IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v8y2015i6p6177-6201d51539.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Spatial Relationships Influence Economic Preferences for Wind Power—A Review

Author

Listed:
  • Lauren Knapp

    () (Center for Carbon Free Power Integration, School of Marine Science and Policy, University of Delaware, ISE Lab 221 Academy Street, Newark, DE 19716, USA)

  • Jacob Ladenburg

    () (Danish Institute for Local and Regional Government Research (KORA), Købmagergade 22, 1150 Copenhagen K, Denmark)

Abstract

An increasing number of studies in the environmental and resource economic literature suggest that preferences for changes or improvements in environmental amenities, from water quality to recreation, are spatially heterogeneous. One of these effects in particular, distance decay, suggests that respondents exhibit a higher willingness to pay (WTP) the closer they live to a proposed environmental improvement and vice versa. The importance of spatial effects cannot be underestimated. Several of these studies find significant biases in aggregate WTP values, and therefore social welfare, from models that disregard spatial factors. This relationship between spatial aspects and preferences, however, remains largely ignored in the non-market valuation literature applied to valuing preferences for renewable energy, generally, and wind power, specifically. To our knowledge, fourteen peer-reviewed studies have been conducted to estimate stated preferences (SP) for onshore and/or offshore wind development, yet less than half of those utilize any measure to account for the relationship between spatial effects and preferences. Fewer still undertake more robust measures that account for these spatially dependent relationships, such as via GIS, outside incorporating a single ‘distance’ attribute within the choice experiment (CE) referenda. This paper first reviews the methodologies of the SP wind valuation studies that have integrated measure(s) to account for spatial effects. We then categorize these effects into three dimensions—distance to a proposed wind project, distance to existing wind project(s), and cumulative effects—supporting each with a discussion of significant findings, including those found in the wind hedonic and acceptance literature. Policy implications that can be leveraged to maximize social welfare when siting future wind projects as well as recommendations for additional research to control for preference spatial heterogeneity in wind CEs are also posited.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:8:y:2015:i:6:p:6177-6201:d:51539
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/8/6/6177/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/8/6/6177/
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Gibbons, Stephen, 2015. "Gone with the wind: Valuing the visual impacts of wind turbines through house prices," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 177-196.
    4. 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.
    5. Grothe, Oliver & Schnieders, Julius, 2011. "Spatial dependence in wind and optimal wind power allocation: A copula-based analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(9), pages 4742-4754, September.
    6. 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.
    7. Godby, Robert & Torell, Gregory L. & Coupal, Roger, 2014. "Estimating the value of additional wind and transmission capacity in the rocky mountain west," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 22-48.
    8. 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.
    9. Roy Brouwer & Julia Martin-Ortega & RJulio Berbel, 2010. "Spatial Preference Heterogeneity: A Choice Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(3).
    10. 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.
    11. Jacquet, Jeffrey B., 2012. "Landowner attitudes toward natural gas and wind farm development in northern Pennsylvania," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 677-688.
    12. Dimitropoulos, Alexandros & Kontoleon, Andreas, 2009. "Assessing the determinants of local acceptability of wind-farm investment: A choice experiment in the Greek Aegean Islands," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 1842-1854, May.
    13. Bergmann, Ariel & Hanley, Nick & Wright, Robert, 2006. "Valuing the attributes of renewable energy investments," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(9), pages 1004-1014, June.
    14. 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.
    15. Claudia Rahmann & Rodrigo Palma-Behnke, 2013. "Optimal Allocation of Wind Turbines by Considering Transmission Security Constraints and Power System Stability," Energies, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 6(1), pages 1-18, January.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. Strazzera, Elisabetta & Mura, Marina & Contu, Davide, 2012. "Combining choice experiments with psychometric scales to assess the social acceptability of wind energy projects: A latent class approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 334-347.
    19. 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.
    20. Albers, Heidi J. & Ando, Amy & Shogren, Jason F., 2010. "Introduction to spatial natural resource and environmental economics," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 93-97, April.
    21. Timothy D. Mount, Surin Maneevitjit, Alberto J. Lamadrid, Ray D. Zimmerman, and Robert J. Thomas, 2012. "The Hidden System Costs of Wind Generation in a Deregulated Electricity Market," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 1).
    22. Ladenburg, Jacob, 2010. "Attitudes towards offshore wind farms--The role of beach visits on attitude and demographic and attitude relations," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 1297-1304, March.
    23. 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.
    24. 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.
    25. Chowdhury, Souma & Zhang, Jie & Messac, Achille & Castillo, Luciano, 2012. "Unrestricted wind farm layout optimization (UWFLO): Investigating key factors influencing the maximum power generation," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 16-30.
    26. Alvarez-Farizo, Begona & Hanley, Nick, 2002. "Using conjoint analysis to quantify public preferences over the environmental impacts of wind farms. An example from Spain," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 107-116, January.
    27. Ladenburg, Jacob & Dahlgaard, Jens-Olav, 2012. "Attitudes, threshold levels and cumulative effects of the daily wind-turbine encounters," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 40-46.
