IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nim/nimawp/59-2015.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Using stated preference methods to assess environmental impacts of forest biomass power plants in Portugal

Author

Listed:

Abstract

As a renewable energy source, the use of forest biomass for electricity generation is advantageous in comparison with fossil fuels, however the activity of forest biomass power plants causes adverse impacts, affecting particularly neighbouring communities. The main objective of this study is to estimate the effects of the activity of forest biomass power plants on the welfare of two groups of stakeholders, namely local residents and the general population and we apply two stated preference methods: contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments, respectively. The former method was applied to estimate the minimum compensation residents of neighbouring communities of two forest biomass power plants in Portugal would be willing to accept. The latter method was applied among the general population to estimate their willingness to pay to avoid specific environmental impacts. The results show that the presence of the selected facilities affects individuals’ well-being. On the other hand, in the discrete choice experiments conducted among the general population all impacts considered were significant determinants of respondents’ welfare levels. The results of this study stress the importance of performing an equity analysis of the welfare effects on different groups of stakeholders from the installation of forest biomass power plants, as their effects on welfare are location and impact specific. Policy makers should take into account the views of all stakeholders either directly or indirectly involved when deciding crucial issues regarding the sitting of new forest biomass power plants, in order to achieve an efficient and equitable outcome.

Suggested Citation

  • Anabela Botelho & Lina Sofia Lourenço-Gomes & Lígia Costa Pinto & Sara Sousa & Marieta Valente, 2015. "Using stated preference methods to assess environmental impacts of forest biomass power plants in Portugal," NIMA Working Papers 59, Núcleo de Investigação em Microeconomia Aplicada (NIMA), Universidade do Minho.
    • Handle: RePEc:nim:nimawp:59/2015
    DOI: 10.1007/s10668-016-9795-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www3.eeg.uminho.pt/publications/NIMAwp59.pdf
    File Function: full text
    Download Restriction: none

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carneiro, Patrícia & Ferreira, Paula, 2012. "The economic, environmental and strategic value of biomass," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 17-22.
    2. Hanley, Nick & Mourato, Susana & Wright, Robert E, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuation?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    3. Evans, Annette & Strezov, Vladimir & Evans, Tim J., 2010. "Sustainability considerations for electricity generation from biomass," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 14(5), pages 1419-1427, June.
    4. Timothy C. Haab & Matthew G. Interis & Daniel R. Petrolia & John C. Whitehead, 2013. "From Hopeless to Curious? Thoughts on Hausman's "Dubious to Hopeless" Critique of Contingent Valuation," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 35(4), pages 593-612.
    5. Susan Owens, 2004. "Siting, sustainable development and social priorities," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(2), pages 101-114, March.
    6. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    7. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
    8. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    9. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    10. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132-132.
    11. Anabela Botelho & Lígia Costa Pinto & Patricia Sousa, 2013. "Valuing wind farms’ environmental impacts by geographical distance: A contingent valuation study in Portugal," NIMA Working Papers 52, Núcleo de Investigação em Microeconomia Aplicada (NIMA), Universidade do Minho.
    12. Miranda, Marie Lynn & Hale, Brack, 2001. "Protecting the forest from the trees: the social costs of energy production in Sweden," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 26(9), pages 869-889.
    13. 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, July.
    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. Anabela Botelho & Lina Lourenço-Gomes & Lígia M. Costa Pinto & Sara Sousa & Marieta Valente, 2018. "Discrete-choice experiments valuing local environmental impacts of renewables: two approaches to a case study in Portugal," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 145-162, December.
    2. Azevedo, Susana Garrido & Sequeira, Tiago & Santos, Marcelo & Mendes, Luis, 2019. "Biomass-related sustainability: A review of the literature and interpretive structural modeling," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 1107-1125.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Forest Biomass; Stated Preference Methods; Contingent Valuation; Discrete Choice Experiments; Environmental Impacts; Public Attitudes;

    JEL classification:

    • C90 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:nim:nimawp:59/2015. 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: (NIMA). General contact details of provider: http://nima.eeg.uminho.pt/ .

    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 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.

    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.