IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/ufzdps/22023.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The opportunity costs of environmental exclusion zones for renewable energy deployment

Author

Listed:
  • Lehmann, Paul
  • Tafarte, Philip

Abstract

Exclusion zones, like protected areas or setback distances, are the most common policy instrument to mitigate environmental impacts of human land-use, including the deployment of renewable energy sources. While exclusion zones may provide environmental benefits, they may also bring about opportunity costs. This paper aims to understand and quantify the drivers determining the opportunity costs related to environmental exclusion zones. Using a simple analytical model, we propose that opportunity costs of exclusion zones can be decomposed into a substitution effect (because production is shifted to sites with higher or lower marginal production costs) and an output effect (because more sites may be needed to satisfy demand for produced goods). We provide a numerical illustration for the opportunity costs for two examples of environmental exclusion zones - setback distances to settlements and forest bans - which are implemented for wind power deployment in Germany. The numerical illustration builds on a spatially explicit optimization model using GIS data for more than 100,000 potential wind turbine sites in Germany. Our analysis reveals that opportunity costs may primarily arise in terms of higher local environmental impacts of wind power generation. Opportunity costs are mainly due to the output effect for setback distances, and the substitution effect for forest bans. We also show that the actual sign and size of opportunity costs depends a lot on the cost criteria under consideration as well as the type and stringency of the environmental exclusion zone. Our analysis emphasizes the importance to properly understand possible opportunity costs, and compare them carefully with possible benefits when implementing exclusion zones. Interestingly, our analysis also shows that very restrictive setback distances may not be recommendable at all: In our analysis they turn out to increase the total disamenity costs produced by wind power deployment - contrary to the policy objective pursued by this instrument. We believe that our analytical insights are also helpful when thinking about the impacts of environmental exclusion zones applied to other fields of environmental policy, such as urban development or agriculture.

