IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i1p208-d127158.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

When a Good Is a Bad (or a Bad Is a Good)—Analysis of Data from an Ambiguous Nonmarket Valuation Setting

Author

Listed:
  • Petter Gudding

    (Norwegian Environment Agency, 7010 Trondheim, Norway)

  • Gorm Kipperberg

    (UiS Business School, University of Stavanger, 4036 Stavanger, Norway)

  • Craig Bond

    (UiS Business School, University of Stavanger, 4036 Stavanger, Norway
    RAND Corporation, Arlington, VA 22202-5050, USA)

  • Kelly Cullen

    (Department of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824, USA)

  • Eric Steltzer

    (Department of Energy Resources, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Boston, MA 02114, USA)

Abstract

This paper analyses data from a contingent valuation experiment carried out in a context with large degree of preference heterogeneity and valuation ambiguity. Despite this challenge, by implementing estimation of an unrestricted valuation function on pooled data from two elicitation formats, utilizing all preference information available from the survey, we are able to estimate welfare measures with an acceptable degree of statistical confidence. It turns out that an offshore wind farm, a priori believed to constitute a bad that people would be willing to pay to avoid, instead was a good that people would be willing to forego under compensation. This was true on average but not for all study participants. Two key determinants of preferences were spatial proximity to the proposed wind farm and perceptions of the visual impacts of wind turbines. Individuals who would be near and thought wind turbines are “ugly” had a mean willingness to pay to avoid the wind farm of about $508 per household per year. In contrast, those who would be far away and perceived wind turbines to be “beautiful” had a negative mean willingness to pay to avoid the wind farm of about −$595 per household per year.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:1:p:208-:d:127158
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/1/208/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/1/208/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Catherine L. Kling & Daniel J. Phaneuf & Jinhua Zhao, 2012. "From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better Than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 3-26, Fall.
    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. Groothuis, Peter A. & Groothuis, Jana D. & Whitehead, John C., 2008. "Green vs. green: Measuring the compensation required to site electrical generation windmills in a viewshed," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 1545-1550, April.
    4. Haab, Timothy C. & McConnell, Kenneth E., 1997. "Referendum Models and Negative Willingness to Pay: Alternative Solutions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 251-270, February.
    5. Firestone, Jeremy & Kempton, Willett, 2007. "Public opinion about large offshore wind power: Underlying factors," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 1584-1598, March.
    6. Timothy C. Haab & Kenneth E. McConnell, 2002. "Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2427, December.
    7. Abbie McCartney, 2006. "The Social Value of Seascapes in the Jurien Bay Marine Park: An Assessment of Positive and Negative Preferences for Change," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(3), pages 577-594, September.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Amigues, Jean-Pierre & Boulatoff (Broadhead), Catherine & Desaigues, Brigitte & Gauthier, Caroline & Keith, John E., 2003. "Erratum to "The benefits and costs of riparian analysis habitat preservation: a willingness to accept/willingness to pay contingent valuation approach": [Ecological Economics 43(2002) 17-31]," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 153-153, February.
    12. 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.
    13. Stigka, Eleni K. & Paravantis, John A. & Mihalakakou, Giouli K., 2014. "Social acceptance of renewable energy sources: A review of contingent valuation applications," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 100-106.
    14. 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.
    15. Charles R. Plott & Kathryn Zeiler, 2005. "The Willingness to Pay–Willingness to Accept Gap, the "Endowment Effect," Subject Misconceptions, and Experimental Procedures for Eliciting Valuations," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(3), pages 530-545, June.
    16. Whitehead, John C. & Cherry, Todd L., 2007. "Willingness to pay for a Green Energy program: A comparison of ex-ante and ex-post hypothetical bias mitigation approaches," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 247-261, November.
    17. Richard T. Carson, 2012. "Contingent Valuation: A Practical Alternative When Prices Aren't Available," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 27-42, Fall.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. Cameron, Trudy Ann, 1988. "A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: Maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 355-379, September.
    21. 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.
    22. Krekel, Christian & Zerrahn, Alexander, 2017. "Does the presence of wind turbines have negative externalities for people in their surroundings? Evidence from well-being data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 221-238.
    23. Bergmann, Ariel & Colombo, Sergio & Hanley, Nick, 2008. "Rural versus urban preferences for renewable energy developments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 616-625, April.
    24. Giles Atkinson & Brett Day & Susana Mourato & Charles Palmer, 2004. "'Amenity' or 'eyesore'? Negative willingness to pay for options to replace electricity transmission towers," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(4), pages 203-208.
    25. Cathrine Ulla Jensen & Toke Emil Panduro & Thomas Hedemark Lundhede, 2014. "The Vindication of Don Quixote: The Impact of Noise and Visual Pollution from Wind Turbines," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 90(4), pages 668-682.
    26. Nomura, Noboru & Akai, Makoto, 2004. "Willingness to pay for green electricity in Japan as estimated through contingent valuation method," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 78(4), pages 453-463, August.
    27. Ian J. Bateman & Richard T. Carson & Brett Day & Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Tannis Hett & Michael Jones-Lee & Graham Loomes, 2002. "Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2639, December.
    28. 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.
    29. Cathrine Ulla Jensen & Toke Emil Panduro & Thomas Hedemark Lundhede, 2014. "The Vindication of Don Quixote: The Impact of Noise and Visual Pollution from Wind Turbines," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 90(4), pages 668-682.
    30. 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.
    31. Alok Bohara & Joe Kerkvliet & Robert Berrens, 2001. "Addressing Negative Willingness to Pay in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(3), pages 173-195, November.
    32. David Aadland & Arthur J. Caplan, 2003. "Willingness to Pay for Curbside Recycling with Detection and Mitigation of Hypothetical Bias," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(2), pages 492-502.
    33. Cohen, Jed J. & Reichl, Johannes & Schmidthaler, Michael, 2014. "Re-focussing research efforts on the public acceptance of energy infrastructure: A critical review," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 4-9.
    34. Borchers, Allison M. & Duke, Joshua M. & Parsons, George R., 2007. "Does willingness to pay for green energy differ by source?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 3327-3334, June.
    35. van Rensburg, Thomas M. & Kelley, Hugh & Jeserich, Nadine, 2015. "What influences the probability of wind farm planning approval: Evidence from Ireland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 12-22.
    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. 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).

