Discrete-choice experiments valuing local environmental impacts of renewables: two approaches to a case study in Portugal

  • Anabela Botelho
  • Lina Lourenço-Gomes
  • Lígia M. Costa Pinto
  • Sara Sousa
  • Marieta Valente
Article
  • 4 Downloads

Abstract

Despite the often mentioned environmental benefits associated with transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources, their use for electricity production has non-negligible negative environmental impacts. The most commonly mentioned in surveys concern different types of landscape impacts, impacts on the fauna and flora, and noise. These impacts differ by size and location of plants, and by source of energy, rendering the policy decision complex. In addition, there are other welfare issues to take into consideration, as positive and negative environmental impacts are not evenly distributed among population groups. This paper proposes to compare the welfare impacts of renewable energy sources controlling for the type of renewable as well as the specific environmental impact by source. To this end, two discrete-choice experiments are designed and applied to a national sample of the Portuguese population. In one case, only individual negative impacts of renewables are used, and in another case, the negative impacts interact with a specific source. Results show the robustness of discrete-choice experiments as a method to estimate the welfare change induced by the impacts of renewable energy sources. Overall, respondents are willing to pay to reduce the environmental impacts, thus making compensation for local impacts feasible. Moreover, the estimations reveal that respondents are significantly sensitive to the detrimental environmental effects of specific renewable energy sources, being willing to pay more to use these sources of energy relative to others.

Keywords

Renewable energy sources Discrete-choice experiments Environmental impacts Public attitudes 

