IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/108526.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Quantifying the externalities of renewable energy plants using wellbeing data: the case of biogas

Author

Listed:
  • Krekel, Christian
  • Rechlitz, Julia
  • Rode, Johannes
  • Zerrahn, Alexander

Abstract

Although there is strong support for renewable energy plants, they are often met with local resistance. We quantify the externalities of renewable energy plants using well-being data. We focus on the example of biogas, one of the most frequently deployed technologies besides wind and solar. To this end, we combine longitudinal household data with novel panel data on more than 13,000 installations in Germany. Identification rests on a spatial difference-in-differences design exploiting exact geographical coordinates of households, biogas installations and wind direction and intensity. We find limited evidence for negative externalities: impacts are moderate in size and spatially confined to a radius of 2, 000 metres around plants. We discuss implications for research and regional planning, in particular minimum setback distances and potential monetary compensations.

Suggested Citation

  • Krekel, Christian & Rechlitz, Julia & Rode, Johannes & Zerrahn, Alexander, 2020. "Quantifying the externalities of renewable energy plants using wellbeing data: the case of biogas," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 108526, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:108526
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/108526/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dolan, Paul & Kavetsos, Georgios & Krekel, Christian & Mavridis, Dimitris & Metcalfe, Robert & Senik, Claudia & Szymanski, Stefan & Ziebarth, Nicolas R., 2019. "Quantifying the intangible impact of the Olympics using subjective well-being data," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 1-1.
    2. Susana Ferreira & Mirko Moro, 2010. "On the Use of Subjective Well-Being Data for Environmental Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 46(3), pages 249-273, July.
    3. Daniel Kahneman & Robert Sugden, 2005. "Experienced Utility as a Standard of Policy Evaluation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 32(1), pages 161-181, September.
    4. Heinz Welsch & Jan Kühling, 2009. "Using Happiness Data For Environmental Valuation: Issues And Applications," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(2), pages 385-406, April.
    5. Betsey Stevenson & Justin Wolfers, 2008. "Economic Growth and Subjective Well-Being: Reassessing the Easterlin Paradox," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 39(1 (Spring), pages 1-102.
    6. Keles, Derya & Choumert-Nkolo, Johanna & Combes Motel, Pascale & Nazindigouba Kéré, Eric, 2018. "Does the expansion of biofuels encroach on the forest?," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 75-82.
    7. Levinson, Arik, 2012. "Valuing public goods using happiness data: The case of air quality," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(9-10), pages 869-880.
    8. Bernard M. S. van Praag & Barbara E. Baarsma, 2005. "Using Happiness Surveys to Value Intangibles: The Case of Airport Noise," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 115(500), pages 224-246, January.
    9. Adler, Matthew D. & Dolan, Paul & Kavetsos, Georgios, 2017. "Would you choose to be happy? Tradeoffs between happiness and the other dimensions of life in a large population survey," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 60-73.
    10. 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.
    11. Welsch, Heinz & Ferreira, Susana, 2014. "Environment, Well-Being, and Experienced Preference," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 7(3-4), pages 205-239, December.
    12. Pischke, Jörn-Steffen, 2011. "Money and Happiness: Evidence from the Industry Wage Structure," IZA Discussion Papers 5705, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    13. Upham, Paul & Shackley, Simon, 2006. "The case of a proposed 21.5 MWe biomass gasifier in Winkleigh, Devon: Implications for governance of renewable energy planning," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(15), pages 2161-2172, October.
    14. Modica, Marco, 2017. "Does the construction of biogas plants affect local property values?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 169-172.
    15. Rehdanz, Katrin & Maddison, David, 2008. "Local environmental quality and life-satisfaction in Germany," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 787-797, February.
    16. Daniel J. Benjamin & Ori Heffetz & Miles S. Kimball & Alex Rees-Jones, 2012. "What Do You Think Would Make You Happier? What Do You Think You Would Choose?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(5), pages 2083-2110, August.
    17. Andor, Mark A. & Frondel, Manuel & Rinne, Sonja, 2015. "Wie unbeliebt ist Kohle und wie beliebt sind die Erneuerbaren? Eine empirische Regionalanalyse der energiepolitischen Präferenzen deutscher Haushalte," RWI Materialien 93, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung.
