IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i20p11325-d655574.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Analyzing the Impact of Agrophotovoltaic Power Plants on the Amenity Value of Agricultural Landscape: The Case of the Republic of Korea

Author

Listed:
  • Tae-Hwa Kim

    (Department of Food and Resource Economics, Korea University, Seoul 02841, Korea)

  • Ki-Suk Chun

    (Department of Food and Resource Economics, Korea University, Seoul 02841, Korea)

  • Seung-Ryong Yang

    (Department of Food and Resource Economics, Korea University, Seoul 02841, Korea)

Abstract

Recently, in Korea, there have been some disturbing events forcing a trade-off between the expansion of agrophotovoltaic (APV) power plants and the agricultural policy to enhance the public benefit function of agriculture. Under this context, this study attempts to examine the public perception of agricultural landscape and the APV power plants and to analyze the impact of APV power plants on the amenity value of the agricultural landscape. The results of the analysis based on the choice experiment method shows that the marginal willingness-to-pay for a rural tourism accommodation with a ‘agricultural landscape view’ is USD 64.37 higher compared to ‘agrophotovoltaics panel view.’ This implies that the value of the agricultural landscape decreases when solar panels are installed on farmland, signifying the detrimental impact of the APV power plants on the multi-functionality of agriculture. If the installation of APVs is expanded to farmlands nationwide, the amenity value of agricultural landscape is estimated to decrease by USD 1.70 billion or 55.0% of the total estimated amenity value in Korea.

Suggested Citation

  • Tae-Hwa Kim & Ki-Suk Chun & Seung-Ryong Yang, 2021. "Analyzing the Impact of Agrophotovoltaic Power Plants on the Amenity Value of Agricultural Landscape: The Case of the Republic of Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-16, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:20:p:11325-:d:655574
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/20/11325/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/20/11325/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
    2. Schindele, Stephan & Trommsdorff, Maximilian & Schlaak, Albert & Obergfell, Tabea & Bopp, Georg & Reise, Christian & Braun, Christian & Weselek, Axel & Bauerle, Andrea & Högy, Petra & Goetzberger, Ado, 2020. "Implementation of agrophotovoltaics: Techno-economic analysis of the price-performance ratio and its policy implications," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 265(C).
    3. Rambonilaza, Tina, 2005. "Land-use planning and public preferences: What can we learn from choice experiments method?," MPRA Paper 9225, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised May 2007.
    4. Zoellner, Jan & Schweizer-Ries, Petra & Wemheuer, Christin, 2008. "Public acceptance of renewable energies: Results from case studies in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(11), pages 4136-4141, November.
    5. Carlos Toledo & Alessandra Scognamiglio, 2021. "Agrivoltaic Systems Design and Assessment: A Critical Review, and a Descriptive Model towards a Sustainable Landscape Vision (Three-Dimensional Agrivoltaic Patterns)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-38, June.
    6. Steffen Jenner, Gabriel Chan, Rolf Frankenberger, and Mathias Gabel, 2012. "What Drives States to Support Renewable Energy?," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 2).
    7. Kati Häfner & Ingo Zasada & Boris T. van Zanten & Fabrizio Ungaro & Mark Koetse & Annette Piorr, 2018. "Assessing landscape preferences: a visual choice experiment in the agricultural region of Märkische Schweiz, Germany," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(6), pages 846-861, August.
    8. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    9. Jeff Bennett & Russell Blamey (ed.), 2001. "The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2028.
    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. Youngjin Kim & Yeongjae On & Junyong So & Sumin Kim & Sojung Kim, 2023. "A Decision Support Software Application for the Design of Agrophotovoltaic Systems in Republic of Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-17, May.
    2. Hyun Jo & Sovetgul Asekova & Mohammad Amin Bayat & Liakat Ali & Jong Tae Song & Yu-Shin Ha & Dong-Hyuck Hong & Jeong-Dong Lee, 2022. "Comparison of Yield and Yield Components of Several Crops Grown under Agro-Photovoltaic System in Korea," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-13, April.

