IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/apeclt/v11y2004i4p203-208.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

'Amenity' or 'eyesore'? Negative willingness to pay for options to replace electricity transmission towers

Author

Listed:
  • Giles Atkinson
  • Brett Day
  • Susana Mourato
  • Charles Palmer

Abstract

A frequent scenario in public decision-making is that of choosing between a number of proposed changes from the status quo. In such a case, stated preference surveys, such as the contingent valuation method, are often undertaken to assess the size of the benefits associated with each proposed change. For certain undesirable options, respondents may prefer the status quo; however, it may not be credible to directly elicit negative willingness to pay or willingness to accept to endure the change. This study, using contingent valuation, outlines an indirect means of measuring negative willingness to pay - for the problem of visual disamenity arising from alternative electricity transmission tower designs - based on the elicitation of indicators of how inconvenienced respondents would feel if a less preferred option were to replace the status quo; that is, the time and cost respondents were prepared to commit to opposing the change. The results show that taking account of negative willingness to pay matters and this significantly changes value estimates for some of the least liked options.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:apeclt:v:11:y:2004:i:4:p:203-208
    DOI: 10.1080/13504850410001674803
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.informaworld.com/openurl?genre=article&doi=10.1080/13504850410001674803&magic=repec&7C&7C8674ECAB8BB840C6AD35DC6213A474B5
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    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. Clinch, J Peter & Murphy, Anthony, 2001. "Modelling Winners and Losers in Contingent Valuation of Public Goods: Appropriate Welfare Measures and Econometric Analysis," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 111(470), pages 420-443, April.
    2. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
    3. Lockwood, Michael & Loomis, John & De Lacy, Terry, 1994. "The relative unimportance of a nonmarket willingness to pay for timber harvesting," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 145-152, February.
    4. 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.
    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. Ozbafli, Aygul & Jenkins, Glenn P., 2015. "The willingness to pay by households for improved reliability of electricity service in North Cyprus," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 359-369.
    2. Naghmeh Niroomand & Glenn P. Jenkins, 2018. "Estimation of Households’ and Businesses’ Willingness to Pay for Improved Reliability of Electricity Supply in Nepal," Development Discussion Papers 2018-05, JDI Executive Programs.
    3. 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.
    4. Contu, Davide & Strazzera, Elisabetta & Mourato, Susana, 2016. "Modeling individual preferences for energy sources: The case of IV generation nuclear energy in Italy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 37-58.
    5. Aygul Ozbafli & Glenn P. Jenkins, 2015. "The Willingness To Pay By Households For Improved Reliability Of Electricity Service," Development Discussion Papers 2015-02, JDI Executive Programs.
    6. 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.
    7. Cohen, Jed J. & Moeltner, Klaus & Reichl, Johannes & Schmidthaler, Michael, 2016. "Linking the value of energy reliability to the acceptance of energy infrastructure: Evidence from the EU," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 124-143.
    8. Zaunbrecher, Barbara S. & Linzenich, Anika & Ziefle, Martina, 2017. "A mast is a mast is a mast…? Comparison of preferences for location-scenarios of electricity pylons and wind power plants using conjoint analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 429-439.
    9. Riccardo Scarpa & Danny Campbell & W. George Hutchinson, 2007. "Benefit Estimates for Landscape Improvements: Sequential Bayesian Design and Respondents’ Rationality in a Choice Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 83(4), pages 617-634.
    10. O'Garra, Tanya & Mourato, Susana & Pearson, Peter, 2008. "Investigating attitudes to hydrogen refuelling facilities and the social cost to local residents," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 2074-2085, June.

