IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v224y2024ics0921800924001897.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Offsetting schemes and ecological taxes for wind power production

Author

Listed:
  • Greaker, Mads
  • Hagem, Cathrine
  • Skulstad, Andreas

Abstract

On the one hand, wind power production on land seems necessary for decarbonizing the electricity sector. On the other hand, we risk replacing one environmental problem with other environmental problems. The present paper provides a novel contribution to the literature on how to regulate the development of wind power plants on land (WPPs). Current regulation is largely based on a concession system, where both ecological taxes and offset schemes are left unexplored. We develop a theoretical model of WPP development with offsets and ecological taxes. We show that if additional loss of pristine nature and biodiversity is acceptable at some monetary price, establishing an offset market for WPP development and combining it with an ecological tax will be socially desirable. In fact, this solution is preferable to both only having an ecological tax or only having a compulsory offset market. Compared to only an ecological tax, it leads to lower environmental costs and more electricity from wind power production. By looking at a WPP project and two restoration cases, we demonstrate how an offset scheme could be conducted and conclude that offsetting WPPs could be possible. However, since wind power, to our knowledge, never have been exposed to an offsetting scheme, high quality measurement methods and thorough regulations must first be in place to ensure equivalence in the values of ecosystem services lost and gained.

Suggested Citation

  • Greaker, Mads & Hagem, Cathrine & Skulstad, Andreas, 2024. "Offsetting schemes and ecological taxes for wind power production," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 224(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:224:y:2024:i:c:s0921800924001897
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108292
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800924001897
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108292?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ladenburg, Jacob & Hevia-Koch, Pablo & Petrović, Stefan & Knapp, Lauren, 2020. "The offshore-onshore conundrum: Preferences for wind energy considering spatial data in Denmark," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    2. Dietz, Simon & Neumayer, Eric, 2007. "Weak and strong sustainability in the SEEA: Concepts and measurement," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(4), pages 617-626, March.
    3. Muradian, Roldan & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik, 2021. "Beyond ecosystem services and nature's contributions: Is it time to leave utilitarian environmentalism behind?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    4. Froger, Géraldine & Ménard, Sophie & Méral, Philippe, 2015. "Towards a comparative and critical analysis of biodiversity banks," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 152-161.
    5. Jason Harold, Valentin Bertsch, Thomas Lawrence, and Magie Hall, 2021. "Drivers of People's Preferences for Spatial Proximity to Energy Infrastructure Technologies: A Cross-country Analysis," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 4).
    6. Mattmann, Matteo & Logar, Ivana & Brouwer, Roy, 2016. "Wind power externalities: A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 23-36.
    7. Pierre Scemama & Harold Levrel, 2016. "Using Habitat Equivalency Analysis to Assess the Cost Effectiveness of Restoration Outcomes in Four Institutional Contexts," Post-Print hal-01239781, HAL.
    8. Dunford, Richard W. & Ginn, Thomas C. & Desvousges, William H., 2004. "The use of habitat equivalency analysis in natural resource damage assessments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 49-70, January.
    9. R. H. Coase, 2013. "The Problem of Social Cost," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(4), pages 837-877.
    10. Kristine Grimsrud & Cathrine Hagem & Kristina Haaskjold & Henrik Lindhjem & Megan Nowell, 2024. "Spatial Trade-Offs in National Land-Based Wind Power Production in Times of Biodiversity and Climate Crises," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 87(2), pages 401-436, February.
    11. Jason Harold & Valentin Bertsch & Thomas Lawrence & Magie Hall, 2021. "Drivers of People’s Preferences for Spatial Proximity to Energy Infrastructure Technologies: A Cross-country Analysis," The Energy Journal, , vol. 42(4), pages 47-90, July.
    12. Bjørnebye, Henrik & Hagem, Cathrine & Lind, Arne, 2018. "Optimal location of renewable power," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 1203-1215.
    13. Krekel, Christian & Zerrahn, Alexander, 2017. "Does the presence of wind turbines have negative externalities for people in their surroundings? Evidence from well-being data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 221-238.
    14. Ian J. Bateman & Georgina M. Mace, 2020. "The natural capital framework for sustainably efficient and equitable decision making," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 3(10), pages 776-783, October.
    15. Drechsler, Martin & Wätzold, Frank, 2009. "Applying tradable permits to biodiversity conservation: Effects of space-dependent conservation benefits and cost heterogeneity on habitat allocation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(4), pages 1083-1092, February.
    16. Felix Reutter & Martin Drechsler & Erik Gawel & Paul Lehmann, 2024. "Social Costs of Setback Distances for Onshore Wind Turbines: A Model Analysis Applied to the German State of Saxony," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 87(2), pages 437-463, February.
    17. Lehmann, Paul & Tafarte, Philip, 2024. "Exclusion zones for renewable energy deployment: One man’s blessing, another man’s curse," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    18. Zerrahn, Alexander, 2017. "Wind Power and Externalities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 245-260.
    19. Vaissière, Anne-Charlotte & Levrel, Harold, 2015. "Biodiversity offset markets: What are they really? An empirical approach to wetland mitigation banking," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 81-88.
    20. García, Jorge H. & Cherry, Todd L. & Kallbekken, Steffen & Torvanger, Asbjørn, 2016. "Willingness to accept local wind energy development: Does the compensation mechanism matter?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 165-173.
    21. Lauren Knapp & Jacob Ladenburg, 2015. "How Spatial Relationships Influence Economic Preferences for Wind Power—A Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-25, June.
