Advertisement

Citizens’ Versus Consumers’ Attitudes Toward Renewable Electricity: What the Literature Tells Us in a Contingent Valuation Framework

  • Simona Bigerna
  • Paolo Polinori
Chapter
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Environmental Science book series (BRIEFSENVIRONMENTAL)

Abstract

In dealing with renewable electricity (RE), individuals are involved both as end consumers on the demand side and as stakeholders (citizens) in the local production process on the supply side. Empirical evidence shows that in many countries, consumers are willing to pay a significant amount to facilitate adoption of RE. In contrast, environmental externalities are often the cause of strong opposition to RE adoption if local communities are involved as stakeholders in wind, solar, or biomass investment projects. Looking at the literature on willingness to pay and on willingness to accept, we have investigated RE acceptance mechanisms. In this chapter, we use a meta-analysis to assess the major determinants of RE acceptance on both the demand and supply sides. This meta-analysis has provided some insights that are useful for managing field research on an onshore wind farm enlargement project located in the Umbria region of Italy. The meta-analysis and survey results confirm that the local community plays a central role in local RE acceptance. Furthermore, people who have previous experience of windmills require less compensation, or are willing to pay more, for RE development. The results suggest that these attributes should be included in future research to improve understanding of determinants of RE acceptance.

Keywords

Renewable electricity Meta-analysis Willingness to pay Willingness to accept Local community 

