Wind power externalities: A meta-analysis

Ecological Economics

Volumn 127, Issue , 2016, Pages 23-36

  Mattmann, Matteo ^a,b   Logar, Ivana ^a   Brouwer, Roy ^a,c  

^a SWISS FEDERAL INSTITUTE OF AQUATIC SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Switzerland)

^b VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Externalities; Meta regression; Non market valuation; Renewable energy; Wind power

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DATA SET; ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; INCOME; META-ANALYSIS; RENEWABLE RESOURCE; VALUATION; WIND POWER; WIND TURBINE;

AVES;

EID: 84963604725     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.04.005     Document Type: Article

References (108)

1. Alvarez-Farizo B., Hanley N. Using conjoint analysis to quantify public preferences over the environmental impacts of wind farms. An example from Spain. Energ Policy 2002, 30:107-116.
2. Aravena C., Martinsson P., Scarpa R. Does money talk?-The effect of a monetary attribute on the marginal values in a choice experiment. Energy Econ. 2014, 44:483-491.
3. Bateman I.J., Brouwer R. Consistency and construction in stated WTP for health risk reductions: a novel scope-sensitivity test. Resour. Energy Econ. 2006, 28(3):199-214.
4. Bergmann A., Hanley N., Wright R. Valuing the attributes of renewable energy investments. Energ Policy 2006, 34(9):1004-1014.
5. Bergstrom J.C., Taylor L.O. Using meta-analysis for benefits transfer: theory and practice. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 60(2):351-360.
6. Bergström L., Kautsky L., Malm T., Rosenberg R., Wahlberg M., Åstrand Capetillo N., Wilhelmsson D. Effects of offshore wind farms on marine wildlife-a generalized impact assessment. Environ. Res. Lett. 2014, 9(3):034012.
7. Bishop I.D., Miller D.R. Visual assessment of off-shore wind turbines: the influence of distance, contrast, movement and social variables. Renew. Energy 2007, 32(5):814-831.
8. Borchers A., Duke J., Parsons G. Does willingness to pay for green energy differ by source?. Energ Policy 2007, 35(6):3327-3334.
9. Botelho A., Costa Pinto L.M., Sousa P. Valuing Wind Farms' Environmental Impacts by Geographical Distance: A Contingent Valuation Study in Portugal. NIMA Working Paper Series, No. 52 2013.
10. Brander L., Brouwer R., Wagtendonk A. Economic valuation of regulating services provided by wetlands in agricultural landscapes: a meta-analysis. Ecol. Eng. 2013, 56:89-96.
11. Brander L.M., Florax R.J.G.M., Vermaat J.E. The empirics of wetland valuation: a comprehensive summary and a meta-analysis of the literature. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2006, 33(2):223-250.
12. Brouwer R. Environmental value transfer: state of the art and future prospects. Ecol. Econ. 2000, 32(1):137-152.
13. Cameron A.C., Trivedi P.K. Microeconometrics: Methods and Applications. Analysis 2005, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
14. Carson R.T. Contingent valuation surveys and tests of insensitivity to scope. Determining the Value of Non-Marketed Goods: Economic, Psychological, and Policy Relevant Aspects of Contingent Valuation Methods 1997, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA. R.J. Kopp, W.W. Pommerehne, N. Schwarz (Eds.).
15. Carson R.T., Mitchell R.C. The issue of scope in contingent valuation studies. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1993, 75(5):1263-1267.
16. Champ P.A., Bishop R.C. Donation payment mechanisms and contingent valuation: an empirical study of hypothetical bias. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2001, 19(4):383-402.
17. Cicia G., Cembalo L., Del Giudice T., Palladino A. Fossil energy versus nuclear, wind, solar and agricultural biomass: insights from an Italian national survey. Energ Policy 2012, 42:59-66.
18. de Ayala A., Mariel P., Meyerhoff J. Transferring landscape values using discrete choice experiments: is meta-analysis an option?. Econ. Agraria Recursos Nat. 2014, 14(1):113-128.
19. Devine-Wright P. Beyond NIMBYism: towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy. Wind Energy 2005, 8:125-139.
20. Dimitropoulos A., Kontoleon A. Assessing the determinants of local acceptability of wind-farm investment: a choice experiment in the Greek Aegean Islands. Energ Policy 2009, 37:1842-1854.
21. Drewitt A.L., Langston R.H.W. Assessing the impacts of wind farms on birds. Ibis 2006, 148:29-42.
22. du Preez M., Menzies G., Sale M., Hosking S. Measuring the indirect costs associated with the establishment of a wind farm: an application of the contingent valuation method. J. Energy South. Afr. 2012, 23(1):2-7.