    18. Christine Bertram & Jan Goebel & Christian Krekel & Katrin Rehdanz, 2022. "Urban Land Use Fragmentation and Human Well-Being," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 98(2), pages 399-420.
    19. 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.
    20. Bertram, Christine & Rehdanz, Katrin, 2015. "The role of urban green space for human well-being," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 139-152.
    21. Guido W. Imbens & Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2009. "Recent Developments in the Econometrics of Program Evaluation," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(1), pages 5-86, March.
    22. Charlotte von Möllendorff & Heinz Welsch, 2017. "Measuring Renewable Energy Externalities: Evidence from Subjective Well-being Data," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 93(1), pages 109-126.
    23. Luechinger, Simon & Raschky, Paul A., 2009. "Valuing flood disasters using the life satisfaction approach," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(3-4), pages 620-633, April.
    24. Dobers, Geesche M., 2019. "Acceptance of biogas plants taking into account space and place," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    25. Gert G. Wagner & Joachim R. Frick & Jürgen Schupp, 2007. "The German Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP) – Scope, Evolution and Enhancements," Schmollers Jahrbuch : Journal of Applied Social Science Studies / Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, vol. 127(1), pages 139-169.
    26. Krekel, Christian & Kolbe, Jens & Wüstemann, Henry, 2016. "The greener, the happier? The effect of urban land use on residential well-being," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 117-127.
    27. Ambrey, Christopher L. & Fleming, Christopher M. & Chan, Andrew Yiu-Chung, 2014. "Estimating the cost of air pollution in South East Queensland: An application of the life satisfaction non-market valuation approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 172-181.
    28. Daniel Kahneman & Peter P. Wakker & Rakesh Sarin, 1997. "Back to Bentham? Explorations of Experienced Utility," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 375-406.
    29. Angus Deaton, 2008. "Income, Health, and Well-Being around the World: Evidence from the Gallup World Poll," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 22(2), pages 53-72, Spring.
    30. Zemo, Kahsay Haile & Panduro, Toke Emil & Termansen, Mette, 2019. "Impact of biogas plants on rural residential property values and implications for local acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 1121-1131.
    31. Bertsch, Valentin & Hall, Margeret & Weinhardt, Christof & Fichtner, Wolf, 2016. "Public acceptance and preferences related to renewable energy and grid expansion policy: Empirical insights for Germany," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 465-477.
    32. Ferreira, Susana & Akay, Alpaslan & Brereton, Finbarr & Cuñado, Juncal & Martinsson, Peter & Moro, Mirko & Ningal, Tine F., 2013. "Life satisfaction and air quality in Europe," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 1-10.
    33. Upreti, Bishnu Raj, 2004. "Conflict over biomass energy development in the United Kingdom: some observations and lessons from England and Wales," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 785-800, April.
    34. Soland, Martin & Steimer, Nora & Walter, Götz, 2013. "Local acceptance of existing biogas plants in Switzerland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 802-810.
    35. Brereton, Finbarr & Clinch, J. Peter & Ferreira, Susana, 2008. "Happiness, geography and the environment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 386-396, April.
    36. Kopmann, Angela & Rehdanz, Katrin, 2013. "A human well-being approach for assessing the value of natural land areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 20-33.
    37. Ada Ferrer-i-Carbonell & Paul Frijters, 2004. "How Important is Methodology for the estimates of the determinants of Happiness?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 114(497), pages 641-659, July.
    38. Upham, Paul, 2009. "Applying environmental-behaviour concepts to renewable energy siting controversy: Reflections on a longitudinal bioenergy case study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(11), pages 4273-4283, November.
    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. He, Pan & Lovo, Stefania & Veronesi, Marcella, 2022. "Social networks and renewable energy technology adoption: Empirical evidence from biogas adoption in China," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    2. Natalia Fabra & Eduardo Gutiérrez & Aitor Lacuesta & Roberto Ramos, 2023. "Do Renewables Create Local Jobs?," Working Papers 2307, Banco de España.
    3. Gonçalves Rigueira Pinheiro Castro, Pedro Henrique & Filho, Delly Oliveira & Rosa, André Pereira & Navas Gracia, Luis Manuel & Almeida Silva, Thais Cristina, 2024. "Comparison of externalities of biogas and photovoltaic solar energy for energy planning," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).