    28. 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.
    29. Jacob Ladenburg & Jens Olav Dahlgaard & Ole Bonnichsen, 2010. "Testing the Effect of a Short Cheap Talk Script in Choice Experiments," IFRO Working Paper 2010/11, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    30. Sally Sims & Peter Dent & G. Reza Oskrochi, 2008. "Modelling the impact of wind farms on house prices in the UK," International Journal of Strategic Property Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(4), pages 251-269, August.
    31. Schaafsma, Marije & Brouwer, Roy & Rose, John, 2012. "Directional heterogeneity in WTP models for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 21-31.
    32. Santos-Alamillos, F.J. & Pozo-Vázquez, D. & Ruiz-Arias, J.A. & Lara-Fanego, V. & Tovar-Pescador, J., 2014. "A methodology for evaluating the spatial variability of wind energy resources: Application to assess the potential contribution of wind energy to baseload power," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 147-156.
    33. Ståle Navrud & Kirsten Grønvik Bråten, 2007. "Consumers' Preferences for Green and Brown Electricity : a Choice Modelling Approach," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 117(5), pages 795-811.
    34. 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.
    35. Mariel, Petr & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Hess, Stephane, 2015. "Heterogeneous preferences toward landscape externalities of wind turbines – combining choices and attitudes in a hybrid model," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 647-657.
    36. Martin D. Heintzelman & Carrie M. Tuttle, 2012. "Values in the Wind: A Hedonic Analysis of Wind Power Facilities," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 88(3), pages 571-588.
    37. Lang, Corey & Opaluch, James J. & Sfinarolakis, George, 2014. "The windy city: Property value impacts of wind turbines in an urban setting," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 413-421.
    38. 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.
    39. Kucsera, Dénes & Rammerstorfer, Margarethe, 2014. "Regulation and grid expansion investment with increased penetration of renewable generation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 184-200.
    40. Freeman, A Myrick, III, 1979. " Hedonic Prices, Property Values and Measuring Environmental Benefits: A Survey of the Issues," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 81(2), pages 154-173.
    41. Grothe, Oliver & Schnieders, Julius, 2011. "Spatial Dependence in Wind and Optimal Wind Power Allocation: A Copula Based Analysis," EWI Working Papers 2011-5, Energiewirtschaftliches Institut an der Universitaet zu Koeln (EWI).
    42. 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.
    43. 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.
    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. Bartczak, Anna & Chilton, Susan & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2017. "Gain and loss of money in a choice experiment. The impact of financial loss aversion and risk preferences on willingness to pay to avoid renewable energy externalities," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 326-334.
    2. Dugstad, Anders & Grimsrud, Kristine & Kipperberg, Gorm & Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2020. "Acceptance of wind power development and exposure – Not-in-anybody's-backyard," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    3. 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).
    4. Cristiano Franceschinis & Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene & John Rose & Michele Moretto & Raffaele Cavalli, 2016. "Exploring the Spatial Heterogeneity of Individual Preferences for Ambient Heating Systems," Energies, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 9(6), pages 1-19, May.
    5. Seul-Ye Lim & Hyo-Jin Kim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2017. "South Korean Household’s Willingness to Pay for Replacing Coal with Natural Gas? A View from CO 2 Emissions Reduction," Energies, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 10(12), pages 1-9, December.
    6. Anders Dugstad & Kristine Grimsrud & Gorm Kipperberg & Henrik Lindhjem & Ståle Navrud, 2020. "Acceptance of national wind power development and exposure. A case-control choice experiment approach," Discussion Papers 933, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    7. Ólafsdóttir, Rannveig & Sæþórsdóttir, Anna Dóra, 2019. "Wind farms in the Icelandic highlands: Attitudes of local residents and tourism service providers," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    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. Plum, Christiane & Olschewski, Roland & Jobin, Marilou & van Vliet, Oscar, 2019. "Public preferences for the Swiss electricity system after the nuclear phase-out: A choice experiment," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 181-196.
    10. Rehdanz, Katrin & Schröder, Carsten & Narita, Daiju & Okubo, Toshihiro, 2017. "Public preferences for alternative electricity mixes in post-Fukushima Japan," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 262-270.
    11. Anna Kowalska-Pyzalska, 2019. "Do Consumers Want to Pay for Green Electricity? A Case Study from Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 11(5), pages 1-20, March.
    12. Curtis, John & Tovar, Miguel Angel & Grilli, Gianluca, 2020. "Access to and consumption of natural gas: Spatial and socio-demographic drivers," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    13. Thomson, Heather & Kempton, Willett, 2018. "Perceptions and attitudes of residents living near a wind turbine compared with those living near a coal power plant," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 301-311.
    14. Skenteris, Konstantinos & Mirasgedis, Sevastianos & Tourkolias, Christos, 2019. "Implementing hedonic pricing models for valuing the visual impact of wind farms in Greece," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 248-258.
    15. Kalkbrenner, Bernhard J. & Yonezawa, Koichi & Roosen, Jutta, 2017. "Consumer preferences for electricity tariffs: Does proximity matter?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 413-424.
    16. 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.
    17. Curtis, John & Tovar, Miguel Angel & Grilli, Gianluca, 2019. "Access to and consumption of natural gas: spatial and sociodemographic drivers," Papers WP639, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).

