Supporting BLUE Growth: Eliciting Stakeholders' preferences for Multiple-Use Offshore Platforms

The objective of this paper is to elicit stakeholder preferences in relation to different Multiple Use Offshore Platforms (MUOP) designs produced by the TROPOS project (www.troposplatform.eu) for the Liuqiu Island, Taiwan using the Choice Experiment (CE) method. To authors/ acknowledge, this is the first non-market valuation of multiple use offshore platforms and definitely the first using CE in this context. The MUOP concept is defined as a floating platform moored in Taiwan shallow waters located offshore and concerned as a sustainable and ecologic location, which supports the development of the local economy and serves as an example of sustainable development in offshore environments. The CE was conducted on tourists and residents of the area. A ranking preference technique with visual aids was used, in order to obtain a more complete characterization of the respondentsAƒÂ¢A¯Â?½A¯Â?½ preference structure. The attributes used were the environmental impacts of the modules (using an ecosystem services approach), the level of mitigation, the existence of renewable energy production and leisure facilities. The results show that residents would be less likely to support the development of such a project, compared to tourists that would be willing to pay a daily tax for the leisure and renewable energy facilities.

[1]  Jacob Ladenburg,et al.  Willingness to pay for reduced visual disamenities from offshore wind farms in denmark , 2007 .

[2]  Peter Mason,et al.  Residents' attitudes to proposed tourism development. , 2000 .

[3]  Gianna Moscardo,et al.  Tourism community relationships , 1996 .

[4]  K. Lancaster.  A New Approach to Consumer Theory , 1966, Journal of Political Economy.

[5]  P. Devine‐Wright,et al.  Disruption to place attachment and the protection of restorative environments: A wind energy case study , 2010 .

[6]  Patrick Devine-Wright,et al.  Beyond NIMBYism: towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy , 2005 .

[7]  B. Slack,et al.  The Geography of Transport Systems , 2006 .

[8]  G. Atzeni,et al.  Conflicting preferences among tourists and residents , 2012 .

[9]  Jacob Ladenburg,et al.  Attitudes towards on-land and offshore wind power development in Denmark; choice of development strategy , 2008 .

[10]  Krishna P. Paudel,et al.  An Evaluation of Factors Affecting the Choice of Coastal Recreational Activities , 2011, Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics.

[11]  T. Andersson,et al.  Tourism Development: Assessing Social Gains and Losses , 2001 .

[12]  P. Devine‐Wright.  Rethinking NIMBYism: The role of place attachment and place identity in explaining place‐protective action , 2009 .

[13]  B. Burkhard,et al.  Conceptualizing the link between marine ecosystem services and human well-being: the case of offshore wind farming , 2011 .

[14]  Bill Faulkner,et al.  Tourism and older residents in a sunbelt resort , 2000 .

[15]  Robert R. Hearne,et al.  Tourists‘ and Locals‘ Preferences Toward Ecotourism Development in the Maya Biosphere Reserve, Guatemala , 2005 .

[16]  Benedict G. C. Dellaert,et al.  Resident tradeoffs. A choice modeling approach. , 1999 .

[17]  Theocharis Tsoutsos,et al.  Visual impact evaluation of a wind park in a Greek island , 2009 .

[18]  Ian D. Bishop,et al.  Visual assessment of off-shore wind turbines: The influence of distance, contrast, movement and social variables , 2007 .

[19]  Nick Hanley,et al.  Using conjoint analysis to quantify public preferences over the environmental impacts of wind farms. An example from Spain , 2002 .