Wind farms - Where and how to place them? A choice experiment approach to measure consumer preferences for characteristics of wind farm establishments in Sweden

Ecological Economics

Volumn 105, Issue , 2014, Pages 193-203

  Ek, Kristina ^a   Persson, Lars ^b  

^a LULEÅ UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Sweden)

^b UMEÅ UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Choice experiment; Consumer preferences; Non market valuation; Public opinion; Wind power siting

Indexed keywords

ATTITUDINAL SURVEY; CONSUMPTION BEHAVIOR; LOCAL PARTICIPATION; OWNERSHIP; PLANNING PROCESS; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; PUBLIC ATTITUDE; RENEWABLE RESOURCE; TARIFF STRUCTURE; VALUATION; WILLINGNESS TO PAY; WIND FARM; WIND POWER;

SWEDEN;

EID: 84903461048     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.06.001     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Adamowicz V., Boxall P. Future directions of stated choice methods for environmental valuation. Conference Paper Presented at Choice Experiments: A New Approach to Environmental Valuation, 2001, London 2001.
2. Alvarez-Farizo B., Hanley N. Using conjoint analysis to quantify public preferences over the environmental impacts of wind farms. An example from Spain. Energy Policy 2002, 30:107-116.
3. Ben-Akiva M., Swait J. The Akaike likelihood ratio index. Transp. Sci. 1986, 20(2):133-136.
4. Bergmann A., Hanley N., Wright R. Valuing the attributes of renewable energy investments. Energy Policy 2006, 34:1004-1014.
5. Bhat C.R. Quasi-random maximum simulated likelihood estimation of the mixed multinomial logit model. Transp. Res. 2001, 35B(7):677-693.
6. Carlsson F., Martinsson P. How much is too much? - an investigation of the effect of the number of choice sets, starting point and the choice of bid vectors in choice experiments. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2008, 40:165-176.
7. Chiou L., Walker J.L. Masking identification of discrete choice models under simulation methods. J. Econ. 2007, 141:683-703.
8. Devine-Wright P. Beyond NIMBYism: towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy. Wind Energy 2005, 8:125-139.
9. Dillman D.A., Smyth J.D., Christian L.M. Internet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method 2009, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
10. Dimitropoulos A., Kontoleon A. Assessing the determinants of local acceptability of wind farm investment: a choice experiment in the Greek Aegean islands. Energy Policy 2009, 37:1842-1854.
11. Ek K. Public and private attitudes towards "green" electricity: the case of Swedish wind power. Energy Policy 2005, 33:1677-1689.
12. Ek K., Söderholm P. Norms and economic motivation in the Swedish green electricity market. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 68:169-182.
13. Greene W.H. Econometric Analysis 2012, International Edition. Pearson. 7th edition.
14. Greene W.H., Hensher D.A. A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit. Transp. Res. B 2003, 37:681-698.
15. Greene W.H., Hensher D.A. Revealing additional dimensions of preference heterogeneity in a latent class mixed multinomial logit model. Appl. Econ. 2013, 45:1897-1902.
16. Hedberg P., Holmberg S. Satsa mer på olika energikällor 1999-2011 2012, 24. SOM-report no 2012:24.
17. Hensher D.A., Stopher P.P., Jordan J.J. An explanatory analysis of the effect of numbers of choice sets in designed choice experiments: an airline choice application. J. Air Transp. Manag. 2001, 7(6):373-379.
18. Hensher D.A., Rose J.M., Greene W.H. Applied Choice Analysis 2005, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
19. Johansson M., Laike T. Intention to respond to local wind turbines: the role of attitudes and visual perception. Wind Energy 2007, 10(5):435-451.
20. Jones C.R., Eiser J.R. Identifying predictors of attitudes towards local onshore wind development with reference to an English case study. Energy Policy 2009, 37:4604-4614.
