IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/endesu/v18y2016i5d10.1007_s10668-016-9795-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using stated preference methods to assess environmental impacts of forest biomass power plants in Portugal

Author

Listed:
  • Anabela Botelho

    (University of Aveiro)

  • Lina Lourenço-Gomes

    (University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro)

  • Lígia Pinto

    (University of Minho)

  • Sara Sousa

    (Polytechnic Institute of Coimbra)

  • Marieta Valente

    (University of Minho)

Abstract

As a renewable energy source, the use of forest biomass for electricity generation is advantageous in comparison with fossil fuels; however, the activity of forest biomass power plants causes adverse impacts, affecting particularly neighbouring communities. The main objective of this study is to estimate the effects of the activity of forest biomass power plants on the welfare of two groups of stakeholders, namely local residents and the general population. To this end, we apply two stated preference methods: contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments, respectively. The former method was applied to estimate the minimum compensation residents of neighbouring communities of two forest biomass power plants in Portugal would be willing to accept. The latter method was applied among the general population to estimate their willingness to pay to avoid specific environmental impacts. The results show that the presence of the selected facilities affects individuals’ well-being. On the other hand, in the discrete choice experiments conducted among the general population all impacts considered were valued, in particular odour and fauna and flora impacts. The results of this study stress the importance of performing an equity analysis of the welfare effects on different groups of stakeholders from the installation of forest biomass power plants, as their effects on welfare are location and impact specific. Policy makers should take into account the views of all stakeholders either directly or indirectly involved when deciding crucial issues regarding the sitting of new forest biomass power plants, in order to achieve an efficient and equitable outcome.

Suggested Citation

  • Anabela Botelho & Lina Lourenço-Gomes & Lígia Pinto & Sara Sousa & Marieta Valente, 2016. "Using stated preference methods to assess environmental impacts of forest biomass power plants in Portugal," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 18(5), pages 1323-1337, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:endesu:v:18:y:2016:i:5:d:10.1007_s10668-016-9795-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s10668-016-9795-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10668-016-9795-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10668-016-9795-6?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 look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carneiro, Patrícia & Ferreira, Paula, 2012. "The economic, environmental and strategic value of biomass," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 17-22.
    2. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April.
    3. Anna Alberini & James R. Kahn (ed.), 2006. "Handbook on Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1893.
    4. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    5. Nick Hanley & Susana Mourato & Robert E. Wright, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuatioin?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    6. repec:bla:jecsur:v:15:y:2001:i:3:p:435-62 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    8. Evans, Annette & Strezov, Vladimir & Evans, Tim J., 2010. "Sustainability considerations for electricity generation from biomass," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 14(5), pages 1419-1427, June.
    9. Timothy C. Haab & Matthew G. Interis & Daniel R. Petrolia & John C. Whitehead, 2013. "From Hopeless to Curious? Thoughts on Hausman's "Dubious to Hopeless" Critique of Contingent Valuation," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 35(4), pages 593-612.
    10. Anabela Botelho & Lígia Costa Pinto & Patricia Sousa, 2013. "Valuing wind farms’ environmental impacts by geographical distance: A contingent valuation study in Portugal," NIMA Working Papers 52, Núcleo de Investigação em Microeconomia Aplicada (NIMA), Universidade do Minho.
    11. Miranda, Marie Lynn & Hale, Brack, 2001. "Protecting the forest from the trees: the social costs of energy production in Sweden," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 26(9), pages 869-889.
    12. Susan Owens, 2004. "Siting, sustainable development and social priorities," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(2), pages 101-114, March.
    13. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    14. Ian J. Bateman & Richard T. Carson & Brett Day & Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Tannis Hett & Michael Jones-Lee & Graham Loomes, 2002. "Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2639.
    15. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
    16. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    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. Nguyen Van Song & Thai Van Ha & Tran Duc Thuan & Nguyen Van Hanh & Dinh Van Tien & Nguyen Cong Tiep & Nguyen Thi Minh Phuong & Phan Anh Tu & Tran Ba Uan, 2021. "Development of Rice Husk Power Plants Based on Clean Development Mechanism: A Case Study in Mekong River Delta, Vietnam," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-10, June.
    2. Azevedo, Susana Garrido & Sequeira, Tiago & Santos, Marcelo & Mendes, Luis, 2019. "Biomass-related sustainability: A review of the literature and interpretive structural modeling," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 1107-1125.
    3. Paula Ferreira & Madalena Araújo & Luc Hens, 2016. "Energy and environment: bringing together engineering and economics," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 18(5), pages 1275-1277, October.
    4. Pinto, Lígia Costa & Sousa, Sara & Valente, Marieta, 2022. "Forest bioenergy as a land and wildfire management tool: Economic valuation under different informational contexts," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    5. 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).
    6. Anabela Botelho & Lina Lourenço-Gomes & Lígia M. Costa Pinto & Sara Sousa & Marieta Valente, 2018. "Discrete-choice experiments valuing local environmental impacts of renewables: two approaches to a case study in Portugal," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 145-162, December.
    7. Maria Rosário da Silva e Silva & Edielza Aline Santos Ribeiro & Jardel Pinto Barbosa & Francisco Tarcísio Alves Júnior & Marcelino Carneiro Guedes & Paulo Guilherme Pinheiro & Lina Bufalino, 2020. "Quality attributes of commercial charcoals produced in Amapá, a Brazilian state located in the Amazonia," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 719-732, February.

