How spatial relationships influence economic preferences for wind power-A review

Energies

Volumn 8, Issue 6, 2015, Pages 6177-6201

  Knapp, Lauren ^a   Ladenburg, Jacob ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE   (United States)

^b Danish Analysis and Research Institute for Local Government   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Cumulative effects; Distance decay; Revealed preference; Spatial heterogeneity; Stated preference; Wind power

Indexed keywords

ECONOMICS; PUBLIC POLICY; WATER QUALITY;

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS; DISTANCE DECAY; REVEALED PREFERENCE; SPATIAL HETEROGENEITY; STATED PREFERENCES;

WIND POWER;

EID: 84933545341     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19961073     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/en8066177     Document Type: Review

References (69)

1. Krohn, S.; Morthorst, P.-E.; Awerbuch, S. The Economics of Wind Energy; European Wind Energy Association (EWEA): Brussels, Belgium, March 2009.
2. Chowdhury, S.; Zhang, J.; Messac, A.; Castillo, L. Unrestricted wind farm layout optimization (UWFLO): Investigating key factors influencing the maximum power generation. Renew. Energy 2012, 38, 16-30.
3. Chen, Y.; Li, H.; Jin, K.; Song, Q. Wind farm layout optimization using genetic algorithm with different hub height wind turbines. Energy Convers. Manag. 2013, 70, 56-65.
4. Rahbari, O.; Vafaeipour, M.; Fazelpour, F.; Feidt, M.; Rosen, M.A. Towards realistic designs of wind farm layouts: Application of a novel placement selector approach. Energy Convers. Manag. 2014, 81, 242-254.
5. Archer, C.L.; Colle, B.A.; Monache, L.D.; Dvorak, M.J.; Lundquist, J.; Bailey, B.H.; Beaucage, P.; Churchfield, M.J.; Fitch, A.C.; Kosovic, B.; et al. Meteorology for coastal/offshore wind energy in the United States: Recommendations and research needs for the next 10 years. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 2014, 95, 515-519.
6. Grothe, O.; Schnieders, J. Spatial dependence in wind and optimal wind power allocation: A copula-based analysis. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 4742-4754.
7. Santos-Alamillos, F.J.; Pozo-Vázquez, D.; Ruiz-Arias, J.A.; Lara-Fanego, V.; Tovar-Pescador, J. A methodology for evaluating the spatial variability of wind energy resources: Application to assess the potential contribution of wind energy to baseload power. Renew. Energy 2014, 69, 147-156.
8. Rahmann, C.; Palma-Behnke, R. Optimal Allocation of Wind Turbines by Considering Transmission Security Constraints and Power System Stability. Energies 2013, 6, 294-311.
9. Mount, T.D.; Maneevitjit, S.; Thomas, B.; Zimmerman, R. The Hidden System Costs of Wind Generation in a Deregulated Electricity Market. Energy J. 2012, 1, 161-186.
10. Godby, R.; Torell, G.L.; Coupal, R. Estimating the value of additional wind and transmission capacity in the rocky mountain west. Resour. Energy Econ. 2014, 36, 22-48.
11. Kucsera, D.; Rammerstorfer, M. Regulation and grid expansion investment with increased penetration of renewable generation. Resour. Energy Econ. 2014, 37, 184-200.
12. European Environment Agency. Europe's Onshore and Offshore Wind Energy Potential-An Assessment of Environmental and Economic Constraints; EEA Technical Report No. 6/2009; European Environment Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2009.
13. Ladenburg, J.; Termansen, M.; Hasler, B. Assessing acceptability of two onshore wind power development schemes: A test of viewshed effects and the cumulative effects of wind turbines. Energy 2013, 54, 45-54.
14. Ladenburg, J.; Möller, B. Attitude and acceptance of offshore wind farms-The influence of travel time and wind farm attributes. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 4223-4235.
15. Ladenburg, J. Dynamic properties of the preferences for renewable energy sources-A wind power experience-based approach. Energy 2014, 76, 542-551.
16. Albers, H.; Ando, A.; Shogren, J. Introduction to spatial natural resource and environmental economics. Resour. Energy Econ. 2010, 32, 93-97.
17. Abildtrup, J.; Albers, J.; Stenger, A.; Termansen, M. Land Use. Ecol. Econ 2013, 92, 1-136.
18. Ladenburg, J.; Knapp, L. Spatial Relationships: Preferences for Offshore Wind Power. 2015. Unpublished Results. Accepted for Presentation at the EAERE 2015 Conference, Helsinki, Findland. Available online: http://www.wind2050.dk/Publications (accessed on 25 May 2015).
