IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v39y2011i5p2560-2567.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Households' willingness to pay for overhead-to-underground conversion of electricity distribution networks

Author

Listed:
  • McNair, Ben J.
  • Bennett, Jeff
  • Hensher, David A.
  • Rose, John M.

Abstract

Underground low-voltage electricity networks have several advantages over overhead networks including reliability of supply, safety and improved visual amenity. The economic viability of replacing existing overhead networks with new underground networks depends on the value of these benefits to households, but no complete value estimates are available in the literature. This paper represents a contribution towards addressing this research gap. A stated choice survey is used to estimate willingness to pay for undergrounding in established residential areas in Canberra, Australia. Average willingness to pay is at least A$6838 per household and there is significant variation in preferences over the population. The results suggest that benefits would be highest in areas with higher household income and older residents where visual amenity, safety, tree trimming, or restrictions on the use of yard space are of concern.

Suggested Citation

  • McNair, Ben J. & Bennett, Jeff & Hensher, David A. & Rose, John M., 2011. "Households' willingness to pay for overhead-to-underground conversion of electricity distribution networks," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 2560-2567, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:39:y:2011:i:5:p:2560-2567
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301-4215(11)00103-0
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. John W. Duffield & David A. Patterson, 1991. "Inference and Optimal Design for a Welfare Measure in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 67(2), pages 225-239.
    2. Small, Kenneth A & Rosen, Harvey S, 1981. "Applied Welfare Economics with Discrete Choice Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(1), pages 105-130, January.
    3. Christine Seller & John R. Stoll & Jean-Paul Chavas, 1985. "Validation of Empirical Measures of Welfare Change: A Comparison of Nonmarket Techniques," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 62(2), pages 156-175.
    4. McNair, Ben J. & Bennett, Jeff & Hensher, David A., 2011. "A comparison of responses to single and repeated discrete choice questions," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 554-571, September.
    5. Carlsson, Fredrik & Martinsson, Peter, 2008. "Does it matter when a power outage occurs? -- A choice experiment study on the willingness to pay to avoid power outages," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 1232-1245, May.
    6. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    7. Rosen, Sherwin, 1974. "Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in Pure Competition," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 82(1), pages 34-55, Jan.-Feb..
    8. Ben McNair & Peter Abelson, 2010. "Estimating the Value of Undergrounding Electricity and Telecommunications Networks," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 43(4), pages 376-388, December.
    9. Brookshire, David S, et al, 1982. "Valuing Public Goods: A Comparison of Survey and Hedonic Approaches," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(1), pages 165-177, March.
    10. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-719, November.
    11. Joseph Cooper & John Loomis, 1992. "Sensitivity of Willingness-to-Pay Estimates to Bid Design in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Models," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 68(2), pages 211-224.
    12. Fredrik Carlsson & Peter Martinsson, 2007. "Willingness to Pay among Swedish Households to Avoid Power Outages: A Random Parameter Tobit Model Approach," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 1), pages 75-90.
    13. McConnell K. E., 1995. "Consumer Surplus from Discrete Choice Models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 263-270, November.
    14. Beenstock, Michael & Goldin, Ephraim & Haitovsky, Yoel, 1998. "Response bias in a conjoint analysis of power outages," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 135-156, April.
    15. Morten Mørkbak & Tove Christensen & Dorte Gyrd-Hansen, 2010. "Choke Price Bias in Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 45(4), pages 537-551, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Laura-Lucia Richter & Melvyn Weeks, 2016. "Flexible Mixed Logit with Posterior Analysis: Exploring Willingness-to-Pay for Grid Resilience," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1631, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    2. Ben McNair & David Hensher & Jeff Bennett, 2012. "Modelling Heterogeneity in Response Behaviour Towards a Sequence of Discrete Choice Questions: A Probabilistic Decision Process Model," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 599-616, April.
    3. Mariel, Petr & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Hess, Stephane, 2015. "Heterogeneous preferences toward landscape externalities of wind turbines – combining choices and attitudes in a hybrid model," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 647-657.
    4. Mueller, Christoph Emanuel & Keil, Silke Inga & Bauer, Christian, 2019. "Underground cables vs. overhead lines: Quasi-experimental evidence for the effects on public risk expectations, attitudes, and protest behavior," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 456-466.
    5. Kim, Hyo-Jin & Lim, Seul-Ye & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2017. "Is the Korean public willing to pay for a decentralized generation source? The case of natural gas-based combined heat and power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 125-131.
    6. Shota Ishigooka & Tatsuhito Kono & Hajime Seya, 2021. "Urban Esthetic Benefits of Undergrounding Utility Lines in Consideration of the Three-Dimensional Landscape," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-19, December.
    7. Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2013. "Do turbines in the vicinity of respondents' residences influence choices among programmes for future wind power generation?," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 58-71.
    8. Choi, Hyunhong & Shim, Dongnyok & Kim, Seung Wan, 2024. "Heterogeneous public preferences for undergrounding high-voltage power transmission lines: The case of Seoul metropolitan area in South Korea," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    9. Oehlmann, Malte & Glenk, Klaus & Lloyd-Smith, Patrick & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2021. "Quantifying landscape externalities of renewable energy development: Implications of attribute cut-offs in choice experiments," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    10. Saastamoinen, Antti & Kuosmanen, Timo, 2016. "Quality frontier of electricity distribution: Supply security, best practices, and underground cabling in Finland," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 281-292.