References

  1. Aitken M (2010) Wind power and community benefits: challenges and opportunities. Energy Policy 38:6066–6075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Álvarez-Farizo B, Hanley N (2002) Using conjoint analysis to quantify public preferences over the environmental impacts of wind farms: an example from Spain. Energy Policy 30:107–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Batley SL, Fleming PD, Urwin O (2000) Willingness to pay for renewable energy: implications for UK green tariff offerings. Indoor Built Environ 9:157–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Batley SL, Colbourne D, Fleming PD, Urwin O (2001) Citizen versus consumer: challenges in the UK green power market. Energy Policy 29:479–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bergmann A, Hanley N, Wright R (2006) Valuing the attributes of renewable energy investments. Energy Policy 34:1004–1014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bigerna S, Polinori P (2013) A bidding game for Italian households’ WTP for RES. Atl Econ J 41:189–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bigerna S, Polinori P (2014) Italian households’ willingness to pay for green electricity. Renew Sust Energ Rev 34:110–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blamey R, Common M, Quiggin J (1995) Respondents to contingent valuation surveys: consumers or citizens. Aust J Agric Econ 39:263–288Google Scholar
  9. Bollino CA (2009) The willingness to pay for renewable energy sources: the case of Italy with socio demographic determinants. Energy J 30:81–96Google Scholar
  10. Borchers AM, Dukea JM, Parsons GR (2007) Does willingness to pay for green energy differs by source? Energy Policy 35:3327–3334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Borenstein M, Hedges L, Rothstein H (2007) Introduction to meta-analysis, 1st edn. www.Meta-analysis.com. Accessed 24 Sep 2014
  12. Botetzagias I, Malesios C, Kolokotroni A, Moysiadis Y (2013) The role of NIMBY in opposing the siting of wind farms: evidence from Greece. J Environ Plan Manag 58:252–269Google Scholar
  13. Byrnes B, Jones C, Goodman S (1999) Contingent valuation and real economic commitments: evidence from electric utility green pricing programs. J Environ Plan Manag 42:149–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Casimir GJ, Tobi H (2011) Defining and using the concept of household:a systematic review. Int J Consum Stud 35:498–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cass N, Walker G (2009) Emotion and rationality: the characterization and evaluation of opposition to renewable energy projects. Emot Space Soc 2:62–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Devine-Wright P (2005) Beyond NIMBYism: towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy. Wind Energy 8:125–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Devine-Wright P (2007) Reconsidering public attitudes and public acceptance of renewable energy technologies: a critical review. Research Council Energy Programme—E.S.R.C. 2007, W.P. n.4Google Scholar
  18. Devine-Wright P (2009) Rethinking NIMBYism. J Community Appl Soc Psychol 19:426–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dimitropoulos A, Kontoleon A (2009) Assessing the determinants of local acceptability of wind-farm investment: a choice experiment in the Greek Aegean Islands. Energy Policy 37:1842–1854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dimitropoulos A, Rietveld P, van Ommeren JN (2013) Consumer valuation of changes in driving range: a meta-analysis. Trans Res Part A Policy Pract 55:27–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Edmonson AC, McManus SE (2007) Methodological fit in management field research. Acad Manag Rev 32:1115–1179Google Scholar
  22. Ek K (2005) Public and private attitudes towards “green” electricity: the case of Swedish wind power. Energy Policy 33:1677–1689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ek K, Matti S (2014) 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 58:1327–1345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ek K, Persson L (2014) 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 105:193–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ek K, Söderholm P (2008) Norms and economic motivation in the Swedish green electricity market. Ecol Econ 68:169–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. European Environmental Bureau (EEB) (2010) Future of EU environmental policy. Towards the 7th environmental action programme—sustainability. Annual conference reportGoogle Scholar
  27. Frew EJ, Wolstenholme JL, Whynes DK (2004) Comparing willingness-to-pay: bidding game format versus open-ended and payment scale formats. Health Policy 68:289–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Goett AA, Hudson K, Train KE (2000) Customers’ choice among retail energy suppliers: the willingness to pay for service attributes. Energy J 4:1–28Google Scholar
  29. Groothius PA, Groothuis JD, Whitehead JC (2008) Green vs. green: measuring the compensation required to site electrical generation windmills in a viewshed. Energy Policy 36:1545–1550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Groothuis PA (2010) Land use issues: the last settler’s syndrome. J Agric Appl Econ 42:357–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Grösche P, Schröder C (2011) Eliciting public support for greening the electricity mix using random parameter techniques. Energy Econ 33:363–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hanemann M, Labandeira X, Loureiro ML (2011) Climate change, energy and social preferences on policies: exploratory evidence for Spain. Clim Res 48:343–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hanley N, MacMillan D, Wright RE, Bullock C, Simpson I, Parsisson D, Crabtree B (1998) Contingent valuation versus choice experiment: estimating benefits of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland. J Agric Econ 49:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hansla A, Gamble A, Juliusson A, Garling T (2008) Psychological determinants of attitude towards and willingness to pay for green electricity. Energy Policy 36:768–774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Herbse C, Frienge C (eds) (2017) Marketing renewable energy—concepts, business models and cases. Springer, ChamGoogle Scholar
  36. Holmgren J (2007) Meta-analysis of public transport demand. Trans Res Part A Policy Pract 41:1021–1035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Huijts NMA, Molin EJE, Steg L (2012) Psychological factors influencing sustainable energy technology acceptance: a review-based comprehensive framework. Renew Sust Energ Rev 16:525–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ivanova G (2005) Queensland consumers’ willingness to pay for electricity from renewable energy sources. In: Proceedings of the Ecological Economics in Action conference, Palmerston North, 11–12 Dec 2005Google Scholar
  39. Ivanova G (2012) Are consumers’ willingness to pay extra for the electricity from renewable energy sources. An example of Queensland Australia. Int J Renew Res 42:758–766Google Scholar
