How do you like wind farms? Understanding people's preferences about new energy landscapes with choice experiments

Aestimum

Volumn 64, Issue , 2014, Pages 15-37

  Vecchiato, Daniel ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PADOVA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Choice experiment; Internet survey; Italy; Landscape externalities; Renewable energy; Wind energy

Indexed keywords

EID: 84933515884     PISSN: 15926117     EISSN: 17242118     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.13128/Aestimum-14707     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Alvarez-Farizo, B., Hanley, N., 2002. Using conjoint analysis to quantify public preferences over the environmental impacts of wind farms. An example from Spain. Energy Policy 30, 107-116. doi:10.1016/S0301-4215(01)00063-5
2. Aravena, C., Hutchinson, W.G., Longo, A., 2012. Environmental pricing of externalities from different sources of electricity generation in Chile. Energy Economics 34, 1214-1225. doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2011.11.004
3. Aravena, C., Martinsson, P., Scarpa, R., 2006. The effect of a monetary attribute on the marginal rate of substitution in a choice experiment, in: Paper presented at the Environmental and Resource Economists 3rdWorld Congress, Kyoto, Japan, July 3-7. URL: http://www.webmeets. com/ERE/WC3/Prog/viewpaper.asp?pid=852&prognof=TRUE
4. Barrios, L., Rodŕiguez, A., 2004. Behavioural and environmental correlates of soaring-bird mortality at on-shore wind turbines. Journal of Applied Ecology 41, 72-81. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2004.00876.x
5. Batsell, R., Louviere, J., 1991. Experimental analysis of choice. Marketing Letters 2, 199-214
6. Bech, M., Gyrd-Hansen, D., 2005. Effects coding in discrete choice experiments. Health Economics 14, 1079-1083. doi:10.1002/hec.984
7. Bergmann, A., Hanley, N., Wright, R., 2006. Valuing the attributes of renewable energy investments. Energy Policy 34, 1004-1014. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2004.08.035
8. Bierlaire, M., 2003. Biogeme: A free package for the estimation of discrete choice models, in: Proceedings of the 3rd Swiss Transportation Research Conference, Ascona, Switzerland., pp. 1-24
9. Borchers, A.M., Duke, J.M., Parsons, G.R., 2007. Does willingness to pay for green energy differ by source? Energy Policy 35, 3327-3334. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2006.12.009
10. Cicia, G., Cembalo, L., Del Giudice, T., Palladino, A., 2012. Fossil energy versus nuclear, wind, solar and agricultural biomass: Insights from an Italian national survey. Energy Policy 42, 59-66. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.11.030
11. Croissant, Y., 2011. mlogit: multinomial logit model. URL: http://CRAN.R-project.org/ package=mlogit. r package version 0.2-2
12. Dimitropoulos, A., Kontoleon, A., 2009. Assessing the determinants of local acceptability of windfarm investment: A choice experiment in the Greek Aegean Islands. Energy Policy 37, 1842-1854. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2009.01.002
13. Drechsler, M., Ohl, C., Meyerhoff, J., Eichhorn, M., Monsees, J., 2011. Combining spatial modeling and choice experiments for the optimal spatial allocation of wind turbines. Energy Policy 39, 3845-3854. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.04.015
14. Ek, K., 2002. Valuing the environmental impacts of wind power, a choice experiments approach. Licenciate thesis. Luleå University, Sweden. URL: http://epubl.ltu.se/1402-1757/2002/40/LTULIC-0240-SE.pdf
15. Farfán, M., Vargas, J., Duarte, J., Real, R., 2009. What is the impact of wind farms on birds? A case study in southern Spain. Biodiversity and Conservation 18, 3743-3758. doi:10.1007/ s10531-009-9677-4
16. Greene, W.H., Hensher, D.A., 2003. A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 37, 681-698. doi:10.1016/ S0191-2615(02)00046-2
17. GSE, 2012. Data warehouse "simeri": http://goo.gl/4fxcl. URL: http://approfondimenti.gse.it/approfondimenti/ Simeri/Monitoraggio/Pagine/C1.aspx
18. Hensher, D.A., 1994. Stated preference analysis of travel choices: the state of practice. Transportation 21, 107-133
19. Hensher, D.A., Rose, J.M., Greene, W.H., 2005. Applied choice analysis: a primer. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
20. Hoen, B., Wiser, R., Cappers, P., Thayer, M., Sethi, G., 2009. The Impact of Wind Power Projects on Residential Property Values in the United States: A Multi-Site Hedonic Analysis. Technical Report. LBNL-2829E. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
21. Hoyos, D., 2010. The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments. Ecological Economics 69, 1595-1603. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.04.011
22. ISTAT, 2009. Data warehouse: Electricity from renewable energy sources. URL: http://dati.istat.it/ Index.aspx?DataSetCode=DCCV_PRODENERG
23. ISTAT, 2011. Census 2011. URL: http://dati.istat.it/
24. Krueger, A.D., Parsons, G.R., Firestone, J., 2011. Valuing the visual disamenity of offshore wind power projects at varying distances from the shore: An application on the Delaware shoreline. Land Economics 87, 268-283
