore and offshore wind turbines are explored while considering their visual impact and costs as well as controlling for the respondents' socioeconomic characteristics. In general, respondents state strong preferences towards offshore wind turbines as opposed to onshore. Furthermore, spatial data is found to be significant with regard to the preferences of the respondents, particularly respondents' distance to the coast and potential offshore wind farms and the number of wind turbines seen from the residence and the number of turbines in the postal area. As a secondary result, findings suggest socioeconomic characteristics such as age and income are significantly related to respondents’ preferences, in line with previous research.

Suggested Citation

  • Ladenburg, Jacob & Hevia-Koch, Pablo & Petrović, Stefan & Knapp, Lauren, 2020. "The offshore-onshore conundrum: Preferences for wind energy considering spatial data in Denmark," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:rensus:v:121:y:2020:i:c:s1364032120300095
    DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2020.109711
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032120300095
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    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. Simona Bigerna & Paolo Polinori, 2015. "Assessing the Determinants of Renewable Electricity Acceptance Integrating Meta-Analysis Regression and a Local Comprehensive Survey," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 7(9), pages 1-24, August.
    2. Ladenburg, Jacob & Möller, Bernd, 2011. "Attitude and acceptance of offshore wind farms—The influence of travel time and wind farm attributes," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(9), pages 4223-4235.
    3. Ek, Kristina & Persson, Lars, 2014. "Wind farms — Where and how to place them? A choice experiment approach to measure consumer preferences for characteristics of wind farm establishments in Sweden," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 193-203.
    4. Bertsch, Valentin & Hall, Margeret & Weinhardt, Christof & Fichtner, Wolf, 2016. "Public acceptance and preferences related to renewable energy and grid expansion policy: Empirical insights for Germany," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 465-477.
    5. Westerberg, Vanja & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Lifran, Robert, 2013. "The case for offshore wind farms, artificial reefs and sustainable tourism in the French mediterranean," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 172-183.
    6. Mattmann, Matteo & Logar, Ivana & Brouwer, Roy, 2016. "Wind power externalities: A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 23-36.
    7. Ferrini, Silvia & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2007. "Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: A Monte Carlo study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 342-363, May.
    8. F Alpizar & F Carlsson & P Martinsson, 2003. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 8(1), pages 83-110, March.
    9. Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2013. "Do turbines in the vicinity of respondents' residences influence choices among programmes for future wind power generation?," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 58-71.
    10. Laura O. Taylor & Ronald G. Cummings, 1999. "Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 649-665, June.
    11. Landry, Craig E. & Allen, Tom & Cherry, Todd & Whitehead, John C., 2012. "Wind turbines and coastal recreation demand," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 93-111.
    12. Termansen, Mette & McClean, Colin J. & Jensen, Frank Søndergaard, 2013. "Modelling and mapping spatial heterogeneity in forest recreation services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 48-57.
    13. Payne, John W & Schkade, David A. & Desvousges, William H. & Aultman, Chris, 2000. "Valuation of Multiple Environmental Programs," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 95-115, July.
    14. Arne Hole & Julie Kolstad, 2012. "Mixed logit estimation of willingness to pay distributions: a comparison of models in preference and WTP space using data from a health-related choice experiment," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 445-469, April.
    15. Menegaki, Angeliki, N. & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Tsagarakis, Konstantinos P., 2016. "Towards a common standard – A reporting checklist for web-based stated preference valuation surveys and a critique for mode surveys," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 18-50.
    16. Andrew D. Krueger & George R. Parsons & Jeremy Firestone, 2011. "Valuing the Visual Disamenity of Offshore Wind Projects at Varying Distances from the Shore: An Application on the Delaware Shoreline," Working Papers 11-04, University of Delaware, Department of Economics.
    17. Bulte, Erwin & Gerking, Shelby & List, John A. & de Zeeuw, Aart, 2005. "The effect of varying the causes of environmental problems on stated WTP values: evidence from a field study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 330-342, March.
    18. Pate, Jennifer & Loomis, John, 1997. "The effect of distance on willingness to pay values: a case study of wetlands and salmon in California," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 199-207, March.
    19. Jørgensen, Sisse Liv & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Ladenburg, Jacob & Martinsen, Louise & Svenningsen, Stig Roar & Hasler, Berit, 2013. "Spatially induced disparities in users' and non-users' WTP for water quality improvements—Testing the effect of multiple substitutes and distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 58-66.