Suggested Citation

  • Lehmann, Paul & Tafarte, Philip, 2023. "The opportunity costs of environmental exclusion zones for renewable energy deployment," UFZ Discussion Papers 2/2023, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:ufzdps:22023
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/271076/1/1844453715.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hermes, Johannes & Albert, Christian & von Haaren, Christina, 2018. "Assessing the aesthetic quality of landscapes in Germany," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 296-307.
    2. Unnewehr, Jan Frederick & Jalbout, Eddy & Jung, Christopher & Schindler, Dirk & Weidlich, Anke, 2021. "Getting more with less? Why repowering onshore wind farms does not always lead to more wind power generation – A German case study," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 245-257.
    3. Palmer-Wilson, Kevin & Donald, James & Robertson, Bryson & Lyseng, Benjamin & Keller, Victor & Fowler, McKenzie & Wade, Cameron & Scholtysik, Sven & Wild, Peter & Rowe, Andrew, 2019. "Impact of land requirements on electricity system decarbonisation pathways," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 193-205.
    4. Tafarte, Philip & Lehmann, Paul, 2023. "Quantifying trade-offs for the spatial allocation of onshore wind generation capacity – A case study for Germany," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    5. Zerrahn, Alexander, 2017. "Wind Power and Externalities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 245-260.
    6. McKenna, R. & Hollnaicher, S. & Fichtner, W., 2014. "Cost-potential curves for onshore wind energy: A high-resolution analysis for Germany," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 103-115.
    7. 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.
    8. Price, James & Zeyringer, Marianne & Konadu, Dennis & Sobral Mourão, Zenaida & Moore, Andy & Sharp, Ed, 2018. "Low carbon electricity systems for Great Britain in 2050: An energy-land-water perspective," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 928-941.
    9. Eichhorn, Marcus & Tafarte, Philip & Thrän, Daniela, 2017. "Towards energy landscapes – “Pathfinder for sustainable wind power locations”," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 611-621.
    10. Lopez, Anthony & Mai, Trieu & Lantz, Eric & Harrison-Atlas, Dylan & Williams, Travis & Maclaurin, Galen, 2021. "Land use and turbine technology influences on wind potential in the United States," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 223(C).
    11. Mai, Trieu & Lopez, Anthony & Mowers, Matthew & Lantz, Eric, 2021. "Interactions of wind energy project siting, wind resource potential, and the evolution of the U.S. power system," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 223(C).
    12. Wehrle, Sebastian & Gruber, Katharina & Schmidt, Johannes, 2021. "The cost of undisturbed landscapes," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    13. Masurowski, Frank & Drechsler, Martin & Frank, Karin, 2016. "A spatially explicit assessment of the wind energy potential in response to an increased distance between wind turbines and settlements in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 343-350.
    14. Peri, Erez & Tal, Alon, 2021. "Is setback distance the best criteria for siting wind turbines under crowded conditions? An empirical analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    15. R. McKenna & J. M. Weinand & I. Mulalic & S. Petrović & K. Mainzer & T. Preis & H. S. Moat, 2021. "Scenicness assessment of onshore wind sites with geotagged photographs and impacts on approval and cost-efficiency," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 6(6), pages 663-672, June.
    16. Thomas Lauf & Kristina Ek & Erik Gawel & Paul Lehmann & Patrik Söderholm, 2020. "The regional heterogeneity of wind power deployment: an empirical investigation of land-use policies in Germany and Sweden," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 63(4), pages 751-778, March.
    17. Hitaj, Claudia & Löschel, Andreas, 2019. "The impact of a feed-in tariff on wind power development in Germany," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 18-35.
    18. Goetzke, Frank & Rave, Tilmann, 2016. "Exploring heterogeneous growth of wind energy across Germany," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 193-205.
    19. Michael White & Philip Allmendinger, 2003. "Land-use Planning and the Housing Market: A Comparative Review of the UK and the USA," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 40(5-6), pages 953-972, May.
    20. Watson, Ian & Betts, Stephen & Rapaport, Eric, 2012. "Determining appropriate wind turbine setback distances: Perspectives from municipal planners in the Canadian provinces of Nova Scotia, Ontario, and Quebec," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 782-789.
    21. Jan Stede & Marc Blauert & Nils May, 2021. "Way Off: The Effect of Minimum Distance Regulation on the Deployment and Cost of Wind Power," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1989, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    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. Wang, Ni & Verzijlbergh, Remco A. & Heijnen, Petra W. & Herder, Paulien M., 2020. "A spatially explicit planning approach for power systems with a high share of renewable energy sources," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 260(C).
    24. Sliz-Szkliniarz, B. & Eberbach, J. & Hoffmann, B. & Fortin, M., 2019. "Assessing the cost of onshore wind development scenarios: Modelling of spatial and temporal distribution of wind power for the case of Poland," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 514-531.
    25. Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Ohl, Cornelia & Hartje, Volkmar, 2010. "Landscape externalities from onshore wind power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 82-92, January.
    26. Scott Spillias & Peter Kareiva & Mary Ruckelshaus & Eve McDonald-Madden, 2020. "Renewable energy targets may undermine their sustainability," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 10(11), pages 974-976, November.