    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. 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).
    2. Zerrahn, Alexander, 2017. "Wind Power and Externalities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 245-260.
    3. 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.
    4. Peri, Erez & Becker, Nir & Tal, Alon, 2020. "What really undermines public acceptance of wind turbines? A choice experiment analysis in Israel," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    5. 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.
    6. Langer, Katharina & Decker, Thomas & Roosen, Jutta & Menrad, Klaus, 2016. "A qualitative analysis to understand the acceptance of wind energy in Bavaria," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 248-259.
    7. Boyle, Kevin J. & Boatwright, Jessica & Brahma, Sreeya & Xu, Weibin, 2019. "NIMBY, not, in siting community wind farms," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 85-100.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Brennan, Noreen & van Rensburg, Thomas M., 2020. "Public preferences for wind farms involving electricity trade and citizen engagement in Ireland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    11. Mattmann, Matteo & Logar, Ivana & Brouwer, Roy, 2016. "Wind power externalities: A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 23-36.
    12. Vecchiato, Daniel & Tempesta, Tiziano, 2015. "Public preferences for electricity contracts including renewable energy: A marketing analysis with choice experiments," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 168-179.
    13. García, Jorge H. & Cherry, Todd L. & Kallbekken, Steffen & Torvanger, Asbjørn, 2016. "Willingness to accept local wind energy development: Does the compensation mechanism matter?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 165-173.
    14. Zerrahn, Alexander & Krekel, Christian, 2015. "Sowing the Wind and Reaping the Whirlwind? The Effect of Wind Turbines on Residential Well-Being," VfS Annual Conference 2015 (Muenster): Economic Development - Theory and Policy 112956, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    15. 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.
    16. Voltaire, Louinord & Koutchade, Obafèmi Philippe, 2020. "Public acceptance of and heterogeneity in behavioral beach trip responses to offshore wind farm development in Catalonia (Spain)," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    17. 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.
    18. Brennan, Noreen & Van Rensburg, Thomas M, 2016. "Wind farm externalities and public preferences for community consultation in Ireland: A discrete choice experiments approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 355-365.
    19. Caporale, Diana & De Lucia, Caterina, 2015. "Social acceptance of on-shore wind energy in Apulia Region (Southern Italy)," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 1378-1390.
    20. Skenteris, Konstantinos & Mirasgedis, Sevastianos & Tourkolias, Christos, 2019. "Implementing hedonic pricing models for valuing the visual impact of wind farms in Greece," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 248-258.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    wind power; stated preference; revealed preference; spatial heterogeneity; distance decay; cumulative effects;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics
    • Q0 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - General
    • Q4 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy
    • Q40 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - General
    • Q41 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Demand and Supply; Prices
    • Q42 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Alternative Energy Sources
    • Q43 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Energy and the Macroeconomy
    • Q47 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Energy Forecasting
    • Q48 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Government Policy
    • Q49 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Other

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:gam:jeners:v:8:y:2015:i:6:p:6177-6201:d:51539. 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: (XML Conversion Team). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com/ .

    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.