Do turbines in the vicinity of respondents' residences influence choices among programmes for future wind power generation?

Journal of Choice Modelling

Volumn 7, Issue , 2013, Pages 58-71

  Meyerhoff, Jurgen ^a  

^a Landschafts und Umweltplanung   (Germany)

Author keywords

Global and local spatial autocorrelation; Latent class logit model; Spatial heterogeneity; Wind power generation

Indexed keywords

EID: 84881391571     PISSN: 17555345     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jocm.2013.04.010     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Anselin, L., 1995. Local indicators of spatial association-LISA. Geographical Analysis 27 (2), 93-115.
2. Anselin, L., Syabri, I., Kho., Y., 2005. GeoDa: an introduction to spatial data analysis. Geographical Analysis 38 (1), 5-22.
3. Bateman, I.J., 2009. Bringing the real world into economic analyses of land use value: Incorporating spatial complexity. Land Use Policy 26, 30-42.
4. Bhat, C.R., Guo, J., 2004. A mixed spatially correlated logit model: formulation and application to residential choice modeling. Transportation Research Part B 38 (2), 147-168.
5. BMU-Federal Ministry for the Environment, 2010 Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety. Nature awareness 2009. Population survey on nature and biodiversity, Berlin.
6. Bivand, R.S., Pebesma, E.J., Gómez-Rubio, V., 2008. Applied spatial data analysis with R. Springer, New York.
7. Brouwer, R., Martin-Ortega, J., Berbel, J., 2010. Spatial preference heterogeneity: a choice experiment Land Economics 86 (3), 552-568.
8. Campbell, D., Scarpa, R., Hutchinson, W.G., W.G., 2009. Assessing the spatial dependence of welfare estimates obtained from discrete choice experiments. Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences 1(2), 117-126.
9. Colombo, S., Hanley, N., Louviere, J., 2009. Modeling preference heterogeneity in stated choice data: an analysis for public goods generated by agriculture. Agricultural Economics 40 (3), 307-322.
10. Concu, G., 2007. Investigating distance effects on environmental values: a choice modelling approach. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 51(2), 175-194.
11. Eichhorn, M., Drechsler, M., 2010. Spatial trade-offs between wind power production and bird collision avoidance in agricultural landscapes. Ecology and Society 15 (2), 10.
12. Garrod, G., Ruto, E., Willis, K., Powe, N., 2012. Heterogeneity of preferences for the benefits of Environmental Stewardship: a latent-class approach. Ecological Economics 76, 104-111.
13. Getis, A., 2010. Spatial autocorrelation. In: Fischer, M.M., Getis, A. (Eds.), Applied Spatial Analysis. Springer, Heidelberg, etc., pp. 255-278.
14. Hensher, D.A., Greene, W.H., Rose, J.M., 2006. Deriving willingness-To-pay estimates of travel-Time savings from individual-based parameters. Environment and Planning A 38 (12), 2365-2376.
15. Hensher, D.A., Rose, J.M., Greene, W.H., 2005. Applied Choice Analysis. A Primer. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
16. Hess, S., Ben-Akiva, M. and D. Gopinath (2011) Advantages of Latent Class Over Continuous Mixture of Logit Models. Working Paper. Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds, Leeds.
17. Johnston, R.J., Ramachandran, M., Schultz, E.T., Segerson, K. and E.Y. Besedin (2011a) Characterizing Spatial Pattern in Ecosystem Service Values when Distance Decay Doesnt Apply: Choice Experiments and Local Indicators of Spatial Association. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, July 24-26, 2011, Pittsburgh.
18. Johnston, Rj., Ramachandran, M., Schultz, E.T., Segerson, K. and E.Y. Besedin (2011b) Willingness to pay hot spots and the distribution of ecosystem service values. Implications for benefit transfer. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, June 9-10, Pittsburgh.
19. Johnson, FR., Kanninen, B., Bingham, M., Ozdemir, S., 2007. Experimental design for stated choice, In: Kanninen, B. (Ed.), Valuing Environmental Amenities Using Stated Choice Studies. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 159-202.
