Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Using stated preference methods to assess environmental impacts of forest biomass power plants in Portugal

  • Published:
Environment, Development and Sustainability Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As a renewable energy source, the use of forest biomass for electricity generation is advantageous in comparison with fossil fuels; however, the activity of forest biomass power plants causes adverse impacts, affecting particularly neighbouring communities. The main objective of this study is to estimate the effects of the activity of forest biomass power plants on the welfare of two groups of stakeholders, namely local residents and the general population. To this end, we apply two stated preference methods: contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments, respectively. The former method was applied to estimate the minimum compensation residents of neighbouring communities of two forest biomass power plants in Portugal would be willing to accept. The latter method was applied among the general population to estimate their willingness to pay to avoid specific environmental impacts. The results show that the presence of the selected facilities affects individuals’ well-being. On the other hand, in the discrete choice experiments conducted among the general population all impacts considered were valued, in particular odour and fauna and flora impacts. The results of this study stress the importance of performing an equity analysis of the welfare effects on different groups of stakeholders from the installation of forest biomass power plants, as their effects on welfare are location and impact specific. Policy makers should take into account the views of all stakeholders either directly or indirectly involved when deciding crucial issues regarding the sitting of new forest biomass power plants, in order to achieve an efficient and equitable outcome.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Source: Authors’ elaboration

Fig. 2

Source: EDP

Fig. 3

Source: Authors’ elaboration

Fig. 4

Source: EDP

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. As the direction of the preferences is not clear (the parameters may have positive or negative values), the impact attributes are specified as normally distributed. As a conventional procedure, the price attribute will be specified as a fixed or non-random parameter.

References

  • Adamowicz, W., Louviere, J., & Williams, M. (1994). Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 26, 271–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armolaitis, K., Varnagiryte-Kabasinskiene, I., Stupak, I., Kukkola, M., Miksys, V., & Wojcik, J. (2013). Carbon and nutrients of Scots pine stands on sandy soils in Lithuania in relation to bioenergy sustainability. Biomass and Bioenergy, 54, 250–259.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P., Leamer, E., Radner, R., & Schuman, H. (1993). Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation. Federal Register, 58(10), 4601–4614.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, G., & Mourato, S. (2008). Environmental cost-benefit analysis. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 33, 317–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman, I., Carson, R., Day, B., Hanemann, M., Hanley, N., Hett, T., et al. (2002). Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: A manual. Edwar Elgar: Cheltenham.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Botelho, A., Lourenço-Gomes, L., Pinto, L.M.C., & Sousa, S. (2014), How to design reliable discrete choice surveys: The use of qualitative research methods. In 2nd international conference on project evaluation—ICOPEV 2014, organized by CGIT—Research Centre for Industrial and Technology Management, School of Engineering of University of Minho, 26–27 June 2014, Guimarães.

  • Botelho, A., Pinto, L. M. C., & Sousa, P. (2013). Valuing wind farms’ environmental impacts by geographical distance: A contingent valuation study in Portugal. Working Paper NIMA 52, Braga, Universidade do Minho, 2013.

  • CAM—Comissão de Agricultura e Mar (2013). Relatório: Grupo de Trabalho da Biomassa, Junho de 2013. Edição: Assembleia da República.

  • Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2005). Microeconometrics: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2009). Microeconometrics using Stata. College Station, TX: Stata Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carneiro, P., & Ferreira, P. (2012). The economic, environmental and strategic value of biomass. Renewable Energy, 44, 17–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DGEG—Direcção Geral de Energia e Geologia (2007). Energias Renováveis em Portugal. Renewable Energy in Portugal.

  • Dockerty, T., Appleton, K., & Lovett, A. (2012). Public opinion on energy crops in the landscape: Considerations for the expansion of renewable energy from biomass. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 55(9), 1134–1158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enersilva (2007). Enersilva—Promoção do uso da Biomassa Florestal para fins energéticos no sudoeste da Europa, 2004–2007. Projecto Enersilva.

  • Evans, A., Strezov, V., & Evans, T. J. (2010). Sustainability considerations for electricity generation from biomass. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14(5), 1419–1427.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira, S., Moreira, N. A., & Monteiro, E. (2009). Bioenergy overview for Portugal. Biomass and Bioenergy, 33(11), 1567–1576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, W. (2012). NLOGIT, version 5.0. Reference guide. Plainview, NY: Econometric Software, Inc.

  • Haab, T. C., Interis, M. G., Petrolia, D. R., & Whitehead, J. C. (2013). From hopeless to curious? Thoughts on Hausman’s “Dubious to Hopeless” critique of contingent valuation. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 35(4), 593–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanley, N., Wright, R. E., & Adamowicz, V. (1998). Using choice experiments to value the environment: Design issues, current experience and future prospects. Environmental & Resource Economics, 11(3–4), 413–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanley, N., Wright, R. E., & Mourato, S. (2001). Choice modelling approaches: A superior alternative for environmental valuation. Journal of Economic Surveys, 15(3), 435–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hensher, D. A., & Greene, W. H. (2003). The mixed logit model: The state of practice. Transportation, 30(2), 133–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ICNF—Instituto da Conservação da Natureza e das Florestas (2013). 6º Inventário Florestal Nacional: Áreas dos usos do solo e das espécies florestais de Portugal continental (resultados provisórios).

  • Jonsell, M. (2007). Effects on biodiversity of forest fuel extraction, governed by processes working on a large scale. Biomass and Bioenergy, 31, 726–732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamers, P., Thiffault, E., Paré, D., & Junginger, M. (2013). Feedstock specific environmental risk levels related to biomass extraction for energy boreal and temperate forests. Biomass and Bioenergy, 55, 212–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lancaster, K. (1966). A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy, 84, 132–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mabee, W. E., & Saddler, J. N. (2007). Forests and energy in OECD countries, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations—Forests and Energy working paper 1.

  • McFadden, D., & Train, K. (2000). Mixed MNL models for discrete response. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 15, 447–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mendesohn, R., & Olmstead, S. (2009). The economic valuation of environmental amenities and disamenities: Methods and applications. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 34, 325–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miranda, M., & Hale, B. (2001). Protecting the forest from the trees: The social costs of energy production in Sweden. Energy, 26, 869–889.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. C., & Carson, R. T. (1989). Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation method. Resources for the Future: Washington DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD/IEA (1998). Benign energy? The environmental implications of renewables. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and International Energy Agency.

  • Owens, S. (2004). Siting, sustainable development and social priorities. Journal of Risk Research, 7(2), 101–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patrão, G. (2011). The Portuguese energy strategy and the role of biomass. In Workshop BIOGAIR: Biomass on the Portuguese energy sector. University of Aveiro, Aveiro, 13th of May, 2011.

  • Pearce, D., Atkinson, G., & Mourato, S. (2006). Cost-benefit analysis and the environment: Recent developments. Paris: OECD.

  • Pearce, D., Mourato, S., & Wright, R. (2001). Environmental cost-benefit analysis: Recent developments. Paris: OECD.

  • Revelt, D., & Train, K. (1998). Mixed logit with repeated choices: Households’ choices of appliance efficiency level. Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(4), 647–657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlamadinger, B., & Marland, G. (2001). The role of bioenergy and related land use in global net CO2 emissions. In Woody biomass as an energy source—challenges in Europe, EFI Proceedings no 39, pp. 21–27.

  • Siitonen, J. (2001). Forest management, Coarse Woody Debris and Saproxylic Organisms: Fennoscandian Boreal forests as an example. Ecological Bulletins, 49, 11–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • UN (2007). Sustainable bioenergy: A framework for decision makers. United Nations—Energy.

  • Upreti, B., & Horst, D. (2004). National renewable energy policy and local opposition in the UK: The failed development of a biomass electricity plant. Biomass and Bioenergy, 26, 61–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitehead, J. C. (2006). A Practitioner’s Primer on the Contingent Valuation Method. In A. Alberini & J. R. Kahn (Eds.), Handbook on contingent valuation (pp. 66–91). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support from FCT Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia with Grant Number PTDC/EGE-ECO/122402/2010.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. DEGEI and GOVCOPP, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal

    Anabela Botelho

  2. CETRAD and DESG, University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro, Vila Real, Portugal

    Lina Lourenço-Gomes

  3. EEG and NIMA, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal

    Lígia Pinto & Marieta Valente

  4. ISCAC, Polytechnic Institute of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal

    Sara Sousa

Authors
  1. Anabela Botelho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lina Lourenço-Gomes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lígia Pinto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sara Sousa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Marieta Valente
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lígia Pinto.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Botelho, A., Lourenço-Gomes, L., Pinto, L. et al. Using stated preference methods to assess environmental impacts of forest biomass power plants in Portugal. Environ Dev Sustain 18, 1323–1337 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-016-9795-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-016-9795-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation