IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea14/175698.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Impact of Location and Proximity on Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Renewable and Alternative Electricity: The Case of West Virginia

Author

Listed:
  • Nkansah, Kofi
  • Collins, Alan

Abstract

In 2015, West Virginia will implement a Renewable and Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards Act. Meeting these standards with either natural gas or wind power will generate different welfare impacts across society. In particular, this study examined how energy source and generation proximity influence consumers’ willingness-to-pay (WTP) for electricity. Using choice modelling, residents within two counties with distinct location characteristics (existing coal power plant or wind farm) were asked to choose between a renewable source (wind farm) and an alternative energy source (natural gas power plant). We also seek to determine how residents’ proximity to a hypothetical electricity generation facility (wind farm or natural gas generation source) influences their WTP for renewable and alternative electricity. Results showed that the sampled population in both counties were willing to pay a much higher positive premium to site a natural gas-fired power plant at a distances far from their residence compared to siting wind turbines at a similar distance. Compensation was required to site a natural gas-fired power plant at a moderate distance from an individuals’ residence.

Suggested Citation

  • Nkansah, Kofi & Collins, Alan, 2014. "The Impact of Location and Proximity on Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Renewable and Alternative Electricity: The Case of West Virginia," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 175698, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea14:175698
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.175698
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/175698/files/AAEA%202014_Nkansah%20_Collins.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.175698?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ståle Navrud & Kirsten Grønvik Bråten, 2007. "Consumers' Preferences for Green and Brown Electricity : a Choice Modelling Approach," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 117(5), pages 795-811.
    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. Nichifor Maria Alexandra, 2016. "Public reactions towards wind energy instalments. Case study: Romania and the Netherlands," Management & Marketing, Sciendo, vol. 11(3), pages 532-543, September.
    2. 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).
    3. Thomson, Heather & Kempton, Willett, 2018. "Perceptions and attitudes of residents living near a wind turbine compared with those living near a coal power plant," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 301-311.
    4. van Rensburg, Thomas M. & Kelley, Hugh & Jeserich, Nadine, 2015. "What influences the probability of wind farm planning approval: Evidence from Ireland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 12-22.
    5. 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.
    6. Petter Gudding & Gorm Kipperberg & Craig Bond & Kelly Cullen & Eric Steltzer, 2018. "When a Good Is a Bad (or a Bad Is a Good)—Analysis of Data from an Ambiguous Nonmarket Valuation Setting," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-16, January.
    7. Soon, Jan-Jan & Ahmad, Siti-Aznor, 2015. "Willingly or grudgingly? A meta-analysis on the willingness-to-pay for renewable energy use," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 877-887.
    8. Ma, Chunbo & Burton, Michael, 2016. "Warm glow from green power: Evidence from Australian electricity consumers," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 106-120.
    9. 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.
    10. Eunae Son & Song Soo Lim, 2021. "Consumer Acceptance of Gene-Edited versus Genetically Modified Foods in Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-17, April.
    11. Herbes, Carsten & Rilling, Benedikt & MacDonald, Scott & Boutin, Nathalie & Bigerna, Simona, 2020. "Are voluntary markets effective in replacing state-led support for the expansion of renewables? – A comparative analysis of voluntary green electricity markets in the UK, Germany, France and Italy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    12. 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).
    13. del Río, Pablo & Calvo Silvosa, Anxo & Iglesias Gómez, Guillermo, 2011. "Policies and design elements for the repowering of wind farms: A qualitative analysis of different options," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 1897-1908, April.
    14. Andrew D. Krueger & George R. Parsons & Jeremy Firestone, 2011. "Valuing the Visual Disamenity of Offshore Wind Power Projects at Varying Distances from the Shore: An Application on the Delaware Shoreline," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(2), pages 268-283.
    15. Byun, Hyunsuk & Lee, Chul-Yong, 2017. "Analyzing Korean consumers’ latent preferences for electricity generation sources with a hierarchical Bayesian logit model in a discrete choice experiment," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 294-302.
    16. 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.
    17. Oerlemans, Leon A.G. & Chan, Kai-Ying & Volschenk, Jako, 2016. "Willingness to pay for green electricity: A review of the contingent valuation literature and its sources of error," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 875-885.
    18. Dalia Streimikiene & Tomas Balezentis & Ilona Alisauskaite-Seskiene & Gintare Stankuniene & Zaneta Simanaviciene, 2019. "A Review of Willingness to Pay Studies for Climate Change Mitigation in the Energy Sector," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-38, April.
    19. Huh, Sung-Yoon & Woo, JongRoul & Lim, Sesil & Lee, Yong-Gil & Kim, Chang Seob, 2015. "What do customers want from improved residential electricity services? Evidence from a choice experiment," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 410-420.
    20. Hee-Jong Yang & Seul-Ye Lim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2017. "The Environmental Costs of Photovoltaic Power Plants in South Korea: A Choice Experiment Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-13, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Consumer/Household Economics; Demand and Price Analysis; Environmental Economics and Policy; Institutional and Behavioral Economics; Resource /Energy Economics and Policy;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:aaea14:175698. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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.