25. Ladenburg, J., 2009. Visual impact assessment of offshore wind farms and prior experience. Applied Energy 86, 380-387. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2008.05.005
26. Ladenburg, J., Dubgaard, A., 2007. Willingness to pay for reduced visual disamenities from offshore wind farms in Denmark. Energy Policy 35, 4059-4071. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2007.01.023
27. Landry, C.E., Allen, T., Cherry, T., Whitehead, J.C., 2012. Wind turbines and coastal recreation demand. Resource and Energy Economics 34, 93-111. doi:10.1016/j.reseneeco.2011.10.001
28. Longo, A., Markandya, A., Petrucci, M., 2008. The internalization of externalities in the production of electricity: Willingness to pay for the attributes of a policy for renewable energy. Ecological Economics 67, 140-152. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.12.006
29. Louviere, J.J., 1988a. Conjoint analysis modelling of stated preferences. A review of theory, methods, recent developments and external validity. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 10, 93-119
30. Louviere, J.J., 1988b. Analyzing decision making: metric conjoint analysis. Sage Publications, Newbury Park
31. Louviere, J.J., 1991. Experimental choice analysis: Introduction and overview. Journal of Business Research 23, 291-297
32. Louviere, J.J., Hensher, D.A., 1982. Design and analysis of simulated choice or allocation experiments in travel choice modeling. Transportation Research Record 890, 11-17
33. Luce, R.D., 1959. Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis. Wiley, New York
34. Manski, C.F., 1977. The structure of random utility models. Theory and Decision 8, 229-254
35. McCartney, A., 2006. The social value of seascapes in the Jurien bay marine park: An assessment of positive and negative preferences for change. Journal of Agricultural Economics 57, 577-594. doi:10.1111/j.1477-9552.2006.00074.x
36. McFadden, D., 1974. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior, in: Zarembka, P. (Ed.), Frontiers in econometrics. Academic Press, New York, pp. 105-142
37. Menegaki, A., 2012. A social marketing mix for renewable energy in Europe based on consumer stated preference surveys. Renewable Energy 39, 30-39. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2011.08.042
38. Meyerhoff, J., Ohl, C., Hartje, V., 2010. Landscape externalities from onshore wind power. Energy Policy 38, 82-92. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2009.08.055
39. Navrud, S., Bråten, K.G., 2007. Consumers' preferences for green and brown electricity: a choice modelling approach. Revue d'économie politique 2007/5 (Vol. 117) 117, 795-811
40. Nomura, N., Akai, M., 2004. Willingness to pay for green electricity in Japan as estimated through contingent valuation methods. Applied Energy 78, 453-463. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy. 2003.10.001
41. Pasqualetti, M.J., 2011. Opposing wind energy landscapes: A search for common cause. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 101, 907-917. doi:10.1080/00045608.2011.568879
42. R Core Team, 2012. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. URL: http://www.R-project.org/. ISBN 3-900051-07-0
43. Roe, B., Teisl, M.F., Levy, A., Russell, M., 2001. US consumers' willingness to pay for green electricity. Energy Policy 29, 917-925. doi:10.1016/S0301-4215(01)00006-4
44. Scarpa, R., Willis, K., 2010. Willingness-to-pay for renewable energy: Primary and discretionary choice of British households' for micro-generation technologies. Energy Economics 32, 129-136. doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2009.06.004
45. Scarpa, R., Zanoli, R., Bruschi, V., Naspetti, S., 2013. Inferred and stated attribute non-attendance in food choice experiments. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 95, 165-180. doi:10.1093/ajae/aas073
46. Strazzera, E., Mura, M., Contu, D., 2012. Combining choice experiments with psychometric scales to assess the social acceptability of wind energy projects: A latent class approach. Energy Policy 48, 334-347. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2012.05.037
47. Thurstone, L.L., 1927. A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review 34, 273-286
48. Train, K., 2009. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Second ed., Cambridge University Press
49. Warren, C., Lumsden, C., O'Dowd, S., Birnie, R., 2005. Green on green': Public perceptions of wind power in Scotland and Ireland. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 48, 853-875. doi:10.1080/09640560500294376
50. Yellott, J.I., 1977. The relationship between Luce's choice axiom, Thurstone's theory of comparative judgment, and the double exponential distribution. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 15, 109-144
51. Zorić, J., Hrovatin, N., 2012. Household willingness to pay for green electricity in Slovenia. Energy Policy 47, 180-187. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2012.04.055