IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-02492375.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Public acceptance of and heterogeneity in behavioral beach trip responses to offshore wind farm development in Catalonia (Spain)

Author

Listed:
  • Louinord Voltaire

    (ULCO - Université du Littoral Côte d'Opale, TVES - Territoires, Villes, Environnement & Société - ULR 4477 - ULCO - Université du Littoral Côte d'Opale - Université de Lille)

  • Obafemi Philippe Koutchade

    (SMART-LERECO - Structures et Marché Agricoles, Ressources et Territoires - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement - INSTITUT AGRO Agrocampus Ouest - Institut Agro - Institut national d'enseignement supérieur pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement)

Abstract

A combined travel cost – contingent behaviour survey of residents and tourists in Catalonia is conducted on-site to examine the effects on beach recreational demand of developing an offshore wind farm (OWF) project. The survey considers four potential OWF scenarios with different degrees of visual impact. We allow for heterogeneity in trip preferences among individuals and control for on-site sampling through the use of a random parameters negative binomial (RPNB) model and a Multivariate Poisson log-normal (MPLN) model, respectively. The welfare measures derived from the RPNB model relate to the current beach users only, whereas those from the MPLN model refer to the general population of residents and tourists in Catalonia. The results show the importance of the specific place of location of the OWF project and how the installation of wind turbines would significantly decrease the demand for trips, depending on their degree of visual impacts, leading to a substantial welfare loss. However, the results also show that the project mainly would cause a displacement of trips to other beaches within Catalonia rather than outside Catalonia and that the welfare per trip measures generated by the RPNB and MPLN models substantially differ. Policy implications of these findings are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Louinord Voltaire & Obafemi Philippe Koutchade, 2020. "Public acceptance of and heterogeneity in behavioral beach trip responses to offshore wind farm development in Catalonia (Spain)," Post-Print hal-02492375, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-02492375
    DOI: 10.1016/j.reseneeco.2020.101152
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-02492375
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-02492375/document
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2020.101152?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Haggett, Claire, 2011. "Understanding public responses to offshore wind power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 503-510, February.
    2. John C. Whitehead & Tim Haab & Sherry L. Larkin & John B. Loomis & Sergio Alvarez & Andrew Ropicki, 2018. "Estimating Lost Recreational Use Values of Visitors to Northwest Florida due to the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Using Cancelled Trip Data," Marine Resource Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 33(2), pages 119-132.
    3. Gibbons, Stephen, 2015. "Gone with the wind: Valuing the visual impacts of wind turbines through house prices," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 177-196.
    4. Westerberg, Vanja & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Lifran, Robert, 2013. "The case for offshore wind farms, artificial reefs and sustainable tourism in the French mediterranean," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 172-183.
    5. Mattmann, Matteo & Logar, Ivana & Brouwer, Roy, 2016. "Wind power externalities: A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 23-36.
    6. Lutzeyer, Sanja & Phaneuf, Daniel J. & Taylor, Laura O., 2018. "The amenity costs of offshore wind farms: Evidence from a choice experiment," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 621-639.
    7. Stephen Hynes & William Greene, 2016. "Preference Heterogeneity in Contingent Behaviour Travel Cost Models with On-site Samples: A Random Parameter vs. a Latent Class Approach," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(2), pages 348-367, June.
    8. Beaumais, Olivier & Appéré, Gildas, 2010. "Recreational shellfish harvesting and health risks: A pseudo-panel approach combining revealed and stated preference data with correction for on-site sampling," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 2315-2322, October.
    9. Englin, Jeffrey & Shonkwiler, J S, 1995. "Estimating Social Welfare Using Count Data Models: An Application to Long-Run Recreation Demand under Conditions of Endogenous Stratification and Truncation," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 77(1), pages 104-112, February.
    10. Landry, Craig E. & Allen, Tom & Cherry, Todd & Whitehead, John C., 2012. "Wind turbines and coastal recreation demand," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 93-111.
    11. Shaw, Daigee, 1988. "On-site samples' regression : Problems of non-negative integers, truncation, and endogenous stratification," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 211-223, February.
    12. Fooks, Jacob R. & Messer, Kent D. & Duke, Joshua M. & Johnson, Janet B. & Li, Tongzhe & Parsons, George R., 2017. "Tourist Viewshed Externalities and Wind Energy Production," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(2), pages 224-241, August.
    13. Cameron, A Colin & Trivedi, Pravin K, 1986. "Econometric Models Based on Count Data: Comparisons and Applications of Some Estimators and Tests," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 1(1), pages 29-53, January.