21. Jones C.R., Eiser J.R. Understanding "local" opposition to wind development in the UK: how big is a backyard?. Energy Policy 2010, 38:3106-3117.
22. Kaplowitz M.D., Hadlock T.D., Levine R. A comparison of web and mail survey response rates. Public Opin. Q. 2004, 68(1):94-101.
23. Krohn S., Damborg S. On public attitudes towards wind power. Renew. Energy 1999, 74:945-960.
24. Krueger A.D. Valuing Public Preferences for Offshore Wind Power: A Choice Experiment Approach 2007, (Doctoral Thesis), University of Delaware, USA, Newark.
25. Krueger A.D., Parsons G.R., Firestone J. Valuing the visual disamenity of offshore wind power projects at varying distances from the shore: an application on the Delaware shoreline. Land Econ. 2011, 87(2):268-283.
26. Kuhfeld W.F. Marketing Research Methods in SAS. Experimental Design, Choice, Conjoint, and Graphical Techniques 2005, TS-722, SAS Institute Inc.
27. Ladenburg J., Dubgaard A. Willingness to pay for reduced visual disamenities from offshore wind farms in Denmark. Energy Policy 2007, 35:4059-4071.
28. Lantz E., Tegen S. Variables affecting economic development of wind energy. Conference Paper Presented at Windpower 2008, Houston Texas 2008.
29. Longo A., Markandya A., Petrucci M. The internalization of externalities in the production of electricity: willingness to pay for the attributes of a policy for renewable energy. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 67:140-152.
30. Magnusson L. Information Manager at O2, Personal Communication, February 11 2008.
31. Meyerhoff J., Ohl C., Hartje V. Landscape externalities from onshore wind power. Energy Policy 2010, 38:82-92.
32. Rookey B.D., Hanway S., Dillman D.A. Does a probability based household panel benefit from assignment to postal response as an alternative to internet-only?. Public Opin. Q. 2008, 72(5):963-984.
33. Söderholm P., Ek K., Pettersson M. Wind power development in Sweden: global policies and local obstacles. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 2007, 11:365-400.
34. Statistics Sweden (Downloaded October 2012). http://www.scb.se/statistik/_publikationer/IT0102_2008A01_BR_IT01BR0801.pdf.
35. Statistics Sweden (Downloaded October 2013). http://www.scb.se/Pages/TableAndChart____85467.aspx.
36. Street D.J., Burgess L., Louviere J.J. Quick and easy choice sets: constructing optimal and nearly optimal stated choice experiments. Int. J. Res. Mark. 2005, 22:459-470.
37. Swedish Energy Agency (Downloaded September 2013). http://www.energimyndigheten.se/sv/Forskning/Kraftforskning/Vindkraft/Landbaserad-vindkraft/.
38. Swofford J., Slattery M. Public attitudes of wind energy in Texas: local communities in close proximity to wind farms and their effect on decision-making. Energy Policy 2010, 38:2508-2519.
39. Toke D., Breukers S., Wolsink M. Wind power development outcomes: how can we account for the differences?. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2008, 12:1129-1147.
40. Train K.E. Discrete Choice Methods With Simulation 2009, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. 2nd edition.
41. Waldo Å. Offshore wind power in Sweden - a qualitative analysis analysis of attitudes with particular focus on opponents. Energy Policy 2012, 41:692-702.
42. Waldo Å., Klintman M. Attityder och delaktighet vid etablering av vindkraft till havs. VINDVAL Report 6351 2010, Swedish EPA, Stockholm.
43. Waldo Å., Ek K., Johansson M., Persson L. Vindkraft i öppet landskap, skog, fjäll och hav. Manuscript 2012.
44. Warren C.R., McFadyen M. Does community ownership affect public attitudes to wind energy? A case study from south-west Scotland. Land Use Policy 2010, 27:204-213.
45. Wolsink M. Wind power implementation: the nature of public attitudes: equity and fairness instead of 'backyard motives'. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 2007, 11:1188-1207.