IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

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

Listed author(s):
  • 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)

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.

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.

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

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

Article provided by MDPI, Open Access Journal in its journal Energies.

Volume (Year): 8 (2015)
Issue (Month): 6 (June)
Pages: 1-25

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:8:y:2015:i:6:p:6177-6201:d:51539
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.mdpi.com/

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.:

as
in new window


  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. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. Vanja WESTERBERG & Jette Bredahl JACOBSEN & Robert LIFRAN, 2012. "The case for offshore wind farms, artificial reefs and sustainable tourism in the French Mediterranean," Working Papers 12-11, LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier, revised Apr 2012.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. Roy Brouwer & Julia Martin-Ortega & RJulio Berbel, 2010. "Spatial Preference Heterogeneity: A Choice Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(3).
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. Schaafsma, Marije & Brouwer, Roy & Rose, John, 2012. "Directional heterogeneity in WTP models for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 21-31.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. Bergmann, Ariel & Hanley, Nick & Wright, Robert, 2006. "Valuing the attributes of renewable energy investments," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(9), pages 1004-1014, June.
  26. 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.
  27. 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.
  28. 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.
  29. 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).
  30. 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.
  31. 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.
  32. 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.
  33. 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.
  34. 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.
  35. 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.
  36. 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.
  37. 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.
  38. 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).
  39. 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.
  40. 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.
  41. 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.
  42. 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.
  43. 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.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

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)

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.