23. ECN Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands Renewable energy projections as published in the national renewable energy action plans of the european member states Retrieved from. http://forestindustries.eu/sites/default/files/userfiles/1file/e10069.pdf.
24. Ehrlich Ü., Müürsepp M. Coastal area with or without wind turbines: a contingent valuation study in Estonia. Mathematical Modelling and Simulation in Applied Sciences. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Energy, Environment, Devices, Systems, Communications, Computers 2012, 179-184.
25. Ek K. Quantifying the environmental impacts of renewable energy: the case of Swedish wind power. Environmental Valuation in Develped Countries: Case Studies 2006, 181-212. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham, UK. D. Pearce (Ed.).
26. Ek K., Matti S. Valuing the local impacts of a large scale wind power establishment in northern Sweden: public and private preferences toward economic, environmental and sociocultural values. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2015, 58(8):1327-1345.
27. 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.
28. Erickson W.P., Johnson G.D., Young D.P. A Summary and Comparison of Bird Mortality from Anthropogenic Causes with an Emphasis on Collisions. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech 2005.
29. EWEA European Wind Energy Association Wind Energy Scenarios for 2020 2014, (Retrieved from http://www.ewea.org/fileadmin/files/library/publications/scenarios/EWEA-Wind-energy-scenarios-2020.pdf).
30. Fay M., Hallegatte S., Vogt-Schilb A., Rozenberg J., Narloch U., Kerr T. Decarbonizing Development 2015, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank, Washington, DC.
31. Fayram A.H., de Risi A. The potential compatibility of offshore wind power and fisheries: an example using bluefin tuna in the Adriatic Sea. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2007, 50(8):597-605.
32. Fimereli E., Mourato S. Assessing the effect of energy technology labels on preferences. J. Environ. Econ. Policy 2013, 2(3):245-265.
33. Fimereli E., Mourato S., Pearson P.J.G. Measuring Preferences for Low-Carbon Energy Technologies in South-East England: The Case of Electricity Generation. 2008, (Retrieved from http://orca.cf.ac.uk/40686/).
34. Foster V., Mourato S. Elicitation format and sensitivity to scope. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2003, 24(2):141-160.
35. G7. Leaders' Declaration G7 Summit, 7-8 June 2015 Retrieved from. https://www.g7germany.de/Content/DE/_Anlagen/G8_G20/2015-06-08-g7-abschluss-eng.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=5.
36. Gill A.B., Bartlett M., Thomsen F. Potential interactions between diadromous fishes of U.K. conservation importance and the electromagnetic fields and subsea noise from marine renewable energy developments. J. Fish Biol. 2012, 81(2):664-695.
37. Goldberg I., Roosen J. Scope insensitivity in health risk reduction studies: a comparison of choice experiments and the contingent valuation method for valuing safer food. J. Risk Uncertain. 2007, 34(2):123-144.
38. Groothuis P.A., Groothuis J.D., Whitehead J.C. Green vs. green: measuring the compensation required to site electrical generation windmills in a viewshed. Energ Policy 2008, 36(4):1545-1550.
39. Guo X., Liu H., Mao X., Jin J., Chen D., Cheng S. Willingness to pay for renewable electricity: a contingent valuation study in Beijing, China. Energ Policy 2014, 68:340-347.
40. GWEC Global Wind Energy Council Global Wind Statistics 2012 Retrieved from. http://www.gwec.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/GWEC-PRstats-2012_english.pdf.
41. Haggett C. Understanding public responses to offshore wind power. Energ Policy 2011, 39(2):503-510.
42. Hamilton L.C. Statistics with STATA Version 12 2012, Cengage Learning, Boston, MA.
43. Hanley N., Nevin C. Appraising renewable energy developments in remote communities: the case of the North Assynt Estate, Scotland. Energ Policy 1999, 27(9):527-547.
44. Harbord R.M., Higgins J.P.T. Meta-regression in Stata. Stata J. 2008, 8(4):493-519.
45. Harrison G.W., Lau M.I., Melonie B. Estimating individual discount rates in Denmark : a field experiment. Business 2000, 92(5):1606-1617.
46. Harrison J.P. Wind turbine noise. Bull. Sci. Technol. Soc. 2011, 31(4):256-261.
47. Haughton J., Tuerck D.G., Giuffre D., Barrett J. An Economic Analysis of a Wind Farm in Nantucket Sound 2004, (Boston, MA. Retrieved from http://www.beaconhill.org/BHIStudies/Windmills2004/WindFarmArmyCorps.pdf).
48. Hökby S., Söderqvist T. Elasticities of demand and willingness to pay for environmental services in Sweden. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2003, 26(3):361-383.