    27. McKenna, Russell & Weinand, Jann Michael & Mulalic, Ismir & Petrovic, Stefan & Mainzer, Kai & Preis, Tobias & Moat, Helen Susannah, 2020. "Improving renewable energy resource assessments by quantifying landscape beauty," Working Paper Series in Production and Energy 43, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Institute for Industrial Production (IIP).
    28. Salomon, Hannes & Drechsler, Martin & Reutter, Felix, 2020. "Minimum distances for wind turbines: A robustness analysis of policies for a sustainable wind power deployment," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    29. Drechsler, Martin & Ohl, Cornelia & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Eichhorn, Marcus & Monsees, Jan, 2011. "Combining spatial modeling and choice experiments for the optimal spatial allocation of wind turbines," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3845-3854, June.
    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. Lehmann, Paul & Tafarte, Philip, 2024. "Exclusion zones for renewable energy deployment: One man’s blessing, another man’s curse," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    2. Lehmann, Paul & Reutter, Felix & Tafarte, Philip, 2023. "Optimal siting of onshore wind turbines: Local disamenities matter," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    3. Lehmann, Paul & Reutter, Felix & Tafarte, Philip, 2021. "Optimal siting of onshore wind turbines: Local disamenities matter," UFZ Discussion Papers 4/2021, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    4. Tafarte, Philip & Lehmann, Paul, 2021. "Quantifying trade-offs for the spatial allocation of onshore wind generation capacity: A case study for Germany," UFZ Discussion Papers 2/2021, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    5. Grimsrud, Kristine & Hagem, Cathrine & Lind, Arne & Lindhjem, Henrik, 2021. "Efficient spatial distribution of wind power plants given environmental externalities due to turbines and grids," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    6. Engelhorn, Thorsten & Müsgens, Felix, 2021. "Why is Germany’s energy transition so expensive? Quantifying the costs of wind-energy decentralisation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    7. Russell McKenna & Stefan Pfenninger & Heidi Heinrichs & Johannes Schmidt & Iain Staffell & Katharina Gruber & Andrea N. Hahmann & Malte Jansen & Michael Klingler & Natascha Landwehr & Xiaoli Guo Lars', 2021. "Reviewing methods and assumptions for high-resolution large-scale onshore wind energy potential assessments," Papers 2103.09781, arXiv.org.
    8. Meier, Jan-Niklas & Lehmann, Paul, 2022. "Optimal federal co-regulation of renewable energy deployment," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    9. McKenna, Russell & Pfenninger, Stefan & Heinrichs, Heidi & Schmidt, Johannes & Staffell, Iain & Bauer, Christian & Gruber, Katharina & Hahmann, Andrea N. & Jansen, Malte & Klingler, Michael & Landwehr, 2022. "High-resolution large-scale onshore wind energy assessments: A review of potential definitions, methodologies and future research needs," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 659-684.
    10. Tafarte, Philip & Lehmann, Paul, 2023. "Quantifying trade-offs for the spatial allocation of onshore wind generation capacity – A case study for Germany," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    11. Peri, Erez & Tal, Alon, 2021. "Is setback distance the best criteria for siting wind turbines under crowded conditions? An empirical analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    12. Felix Reutter & Martin Drechsler & Erik Gawel & Paul Lehmann, 2024. "Social Costs of Setback Distances for Onshore Wind Turbines: A Model Analysis Applied to the German State of Saxony," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 87(2), pages 437-463, February.
    13. Jan-Niklas Meier & Paul Lehmann & Bernd Süssmuth & Stephan Wedekind, 2024. "Wind power deployment and the impact of spatial planning policies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 87(2), pages 491-550, February.
    14. Anders Dugstad & Kristine M. Grimsrud & Gorm Kipperberg & Henrik Lindhjem & Ståle Navrud, 2021. "Scope Elasticity of Willingness to pay in Discrete Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 80(1), pages 21-57, September.
    15. Salomon, Hannes & Drechsler, Martin & Reutter, Felix, 2020. "Minimum distances for wind turbines: A robustness analysis of policies for a sustainable wind power deployment," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    16. 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.
    17. 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).
    18. Zerrahn, Alexander, 2017. "Wind Power and Externalities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 245-260.
    19. Christian Krekel & Johannes Rode & Alexander Roth, 2023. "Do wind turbines have adverse health impacts," CEP Discussion Papers dp1950, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    20. Groh, Elke D., 2022. "Exposure to wind turbines, regional identity and the willingness to pay for regionally produced electricity," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    forest; Germany; land use; land-use restriction; setback distances; spatial modelling; wind power;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q23 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Forestry
    • Q24 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Land
    • Q28 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Government Policy
    • Q42 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Alternative Energy Sources
    • R14 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General Regional Economics - - - Land Use Patterns
    • R32 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Real Estate Markets, Spatial Production Analysis, and Firm Location - - - Other Spatial Production and Pricing Analysis

    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:zbw:ufzdps:22023. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/doufzde.html .

    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.