    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. 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.
    2. Christine Bertram & Jan Goebel & Christian Krekel & Katrin Rehdanz, 2022. "Urban Land Use Fragmentation and Human Well-Being," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 98(2), pages 399-420.
    3. Zerrahn, Alexander & Krekel, Christian, 2015. "Sowing the Wind and Reaping the Whirlwind? The Effect of Wind Turbines on Residential Well-Being," VfS Annual Conference 2015 (Muenster): Economic Development - Theory and Policy 112956, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    4. Dolan, Paul & Kavetsos, Georgios & Krekel, Christian & Mavridis, Dimitris & Metcalfe, Robert & Senik, Claudia & Szymanski, Stefan & Ziebarth, Nicolas R., 2019. "Quantifying the intangible impact of the Olympics using subjective well-being data," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 1-1.
    5. Krekel, Christian & MacKerron, George, 2023. "Back to Edgeworth? Estimating the Value of Time Using Hedonic Experiences," IZA Discussion Papers 16308, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    6. Ferreira, Susana & Moro, Mirko & Welsch, Heinz, 2024. "Using Life Satisfaction and Happiness Data for Environmental Valuation: An Experienced Preference Approach," IZA Discussion Papers 16718, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    7. Eleftherios Giovanis, 2019. "Worthy to lose some money for better air quality: applications of Bayesian networks on the causal effect of income and air pollution on life satisfaction in Switzerland," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 57(5), pages 1579-1611, November.
    8. Krekel, Christian & Kolbe, Jens & Wüstemann, Henry, 2016. "The greener, the happier? The effect of urban land use on residential well-being," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 117-127.
    9. Welsch, Heinz & Ferreira, Susana, 2014. "Environment, Well-Being, and Experienced Preference," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 7(3-4), pages 205-239, December.
    10. Bertram, Christine & Rehdanz, Katrin, 2015. "The role of urban green space for human well-being," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 139-152.
    11. García-Mainar, Inmaculada & Montuenga, Víctor M. & Navarro-Paniagua, María, 2015. "Workplace environmental conditions and life satisfaction in Spain," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 136-146.
    12. Sanduijav, Chimedregzen & Ferreira, Susana & Filipski, Mateusz & Hashida, Yukiko, 2021. "Air pollution and happiness: Evidence from the coldest capital in the world," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    13. Gustavo Ahumada & Victor Iturra & Mauricio Sarrias, 2020. "We Do Not Have the Same Tastes! Evaluating Individual Heterogeneity in the Preferences for Amenities," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 53-74, January.
    14. Ferreira, Susana & Akay, Alpaslan & Brereton, Finbarr & Cuñado, Juncal & Martinsson, Peter & Moro, Mirko & Ningal, Tine F., 2013. "Life satisfaction and air quality in Europe," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 1-10.
    15. Tiziana Laureti, 2014. "Life satisfaction and environmental conditions in Italy: a pseudo-panel approach," Discussion Papers 2014/192, Dipartimento di Economia e Management (DEM), University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
    16. Paul Dolan & Georgios Kavetsos & Christian Krekel & Dimitris Mavridis & Robert Metcalfe & Claudia Senik & Stefan Szymanski & Nicolas R. Ziebarth, 2016. "The Host with the Most? The Effects of the Olympic Games on Happiness," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 858, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    17. Ary José A. Souza-Jr., 2021. "Climate change and behavior: Do environmental attitudes and perceptions impact on subjective well-being in Europe?," Working Papers REM 2021/0207, ISEG - Lisbon School of Economics and Management, REM, Universidade de Lisboa.
    18. Knight, S.J; Howley, P.;, 2017. "Can clean air make you happy? Examining the effect of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) on life satisfaction," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 17/08, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    19. 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.
    20. Brown, Zachary S. & Oueslati, Walid & Silva, Jérôme, 2016. "Links between urban structure and life satisfaction in a cross-section of OECD metro areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 112-121.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    renewables; biogas; externalities; social acceptance; wellbeing; spatial analysis; economic geography;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C23 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Models with Panel Data; Spatio-temporal Models
    • Q42 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Alternative Energy Sources
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
    • R20 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Household Analysis - - - General

    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:ehl:lserod:108526. 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: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.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.