19. Abay, A.T. Economic Valuattion of the Externalities of Offshore and Onshore Wind Farms in Denmark: Results from a Nationwise Choice Experiment Survey. Master's Thesis, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark 2014.
20. Knapp, L.; Li, Y.; Ma, Y.; Rife, M. An Analysis of Offshore Wind Development: A Non-Market, Stated Preference Approach to Measure Community Perceptions and Opinions and Estimate Willingness to Pay in two Lake Michigan Regions. Master's Project Thesis, University of Michigan Deep Blue, Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 23 April 2013.
21. Lutzeyer, S. Essays in Offshore Wind Energy Development. Ph.D. Thesis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA, 2013.
22. Ladenburg, J.; Lutzeyer, S. The economics of visual disamenity reductions of offshore wind farms-Review and suggestions from an emerging field. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 6793-6802.
23. Ladenburg, J.; Dubgaard, A. Preferences of coastal zone user groups regarding the siting of offshore wind farms. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2009, 52, 233-242.
24. Strazzera, E.; Mura, M.; Contu, D. Combining choice experiments with psychometric scales to assess the social acceptability of wind energy projects: A latent class approach. Energy Policy 2013, 48, 334-347.
25. Ek, K.; Persson, L. Wind farms-Where and how to place them? A choice experiment approach to measure consumer preferences for characteristics of wind farm establishments in Sweden. Ecol. Econ. 2014, 105, 193-203.
26. Mariel, P.; Meyerhoff, J.; Hess, S. Heterogeneous preferences toward landscape externalities of wind turbines-Combining choices and attitudes in a hybrid model. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 41, 647-657.
27. Vecchiato, D. How do you like wind farms? Understanding people's preferences about new energy landscapes with choice experiments. Aestimum 2014, 64, 15-37.
28. Westerberg, V.; Jacobsen, J.B.; Lifran, R. The case for offshore wind farms, artificial reefs and sustainable tourism in the French mediterranean. Tour. Manag. 2013, 34, 172-183.
29. Ladenburg, J.; Bonnichsen, O.; Dahlgaard, J.O. Testing the effect of a short cheap talk script in choice experiments. Danish J. Econ. 2011, 149, 25-54.
30. Landry, C.E.; Allen, T.; Cherry, T.; Whitehead, J.C. Wind turbines and coastal recreation demand. Resour. Energy Econ. 2012, 34, 93-111.
31. 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, 268-283.
32. Meyerhoff, J. Do turbines in the vicinity of respondents' residences influence choices among programmes for future wind power generation? J. Choice Model. 2013, 58-71.
33. 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.
34. Ladenburg, J.; Dubgaard, A. Willingness to pay for reduced visual disamenities from offshore wind farms in Denmark. Energy Policy 2007, 35, 4059-4071.
35. Bergmann, A.; Hanley, N.; Wright, R. Valuing the attributes of renewable energy investments. Energy Policy 2006, 34, 1004-1014.
36. Álvarez-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.
37. Ek, K. Valuing the Environmental Impacts of Wind Power: A Choice Experiment Approach. Licentiate Thesis, Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden, 2002.
38. Ladenburg, J.; Tranberg, J.; Dubgaard, A.; Kuehn, S. Socioeconomic effects: Positive attitudes in local communities. In Danish Offshore Wind: Key Environmental Issues; DONG Energy: Fredericia, Denmark, 2006; pp. 112-122.
39. Nielsen, S. Introduction-Towards a common sutsainable energy future. In Danish Offshore Wind-Key Environmental Issues; Dong Energy: Fredericia, Denmark, 2006; pp. 20-31.
40. Cummings, R.G.; Taylor, L.O. Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: A cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. Am. Econ. Rev. 1999, 89, 649-665.
41. Bosworth, R.; Taylor, L. Hypothetical bias in Choice experiments: Is Cheap Talk effective at lemiminating bias on the intensive and extensive margins of choice? B.E. J. Econ. Anal. Policy 2012, 12, doi:10.1515/1935-1682.3278.
42. Brouwer, R.; Martin-Ortega, J.; Berbel, J. Spatial Preference Heterogeneity: A Choice Experiment. Land Econ. 2010, 86, 552-568.
43. Schaafsma, M.; Brouwer, R.; Rose, J. Directional heterogeneity in WTP models for environmental valuation. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 79, 21-31.
