Valuation of ecological and amenity impacts of an offshore windfarm as a factor in marine planning

Environmental Science and Policy

Volumn 54, Issue , 2015, Pages 126-133

  Börger, Tobias ^a   Hooper, Tara L ^a   Austen, Melanie C ^a  

^a PLYMOUTH MARINE LABORATORY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Artificial reefs; Discrete choice experiment; Distance decay; Offshore windfarm; Visual disamenity

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CONTINGENT VALUATION; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD; ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING; FEMALE; HEIGHT; HUMAN; INCOME; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MARINE ENVIRONMENT; MARINE PLANNING; MIDDLE AGED; OFFSHORE WINDFARM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SEASHORE; SPECIES DIVERSITY; VALIDITY; VISIBILITY; WELFARE; WIND POWER;

EID: 84937115839     PISSN: 14629011     EISSN: 18736416     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2015.05.018     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. 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.
2. Ashley M.C., Mangi S.C., Rodwell L.D. The potential of offshore windfarms to act as marine protected areas - a systematic review of current evidence. Mar. Policy 2014, 45:301-309.
3. Bailey H., Senior B., Simmons D., Rusin J., Picken G., Thompson P.M. Assessing underwater noise levels during pile-driving at an offshore windfarm and its potential effects on marine mammals. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2010, 60:888-897.
4. Baine M. Artificial reefs: a review of their design, application, management and performance. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2001, 44:241-259.
5. Bergmann A., Colombo S., Hanley N. Rural versus urban preferences for renewable energy developments. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 65:616-625.
6. Bergmann A., Hanley N., Wright R. Valuing the attributes of renewable energy investments. Energy Policy 2006, 34:1004-1014.
7. Bishop I.D., Miller D.R. Visual assessment of off-shore wind turbines: the influence of distance, contrast, movement and social variables. Renew. Energ. 2007, 32:814-832.
8. Börger T., Beaumont N.J., Pendleton L., Boyle K.J., Cooper P., Fletcher S., Haab T., Hanemann M., Hooper T.L., Hussain S.S., Portela R., Stithou M., Stockill J., Taylor T., Austen M.C. Incorporating ecosystem services in marine planning: the role of valuation. Mar. Policy 2014, 46:161-170.
9. Bouma S., Lengkeek W. Benthic Communities on Hard Substrates of the Offshore Wind Farm Egmond aan Zee (OWEZ). Report by Bureau Waardenburg bv and Noordzeewind 2012.
10. Brandt M.J., Diederichs A., Betke K., Nehls G. Responses of harbour porpoises to pile driving at the Horns Rev II offshore wind farm in the Danish North Sea. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2011, 421:205-216.
11. Bruijs M. Survey of Marine Fouling on Turbine Support Structures of the Offshore Windfarm Egmond aan Zee; June 2009, 26 February 2010 2010.
12. Bunker F. Biology and video surveys of North Hoyle wind turbines 11th-13th August 2004. Report by Centre for Marine and Coastal Studies Ltd. (CMACS) 2004.
13. Celtic Array Limited Round 3 Irish Sea Zone Rhiannon Wind Farm Limited. Environmental Impact Assessment Offshore Scoping Report 2012.
14. ChoiceMetrics Ngene 1.1.1 User manual and reference guide 2012.
15. Christie M., Hanley N., Warren J., Murphy K., Wright R., Hyde T. Valuing the diversity of biodiversity. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 58:304-317.
16. Christie N., Smyth K., Barnes R., Elliott M. Co-location of activities and designations: a means of solving or creating problems in marine spatial planning?. Mar. Policy 2014, 43:254-261.
17. Concu G.B. Investigating distance effects on environmental values: a choice modelling approach. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2007, 51:175-194.
18. 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.
19. Fisher C., Slater M. Effects of electromagnetic fields on marine species: a literature review. Report prepared for the Oregon Wave Trust. September 2010 2010.
20. Gill A.B., Gloyne-Phillips I., Neal K.J., Kimber J.A. The potential effects of electromagnetic fields generated by sub-sea power cables associated with offshore wind farm developments on electrically and magnetically sensitive marine organisms - a review. COWRIE 1.5 Electromagnetic Fields Review. COWRIE-EM FIELD 2-06-2004. July 2005 2005.
21. Guillemette M., Larsen J.K. Postdevelopment experiments to detect anthropogenic disturbances: the case of sea ducks and wind parks. Ecol. Appl. 2002, 12(3):868-877.
22. Hanley N., Wright R.E., Adamowicz V. Using choice experiments to value the environment. Environ. Resour. Econ. 1998, 11:413-428.
23. Hooper T., Austen M. The co-location of offshore windfarms and decapod fisheries in the UK: constraints and opportunities. Mar. Policy 2014, 43:295-300.