    22. Desvousges, William H. & Gard, Nicholas & Michael, Holly J. & Chance, Anne D., 2018. "Habitat and Resource Equivalency Analysis: A Critical Assessment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 74-89.
    23. Dugstad, Anders & Grimsrud, Kristine & Kipperberg, Gorm & Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2020. "Acceptance of wind power development and exposure – Not-in-anybody's-backyard," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    24. Vatn, Arild, 2015. "Markets in environmental governance. From theory to practice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 225-233.
    25. Oliver Ruhnau & Anselm Eicke & Raffaele Sgarlato & Tim Tröndle & Lion Hirth, 2024. "Cost-Potential Curves of Onshore Wind Energy: the Role of Disamenity Costs," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 87(2), pages 347-368, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Grimsrud, Kristine & Hagem, Cathrine & Lind, Arne & Lindhjem, Henrik, 2021. "Efficient spatial distribution of wind power plants given environmental externalities due to turbines and grids," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    2. Kristine Grimsrud & Cathrine Hagem & Arne Lind & Henrik Lindhjem, 2020. "Efficient spatial allocation of wind power plants given environmental externalities due to turbines and grids," Discussion Papers 938, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    3. Tsani, Tsamara & Weinand, Jann Michael & Linßen, Jochen & Stolten, Detlef, 2024. "Quantifying social factors for onshore wind planning – A systematic review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    4. Dugstad, Anders & Grimsrud, Kristine & Kipperberg, Gorm & Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2020. "Acceptance of wind power development and exposure – Not-in-anybody's-backyard," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    5. Joalland, Olivier & Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre, 2023. "Developing large-scale offshore wind power programs: A choice experiment analysis in France," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 204(PA).
    6. Groh, Elke D., 2022. "Exposure to wind turbines, regional identity and the willingness to pay for regionally produced electricity," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    7. Anders Dugstad & Kristine Grimsrud & Gorm Kipperberg & Henrik Lindhjem & Ståle Navrud, 2020. "Acceptance of national wind power development and exposure. A case-control choice experiment approach," Discussion Papers 933, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    8. Ladenburg, Jacob & Kim, Jiwon & Zuch, Matteo & Soytas, Ugur, 2024. "Taking the carbon capture and storage, wind power, PV or other renewable technology path to fight climate change? Exploring the acceptance of climate change mitigation technologies – A Danish national," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 220(C).
    9. Anders Dugstad & Kristine M. Grimsrud & Gorm Kipperberg & Henrik Lindhjem & Ståle Navrud, 2021. "Scope Elasticity of Willingness to pay in Discrete Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 80(1), pages 21-57, September.
    10. John Dorrell & Keunjae Lee, 2020. "The Cost of Wind: Negative Economic Effects of Global Wind Energy Development," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-25, July.
    11. Anders Dugstad & Kristine Grimsrud & Gorm Kipperberg & Henrik Lindhjem & Ståle Navrud, 2020. "Scope elasticity and economic significance in discrete choice experiments," Discussion Papers 942, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    12. Peri, Erez & Becker, Nir & Tal, Alon, 2020. "What really undermines public acceptance of wind turbines? A choice experiment analysis in Israel," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    13. Cerdá, Emilio & López-Otero, Xiral & Quiroga, Sonia & Soliño, Mario, 2024. "Willingness to pay for renewables: Insights from a meta-analysis of choice experiments," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    14. Christian Krekel & Johannes Rode & Alexander Roth, 2023. "Do wind turbines have adverse health impacts," CEP Discussion Papers dp1950, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    15. Yushi Kunugi & Toshi H. Arimura & Miwa Nakai, 2021. "The Long-Term Impact of Wind Power Generation on a Local Community: Economics Analysis of Subjective Well-Being Data in Chōshi City," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-18, July.
    16. Olivier JOALLAND & Tina RAMBONILAZA, 2017. "Valeur touristique des aménités environnementales et nuisances associées aux infrastructures d’énergie renouvelable : une approche hédonique spatiale," Region et Developpement, Region et Developpement, LEAD, Universite du Sud - Toulon Var, vol. 46, pages 93-115.
    17. Lehmann, Paul & Reutter, Felix & Tafarte, Philip, 2021. "Optimal siting of onshore wind turbines: Local disamenities matter," UFZ Discussion Papers 4/2021, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    18. Russell McKenna & Stefan Pfenninger & Heidi Heinrichs & Johannes Schmidt & Iain Staffell & Katharina Gruber & Andrea N. Hahmann & Malte Jansen & Michael Klingler & Natascha Landwehr & Xiaoli Guo Lars', 2021. "Reviewing methods and assumptions for high-resolution large-scale onshore wind energy potential assessments," Papers 2103.09781, arXiv.org.
    19. Pavanelli, David Domingues & Voulvoulis, Nikolaos, 2019. "Habitat Equivalency Analysis, a framework for forensic cost evaluation of environmental damage," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    20. Dugstad, Anders & Brouwer, Roy & Grimsrud, Kristine & Kipperberg, Gorm & Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2024. "Nature is ours! – Psychological ownership and preferences for wind energy," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Wind power; Offsetting schemes; Ecological taxes; Resource equivalency analysis; Habitat equivalency analysis;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D62 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Externalities
    • Q24 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Land
    • Q26 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Recreational Aspects of Natural Resources
    • Q42 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Alternative Energy Sources
    • Q48 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Government Policy
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
    • Q56 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environment and Development; Environment and Trade; Sustainability; Environmental Accounts and Accounting; Environmental Equity; Population Growth
    • Q57 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Ecological Economics
    • Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government Policy

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:224:y:2024:i:c:s0921800924001897. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.