20. Klaiber, H.A., Phaneuf, D.J., 2009. Do sorting and heterogeneity matter for open space policy? An empirical comparison of hedonic and sorting models. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 91(5), 1312-1318.
21. Klaiber, H.A., Phaneuf, D.J., 2010. Valuing open space in a residential sorting model of the twin cities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 60 (2), 57-77.
22. Klaiber, H.A., Smith, K., 2011. Preference heterogeneity and non-market benefits: the roles of structural hedonic and sorting models. In: Bennett, J. (Ed.), The International Handbook on Non-market Valuation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 222-253.
23. Kumar, N., 2007. Spatial sampling design for a demographic and health survey. Population Research and Policy Review 26 (5-), 581-599.
24. Kumar, N., Liang, D., Linderman, M.,J. Chen, 2010. An Optimal Spatial Sampling Design for Social Survey. Department of Geography, University of Iowa, Iowa City.
25. Ladenburg, J., Dahlgaard, J.-O., 2012. Attitudes, threshold levels and cumulative effects of the daily wind-Turbine encounters. Applied Energy 98 (1), 40-46.
26. Liekens, I., Schaafsma, M., Leo, D.N., Steven, B., Jan, S., Joris, A., Brouwer, R., 2013. Developing a value function for nature development and land use policy in flanders Belgium. Land Use Policy 30 (1), 549-559.
27. McNair, B.J., Bennett, J., Hensher, D.A., Rose, J.M., 2011. Households? willingness to pay for overhead-To-underground conversion of electricity distribution networks. Energy Policy 39 (5), 2560-2567.
28. Meyerhoff, J., OhI, C., Hartje, V., 2010. Landscape externalities from onshore wind power. Energy Policy 38 (1), 82-92.
29. MaIler, B., 2010. spatial analyses of emerging and fading wind energy landscapes in Denmark. Land Use Policy 27 (2), 233-241.
30. Navrud, S., Ready, R., Magnussen, K., Bergland, O., 2008. Valuing the social benefits of avoiding landscape degradation from overhead power transmission lines: do underground cables pass the benefit-cost test? Landscape Res 33, 281-296.
31. OhI, C., Eichhorn, M., 2010. The mismatch between regional spatial planning for wind power development in Germany and national eligibility criteria for feed-in tariffs-A case study in West Saxony. Land Use Policy 27 (2), 243-254.
32. O'Sullivan, D., Unwin, D.J., 2010. Geographic Information Analysis, 2. edition.
33. Pellegrini, RA., Fotheringham, A.S., 2002. Modelling spatial choice: a review and synthsis in a migration context Progress in Human Geography 26 (4), 410-487.
34. Pisati, M., 2012. Exploratory spatial data analysis using Stata. In: Presentation at German Stata User Group meeting, Berlin.
35. Rolfe, J., Windle, J., 2012. Distance decay functions for iconic assets: assessing national values to protect the health of the Great Barrier Reef in Australia. Environmental and Resource Economics 53 (3), 347-365.
36. Schaafsma, M., Brouwer, R., Rose, J., 2012. Directional heterogeneity in WTP models for environmental valuation. Ecological Economics 79, 21-31.
37. Schaafsma, M., 2010. Spatial Effects in Stated Preference Studies for Environmental Valuation (Ph.D. thesis). IVM/VU University, Amsterdam.
38. Schnier, K.E., Felthoven, R.G., 2011. Accounting for spatial heterogeneity and autocorrelation in spatial discrete choice models: implications for behavioural predictions. Land Economics 87 (3), 382-402.
39. Swait, J.D., 2007. Advanced choice models. In: Kanninen, B. (Ed.), Valuing Environmental Amenities Using Stated Choice Studies. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 229-294.
40. Tait, P., Baskaran, R., Cullen, R., Bicknell, K., 2012. Nonmarket valuation of water quality: addressing spatially heterogeneous preference using GIS and a random parameter logit model. Ecological Economics 75 (1), 15-21.
41. Tobler, W., 1970. A computer movie simulating urban growth in the Detroit region. Economic Geography 46, 234-240.
42. Train, K.E., 2003. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
43. Wolsink, M., 2007. Planning of renewables schemes: deliberative and fair decision-making on landscape issues instead of reproachful accusations of noncooperation. Energy Policy 35 (5), 2692-2704.