Hydropower externalities: A meta-analysis

Energy Economics

Volumn 57, Issue , 2016, Pages 66-77

  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; Hydropower; Meta regression; Non market valuation; Renewable energy; Sensitivity to scope

Indexed keywords

COMMERCE; ECONOMICS; GREENHOUSE GASES; REGRESSION ANALYSIS;

EXTERNALITIES; HYDROPOWER; META-REGRESSION; NON-MARKET VALUATION; RENEWABLE ENERGIES; SENSITIVITY TO SCOPE;

HYDROELECTRIC POWER;

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY; ELECTRICITY GENERATION; HYDROELECTRIC POWER; META-ANALYSIS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RENEWABLE RESOURCE;

EID: 84966703614     PISSN: 01409883     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2016.04.016     Document Type: Article

References (86)

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., Hutchinson W.G., Longo A. Environmental pricing of externalities from different sources of electricity generation in Chile. Energy Econ. 2012, 34(4):1214-1225.
3. Arrow K., Solow R., Portney P.R., Leamer E.E., Radner R., Schuman H. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Fed. Regist. 1993, vol. 58. (Retrieved from http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/library/pdf/cvblue.pdf).
4. Barros N., Cole J.J., Tranvik L.J., Prairie Y.T., Bastviken D., Huszar V.L.M., Roland F. Carbon emission from hydroelectric reservoirs linked to reservoir age and latitude. Nat. Geosci. 2011, 4:593-596.
5. 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.
6. Bergland O. Valuing Aesthetical Values of Weirs in Watercourses with Hydroelectric Plants - Verdsetjing av estetiske verdiar i tilknytning til tersklar i regulerte vassdrag 1998, Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate (NVE), Oslo.
7. Bergmann A., Colombo S., Hanley N. Rural versus urban preferences for renewable energy developments. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 65:616-625.
8. Bergmann A., Hanley N., Wright R. Valuing the attributes of renewable energy investments. Energ Policy 2006, 34(9):1004-1014.
9. Biro Y.E.K. Valuation of the environmental impacts of the Kayraktepe dam/hydroelectric project, Turkey: an exercise in contingent valuation. Ambio 1998, 27(3):224-229.
10. Born S.M., Genskow K.D., Filbert T.L., Hernandez-Mora N., Keefer M.L., White K.A. Socioeconomic and institutional dimensions of dam removals: the Wisconsin experience. Environ. Manag. 1998, 22(3):359-370.
11. Bothe D. Environmental Costs Due to the Karahnjukar Hydro Power Project on Iceland 2003, University of Cologne, Department of Economic and Social Geography, Cologne, Germany.
12. Box G.E.P., Cox D.R. An analysis of transformations. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Methodol. 1964, 26(2):211-252.
13. Boyd J., Banzhaf S. What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 63(2-3):616-626.
14. 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.
15. Brouwer R. Environmental value transfer: state of the art and future prospects. Ecol. Econ. 2000, 32(1):137-152.
16. Bruno M.C., Maiolini B., Carolli M., Silveri L. Impact of hydropeaking on hyporheic invertebrates in an Alpine stream (Trentino, Italy). Int. J. Limnol. 2009, 45(3):157-170.
17. Cameron A.C., Trivedi P.K. Microeconometrics: Methods and Applications. Analysis 2005, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
18. 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.).
19. Carson R.T., Mitchell R.C. The issue of scope in contingent valuation studies. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1993, 75(5):1263-1267.
20. Delsontro T., McGinnis D.F., Sobek S., Ostrovsky I., Wehrli B. Extreme methane emissions from a Swiss hydropower reservoir: contribution from bubbling sediments. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44:2419-2425.
21. Desvousges W., Mathews K., Train K. Adequate responsiveness to scope in contingent valuation. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 84:121-128.
22. Devine-Wright P. Beyond NIMBYism: towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy. Wind Energy 2005, 8:125-139.
23. Efron B., Gong G. A leisurely look at the bootstrap, the jackknife, and cross-validation. Am. Stat. 1983, 37(1):36-48.
24. Ehrlich Ü., Reimann M. Hydropower versus non-market values of nature : a contingent valuation study of Jägala Waterfalls, Estonia. Int. J. Geosci. 2010, 4(3):59-63.
25. Ek K. Quantifying the environmental impacts of renewable energy: the case of Swedish wind power. Environmental Valuation in Developed Countries: Case Studies 2006, 181-212. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham, UK. D. Pearce (Ed.).
