IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Valuing the Visual Disamenity of Offshore Wind Power Projects at Varying Distances from the Shore: An Application on the Delaware Shoreline

  • Andrew D. Krueger
  • George R. Parsons
  • Jeremy Firestone

Several offshore wind power projects are under consideration in the United States. A concern with any such project is the visual disamenity it may create. Using a stated preference choice model, we estimated the external costs to residents of the state of Delaware for offshore wind turbines located at different distances from the coast. The annual costs to inland residents was $19, $9, $1, and $0 (2006 dollars) per household for turbines located at 0.9, 3.6, 6, and 9 miles offshore. The cost to residents living near the ocean was $80, $69, $35, and $27 per household for the same increments.

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://le.uwpress.org/cgi/reprint/87/2/268
Download Restriction: A subscription is required to access pdf files. Pay per article is available.

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by University of Wisconsin Press in its journal Land Economics.

Volume (Year): 87 (2011)
Issue (Month): 2 ()
Pages: 268-283

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:87:y:2011:ii:1:p:268-283
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://le.uwpress.org/

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. Peter A. Groothuis & Jana D. Groothuis & John C. Whitehead, 2007. "Green vs. Green: Measuring the Compensation Required to Site Electrical Generation Windmills in a Viewshed," Working Papers 07-12, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. Ferrini, Silvia & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2007. "Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: A Monte Carlo study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 342-363, May.
  7. Firestone, Jeremy & Kempton, Willett, 2007. "Public opinion about large offshore wind power: Underlying factors," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 1584-1598, March.
  8. Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Ohl, Cornelia & Hartje, Volkmar, 2010. "Landscape externalities from onshore wind power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 82-92, January.
  9. Hanley, Nick & Nevin, Ceara, 1999. "Appraising renewable energy developments in remote communities: the case of the North Assynt Estate, Scotland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(9), pages 527-547, September.
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:uwp:landec:v:87:y:2011:ii:1:p:268-283. 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: ()

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.