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Zerrahn, Alexander, 2017. "Wind Power and Externalities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 245-260.
    4. 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).
    5. Soon, Jan-Jan & Ahmad, Siti-Aznor, 2015. "Willingly or grudgingly? A meta-analysis on the willingness-to-pay for renewable energy use," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 877-887.
    6. Gracia, Azucena & Barreiro-Hurlé, Jesús & Pérez y Pérez, Luis, 2012. "Can renewable energy be financed with higher electricity prices? Evidence from a Spanish region," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 784-794.
    7. Mattmann, Matteo & Logar, Ivana & Brouwer, Roy, 2016. "Wind power externalities: A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 23-36.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Oerlemans, Leon A.G. & Chan, Kai-Ying & Volschenk, Jako, 2016. "Willingness to pay for green electricity: A review of the contingent valuation literature and its sources of error," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 875-885.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Mirasgedis, S. & Tourkolias, C. & Tzovla, E. & Diakoulaki, D., 2014. "Valuing the visual impact of wind farms: An application in South Evia, Greece," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 296-311.
    15. 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).
    16. Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Ohl, Cornelia & Hartje, Volkmar, 2010. "Landscape externalities from onshore wind power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 82-92, January.
    17. Maria De Salvo & Sandra Notaro & Giuseppe Cucuzza & Laura Giuffrida & Giovanni Signorello, 2021. "Protecting the Local Landscape or Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions? A Study on Social Acceptance and Preferences towards the Installation of a Wind Farm," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-19, November.
    18. 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.
    19. 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).
    20. Anders Dugstad & Kristine Grimsrud & Gorm Kipperberg & Henrik Lindhjem & Ståle Navrud, 2020. "Scope elasticity and economic significance in discrete choice experiments," Discussion Papers 942, Statistics Norway, Research Department.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:1:p:208-:d:127158. 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.