Social demand for electricity from forest biomass in Spain: Does payment periodicity affect the willingness to pay?

Energy Policy

Volumn 37, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 531-540

  Soliño, Mario ^a   Vázquez, María X ^a   Prada, Albino ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VIGO   (Spain)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation; Dichotomous format; Payment scale

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL MATERIALS; BIOMASS; ECONOMICS; ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEMS; RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES;

CONTINGENT VALUATION; CONTINGENT VALUATION METHODS; CONVENTIONAL ENERGY SOURCES; DICHOTOMOUS FORMAT; FOREST BIOMASSES; IF THERE ARES; PARTIAL SUBSTITUTIONS; PAYMENT SCALE; RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES; RENEWABLE TECHNOLOGIES; SOCIAL PREFERENCES; SPANISHS; STATISTICAL DIFFERENCES; WELFARE CHANGES; WILLINGNESS TO PAYS;

ELECTRIC GENERATORS;

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY; BIOMASS POWER; CONTINGENT VALUATION; ELECTRICITY GENERATION; ENERGY USE; PERIODICITY; RENEWABLE RESOURCE; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EURASIA; EUROPE; SOUTHERN EUROPE; SPAIN;

EID: 58149112277     PISSN: 03014215     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2008.10.002     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Alberini A., Kanninen B., and Carson R.T. Modelling response incentive effects in dichotomous choice contingent valuation data. Land Economics 73 (1997) 309-324
2. Altaf, M., DeShazo, J., 1994. Bid elicitation in the contingent valuation method: the double referendum format and induced strategic behaviour. Urban Planning Committee Working Paper, Harvard University, Arts and Sciences.
3. Arrow, K., Solow, R., Leamer, E., Portney, P.R., Radner, R., Schuman, H., 1993. Report of national oceanic and atmospheric administration panel on the reliability of natural resource damage estimates derived from contingent valuation. Federal Register, January 15.
4. Bateman I.J., Langford I.H., and Rabash J. Elicitation effects in contingent valuation studies. In: Bateman I.J., and Willis K.G. (Eds). Valuing Environmental Preferences. Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU and Developing Countries (1999), Oxford University Press, Oxford 511-539
5. Bateman I.J., Carson R.T., Day B., Hanemann M., Hanley N., Hett T., Jones-Lee M., Loomes G., Mourato S., Özdemiroglu E., Pearce D.W., Sugden R., and Swanson J. Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual (2002), Edwar Elgar, Cheltenham, UK
6. Bishop R.C., and Heberlein T.A. Measuring the values of extra-market goods: are indirect measures biased. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 61 (1979) 926-930
7. Brookshire D.S., Randall A., and Stoll J.R. Valuing increments and decrements in natural resource service flows. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 62 (1980) 478-488
8. Byrnes B., Jones C., and Goodman S. Contingent valuation and real economic commitments: evidence from electric utility green pricing programmes. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 42 2 (1999) 149-166
9. Calia P., and Strazzera E. Bias and efficiency of single versus double bound models for contingent valuation studies: a Monte Carlo analysis. Applied Economics 32 (2000) 1,329-1,336
10. Cameron T.A., and Quiggin J. Estimation using contingent valuation data from a 'dichotomous choice with follow-up' questionnaire. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 27 (1994) 218-234
11. Carson, R.T., Mitchell, R.C., Hanemann, W.M., Kopp, R.J., Presser, S., Ruud, P.A., 1992. A contingent valuation study of lost passive use values resulting from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Report to the General Attorney of the State of Alaska.
12. Champ P.A., and Bishop R.C. Are actual donations to the provision of a public good sensitive to the elicitation format?. Land Economics 82 2 (2006) 162-173
13. Creel M. A note on consistent estimation of Mean WTP using a misspecified logit contingent valuation model. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 35 (1998) 277-284
14. Crocker T.D., and Shogren J.F. Preference learning and contingent valuation methods. In: Dietz F., van der Ploeg F., and van der Straaten J. (Eds). Environmental Policy and the Economy (1991), Elsevier, Amsterdam 85-107
15. Daubert J.T., and Young R.A. Recreational demands for maintaining instream flows: a contingent valuation approach. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 63 (1981) 667-676
16. DeShazo J.R. Designing transaction without framing effects in iterative question formats. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 43 (2002) 360-385
17. Ek, K., 2005. The economics of renewable energy support. Ph.D. Thesis. Luleå University of Technology. Department of Business Administration and Social Sciences. Division of Economics.
18. European Commission, 1997. Energy for the future: renewable sources of energy, white paper for a community strategy and action plan. European Commission, COM(97) 599 final.
19. European Commission, 2007. Communication from the Commission to the European Council and the European Parliament: An Energy Policy for Europe. European Commission, COM (2007) 1 final.
20. Freeman A.M. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods (1993), Resources for the Future, Washington, DC
21. Greene W.H. Econometric Analysis (1997), Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ
22. Greenley D.A., Walsh R.G., and Young R.A. Option value: empirical evidence from a case study of recreation and water quality. Quarterly Journal of Economics 96 (1981) 657-673