49. IEA International Energy Agency China Wind Energy Development Roadmap 2050 Retrieved from. https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/china_wind.pdf.
50. IEA International Energy Agency Energy Statistics of Non-OECD Countries. Paris Retrieved from. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/6114161e.pdf?expires=1431531595&id=id&accname=oid021321&checksum=2FA292B1A4254241154525A0B0A747CD.
51. IEA International Energy Agency Energy Statistics of OECD Countries. Paris Retrieved from. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/6114171e.pdf?expires=1431531699&id=id&accname=oid021321&checksum=4D3352DF97AA9509602DD572AB5B339C.
52. Jacobsen J.B., Hanley N. Are there income effects on global willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation?. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2009, 43(2):137-160.
53. 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.
54. Kontogianni A., Tourkolias C., Skourtos M. Renewables portfolio, individual preferences and social values towards RES technologies. Energ Policy 2013, 55:467-476.
55. Kosenius A.-K., Ollikainen M. Valuation of environmental and societal trade-offs of renewable energy sources. Energ Policy 2013, 62:1148-1156.
56. Koundouri P., Kountouris Y., Remoundou K. Valuing a wind farm construction: a contingent valuation study in Greece. Energ Policy 2009, 37(5):1939-1944.
57. Kristrom B., Riera P. Is the income elasticity of environmental improvements less than one?. Environ. Resour. Econ. 1996, 7(1):45-55.
58. Krueger A.D. Valuing Public Preferences for Offshore Wind Power: A Choice Experiment Approach 2007, (PhD Thesis), University of Delaware.
59. Ku S.-J., Yoo S.-H. Willingness to pay for renewable energy investment in Korea: a choice experiment study. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 2010, 14(8):2196-2201.
60. Ladenburg J. Attitudes towards on-land and offshore wind power development in Denmark; choice of development strategy. Renew. Energy 2008, 33(1):111-118.
61. Ladenburg J., Dubgaard A. Preferences of coastal zone user groups regarding the siting of offshore wind farms. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2009, 52(5):233-242.
62. Lancaster K.J. A new approach to consumer theory. J. Polit. Econ. 1966, 74(2):132-157.
63. Landry C.E., Allen T., Cherry T., Whitehead J.C. Wind turbines and coastal recreation demand. Resour. Energy Econ. 2012, 34(1):93-111.
64. Leung D.Y.C., Yang Y. Wind energy development and its environmental impact: a review. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 2012, 16(1):1031-1039.
65. Li H., Jenkins-Smith H.C., Silva C.L., Berrens R.P., Herron K.G. Public support for reducing US reliance on fossil fuels: investigating household willingness-to-pay for energy research and development. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68(3):731-742.
66. Lipsey M.W., Wilson D.B. Practical Meta-Analysis 2001, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi.
67. 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(1):140-152.
68. MacMillan D., Hanley N., Lienhoop N. Contingent valuation: environmental polling or preference engine?. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 60(1):299-307.
69. Mariel P., Meyerhoff J., Hess S. Heterogeneous preferences toward landscape externalities of wind turbines-combining choices and attitudes in a hybrid model. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 2015, 41:647-657.
70. Mathew S. Wind Energy. Fundamentals, Resources Analysis and Economics 2006, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg.
71. 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(3):577-594.
72. Meyerhoff J., Ohl C., Hartje V. Landscape externalities from onshore wind power. Energ Policy 2010, 38(1):82-92.
73. Mez L. Nuclear energy-any solution for sustainability and climate protection?. Energ Policy 2012, 48:56-63.
74. Mirasgedis S., Tourkolias C., Tzovla E., Diakoulaki D. Valuing the visual impact of wind farms: an application in South Evia, Greece. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 2014, 39:296-311.
75. Mozumder P., Vásquez W.F., Marathe A. Consumers' preference for renewable energy in the southwest USA. Energy Econ. 2011, 33(6):1119-1126.
76. Navrud S., Bråten G. Consumers' preferences for green and brown electricity : a choice modelling approach. Rev. Econ. Polit. 2007, 117:795-811.
77. Nelson J.P., Kennedy P.E. The use (and abuse) of meta-analysis in environmental and natural resource economics: an assessment. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2008, 42(3):345-377.