26. 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.
27. Faiers A., Neame C. Consumer attitudes towards domestic solar power systems. Energ Policy 2006, 34(14):1797-1806.
28. Filippini M., Buchli L., Banfi S. Estimating the benefits of low flow alleviation in rivers: the case of the Ticino River. Appl. Econ. 2003, 35:585-590.
29. Getzner M. Importance of free-flowing rivers for recreation: case study of the river Mur in Styria, Austria. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 2015, 141(2):04014050.
30. Gogniat S. Estimating the Benefits of an Improvement in Water Quality and Flow Regulation: Case study of the Doubs. Master's Thesis, Université de Neuchâtel, Neuchâtel, Switzerland Retrieved from. http://www2.unine.ch/files/content/sites/iaf/files/shared/documents/S%C3%A9minaires%20%C3%A9conomie%20et%20finance/SG_Thesis_final.pdf.
31. 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.
32. Håkansson C. Costs and benefits of improving wild salmon passage in a regulated river. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2009, 52(3):345-363.
33. Hamilton L.C. Statistics with STATA Version 12 2012, Cengage Learning, Boston, MA.
34. Han S.-Y., Kwak S.-J., Yoo S.-H. Valuing environmental impacts of large dam construction in Korea: an application of choice experiments. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2008, 28(4-5):256-266.
35. 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.
36. Hanley N., Wright R.E., Adamowicz V. Using choice experiments to value the environment. Des. Issues, Curr. Exp. Future Prospects 1998, 11(3-4):413-428.
37. Hansesveen H., Helgas G. Environmental Costs of Hydropower Development - Estimering av miljokostnader ved en vannkraftutbygging i Ovre Otta 1997, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, As, Norway.
38. Harbord R.M., Higgins J.P.T. Meta-regression in Stata. Stata J. 2008, 8(4):493-519.
39. Harrison G.W., Lau M.I., Melonie B. Estimating individual discount rates in Denmark: a field experiment. Business 2000, 92(5):1606-1617.
40. Helena A., Buchecker M., Backhaus N., Michel A.H., Buchecker M., Backhaus N. Installations in a Swiss Alpine region renewable energy, authenticity, and tourism: social acceptance of photovoltaic installations in a Swiss Alpine region. Mt. Res. Dev. 2015, 35(2):161-170.
41. Hökby S., Söderqvist T. Elasticities of demand and willingness to pay for environmental services in Sweden. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2003, 26(3):361-383.
42. Hynes S., Hanley N. Preservation versus development on Irish rivers: whitewater kayaking and hydro-power in Ireland. Land Use Policy 2006, 23(2):170-180.
43. 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.
44. 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.
45. International Monetary Fund I.M.F. Proposed new grouping in WEO country classifications: low-income developing countries. IMF Policy Paper 2014, International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC, (Retrieved from). https://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2014/060314.pdf.
46. Jacobson M.Z., Delucchi M.A. A path to sustainable energy by 2030. Sci. Am. 2009, 301:58-65.
47. 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.
48. Kataria M. Willingness to pay for environmental improvements in hydropower regulated rivers. Energy Econ. 2009, 31(1):69-76.
49. Kirby K.N., Herrnstein R.J. Preference reversals due to myopic discounting of delayed reward. Psychol. Sci. 1995, 6(2):83-89.
50. Klinglmair A., Bliem M. Die Erschliessung vorhandener Wasserkraftpotenziale in Österreich im Spannungsfeld von Energiepolitik und ökologischen Schutzzielen. Internationale Energiewirtschaftstagung an Der TU Wien 2013, 8. (Retrieved from). http://eeg.tuwien.ac.at/eeg.tuwien.ac.at_pages/events/iewt/iewt2015/uploads/fullpaper/P_146_Klinglmair_Andrea_8-Jan-2013_10:59.pdf.
51. Klinglmair A., Bliem M., Brouwer R. Public preferences for urban and rural hydropower projects in Styria using a choice experiment. IHS Kärnten Working Paper 2012, (Retrieved from). http://www.carinthia.ihs.ac.at/HydroVal/files/working_paper.pdf.
52. Komarek T.M., Lupi F., Kaplowitz M.D. Valuing energy policy attributes for environmental management: choice experiment evidence from a research institution. Energ Policy 2011, 39(9):5105-5115.