    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. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    2. De Ayala Bilbao, Amaya & Hoyos Ramos, David & Mariel Chladkova, Petr, 2012. "Landscape valuation through discrete choice experiments: Current practice and future research reflections," BILTOKI 1134-8984, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Economía Aplicada III (Econometría y Estadística).
    3. Kolbe, Jens & Wüstemann, Henry, 2014. "Estimating the value of Urban Green Space: A hedonic pricing analysis of the housing market in Cologne, Germany," SFB 649 Discussion Papers 2015-002, Humboldt University Berlin, Collaborative Research Center 649: Economic Risk.
    4. repec:hum:wpaper:sfb649dp2015-002 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Mamun, Mohammad Abdullah Al & Dargusch, Paul & Wadley, David & Zulkarnain, Noor Azwa & Aziz, Ammar Abdul, 2022. "A review of research on agrivoltaic systems," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    6. Choi, Andy S. & Fielding, Kelly S., 2013. "Environmental attitudes as WTP predictors: A case study involving endangered species," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 24-32.
    7. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    8. Concu, Giovanni B., 2007. "Investigating distance effects on environmental values: a choice modelling approach," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 51(2), pages 1-20.
    9. Campbell, Robert M. & Venn, Tyron J. & Anderson, Nathaniel M., 2016. "Social preferences toward energy generation with woody biomass from public forests in Montana, USA," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 58-67.
    10. Rolfe, John & Windle, Jill, 2008. "Testing for differences in benefit transfer values between state and regional frameworks," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(2), pages 1-20.
    11. Yrjola, Tapani & Kola, Jukka, 2002. "Social Benefits of Multifunctional Agriculture in Finland," 2002 International Congress, August 28-31, 2002, Zaragoza, Spain 24812, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.
    14. Nguyen, Thanh Cong & Le, Hoa Thu & Nguyen, Hang Dieu & Ngo, Mai Thanh & Nguyen, Hong Quang, 2021. "Examining ordering effects and strategic behaviour in a discrete choice experiment," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 394-413.
    15. Hyesun Kim & Jooa Baek & Yeongbae Choe, 2021. "Family life cycle and preferences for a mega-sporting event package: The case of the 2018 PyeongChang Winter Olympic Games," Tourism Economics, , vol. 27(3), pages 548-568, May.
    16. Rinaldo Brau, 2008. "Demand-Driven Sustainable Tourism? A Choice Modelling Analysis," Tourism Economics, , vol. 14(4), pages 691-708, December.
    17. Abbie A. Rogers & Fiona L. Dempster & Jacob I. Hawkins & Robert J. Johnston & Peter C. Boxall & John Rolfe & Marit E. Kragt & Michael P. Burton & David J. Pannell, 2019. "Valuing non-market economic impacts from natural hazards," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 99(2), pages 1131-1161, November.
    18. repec:ags:aare05:139324 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Petcharat, Areeyapat & Lee, Yohan, 2020. "Measuring the non-use value of the Dugong (Dugong dugon) in Thailand," 2020 Conference (64th), February 12-14, 2020, Perth, Western Australia 305232, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    20. Choi, Andy S. & Ritchie, Brent W. & Papandrea, Franco & Bennett, Jeff, 2010. "Economic valuation of cultural heritage sites: A choice modeling approach," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 213-220.
    21. De Valck, Jeremy & Vlaeminck, Pieter & Liekens, Inge & Aertsens, Joris & Chen, Wendy & Vranken, Liesbet, 2012. "The sources of preference heterogeneity for nature restoration scenarios," Working Papers 146522, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    22. Juutinen, Artti & Kosenius, Anna-Kaisa & Ovaskainen, Ville, 2014. "Estimating the benefits of recreation-oriented management in state-owned commercial forests in Finland: A choice experiment," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 396-412.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:20:p:11325-:d:655574. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.