Advertisement

Evaluating an Onshore Wind Farm Enlargement Project: A Contingent Valuation Study in Central Italy

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

Abstract

In many European countries the most suitable onshore sites for wind installations are almost fully engaged; furthermore, the existing onshore wind farm capacity will be replaced in the next 10 years, given that wind power plants are progressively aging; without an adequate policy intervention, the Italian installed wind power capacity would return to the size of 2011 by 2030. In this scenario, two opportunities exist for further growth in wind energy generation: repowering or wind farm enlargement. The choice between these two options mainly depends on local characteristics. The aim of this chapter is twofold. First, we investigate whether existing wind farms affect respondents’ attitudes and perceptions towards the potential enlargement of a wind farm, using a contingent valuation (CV) method. Second, we investigate the perception of the risk associated with the enlargement of a wind farm. In this case we explicitly take into account the existence of respondents’ heterogeneity in perceiving the new project externalities. To do this, we use both willingness to pay (WTP) and willingness to accept (WTA) measures in order to appraise welfare change due to the enlargement project. Each of these measures is elicited jointly with the respective appraised externality impact perceived by the respondents. The findings can offer useful insights for planning and design of enlargement schemes in order to achieve further growth in wind energy generation.

Keywords

Wind farm enlargement Contingent valuation Willingness to pay Willingness to accept Uncertainty 

References

  1. 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
  2. ANEV (2017) Eolico in Italia: inerzia o full support? [in Italian]. http://www.anev.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Brochure-ANEVelements195x280_2017web.pdf. Accessed 20 Mar 2017
  3. Bergmann A, Hanley N, Wright R (2006) Valuing the attributes of renewable energy investments. Energy Policy 34:1004–1014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cooper JC, Osborn CT (1998) The effect of rental rates on the extension of conservation reserve program contracts. Am J Agric Econ 80:184–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. EEA (2017) Renewable energy in Europe 2016—recent growth and knock-on effects. http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/renewable-energy-in-europe-2016/download. Accessed 7 June 2017
  7. Ek K (2005) Public and private attitudes towards “green” electricity: the case of Swedish wind power. Energy Policy 33:1677–1689Google Scholar
  8. 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 socio-cultural values. J Environ Plan Manag 58:1327–1345Google Scholar
  9. Evans MF, Flores NE, Boyle KJ (2003) Multiple-bounded uncertainty choice data as probabilistic intentions. Land Econ 79:549–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Frantàl B (2015) Have local government and public expectations of wind energy project benefits been met? Implications for repowering schemes. J Environ Policy Plan 17:217–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Freeman AM (1993) The measurement of environmental and resource values. Resources for the Future, 1st Ed. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  12. Frew E, Wolstenholme J, Whynes D (2004) Comparing willingness-to-pay: bidding game format versus open-ended and payment scale formats. Health Policy 68:289–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Friedl C, Reichl J (2016) Realizing energy infrastructure projects: a qualitative empirical analysis of local practices to address social acceptance. Energy Policy 89:184–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Groothius PA, Groothuis JD, Whitehead JC (2008) Green vs. green: measuring the compensation required to site electrical generation windmills in a view shed. Energy Policy 36:1545–1550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Groothuis PA, van Houtven G, Whitehead JC (1998) Using contingent valuation to measure the compensation required to gain community acceptance of a LULU: the case of a hazardous waste disposal facility. Public Finance Rev 26:231–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Huijts NMA, Molin EJE, Steg L (2012) Psychological factors influencing sustainable energy technology acceptance: a review-based comprehensive framework. Renew Sust Energ Rev 16:525–531Google Scholar
  17. Jones CR, Eiser JR (2010) Understanding ‘local’ opposition to wind development in the UK: how big is a backyard? Energy Policy 38:3106–3117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jones CR, Orr BJ, Eiser JR (2011) When is enough, enough? Identifying predictors of capacity estimates for onshore wind-power development in a region of the UK. Energy Policy 39:4563–4577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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 52:197–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Leung DYC, Yang Y (2012) Wind energy development and its environmental impact: a review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 16:1031–1039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Loomis J (2011) What’s to know about hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation studies? J Econ Surv 2:363–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Loomis JB (2014) Strategies for overcoming hypothetical bias in stated preference surveys. J Agric Resour Econ 39:34–46MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Mattmann M, Logar I, Brouwer R (2016) Wind power externalities: a meta-analysis. Ecol Econ 127:23–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Meyerhoff J, Ohl C, Hartje V (2010) Landscape externalities from onshore wind power. Energy Policy 38:82–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mirasgedis S, Tourkolias C, Tzovla E, Diakoulaki D (2014) Valuing the visual impact of wind farms: an application in South Evia, Greece. Renew Sust Energ Rev 39:296–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1989) Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Resources for the Future, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  29. Moran D, Sherrington C (2007) An economic assessment of windfarm power generation in Scotland including externalities. Energy Policy 35:2811–2825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mozumder P, Helton R, Berrens RP (2009) Provision of a wildfire risk map: informing residents in the wild land urban interface. Risk Anal 29:1588–1600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nimbyforum (2016) Osservatorio media permanente Nimby Forum [in Italian]. http://www.nimbyforum.it/. Accessed 21 May 2017
  32. Park T, Loomis JB (1996) Joint estimation of contingent valuation survey responses. Environ Resour Econ 7:149–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Parkhill KA, Pidgeon NF, Henwood KL, Simmons P, Venables D (2010) From the familiar to the extraordinary: local residents’ perceptions of risk when living with nuclear power in the UK. Trans Inst Br Geogr 35:39–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rand J, Hoen B (2017) Thirty years of North American wind energy acceptance research: what have we learned? Energy Res Soc Sci 29:135–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Read DL, Brown RF, Thorsteinsson EB, Morgan M, Price I (2013) The theory of planned behaviour as a model for predicting public opposition to wind farm developments. J Environ Psychol 36:70–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Riddel M, Loomis JB (1998) Joint estimation of multiple CVM scenarios under a double bounded questioning format. Environ Resour Econ 12:77–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rygg BJ (2012) Wind power—an assault on local landscapes or an opportunity for modernization? Energy Policy 48:167–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shaikh SL, Sun L, van Kooten GC (2007) Treating respondent uncertainty in contingent valuation: a comparison of empirical treatments. Ecol Econ 62:115–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Slattery MC, Johnson BL, Swofford J, Pasqualetti MJ (2012) The predominance of economic development in the support for large-scale wind farms in the US Great Plains. Renew Sust Energ Rev 16:3690–3701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Soderqvist T, Soutukorva A (2006) An instrument for assessing the quality of environmental valuation studies. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Stockholm https://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer/620-1252-5.pdf. Accessed 11 Feb 2010Google Scholar
  41. 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 48:334–347Google Scholar
  42. Swofford J, Slattery M (2010) Public attitudes of wind energy in Texas: local communities in close proximity to wind farms and their effect on decision-making. Energy Policy 38:2508–2519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wüstenhagen R, Wolsink M, Bürer MJ (2007) Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: an introduction to the concept. Energy Policy 35:2683–2691Google Scholar
  44. Zellner A (1962) An efficient method of estimating seemingly unrelated regressions and tests for aggregation bias. J Am Stat Assoc 57:348–368MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zerrahn A (2017) Wind power and externalities. Ecol Econ 141(C):245–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.02.016

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