References

  1. Bakken, T. H., Aase, A. G., Hagen, D., Sundt, H., Barton, D. N., & Lujala, P. (2014). Demonstrating a new framework for the comparison of environmental impacts from small- and large-scale hydropower and wind power projects. Journal of Environmental Management, 140, 93–101.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.01.050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bakken, T. H., Sundt, H., Ruud, A., & Harby, A. (2012). Development of small versus large hydropower in norway—Comparison of environmental impacts. Energy Procedia, 20, 185–199.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2012.03.019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bakker, R. H., Pedersen, E., van den Berg, G. P., Stewart, R. E., Lok, W., & Bouma, J. (2012). Impact of wind turbine sound on annoyance, self-reported sleep disturbance and psychological distress. Science of the Total Environment, 425, 42–51.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.03.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Batel, S., & Devine-Wright, P. (2015). A critical and empirical analysis of the national-local ‘gap’ in public responses to large-scale energy infrastructures. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 58(6), 1076–1095.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2014.914020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bateman, I. J., Carson, R. T., Day, B., Hanemann, M., Hanley, N., Hett, T., et al. (2002). Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: A manual. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bergmann, A., Hanley, N., & Wright, R. (2006). Valuing the attributes of renewable energy investments. Energy Policy, 34(9), 1004–1014.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2004.08.035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Borchers, A. M., Duke, J. M., & Parsons, G. R. (2007). Does willingness to pay for green energy differ by source? Energy Policy, 35(6), 3327–3334.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2006.12.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Borenstein, S. (2012). The private and public economics of renewable electricity generation. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(1), 67–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Botelho, A., Arezes, P., Bernardo, C., Dias, H., & Pinto, L. (2017a). Effect of wind farm noise on local residents’ decision to adopt mitigation measures. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(7), 753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Botelho, A., Ferreira, P., Lima, F., Pinto, L. M. C., & Sousa, S. (2017b). Assessment of the environmental impacts associated with hydropower. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 70, 896–904.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Botelho, A., Lourenço-Gomes, L., Pinto, L., & Sousa, S. (2014). How to design reliable discrete choice surveys: The use of qualitative research methods. Paper presented at the ICOPEV 20142nd international conference on project evaluation (proceedings), Guimarães Portugal.Google Scholar
  12. Botelho, A., Lourenço-Gomes, L., Pinto, L. M. C., Sousa, P., Sousa, S., & Valente, M. (2015). Using choice experiments to assess environmental impacts of dams in Portugal. AIMS Energy, 3(2333–8334), 316–325.  https://doi.org/10.3934/energy.2015.3.316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Botelho, A., Lourenço-Gomes, L., Pinto, L., Sousa, S., & Valente, M. (2016a). Using stated preference methods to assess environmental impacts of forest biomass power plants in Portugal. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 18(5), 1323–1337.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-016-9795-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Botelho, A., Lourenço-Gomes, L., Pinto, L., Sousa, S., & Valente, M. (2017c). Accounting for local impacts of photovoltaic farms: The application of two stated preferences approaches to a case-study in Portugal. Energy Policy, 109, 191–198.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.06.065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Botelho, A., Pinto, L. M., Lourenço-Gomes, L., Valente, M., & Sousa, S. (2016b). Public perceptions of environmental friendliness of renewable energy power plants. Energy Procedia, 106, 73–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Botelho, A., Pinto, L. M. C., Lourenço-Gomes, L., Valente, M., & Sousa, S. (2016c). Social sustainability of renewable energy sources in electricity production: An application of the contingent valuation method. Sustainable Cities and Society, 26, 429–437.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2016.05.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Champ, P., Brown, T., & Boyle, K. (2003). Primer on nonmarket valuation. The economics of nonmarket goods and resource (Vol. 3). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chiabrando, R., Fabrizio, E., & Garnero, G. (2009). The territorial and landscape impacts of photovoltaic systems: Definition of impacts and assessment of the glare risk. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13(9), 2441–2451.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.06.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cicia, G., Cembalo, L., Del Giudice, T., & Palladino, A. (2012). Fossil energy versus nuclear, wind, solar and agricultural biomass: Insights from an Italian national survey. Energy Policy, 42(Supplement C), 59–66.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.11.030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Costa, A., Caldas, J. C., Coelho, R., Ferreiro, Md F, & Gonçalves, V. (2016). The building of a dam: Value conflicts in public decision-making. Environmental Values, 25(2), 215–234.  https://doi.org/10.3197/096327116X14552114338909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Devine-Wright, P. (2005). Beyond NIMBYism: Towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy. Wind Energy, 8(2), 125–139.  https://doi.org/10.1002/we.124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. DGEG. (2015). Renováveis—Estatísticas rápidas n. 134 dezembro 2015, available at www.dgeg.pt. Direção Geral de Energia e Geologia.
  23. DGEG. (2017). Renováveis—Estatísticas rápidas n. 149 marco 2017. Available at www.dgeg.pt. Direção Geral de Energia e Geologia.
  24. Enevoldsen, P., & Sovacool, B. K. (2016). Examining the social acceptance of wind energy: Practical guidelines for onshore wind project development in France. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 53, 178–184.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.08.041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. EU. (2009). Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources. Official Journal of the European Union. http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2009/28/oj.
  26. European Commission. (2014). Special Eurobarometer 409Climate change: Conducted by TNS opinion & social at the request of European Commission, Directorate-General for Climate Action (DG CLIMA) and co-ordinated by the Directorate-General for Communication.Google Scholar
  27. Ferreiro, Md F, Gonçalves, M. E., & Costa, A. (2013). Conflicting values and public decision: The Foz Côa case. Ecological Economics, 86, 129–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Firestone, J., Bates, A., & Knapp, L. A. (2015). See me, feel me, touch me, heal me: Wind turbines, culture, landscapes, and sound impressions. Land Use Policy, 46, 241–249.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.02.015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gasparatos, A., Doll, C. N. H., Esteban, M., Ahmed, A., & Olang, T. A. (2017). Renewable energy and biodiversity: Implications for transitioning to a Green Economy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 70, 161–184.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.08.030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gracia, A., Barreiro-Hurlé, J., & Pérez y Pérez, L. (2012). Can renewable energy be financed with higher electricity prices? Evidence from a Spanish region. Energy Policy, 50, 784–794.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.08.028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Greene, W. H. (2012). Econometric analysis (7th ed.). New York: Pearson.Google Scholar