    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. McNair, Ben J. & Bennett, Jeff & Hensher, David A., 2010. "Households’ Willingness to Pay for Undergrounding Electricity and Telecommunications Wires," MPRA Paper 23164, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. McNair, Ben J. & Bennett, Jeff & Hensher, David A., 2011. "A comparison of responses to single and repeated discrete choice questions," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 554-571, September.
    3. Timothy C. Haab & Kenneth E. McConnell, "undated". "Intuitive Bounds on Willingness to Pay," Working Papers 9609, East Carolina University, Department of Economics.
    4. Paul Maliszewski & Elisabeth Larson & Charles Perrings, 2013. "Valuing the Reliability of the Electrical Power Infrastructure: A Two-stage Hedonic Approach," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 50(1), pages 72-87, January.
    5. Ozbafli, Aygul & Jenkins, Glenn P., 2016. "Estimating the willingness to pay for reliable electricity supply: A choice experiment study," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 443-452.
    6. Kim, Kayoung & Nam, Heekoo & Cho, Youngsang, 2015. "Estimation of the inconvenience cost of a rolling blackout in the residential sector: The case of South Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 76-86.
    7. Richard Yao & Pamela Kaval, 2008. "Valuing Biodiversity Enhancement in New Zealand," Working Papers in Economics 08/07, University of Waikato.
    8. Mogas, Joan & Riera, Pere & Bennett, Jeff, 2006. "A comparison of contingent valuation and choice modelling with second-order interactions," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 5-30, March.
    9. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    10. McNair, Ben J. & Hensher, David A. & Bennett, Jeff, 2010. "Modelling heterogeneity in response behaviour towards a sequence of discrete choice questions: a latent class approach," MPRA Paper 23427, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Lim, Kyoung-Min & Lim, Seul-Ye & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2014. "Estimating the economic value of residential electricity use in the Republic of Korea using contingent valuation," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 601-606.
    12. Samnaliev, Mihail & Stevens, Thomas H. & More, Thomas, 2006. "A comparison of alternative certainty calibration techniques in contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 507-519, May.
    13. Poe, Gregory L. & Bishop, Richard C., 1992. "Measuring the Benefits of Groundwater Protection from Agricultural Contamination: Results from a Two-Stage Contingent Valuation Study," Staff Papers 200549, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    14. T.A. Cameron & D.D. Huppert, 1988. ""Referendum" Contingent Valuation Estimates: Sensitivity to the Assignment of Offered Values," UCLA Economics Working Papers 519, UCLA Department of Economics.
    15. Ndebele, Tom & Forgie, Vicky, 2017. "Estimating the economic benefits of a wetland restoration programme in New Zealand: A contingent valuation approach," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 75-89.
    16. Woo, C.K. & Ho, T. & Shiu, A. & Cheng, Y.S. & Horowitz, I. & Wang, J., 2014. "Residential outage cost estimation: Hong Kong," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 204-210.
    17. Mora Rodriguez, Jhon James, 2013. "Introduccion a la teoría del consumidor [Introduction to Consumer Theory]," MPRA Paper 48129, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 08 Jul 2013.
    18. Kline, Jeffrey D. & Alig, Ralph J. & Johnson, Rebecca L., 2000. "Forest owner incentives to protect riparian habitat," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 29-43, April.
    19. Carmelo Javier León, 1995. "El método dicotómico de valoración contingente: una aplicación a los espacios naturales en Gran Canaria," Investigaciones Economicas, Fundación SEPI, vol. 19(1), pages 83-106, January.
    20. d'Arge, Ralph C. & Shogren, Jason F., 1989. "Okoboji experiment: Comparing non-market valuation techniques in an unusually well-defined market for water quality," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(3), pages 251-259, October.

    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:enepol:v:39:y:2011:i:5:p:2560-2567. 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/enpol .

    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.