78. Nomura N., Akai M. Willingness to pay for green electricity in Japan as estimated through contingent valuation method. Appl. Energy 2004, 78(4):453-463.
79. OECD OECD. Stat (database) Retrieved from. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/statistics.
80. Ohman M.C., Sigray P., Westerberg H. Offshore windmills and the effects of electromagnetic fields on fish. Ambio 2007, 36(8):630-633.
81. Ojea E., Loureiro M.L. Identifying the scope effect on a meta-analysis of biodiversity valuation studies. Resour. Energy Econ. 2011, 33(3):706-724.
82. Pasqualetti M.J. Opposing wind energy landscapes: a search for common cause. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 2011, 101(4):907-917.
83. Pasqualetti M.J., Gipe P., Righter R.W. Wind Power in View 2002, Academic Press, London.
84. 2 emissions: 2014 Report Retrieved from. http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/news_docs/jrc-2014-trends-in-global-co2-emissions-2014-report-93171.pdf.
85. Pedersen E. Health aspects associated with wind turbine noise-results from three field studies. Noise Control Eng. J. 2011, 59(1):47-53.
86. Pedersen E., Larsman P. The impact of visual factors on noise annoyance among people living in the vicinity of wind turbines. J. Environ. Psychol. 2008, 28(4):379-389.
87. Pedersen E., Persson Waye K. Wind turbine noise, annoyance and self-reported health and well-being in different living environments. Occup. Environ. Med. 2007, 64(7):480-486.
88. Petersen J.K., Malm T. Offshore windmill farms: threats to or possibilities for the marine environment. Ambio 2006, 35(2):75-80.
89. Ringquist E.J. Meta-Analysis for Public Management and Policy 2013, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
90. Roe B., Teisl M.F., Levy A., Russell M. US consumers' willingness to pay for green electricity. Energ Policy 2001, 29(11):917-925.
91. Rolfe J., Brouwer R. Design effects in a meta-analysis of river health choice experiments in Australia. J. Choice Model. 2012, 5(2):81-97.
92. Rosenberger R.S., Stanley T.D. Measurement, generalization, and publication: sources of error in benefit transfers and their management. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 60(2):372-378.
93. Smith V.K., Osborne L.L. Do contingent valuation estimates pass a "scope" test? A meta-analysis. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 1996, 31(3):287-301.
94. Smith V.K., Pattanayak S.K. Is meta-analysis a Noah's ark for non-market valuation?. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2002, 22(1):271-296.
95. 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. Energ Policy 2012, 48:334-347.
96. U.S.Energy Information Administration (EIA) Int. Energy Stat. 2012, (Retrieved from http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=6&pid=29&aid=12).
97. van den Bergh J.C., Button K.J., Nijkamp P., Pepping G.C. Meta-Analysis in Environmental Economics 1997, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
98. van der Loo F. Mediating Windpower in the Netherlands: the Task Force Windpower Implementation 2001, Novem, Utrecht.
99. Vecchiato D. How do you like wind farms? Understanding people's preferences about new energy landscapes with choice experiments. Aestimum 2014, 64(1):15-37.
100. Wahlberg M., Westerberg H. Fish hearing and reactions to sounds from offshore wind farms. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2005, 288:295-309.
101. Warren C.R., Lumsden C., O'Dowd S., Birnie R.V. "Green on green": public perceptions of wind power in Scotland and Ireland. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2005, 48(6):853-875.
102. Weisser D. A guide to life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from electric supply technologies. Energy 2007, 32(9):1543-1559.
103. 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.
104. Whitehead J.C., Cherry T.L. Willingness to pay for a Green Energy program: a comparison of ex-ante and ex-post hypothetical bias mitigation approaches. Resour. Energy Econ. 2007, 29(4):247-261.
105. Wilson J.C., Elliott M. The habitat-creation potential of offshore wind farms. Wind Energy 2009, 12(2):203-212.
106. Wolsink M. Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support. Renew. Energy 2000, 21(1):49-64.
107. Wolsink M. Wind power implementation: the nature of public attitudes: equity and fairness instead of "backyard motives.". Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 2007, 11(6):1188-1207.
108. Wüstenhagen R., Wolsink M., Bürer M.J. Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: an introduction to the concept. Energ Policy 2007, 35(5):2683-2691.