24. Jacobsen J.B., Boiesen J.H., Thorsen B.J., Strange N. What's in a name? The use of quantitative measures versus 'Iconised' species when valuing biodiversity. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2008, 39:247-263.
25. Jacobsen J.B., Lundhede T.H., Martinsen L., Hasler B., Thorsen B.J. Embedding effects in choice experiment valuations of environmental preservation projects. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 70:1170-1177.
26. Kerckhof F., Rumes B., Norro A., Jacques T.G., Degraer S. Seasonal variation and vertical zonation of the arine biofouling on a concrete offshore windmill foundation on the Thornton Bank (southern North Sea). Offshore wind farms in the Belgian part of the North Sea: Early environmental impact assessment and spatio-temporal variability. Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Management Unit of the North Sea Mathematical Models 2010, 53-68. Marine Ecosystem Management Unit, Brussels. S. Degraer, R. Brabant, B. Rumes (Eds.).
27. Krinsky I., Robb A.L. On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Rev. Econ. Stat. 1986, 68:715-719.
28. 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.
29. Ladenburg J., Dubgaard A. Willingness to pay for reduced visual disamenities from offshore wind farms in Denmark. Energy Policy 2007, 35:4059-4071.
30. 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.
31. Lindeboom H.J., Kouwenhoven H.J., Bergman M.J.N., Bouma S., Brasseur S., Daan R., Fijn R.C., de Haan D., Dirksen S., van Hal R., Hille Ris Lambers R., ter Hofstede R., Krijgsveld K.L., Leopold M., Scheidat M. Short-term ecological effects of an offshore wind farm in the Dutch coastal zone a compilation. Environ. Res. Lett. 2011, 6:035101.
32. Louviere J.J., Hensher D.A., Swait J.D. Stated Choice Models. Analysis and Application 2000, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
33. MacDonald A. The visual issue: An investigation into the techniques and methodology used in wind farm computer visualisations 2007, Architech Animation Studies (UK) Ltd., (accessed May 2014). http://www.rushymeadharm.org/VisualIssue.pdf.
34. McCartney A. The social value of seascapes in the Jurien Bay Marine Park: an assessment of positive and negative preferences for change. J. Agric. Econ. 2006, 57:577-594.
35. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Frontiers in Econometrics, Economic Theory and Mathematical Economics 1974, 105-142. Academic Press, New York. P. Zarembka (Ed.).
36. Meyerhoff J., Ohl C., Hartje V. Landscape externalities from onshore wind power. Energy Policy 2010, 38:82-92.
37. Müürsepp M., Ehrlich Ü. Conflicting interest in the production of wind energy: public demand for shores without wind turbines. Discussions on Estonian Economic Policy: Theory and Practice of Economic Policy 2012, 20:126-142.
38. Normandeau, Exponent, Tricas T., Gill A. Effects of EMFs from undersea power cables on elasmobranchs and other marine species. US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, Pacific OCS Region 2011, OCS Study BOEMRE 2011-09, Camarillo, CA.
39. Reubens J.T., Degraer S., Vincx M. The ecology of benthopelagic fishes at offshore wind farms: a synthesis of 4 years of research. Hydrobiologia 2014, 727:121-136.
40. Revelt D., Train K. Mixed logit with repeated choices: households' choices of appliance efficiency level. Rev. Econ. Stat. 1998, 80:647-657.
41. Rothery P., Newton I., Little B. Observations of seabirds at offshore wind turbines near Blyth in northeast England. Bird Study 2009, 56:1-14.
42. Russell D.J.F., Brasseur S.M.J.M., Thompson D., Hastie G.D., Janik V.M., Aarts G., McClintock B.T., Matthiopoulos J., Moss S.E.W., McConnell B. Marine mammals trace anthropogenic structures at sea. Curr. Biol. 2014, 24:R638-R639.
43. Scarpa R., Rose J.M. Design efficiency for non-market valuation with choice modelling: how to measure it, what to report and why. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2008, 52:253-282.
44. 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 2012, 48:334-347.
45. Toke D. The UK offshore wind power programme: a sea-change in UK energy policy?. Energy Policy 2011, 39:526-534.
46. Train K.E. Discrete Choice Models with Simulation 2009, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 2nd ed.
47. Vecchiato D. Wind farm development in Italy: an application of choice experiments. Fourth Carregi Seminar 2012, 62-67.
48. 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.
49. Wilson J.C., Elliott M., Cutts N.D., Mander L., Mendão V., Perez-Dominguez R., Phelps A. Coastal and offshore wind energy generation: is it environmentally benign?. Energies 2010, 3:1383-1422.
50. Wright S.D., Rogers A.L., Manwell J.F., Ellis A. Transmission options for offshore wind farms in the United States. American Wind Energy Association 2002.