53. Kosenius A.-K., Ollikainen M. Valuation of environmental and societal trade-offs of renewable energy sources. Energ Policy 2013, 62:1148-1156.
54. Kosz M. Valuing riverside wetlands: the case of the "Donau-Auen" national park. Ecol. Econ. 1996, 16:109-127.
55. 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.
56. Ladenburg J., Dubgaard A. Willingness to pay for reduced visual disamentities from offshore wind farms in Denmark. Energ Policy 2007, 35:4059-4071.
57. Lienhoop N., MacMillan D. Valuing wilderness in Iceland: estimation of WTA and WTP using the market stall approach to contingent valuation. Land Use Policy 2007, 24(1):289-295.
58. Lipsey M.W., Wilson D.B. Practical Meta-analysis 2001, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi.
59. 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.
60. Loomis J. Measuring the economic benefits of removing dams and restoring the Elwha River: results of a contingent valuation survey. Water Resour. Res. 1996, 32(2):441-447.
61. Loomis J. Quantifying recreation use values from removing dams and restoring free-flowing rivers: a contingent behavior travel cost demand model for the Lower Snake River. Water Resour. Res. 2002, 38(6). (2-1-2-8).
62. Loomis J., Sorg C., Donnelly D. Economic losses to recreational fisheries due to small-head hydro-power development: a case study of the Henry's Fork in Idaho. J. Environ. Manag. 1986, 22(1):85-94.
63. Navrud S. Hydro fuel cycle. Part II (p. 127-249) in European Commission DG XII Science Research and Innovation (1995): ExternE: externalities of energy. Wind and Hydro. EUR 16525 EN 1995, Volume 6. European Comission Publishing, Luxembourg.
64. Navrud S. Environmental costs of hydro compared with other energy options. Hydropower and Dams 2001, 8(2):44-48.
65. Navrud S. Environmental Costs of Hydropower, Second Stage - Miljøkostnadsprosjektet Trinn 2. EBL Report 181 2004.
66. 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.
67. OECD OECD. Stat (database) Retrieved from. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/statistics.
68. 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.
69. Osborne J.W. Improving your data transformations: applying the box-cox transformation. Practical Assess., Res. Eval. 2010, 15(12):1-9.
70. Paish O. Small hydro power: technology and current status. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 2002, 6(6):537-556.
71. Ponce R.D., Vásquez F., Stehr A., Debels P., Orihuela C. Estimating the economic value of landscape losses due to flooding by hydropower plants in the Chilean Patagonia. Water Resour. Manag. 2011, 25(10):2449-2466.
72. Ringquist E.J. Meta-analysis for Public Management and Policy 2013, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
73. Robbins J.L., Lewis L.Y. Demolish it and they will come: estimating the economic impacts of restoring a recreational fishery. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2009, 44(6):1488-1499.
74. 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.
75. Ryan M., Watson V. Comparing welfare estimates from payment card contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments. Health Econ. 2009, 18(11):389-401.
76. Samuelson P.A. A note on measurement of utility. Rev. Econ. Stud. 1937, 4(2):155-161.
77. SFOE (Swiss Federal Office of Energy) Energieperspektiven 2050. Zusammenfassung Bern. Retrieved from. http://www.bfe.admin.ch/php/modules/publikationen/stream.php?extlang=de&name=de_892303521.pdf&endung=Energieperspektiven%202050.
78. 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.
79. 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.
80. Sundqvist T. Power Generation Choice in the Presence of Environmental Externalities 2002, PhD Thesis, Lulea University of Technology, Lulea, Sweden., (Retrieved from https://pure.ltu.se/portal/files/153854/LTU-DT-0226-SE.pdf).
81. Sundt S., Rehdanz K. Consumer's willingness to pay for green electricity: a meta-analysis of the literature. Energy Econ. 2015, 51:1-8.
82. Susaeta A., Lal P., Alavalapati J., Mercer E. Random preferences towards bioenergy environmental externalities: a case study of woody biomass based electricity in the Southern United States. Energy Econ. 2011, 33(6):1111-1118.
83. 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.
84. Weisser D. A guide to life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from electric supply technologies. Energy 2007, 32(9):1543-1559.
85. Wolsink M. Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support. Renew. Energy 2000, 21(1):49-64.
86. 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.