23. Hanemann W.M. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66 (1984) 332-341
24. Hanemann, W.M., 1991. Comments. In: Imber, D., Stevenson, G., Wilks, L. (Eds.), A contingent valuation survey of the Kakadu conservation zone. RAC research paper no. 3, Resource Assessment Commission, Canberra, Australia, pp. 187-192.
25. Hanemann W.M., and Kanninen B. The statistical analysis of discrete response CV data. In: Bateman I., and Willis K. (Eds). Valuing Environmental Preferences. Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU and Developing Countries (1999), Oxford University Press, Oxford 302-442
26. Hanley N., and Nevin C. Appraising renewable energy developments in remote communities: the case of the North Assynt Estate, Scotland. Energy Policy 27 (1999) 527-547
27. Harrison G., and Kriström B. On the interpretation of responses in contingent valuation surveys. In: Johansson P.-O., Kriström B., and Méler K.G. (Eds). Current Issues in Environmental Economics (1995), Manchester University Press, Manchester 35-57
28. Hayes K.M., Tyrrell T.J., and Anderson G. Estimating the benefits of water quality improvements in the upper narragansett bay. Marine Resource Economics 7 (1992) 75-85
29. Herriges J.A., and Shogren J.F. Starting point bias in dichotomous choice valuation with follow-up questioning. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30 (1996) 112-131
30. IDAE-MITC, 2005. Plan de Energías Renovables en España, 2005-2010. Instituto para la Diversificación y el Ahorro de la Energía-Ministerio de Industria, Turismo y Comercio, Madrid.
31. IGE. Consumo das Familias 2003 (2004), Instituto Galego de Estatística, Santiago de Compostela
32. Ivanova, I., 2005. Queensland consumers' willingness to pay for electricity from renewable energy sources. ANZSEE Conference. New Zealand centre for ecological economics, December 11-13.
33. Jensen, K., Menard, J., English, B., Jakus, P., 2004. An analysis of the residential preferences for green power-the role of bioenergy. Farm foundation conference on agriculture as a producer and consumer of energy, June 24-25.
34. Kahneman D., and Knetsch J.L. Valuing public goods. The purchase of moral satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22 1 (1992) 57-70
35. Kanninen B.J. Bias in discrete response contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 28 1 (1995) 114-125
36. Krinsky I., and Robb A.L. On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. The Review of Economics and Statistics 68 (1986) 715-719
37. León C.J., and Vázquez-Polo F.J. Modelización del aprendizaje en valoración contingente. Investigaciones Económicas 24 1 (2000) 117-138
38. MacMillan D., Lienhoop N., and Hanley N. Contingent valuation: environmental polling or preference engine?. Ecological Economics 60 (2006) 299-307
39. McFadden D., and Leonard G. Issues in the contingent valuation of environmental goods: methodologies for data collection and analysis. In: Hausman J. (Ed). Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment (1993), Elsevier, Amsterdam 165-208
40. Mirasgedis S., Diakoulaki D., Papagiannakis L., and Zervos A. Impact of social costing on the competitiveness of renewable energies: the case of crete. Energy Policy 28 (2000) 65-73
41. Mitchell R.C. On designing constructed markets in valuation surveys. Environmental and Resource Economics 22 (2002) 297-321
42. Mitchell R.C., and Carson R.T. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method (1989), Resources for the Future, Washington, DC
43. Morrison M.D., Blamey R.K., and Bennett J.W. Minimising payment vehicle bias in contingent valuation studies. Environmental and Resource Economics 16 (2000) 407-422
44. Owen A.D. Renewable energy: externality costs as market barriers. Energy Policy 34 (2006) 632-642
45. Ready R.C., and Hu D. Statistical approaches to the fat tail problem for dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Land Economics 71 4 (1995) 491-499
46. Rowe R.D., d'Arge R.C., and Brookshire D.S. An experiment on the economic value of visibility. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 7 (1980) 1-19
47. Sáez R.M., Linares P., and Leal J. Assessment of the externalities of biomass energy, and a comparison of its full costs with coal. Biomass and Bioenergy 14 (1998) 469-478
48. Smith V.K. Arbitrary values, good causes, and premature verdicts. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22 (1992) 71-89
49. Soliño, M., Prada, A., Vázquez, M.X., 2008a. Green electricity externalities: forest biomass in an Atlantic European region. Biomass and Bioenergy, doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2008.08.017.
50. Soliño M., Prada A., and Vázquez M.X. Social benefits and public policy to support green electricity in Spain. An application to biomass. In: Magnusson F.L., and Bengtsson O.W. (Eds). Energy in Europe. Economics, Policy and Strategy (2008), NOVA Publishers, New York
51. Stevens T.H., DeCoteau N.E., and Willis C.E. Sensitivity of contingent valuation to alternative payment schedules. Land Economics 73 1 (1997) 140-148
52. Whitehead J.C., and Cherry T.L. Willingness to pay for a green energy program: a comparison of ex-ante and ex-post hypothetical bias mitigation approaches. Resource and Energy Economics 29 (2007) 247-261
53. Whittington D., Smith V.K., Okorafor A., Okore A., Liu J.L., and McPhail A. Giving respondents time to think in contingent valuation studies: a developing country application. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22 (1992) 205-225
54. Wiser R. Using Contingent Valuation to Explore Willingness to Pay for Renewable Energy: A Comparison of Collective and Voluntary Payment Vehicles (2003), Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA