Wind turbines and coastal recreation demand

被引:86
作者
Landry, Craig E. [1 ,2 ]
Allen, Tom [3 ,4 ]
Cherry, Todd [5 ,6 ]
Whitehead, John C. [5 ]
机构
[1] E Carolina Univ, Dept Econ, Greenville, NC 27858 USA
[2] E Carolina Univ, Ctr Sustainable Tourism, Greenville, NC 27858 USA
[3] E Carolina Univ, Dept Geog, Greenville, NC 27858 USA
[4] E Carolina Univ, RENCI, Greenville, NC 27858 USA
[5] Appalachian State Univ, Dept Econ, Boone, NC 28608 USA
[6] CICERO Ctr Int Climate & Environm Res, N-0318 Oslo, Norway
关键词
Coastal; Wind; Turbines; Recreation; Demand; RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENTS; CHOICE; PREFERENCES; FARMS;
D O I
10.1016/j.reseneeco.2011.10.001
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
We examine the impact of coastal wind turbines on local coastal tourism and recreation for residents of the northeastern coastal counties in North Carolina. A combination of telephone and web survey data are used to assess the impact of coastal wind farms on trip behavior and site choice. Most of the respondents to our telephone survey claim to support offshore wind energy development, and independent survey data suggest that the observed levels of support may be indicative of the broader population in this region. Overall, we find very little impact of coastal wind turbines on aggregate recreational visitation; loss in annual consumer surplus associated with wide spread wind development in the coastal zone is insignificant at $17 (or about 1.5% of annual consumer surplus). Results suggest that NC local coastal tourists are averse to wind farms in the near-shore zone; average compensating variation for wind farms one mile from the shore is estimated at $55 per household. On average, we find no evidence of aversion to wind farms 4 miles out in the ocean, or for wind farms located in coastal estuaries. For all wind farm scenarios, we find evidence of preference heterogeneity some respondents find this appealing while others find it aversive. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:93 / 111
页数:19
相关论文
共 31 条
[1]   Using conjoint analysis to quantify public preferences over the environmental impacts of wind farms. An example from Spain [J].
Alvarez-Farizo, B ;
Hanley, N .
ENERGY POLICY, 2002, 30 (02) :107-116
[2]  
American Automobile Association (AM), 2009, YOUR DRIV COSTS NUMB
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2002, Discrete choice methods with simulation
[4]  
[Anonymous], GLOB WIND REP ANN MA
[5]   Evaluation of global wind power [J].
Archer, CL ;
Jacobson, MZ .
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ATMOSPHERES, 2005, 110 (D12) :1-20
[6]   Rural versus urban preferences for renewable energy developments [J].
Bergmann, Ariel ;
Colombo, Sergio ;
Hanley, Nick .
ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, 2008, 65 (03) :616-625
[7]  
Bin Okmyung., 2005, Marine Resource Economics, V20, P145, DOI DOI 10.1086/mre.20.2.42629466
[8]   Beyond NIMBYism: towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy [J].
Devine-Wright, P .
WIND ENERGY, 2005, 8 (02) :125-139
[9]   Assessing the determinants of local acceptability of wind-farm investment: A choice experiment in the Greek Aegean Islands [J].
Dimitropoulos, Alexandros ;
Kontoleon, Andreas .
ENERGY POLICY, 2009, 37 (05) :1842-1854
[10]   Appraising renewable energy developments in remote communities: the case of the North Assynt Estate, Scotland [J].
Hanley, N ;
Nevin, C .
ENERGY POLICY, 1999, 27 (09) :527-547