    14. Egan, Kevin & Herriges, Joseph, 2006. "Multivariate count data regression models with individual panel data from an on-site sample," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 567-581, September.
    15. Alberini, Anna & Zanatta, Valentina & Rosato, Paolo, 2007. "Combining actual and contingent behavior to estimate the value of sports fishing in the Lagoon of Venice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 530-541, March.
    16. Jeffrey Englin & Trudy Cameron, 1996. "Augmenting travel cost models with contingent behavior data," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(2), pages 133-147, March.
    17. Louinord Voltaire & Loic Lévi & Frédérique Alban & Jean Boncoeur, 2017. "Valuing cultural world heritage sites: an application of the travel cost method to Mont-Saint-Michel," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(16), pages 1593-1605, April.
    18. Cathrine Ulla Jensen & Toke Emil Panduro & Thomas Hedemark Lundhede, 2014. "The Vindication of Don Quixote: The Impact of Noise and Visual Pollution from Wind Turbines," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 90(4), pages 668-682.
    19. Ladenburg, Jacob, 2010. "Attitudes towards offshore wind farms--The role of beach visits on attitude and demographic and attitude relations," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 1297-1304, March.
    20. John C. Whitehead & Subhrendu K. Pattanayak & George L. Van Houtven & Brett R. Gelso, 2008. "Combining Revealed And Stated Preference Data To Estimate The Nonmarket Value Of Ecological Services: An Assessment Of The State Of The Science," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(5), pages 872-908, December.
    21. Holmes, Thomas P. & Englin, Jeffrey E., 2010. "Preference Heterogeneity in a Count Data Model of Demand for Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 39(1), pages 1-14, February.
    22. Timothy C. Haab & Kenneth E. McConnell, 2002. "Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2427.
    23. Alan Randall, 1994. "Difficulty with the Travel Cost Method," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(1), pages 88-96.
    24. Prayaga, Prabha & Rolfe, John & Stoeckl, Natalie, 2010. "The value of recreational fishing in the Great Barrier Reef, Australia: A pooled revealed preference and contingent behaviour model," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 244-251, March.
    25. Ben Hoen & Jason Brown & Thomas Jackson & Mark Thayer & Ryan Wiser & Peter Cappers, 2015. "Spatial Hedonic Analysis of the Effects of US Wind Energy Facilities on Surrounding Property Values," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 51(1), pages 22-51, July.
    26. Patrick Lloyd-Smith & Joshua K. Abbott & Wiktor Adamowicz & Daniel Willard, 2019. "Decoupling the Value of Leisure Time from Labor Market Returns in Travel Cost Models," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 6(2), pages 215-242.
    27. Frank A. Ward & Diana Beal, 2000. "Valuing Nature with Travel Cost Models," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1768.
    28. Englin, Jeffrey & Lambert, David & Shaw, W. Douglass, 1997. "A Structural Equations Approach to Modeling Consumptive Recreation Demand," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 33-43, May.
    29. Stephen Hynes & William Greene, 2013. "A Panel Travel Cost Model Accounting for Endogenous Stratification and Truncation: A Latent Class Approach," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 89(1), pages 177-192.
    30. Teisl, Mario F. & Noblet, Caroline L. & Corey, Richard R. & Giudice, Nicholas A., 2018. "Seeing clearly in a virtual reality: Tourist reactions to an offshore wind project," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 601-611.
    31. Nick Hanley & David Bell & Begona Alvarez-Farizo, 2003. "Valuing the Benefits of Coastal Water Quality Improvements Using Contingent and Real Behaviour," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 24(3), pages 273-285, March.
    32. Hoyos, David & Riera, Pere, 2013. "Convergent validity between revealed and stated recreation demand data: Some empirical evidence from the Basque Country, Spain," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 234-248.
    33. Meredith Blaydes Lilley & Jeremy Firestone & Willett Kempton, 2010. "The Effect of Wind Power Installations on Coastal Tourism," Energies, MDPI, vol. 3(1), pages 1-22, January.
    34. 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.
    35. Cathrine Ulla Jensen & Toke Emil Panduro & Thomas Hedemark Lundhede, 2014. "The Vindication of Don Quixote: The Impact of Noise and Visual Pollution from Wind Turbines," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 90(4), pages 668-682.
    36. Martin D. Heintzelman & Carrie M. Tuttle, 2012. "Values in the Wind: A Hedonic Analysis of Wind Power Facilities," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 88(3), pages 571-588.
    37. Lang, Corey & Opaluch, James J. & Sfinarolakis, George, 2014. "The windy city: Property value impacts of wind turbines in an urban setting," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 413-421.
    38. Anna Alberini & Alberto Longo, 2006. "Combining the travel cost and contingent behavior methods to value cultural heritage sites: Evidence from Armenia," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 30(4), pages 287-304, December.
    39. Hynes, Stephen & Gaeven, Rainey & O'Reilly, Paul, 2017. "Estimating a Total Demand Function for Sea Angling Pursuits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 73-81.
    40. Ladenburg, Jacob & Lutzeyer, Sanja, 2012. "The economics of visual disamenity reductions of offshore wind farms—Review and suggestions from an emerging field," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(9), pages 6793-6802.