  40. Jobert A, Laborgne P, Mimler S (2007) Local acceptance of wind energy: factors of success identified in French and German case studies. Energy Policy 35:2751–2760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kaldellis JK, Kapsali M, Kaldelli E, Katsanou E (2013) Comparing recent views of public attitude on wind energy, photovoltaic and small hydro applications. Renew Energy 52:197–208Google Scholar
  42. Kim J, Park J, Kim H, Heo E (2012) Assessment of Korean customers’ willingness to pay with RPS. Renew Sust Energ Rev 16:695–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kontogianni A, Tourkolias C, Skourtos M, Damigos D (2014) Planning globally, protesting locally: patterns in community perceptions towards the installation of wind farms. Renew Energy 66:170–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Koundouri P, Kountouris Y, Remoundou K (2009) Valuing a wind farm construction: a contingent valuation study in Greece. Energy Policy 37:1939–1944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Krueger AD, Parsons GR, Firestone J (2011) Valuing the visual disamenity of offshore wind power projects at varying distances from the shore: an application on the Delaware shoreline. Land Econ 87:268–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ladenburg J (2008) Attitudes towards on-land and offshore wind power development in Denmark; choice of development strategy. Renew Energy 33:111–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ladenburg J (2009) Visual impact assessment of offshore wind farms and prior experience. Appl Energy 86:380–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ladenburg J, Lutzeyer S (2012) The economics of visual disamenity reductions of offshore wind farms—review and suggestions from an emerging field. Renew Sust Energ Rev 16:6793–6802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lancaster KJ (1966) A new approach to consumer theory. J Polit Econ 74:132–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Landry CE, Allen T, Cherry T, Whitehead JC (2012) Wind turbine and coastal recreation demand. Resour Energy Econ 34:93–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lunander A (1998) Inducing incentives to understate and to overstate willingness to pay within the open-ended and the dichotomous-choice elicitation formats: an experimental study. J Environ Econ Manag 35:88–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Meyerhoff J (2013) Do turbines in the vicinity of respondents’ residences influence choices among programs for future wind power generation? J Choice Model 7:58–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Meyerhoff J, Ohl C, Hartje V (2010) Landscape externalities from onshore wind power. Energy Policy 38:82–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mirasgedis S, Tourkolias C, Tzovla E, Diakoulaki D (2014) Valuing the visual impact of wind farms: an application in south Evia, Greece. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 39:296–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mu Y, Mu X (2013) Energy conservation in the Earth’s crust and climate change. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 63:150–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Navrud S, Bråten KG (2007) Consumers’ preferences for green and brown electricity: a choice modeling approach. Rev Econ Politiq 117:795–811Google Scholar
  57. Nelson JP, Kennedy PE (2009) The use (and abuse) of meta-analysis in environmental and natural resource economics: an assessment. Environ Resour Econ 42:345–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Nomura N, Akay M (2004) WTP for green electricity in Japan as estimated through contingent valuation method. Appl Energy 78:453–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Portney PR (1994) The contingent valuation debate: why economists should care. J Econ Perspect 8:3–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Read DL, Brown RF, Thorsteinsson EB, Morgan M, Price I (2013) The theory of planned behavior as a model for predicting public opposition to wind farm development. J Environ Psychol 36:70–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Rowlands IH, Scott D, Parker P (2003) Consumers and green electricity: profiling potential purchasers. Bus Strategy Environ 12:36–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sagoff M (1998) Aggregation and deliberation in valuing environmental public goods: a look beyond contingent pricing. Ecol Econ 24:213–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Stanley TD, Doucouliagos H (2013) Better than random: weighted least squares meta-regression analysis. School Working Paper—Economic Series—Deakin University, 2/2013. http://www.deakin.edu.au/buslaw/aef/workingpapers/papers/2013_2.pdf. Accessed 14 Feb 2014
  64. Stanley TD, Doucouliagos H, Giles M, Heckemeyer JH, Johnston RJ, Laroche P, Nelson JP, Paldam M, Poot J, Pugh G et al (2013) Meta-analysis of economics research reporting guidelines: reporting guidelines for meta-regression analysis in economics. J Econ Surv 27:390–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Stigka EK, Paravantis JA, Mihalakakou GK (2014) Social acceptance of renewable energy sources: a review of contingent valuation applications. Renew Sust Energ Rev 32:100–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Strazzera E, Mura M, Contu D (2012) Combining choice experiments with psychometric scales to assess the social acceptability of wind energy projects: a latent class approach. Energy Policy 48:334–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. van Rensburg TM, Kelley H, Jeserich N (2015) What influences the probability of wind farm planning approval: evidence from Ireland. Ecol Econ 111:12–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wolsink M (2000) Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support. Renew Energ 21:49–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wosink M (2007) Wind power implementation: the nature of public attitudes: equity and fairness instead of ‘backyard motives’. Energy Policy 11:1188–1207Google Scholar
  70. Wüstenhagen RW, Markard J, Truffer B (2003) Diffusion of green power products in Switzerland. Energy Policy 31:621–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wüstenhagen R, Wolsink M, Bürer MJ (2007) Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: an introduction to the concept. Energy Policy 35:2683–2691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Yoo SH, Kwak SY (2009) Willingness to pay for green electricity in Korea: a contingent valuation study. Energy Policy 37:5408–5416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Zhang L, Wu Y (2012) Market segmentation and willingness to pay for green electricity among urban residents in China: the case of Jiangsu Province. Energy Policy 51:514–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Zoric J, Hrovatin N (2012) Household willingness to pay for green electricity in Slovenia. Energy Policy 47:180–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simona Bigerna
    • 1
  • Paolo Polinori
    • 1
  1. 1.Università di PerugiaPerugiaItaly

Personalised recommendations