    20. Kim, Hyo-Jin & Kim, Ju-Hee & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2019. "Social acceptance of offshore wind energy development in South Korea: Results from a choice experiment survey," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 1-1.
    21. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
    22. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    23. Ladenburg, Jacob & Termansen, Mette & Hasler, Berit, 2013. "Assessing acceptability of two onshore wind power development schemes: A test of viewshed effects and the cumulative effects of wind turbines," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 45-54.
    24. Bosworth Ryan & Taylor Laura O., 2012. "Hypothetical Bias in Choice Experiments: Is Cheap Talk Effective at Eliminating Bias on the Intensive and Extensive Margins of Choice?," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 1-28, December.
    25. 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.
    26. Danny Campbell & Claudia Aravena & W. George Hutchinson, 2011. "Cheap and expensive alternatives in stated choice experiments: are they equally considered by respondents?," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(8), pages 743-747.
    27. Ladenburg, Jacob, 2014. "Dynamic properties of the preferences for renewable energy sources – A wind power experience-based approach," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 542-551.
    28. Czajkowski, Mikolaj & Hanley, Nick & LaRiviere, Jacob & Simpson, Katherine, 2014. "What is the Causal Effect of Information and Learning about a Public Good on Willingness to Pay?," SIRE Discussion Papers 2014-009, Scottish Institute for Research in Economics (SIRE).
    29. Betakova, Vendula & Vojar, Jiri & Sklenicka, Petr, 2015. "Wind turbines location: How many and how far?," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 23-31.
    30. Catherine Boulatoff & Carol Boyer, 2010. "Using contingent valuation with undergraduate students to elicit a community's preferences for wind farm development," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(14), pages 1361-1366.
    31. Rosen, Sherwin, 1974. "Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in Pure Competition," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 82(1), pages 34-55, Jan.-Feb..
    32. Andrew D. Krueger & George R. Parsons & Jeremy Firestone, 2011. "Valuing the Visual Disamenity of Offshore Wind Power Projects at Varying Distances from the Shore: An Application on the Delaware Shoreline," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(2), pages 268-283.
    33. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132-132.
    34. Lauren Knapp & Jacob Ladenburg, 2015. "How Spatial Relationships Influence Economic Preferences for Wind Power—A Review," Energies, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 8(6), pages 1-25, June.
    35. Hevia-Koch, Pablo & Klinge Jacobsen, Henrik, 2019. "Comparing offshore and onshore wind development considering acceptance costs," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 9-19.
    36. Schaafsma, Marije & Brouwer, Roy & Rose, John, 2012. "Directional heterogeneity in WTP models for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 21-31.
    37. 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, Open Access Journal, vol. 10(1), pages 1-16, January.
    38. Marije Schaafsma & Roy Brouwer & Alison Gilbert & Jeroen van den Bergh & Alfred Wagtendonk, 2013. "Estimation of Distance-Decay Functions to Account for Substitution and Spatial Heterogeneity in Stated Preference Research," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 89(3), pages 514-537.
    39. Yao, Richard T. & Scarpa, Riccardo & Turner, James A. & Barnard, Tim D. & Rose, John M. & Palma, João H.N. & Harrison, Duncan R., 2014. "Valuing biodiversity enhancement in New Zealand's planted forests: Socioeconomic and spatial determinants of willingness-to-pay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 90-101.
    40. Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Ohl, Cornelia & Hartje, Volkmar, 2010. "Landscape externalities from onshore wind power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 82-92, January.
    41. Ronald J. Sutherland & Richard G. Walsh, 1985. "Effect of Distance on the Preservation Value of Water Quality," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 64(3), pages 281-291.
    42. Lutzeyer, Sanja & Phaneuf, Daniel J. & Taylor, Laura O., 2018. "The amenity costs of offshore wind farms: Evidence from a choice experiment," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 621-639.
    43. Jeff Bennett & Russell Blamey (ed.), 2001. "The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2028.
    44. 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.
    45. Ladenburg, Jacob & Lutzeyer, Sanja, 2012. "The economics of visual disamenity reductions of offshore wind farms—Review and suggestions from an emerging field," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(9), pages 6793-6802.
    46. Small, Kenneth A., 2012. "Valuation of travel time," Economics of Transportation, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 2-14.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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:rensus:v:121:y:2020:i:c:s1364032120300095. 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: (Haili He). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/600126/description#description .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.