    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. Anabela Botelho & Lina Lourenço-Gomes & Lígia M. Costa Pinto & Sara Sousa & Marieta Valente, 2018. "Discrete-choice experiments valuing local environmental impacts of renewables: two approaches to a case study in Portugal," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 145-162, December.
    2. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    3. Contu, Davide & Strazzera, Elisabetta & Mourato, Susana, 2016. "Modeling individual preferences for energy sources: The case of IV generation nuclear energy in Italy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 37-58.
    4. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    5. Abdullah, Sabah & Mariel, Petr, 2010. "Choice experiment study on the willingness to pay to improve electricity services," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 4570-4581, August.
    6. 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.
    7. Stefano Ceolotto & Eleanor Denny, 2021. "Putting a new 'spin' on energy labels: measuring the impact of reframing energy efficiency on tumble dryer choices in a multi-country experiment," Trinity Economics Papers tep1521, Trinity College Dublin, Department of Economics.
    8. Carole Ropars-Collet & Philippe Le Goffe, 2020. "Economic evaluation of catch-and-release salmon fishing: impact on anglers’ willingness to pay," Working Papers hal-02441505, HAL.
    9. Novikova, Anastasija & Rocchi, Lucia & Vitunskienė, Vlada, 2017. "Assessing the benefit of the agroecosystem services: Lithuanian preferences using a latent class approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 277-286.
    10. Carole Ropars-Collet & Philippe Goffe & Qods Lefnatsa, 2021. "Does catch-and-release increase the recreational value of rivers? The case of salmon fishing," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 102(4), pages 393-424, December.
    11. F Alpizar & F Carlsson & P Martinsson, 2003. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 8(1), pages 83-110, March.
    12. Michael P. Keane & Nada Wasi, 2013. "The Structure of Consumer Taste Heterogeneity in Revealed vs. Stated Preference Data," Economics Papers 2013-W10, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
    13. Gillespie Rob & Kragt Marit E., 2012. "Accounting for Nonmarket Impacts in a Benefit-Cost Analysis of Underground Coal Mining in New South Wales, Australia," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 3(2), pages 1-29, May.
    14. Jan Vanstockem & Liesbet Vranken & Brent Bleys & Ben Somers & Martin Hermy, 2018. "Do Looks Matter? A Case Study on Extensive Green Roofs Using Discrete Choice Experiments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-15, January.
    15. Japelj, Anže & Mavsar, Robert & Hodges, Donald & Kovač, Marko & Juvančič, Luka, 2016. "Latent preferences of residents regarding an urban forest recreation setting in Ljubljana, Slovenia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 71-79.
    16. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    17. repec:ehu:biltok:5571 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Scarpa, Riccardo & Ruto, Eric S. K. & Kristjanson, Patti & Radeny, Maren & Drucker, Adam G. & Rege, John E. O., 2003. "Valuing indigenous cattle breeds in Kenya: an empirical comparison of stated and revealed preference value estimates," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 409-426, July.
    19. Gebreegziabher, Z. & Mekonnen, A. & Beyene, A.D. & Hagos, F., 2018. "Valuation of access to irrigation water in rural Ethiopia: application of choice experiment and contingent valuation methods," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277168, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    20. Ropars‑Collet, Carole & Le Goffe, Philippe & Lefnatsa, Qods, 2021. "Does catch‑and‑release increase the recreational value of rivers? The case of salmon fishing," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 102(4), September.
    21. S. Ceolotto & E. Denny, 2024. "Putting a New ‘Spin’ on Energy Information: Measuring the Impact of Reframing Energy Efficiency Information on Tumble Dryer Choices in a Multi-country Experiment," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 51-108, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Forest biomass; Stated preference methods; Contingent valuation; Discrete choice experiments; Environmental impacts; Public attitudes;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C90 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - General

    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:spr:endesu:v:18:y:2016:i:5:d:10.1007_s10668-016-9795-6. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.