    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. Lee, Gi-Eu & Loveridge, Scott & Joshi, Satish, 2017. "Local acceptance and heterogeneous externalities of biorefineries," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 328-336.
    2. Jones, Benjamin A. & Berrens, Robert P. & Jenkins-Smith, Hank & Silva, Carol & Ripberger, Joe & Carlson, Deven & Gupta, Kuhika & Wehde, Wesley, 2018. "In search of an inclusive approach: Measuring non-market values for the effects of complex dam, hydroelectric and river system operations," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 225-236.
    3. Bodo Herzog, 2018. "Valuation of Digital Platforms: Experimental Evidence for Google and Facebook," International Journal of Financial Studies, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 6(4), pages 1-13, October.
    4. Boyce, Christopher & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Hanley, Nick, 2019. "Personality and economic choices," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 82-100.
    5. Tuan, Tran Huu & Navrud, Stale, 2009. "Applying the dissonance-minimising format to value cultural heritage in developing countries," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(3), pages 1-17.
    6. Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Andersson, Henrik & Beaumais, Olivier & Crastes dit Sourd, Romain & Hess, François-Charles & Wolff, François-Charles, 2017. "Stated preferences: a unique database composed of 1657 recent published articles in journals related to agriculture, environment, or health," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 98(3), November.
    7. Roy Brouwer & Solomon Tarfasa, 2020. "Testing hypothetical bias in a framed field experiment," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(3), pages 343-357, September.
    8. Chorus, Caspar & van Cranenburgh, Sander & Daniel, Aemiro Melkamu & Sandorf, Erlend Dancke & Sobhani, Anae & Szép, Teodóra, 2021. "Obfuscation maximization-based decision-making: Theory, methodology and first empirical evidence," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 28-44.
    9. John A. List & Robert P. Berrens & Alok K. Bohara & Joe Kerkvliet, 2004. "Examining the Role of Social Isolation on Stated Preferences," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(3), pages 741-752, June.
    10. Loureiro, Maria L. & Loomis, John B. & Nahuelhual, Laura, 2004. "A comparison of a parametric and a non-parametric method to value a non-rejectable public good," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 61-74, September.
    11. Patricia Champ & Richard Bishop, 2001. "Donation Payment Mechanisms and Contingent Valuation: An Empirical Study of Hypothetical Bias," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(4), pages 383-402, August.
    12. McNair, Ben J. & Hensher, David A. & Bennett, Jeff, 2010. "Modelling heterogeneity in response behaviour towards a sequence of discrete choice questions: a latent class approach," MPRA Paper 23427, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Edward L. Glaeser & Scott Duke Kominers & Michael Luca & Nikhil Naik, 2018. "Big Data And Big Cities: The Promises And Limitations Of Improved Measures Of Urban Life," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(1), pages 114-137, January.
    14. Zemo, Kahsay Haile & Termansen, Mette, 2018. "Farmers’ willingness to participate in collective biogas investment: A discrete choice experiment study," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 87-101.
    15. Nicolas Jacquemet & Stephane Luchini & Jason Shogren & Verity Watson, 2019. "Discrete Choice under Oaths," Post-Print halshs-02136103, HAL.
    16. Nicholas Tyack & Milan Ščasný, 2018. "Social Valuation of Genebank Activities: Assessing Public Demand for Genetic Resource Conservation in the Czech Republic," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 10(11), pages 1-19, November.
    17. Daniel McFadden, 2009. "The human side of mechanism design: a tribute to Leo Hurwicz and Jean-Jacque Laffont," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 13(1), pages 77-100, April.
    18. Kim, Junghun & Seung, Hyunchan & Lee, Jongsu & Ahn, Joongha, 2020. "Asymmetric preference and loss aversion for electric vehicles: The reference-dependent choice model capturing different preference directions," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    19. Anastasio J. Villanueva & Klaus Glenk & Macario Rodríguez-Entrena, 2017. "Protest Responses and Willingness to Accept: Ecosystem Services Providers’ Preferences towards Incentive-Based Schemes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(3), pages 801-821, September.
    20. Tamara L. Sheldon & J. R. DeShazo & Richard T. Carson, 2017. "Electric And Plug-In Hybrid Vehicle Demand: Lessons For An Emerging Market," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 55(2), pages 695-713, April.

    More about this item

    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:taf:apeclt:v:11:y:2004:i:4:p:203-208. 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: . General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RAEL20 .

    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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RAEL20 .

    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.