44. Jørgensen, S.L.; Olsen, S.B.; Ladenburg, J.; Martinsen, L.; Svenningsen, S.R.; Hasler, B. Spatially induced disparities in users' and non-users' WTP for water quality improvements-Testing the effect of multiple substitutes and distance decay. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 92, 58-66.
45. Pate, J.; Loomis, J. The effect of distance on willingness to pay values: A case study of wetlands and salmon in California. Ecol. Econ. 1997, 20, 199-207.
46. Bateman, I.J.; Ferrini, S.; Hime, S. Aquamoney: UK Case Study Report; University of East Anglia: Norwich, UK, 7 November 2008.
47. Moore, R.; Provencher, B.; Bishop, R.C. Valuing a Spatially Variable Environmental Resource: Reducing Non-Point-Source Pollution in Green Bay, Wisconsin. Land Econ. 2011, 87, 45-59.
48. Freeman, A.M. Hedonic prices, property values and measuring environmental benefits. Scand. J. Econ. 1979, 81, 154-173.
49. Atkinson-Palombo, C.; Hoen, B. Relationship Between Wind Turbines and Residential Property Values in Massachusetts; University of Connecticut: Storrs, CT, USA; Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory: Berkeley, CA, USA, 9 January 2015.
50. Hoen, B. Impacts of Windmill Visibility on Property Values in Madison County, New York. Master's Thesis, Bard College, Annandale on Hudson, NY, USA, 30 April 2006.
51. Hoen, B. The Impact of Wind Power Projects on Residential Property Values in the United States: A Multi-Site Hedonic Analysis; Lawrence Berkely National Laboratory: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2010.
52. Hoen, B. Wind Energy Facilities and Residential Properties: The Effects of Proximity and View on Sales Prices. J. Real Estate Res. 2011, 280-316.
53. Hoen, B. A Spatial Hedonic Analysis of the Effects of Wind Energy Facilities on Surrounding Property Values in the United States; Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2013.
54. Sims, S.; Dent, P.; Oskrochi, G.R. Modelling the Impact of Wind Farms on House Prices in the UK. Int. J. Strateg. Prop. Manag. 2008, 12, 251-269.
55. Vyn, R.J.; McCullough, R.M. The Effects of Wind Turbines on Property Values in Ontario: Does Public Perception Match Emipirical Evidence? Can. J. Agric. Econ. Rev. Can. Dagroecon. 2014, 62, 365-392.
56. Gorelick, S.S. The Effect of Lake Water Quality and Wind Turbines on Rhode Island Property Sales Price; University of Rhode Island: Kingston, RI, USA, 2014; p. 222.
57. Jensen, C.U.; Panduro, T.E.; Lundhede, T.H. The Vindication of Don Quijote: The impact of noise and visual pollution from wind turbines. Land Econ. 2014, 90, 668-682.
58. Gibbons, S. Gone with the Wind: Valuing the Visual Impacts of Wind Turbines through House Prices; Spatial Economics Research Centre: London, UK, April 2014.
59. Heintzelman, M.D.; Tuttle, C.M. Values in the Wind: A Hedonic Analysis of Wind Power Facilities. Land Econ. 2012, 88, 571-588.
60. Sutherland, R.J.; Walsh, R.G. Effect of distance on the preservation value of water quality. Land Econ. 1985, 61, 281-291.
61. Lang, C.; Opaluch, J.J.; Sfinarolakis, G. The windy city: Property value impacts of wind turbines in an urban setting. Energy Econ. 2014, 44, 413-421.
62. Navrud, S.; Bråten, K.G. Consumers' Preferences for Green and Brown Electricity: A Choice Modelling Approach. Rev. Décon. Polit. 2007, 795-811.
63. Ladenburg, J.; Dahlgaard, J.O. Attitudes, threshold levels and cumulative effects of the daily wind-turbine encounters. Appl. Energy 2012, 98, 40-46.
64. Ladenburg, J. Attitudes towards offshore wind farms-The role of beach visits on attitude and demographic and attitude relations. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 1297-1304.
65. Ladenburg, J. Does more wind energy influence the choice of development location? Assesing the cumulative effects of wind turbine encounters in Denmark. Energy Res Soc Sci. 2015, in process.
66. Jacquet, J.B. Landowner attitudes toward natural gas and wind farm development in northern Pennsylvania. Energy Policy 2012, 50, 677-688.
67. Pocewicz, A.; Nielsen-Pincus, M. Preferences of Wyoming residents for siting of energy and residential development. Appl. Geogr. 2013, 43, 45-55.
68. Van Rijnsoever, F.J.; Farla, J.C.M. Identifying and explaining public preferences for the attributes of energy technologies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 31, 71-82.
69. Schaafsm, M.; Brouwer, R.; Gilbert, A.; van den Bergh, J.; Wagtendonk, A. Estimation of distance-decay functions to account for substitution and spatial heterogeneity in stated preference reseach. J. Land Econ. 2013, 514-537.