    41. Simões, Paula & Barata, Eduardo & Cruz, Luís, 2013. "Joint estimation using revealed and stated preference data: An application using a national forest," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 249-266.
    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. Gkeka-Serpetsidaki, Pandora & Papadopoulos, Stylianos & Tsoutsos, Theocharis, 2022. "Assessment of the visual impact of offshore wind farms," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 190(C), pages 358-370.
    2. Cranmer, Alexana & Broughel, Anna Ebers & Ericson, Jonathan & Goldberg, Mike & Dharni, Kira, 2023. "Getting to 30 GW by 2030: Visual preferences of coastal residents for offshore wind farms on the US East Coast," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    3. Parsons, George & Yan, Lingxiao, 2021. "Anchoring on visual cues in a stated preference survey: The case of siting offshore wind power projects," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 38(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. Ladenburg, Jacob & Skotte, Maria, 2022. "Heterogeneity in willingness to pay for the location of offshore wind power development: An application of the willingness to pay space model," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 241(C).
    2. Stephen Hynes & William Greene, 2016. "Preference Heterogeneity in Contingent Behaviour Travel Cost Models with On-site Samples: A Random Parameter vs. a Latent Class Approach," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(2), pages 348-367, June.
    3. Zerrahn, Alexander, 2017. "Wind Power and Externalities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 245-260.
    4. 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.
    5. Katsuhito Nohara & Masaki Narukawa & Akira Hibiki, 2021. "Using contingent behavior analysis to estimate benefits from coral reefs in Kume Island, Japan: A Poisson-inverse Gaussian approach with on-site correction," TUPD Discussion Papers 1, Graduate School of Economics and Management, Tohoku University.
    6. Simões, Paula & Barata, Eduardo & Cruz, Luís, 2013. "Joint estimation using revealed and stated preference data: An application using a national forest," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 249-266.
    7. 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.
    8. Lutzeyer, Sanja & Phaneuf, Daniel J. & Taylor, Laura O., 2018. "The amenity costs of offshore wind farms: Evidence from a choice experiment," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 621-639.
    9. Massimo Filippini & William Greene & Adan L. Martinez-Cruz, 2018. "Non-market Value of Winter Outdoor Recreation in the Swiss Alps: The Case of Val Bedretto," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(3), pages 729-754, November.
    10. Hynes, Stephen & Greene, William, 2012. "Panel Travel Cost Count Data Models for On-Site Samples that Incorporate Unobserved Heterogeneity with Respect to the Impact of the Explanatory Variables," Working Papers 148834, National University of Ireland, Galway, Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit.
    11. Carr-Harris, Andrew & Lang, Corey, 2019. "Sustainability and tourism: the effect of the United States’ first offshore wind farm on the vacation rental market," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 51-67.
    12. Luís Cruz & Paula Simões & Eduardo Barata, 2014. "Combining Observed and Contingent Travel Behaviour: The Best of Both Worlds?," Notas Económicas, Faculty of Economics, University of Coimbra, issue 40, pages 7-25, December.
    13. Lehmann, Paul & Reutter, Felix & Tafarte, Philip, 2021. "Optimal siting of onshore wind turbines: Local disamenities matter," UFZ Discussion Papers 4/2021, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    14. Boyle, Kevin J. & Boatwright, Jessica & Brahma, Sreeya & Xu, Weibin, 2019. "NIMBY, not, in siting community wind farms," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 85-100.
    15. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Marek Giergiczny & Jakub Kronenberg & Jeffrey Englin, 2019. "The Individual Travel Cost Method with Consumer-Specific Values of Travel Time Savings," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 74(3), pages 961-984, November.
    16. Frondel, Manuel & Kussel, Gerhard & Sommer, Stephan & Vance, Colin, 2019. "Local cost for global benefit: The case of wind turbines," Ruhr Economic Papers 791, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen, revised 2019.
    17. Dong, Luran & Lang, Corey, 2022. "Do views of offshore wind energy detract? A hedonic price analysis of the Block Island wind farm in Rhode Island," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    18. García, Jorge H. & Cherry, Todd L. & Kallbekken, Steffen & Torvanger, Asbjørn, 2016. "Willingness to accept local wind energy development: Does the compensation mechanism matter?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 165-173.
    19. Curtis, John & Stanley, Brian, 2015. "Water Quality and Recreational Angling Demand in Ireland," Papers WP521, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
    20. Pascoe, Sean, 2019. "Recreational beach use values with multiple activities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 137-144.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Beach recreation demand; Combined travel cost – contingent behaviour data; Count data models; Offshore wind farms; Welfare loss;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D61 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis
    • Q26 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Recreational Aspects of Natural Resources
    • Q42 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Alternative Energy Sources

    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:hal:journl:hal-02492375. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.