  32. Gunawardena, U. A. D. P. (2010). Inequalities and externalities of power sector: A case of Broadlands hydropower project in Sri Lanka. Energy Policy, 38(2), 726–734.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.10.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Han, S.-Y., Kwak, S.-J., & Yoo, S.-H. (2008). Valuing environmental impacts of large dam construction in Korea: An application of choice experiments. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 28(4), 256–266.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2007.07.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hanley, N., Mourato, S., & Wright, R. E. (2001). Choice modelling approaches: A superior alternative for environmental valuation? Journal of Economic Surveys, 15(3), 435–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hanley, N., Wright, R., & Adamowicz, V. (1998). Using choice experiments to value the environment. Environmental & Resource Economics, 11(3–4), 413–428.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008287310583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hensher, D. A., & Greene, W. H. (2003). The mixed logit model: The state of practice. Transportation, 30(2), 133–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ho, C. K. (2013). Relieving a glaring problem. Solar Today, 27, 28–31.Google Scholar
  38. IEA/OECD. (1998). Benign energy? The environmental implications of renewables. ‎Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and International Energy Agency.Google Scholar
  39. Johnston, R. J., Boyle, K. J., Adamowicz, W., Bennett, J., Brouwer, R., Cameron, T. A., et al. (2017). Contemporary guidance for stated preference studies. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 4(2), 319–405.  https://doi.org/10.1086/691697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Komarek, T. M., Lupi, F., & Kaplowitz, M. D. (2011). Valuing energy policy attributes for environmental management: Choice experiment evidence from a research institution. Energy Policy, 39(9), 5105–5115.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.05.054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kosenius, A.-K., & Ollikainen, M. (2013). Valuation of environmental and societal trade-offs of renewable energy sources. Energy Policy, 62, 1148–1156.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.07.020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lackner, K. S., & Sachs, J. (2005). A robust strategy for sustainable energy. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2005(2), 215–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lancaster, K. J. (1966). A new approach to consumer theory. The Journal of Political Economy, 74(2), 132–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Langer, K., Decker, T., Roosen, J., & Menrad, K. (2016). A qualitative analysis to understand the acceptance of wind energy in Bavaria. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 64, 248–259.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.05.084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lovich, J. E., & Ennen, J. R. (2011). Wildlife conservation and solar energy development in the desert southwest, United States. BioScience, 61(12), 982–992.  https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2011.61.12.8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. McFadden, D., & Train, K. (2000). Mixed MNL models for discrete response. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 15, 447–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mérida-Rodríguez, M., Lobón-Martín, R., & Perles-Roselló, M.-J. (2015). The production of solar photovoltaic power and its landscape dimension. In M. Frolova, M.-J. Prados (Eds.), Renewable energies and European landscapes: Lessons from Southern European cases (pp. 255–277). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pearce, D., Mourato, S., & Atkinson, G. (2006). Cost Benefit Analysis and the Environment: Recent Developments: Source OECD Environment and Sustainable Development.Google Scholar
  49. Pedersen, E., Hallberg, L.-M., & Waye, K. P. (2007). Living in the vicinity of wind turbines—A grounded theory study. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 4(1–2), 49–63.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14780880701473409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ponce, R. D., Vásquez, F., Stehr, A., Debels, P., & Orihuela, C. (2011). Estimating the economic value of landscape losses due to flooding by hydropower plants in the Chilean Patagonia. Water Resources Management, 25(10), 2449.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-011-9820-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rose, T., & Wollert, A. (2015). The dark side of photovoltaic—3D simulation of glare assessing risk and discomfort. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 52, 24–30.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2014.08.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rosenberg, D. M., Bodaly, R. A., & Usher, P. J. (1995). Environmental and social impacts of large scale hydroelectric development: Who is listening? Global Environmental Change, 5(2), 127–148.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-3780(95)00018-J.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Scherhaufer, P., Höltinger, S., Salak, B., Schauppenlehner, T., & Schmidt, J. (2017). Patterns of acceptance and non-acceptance within energy landscapes: A case study on wind energy expansion in Austria. Energy Policy.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.05.057.Google Scholar
  55. Siciliano, G., Urban, F., Kim, S., & Dara Lonn, P. (2015). Hydropower, social priorities and the rural–urban development divide: The case of large dams in Cambodia. Energy Policy, 86, 273–285.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.07.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Soon, J.-J., & Ahmad, S.-A. (2015). Willingly or grudgingly? A meta-analysis on the willingness-to-pay for renewable energy use. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 44, 877–887.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.01.041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sundt, S., & Rehdanz, K. (2015). Consumers’ willingness to pay for green electricity: A meta-analysis of the literature. Energy Economics, 51, 1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2015.06.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sütterlin, B., & Siegrist, M. (2017). Public acceptance of renewable energy technologies from an abstract versus concrete perspective and the positive imagery of solar power. Energy Policy, 106, 356–366.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.03.061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tilt, B., Braun, Y., & He, D. (2009). Social impacts of large dam projects: A comparison of international case studies and implications for best practice. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, S249–S257.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.07.030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Torres-Sibille, Ad C, Cloquell-Ballester, V.-A., Cloquell-Ballester, V.-A., & Artacho Ramírez, M. Á. (2009). Aesthetic impact assessment of solar power plants: An objective and a subjective approach. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13(5), 986–999.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2008.03.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tsoutsos, T., Frantzeskaki, N., & Gekas, V. (2005). Environmental impacts from the solar energy technologies. Energy Policy, 33(3), 289–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wang, S., Wang, S., & Smith, P. (2015). Ecological impacts of wind farms on birds: Questions, hypotheses, and research needs. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 44, 599–607.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.01.031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Welsch, H. (2016). electricity externalities, siting, and the energy mix: A survey. International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, 10(1), 57–94.  https://doi.org/10.1561/101.00000083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wolsink, M. (2007). Wind power implementation: The nature of public attitudes: Equity and fairness instead of ‘backyard motives’. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 11(6), 1188–1207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Yang, Y., Solgaard, H. S., & Haider, W. (2016). Wind, hydro or mixed renewable energy source: Preference for electricity products when the share of renewable energy increases. Energy Policy, 97, 521–531.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.07.030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Zhao, Q., Liu, S., Deng, L., Dong, S., Yang, Z., & Yang, J. (2012). Landscape change and hydrologic alteration associated with dam construction. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 16, 17–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DEGEIT and GOVCOPP, University of AveiroAveiroPortugal
  2. 2.CETRAD and DESG, University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto DouroVila RealPortugal
  3. 3.EEG and NIPE, University of MinhoBragaPortugal
  4. 4.ISCAC, Polytechnic Institute of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal

Personalised recommendations