Using conjoint analysis to quantify public preferences over the environmental impacts of wind farms. An example from Spain

This paper focuses on the effect on people's utility of the potential environmental impacts of wind farm developments. We report on research designed to provide insight into their preferences, and we show how two alternative choice modelling techniques can be used to estimate them. Our results show that significant social costs in the form of environmental impacts can be associated with wind farm developments. As relative environmental values are revealed by these methods, it would be possible to develop wind farms in such a way that minimises the total social costs of the investment and which maximises its net benefits.

[1]  T. F. Weaver,et al.  Heterogeneous Preferences and Aggregation in Environmental Policy Analysis: A Landfill Siting Case , 1994 .

[2]  Peter O. Barnard,et al.  THE ROLE OF STATED PREFERENCE METHODS IN STUDIES OF TRAVEL CHOICE , 1987 .

[3]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  Valuing Environmental Preferences , 2001 .

[4]  Norman H. Anderson,et al.  Methods of information integration theory , 1982 .

[5]  Colin Robinson.  Energy Economists and Economic Liberalism , 2000 .

[6]  R. Luce,et al.  Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis. , 1960 .

[7]  Kenneth Train,et al.  Customers' Choice Among Retail Energy Suppliers: The Willingness-to-Pay for Service Attributes , 2000 .

[8]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and developing Countries , 2001 .

[9]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  CONJOINT ANALYSIS MODELLING OF STATED PREFERENCES , 1988 .

[10]  W. Michael Hanemann,et al.  Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses , 1984 .

[11]  Dimitris E. Papantonis,et al.  Evaluation of an integrated renewable energy system for electricity generation in rural areas , 1997 .

[12]  D. McFadden.  Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior , 1972 .

[13]  Paul E. Green,et al.  Conjoint Analysis in Marketing: New Developments with Implications for Research and Practice , 1990 .

[14]  D. McFadden.  Econometric analysis of qualitative response models , 1984 .

[15]  K. Train.  Qualitative Choice Analysis: Theory, Econometrics, and an Application to Automobile Demand , 1985 .

[16]  Dick R. Wittink,et al.  Note---Conjoint Reliability Measures , 1989 .

[17]  Andrew Stirling,et al.  Limits to the value of external costs , 1997 .

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

[19]  Nick Hanley,et al.  Appraising renewable energy developments in remote communities: the case of the North Assynt Estate, Scotland , 1999 .

[20]  P. Green,et al.  Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook , 1978 .

[21]  P. Zarembka.  Frontiers in econometrics , 1973 .

[22]  K. Lancaster,et al.  Modern Consumer Theory , 1991 .

[23]  C. Gan,et al.  A Conjoint Analysis of Waterfowl Hunting in Louisiana , 1993, Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics.

[24]  D. Hensher.  Stated preference analysis of travel choices: the state of practice , 1994 .

[25]  Mary Jo Kealy,et al.  Randomly Drawn Opportunity Sets in a Random Utility Model of Lake Recreation , 1992 .

[26]  John Mackenzie,et al.  Evaluating recreation trip attributes and travel time via conjoint analysis. , 1992 .

[27]  T. Stevens,et al.  Sensitivity of Contingent Valuation to Alternative Payment Schedules , 1997 .

[28]  John G. Lynch.  Uniqueness Issues in the Decompositional Modeling of Multiattribute Overall Evaluations: An Information Integration Perspective , 1985 .

[29]  L. Thurstone.  A law of comparative judgment. , 1994 .

[30]  N. Hanley,et al.  Choice modelling approaches: a superior alternative for environmental valuation? , 2002 .

[31]  Kevin J. Boyle,et al.  Using Conjoint Analysis to Derive Estimates of Compensating Variation , 1996 .