Random preferences towards bioenergy environmental externalities: A case study of woody biomass based electricity in the Southern United States

被引:47
作者
Susaeta, Andres [1 ,2 ]
Lal, Pankaj [1 ]
Alavalapati, Janaki [2 ]
Mercer, Evan [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Florida, Sch Forest Resources & Conservat, Gainesville, FL 32611 USA
[2] Virginia Polytech Inst & State Univ, Dept Forest Resources & Environm Conservat, Blacksburg, VA 24601 USA
[3] USDA Forest Serv, So Res Stn, Forestry Sci Lab, Res Triangle Pk, NC 27709 USA
关键词
Choice experiment; Willingness to pay; Woody biomass; Electricity; WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY; CHEAP TALK; ENERGY; COAL; IMPACT; GRINDABILITY; COCOMBUSTION; TORREFACTION; REDUCTIONS; COMBUSTION;
D O I
10.1016/j.eneco.2011.05.015
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
This paper contrasts alternate methodological approaches of investigating public preferences, the random parameter logit (RPL) where tastes and preferences of respondents are assumed to be heterogeneous and the conditional logit (CL) approach where tastes and preferences remain fixed for individuals. We conducted a choice experiment to assess preferences for woody biomass based electricity in Arkansas, Florida, and Virginia. Reduction of CO2 emissions and improvement of forest habitat by decreasing risk of wildfires and pest outbreaks were presented to respondents as attributes of using green electricity. The results indicate that heterogeneous preferences might be a better fit for assessing preferences for green electricity. All levels of both attributes were positive contributors to welfare but they were no statistically significant. Respondents expressed a positive mean marginal willingness to pay (WTP) for each attribute level. The total WTP for green electricity per kilowatt hour was $0.049 kWh or $40.5 per capita year(-1) when converted into future total annual expenditures. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:1111 / 1118
页数:8
相关论文
共 78 条
[61]   More efficient biomass gasification via torrefaction [J].
Prins, Mark J. ;
Ptasinski, Krzysztof J. ;
Janssen, Frans J. J. G. .
ENERGY, 2006, 31 (15) :3458-3470
[62]   Sustainable production systems for bioenergy: Impacts on forest resources and utilization of wood for energy - Preface [J].
Richardson, J .
BIOMASS & BIOENERGY, 2006, 30 (04) :279-280
[63]   Assessment of potential carbon dioxide reductions due to biomass-coal cofiring in the United States [J].
Robinson, AL ;
Rhodes, JS ;
Keith, DW .
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, 2003, 37 (22) :5081-5089
[64]   US consumers' willingness to pay for green electricity [J].
Roe, B ;
Teisl, MF ;
Levy, A ;
Russell, M .
ENERGY POLICY, 2001, 29 (11) :917-925
[65]   The impact of offering two versus three alternatives in choice modelling experiments [J].
Rolfe, John ;
Bennett, Jeff .
ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, 2009, 68 (04) :1140-1148
[66]   Co-firing of coal and biomass fuel blends [J].
Sami, M ;
Annamalai, K ;
Wooldridge, M .
PROGRESS IN ENERGY AND COMBUSTION SCIENCE, 2001, 27 (02) :171-214
[67]  
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2001, CONV BIOL DIV TECHN
[68]   Valuing environmental benefits of silvopasture practice: a case study of the Lake Okeechobee watershed in Florida [J].
Shrestha, RK ;
Alavalapati, JRR .
ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, 2004, 49 (03) :349-359
[69]   External benefits of biomass-e in Spain: An economic valuation [J].
Solino, Mario .
BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY, 2010, 101 (06) :1992-1997
[70]   Valuing climate protection through willingness to pay for biomass ethanol [J].
Solomon, Barry D. ;
Johnson, Nicholas H. .
ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, 2009, 68 (07) :2137-2144