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, 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. 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.
    3. 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.
    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. Roy Brouwer & Julia Martin-Ortega & RJulio Berbel, 2010. "Spatial Preference Heterogeneity: A Choice Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(3).
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Claudia Rahmann & Rodrigo Palma-Behnke, 2013. "Optimal Allocation of Wind Turbines by Considering Transmission Security Constraints and Power System Stability," Energies, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-18, January.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.
    21. 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.
    22. 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.
    23. Steve Gibbons, 2014. "Gone with the wind," CentrePiece - The magazine for economic performance 433, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    24. 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).
    25. 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.
    26. 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.
    27. 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.
    28. 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.
    29. 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.
    30. 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.
    31. Bergmann, Ariel & Hanley, Nick & Wright, Robert, 2006. "Valuing the attributes of renewable energy investments," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(9), pages 1004-1014, June.
    32. Richard J. Vyn & Ryan M. McCullough, 2014. "The Effects of Wind Turbines on Property Values in Ontario: Does Public Perception Match Empirical Evidence?," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 62(3), pages 365-392, September.
    33. 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.
    34. 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).
    35. 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.
    36. 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.
    37. 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.
    38. 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.
    39. Ladenburg, Jacob & Bonnichsen, Ole & Dahlgaard, Jens Olav, 2011. "Testing the Effect of a Short Cheap Talk Script in Choice Experiments," Nationaløkonomisk tidsskrift, Nationaløkonomisk Forening, vol. 2011(1), pages 25-54.
    40. van Rijnsoever, Frank J. & Farla, Jacco C.M., 2014. "Identifying and explaining public preferences for the attributes of energy technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 71-82.
    41. Schaafsma, Marije & Brouwer, Roy & Rose, John, 2012. "Directional heterogeneity in WTP models for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 21-31.
    42. 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.
    43. 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.
    44. 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.
    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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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).
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    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. Simona Bigerna & Paolo Polinori, 2015. "Assessing the Determinants of Renewable Electricity Acceptance Integrating Meta-Analysis Regression and a Local Comprehensive Survey," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(9), pages 1-24, August.
    8. 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.
    9. Cerdá, Emilio & López-Otero, Xiral & Quiroga, Sonia & Soliño, Mario, 2024. "Willingness to pay for renewables: Insights from a meta-analysis of choice experiments," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    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. 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.
    12. 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.
    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. 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, vol. 10(1), pages 1-16, January.
    15. Ladenburg, Jacob & Skotte, Maria, 2022. "Heterogeneity in willingness to pay for the location of offshore wind power development: An application of the willingness to pay space model," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 241(C).
    16. 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.
    17. Klaus Glenk & Robert J. Johnston & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Julian Sagebiel, 2020. "Spatial Dimensions of Stated Preference Valuation in Environmental and Resource Economics: Methods, Trends and Challenges," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(2), pages 215-242, February.
    18. Mattmann, Matteo & Logar, Ivana & Brouwer, Roy, 2016. "Wind power externalities: A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 23-36.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.

    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.

    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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.