When Energy Issues are Land Use Issues: Estimating Preferences for Utility-Scale Solar Energy Siting

References

1. 1. Abashidze, N.

   (2019). Essays on Economic and Health Effects of Land Use Externalities. [North Carolina State University]. https://repository.lib.ncsu.edu/handle/1840.20/38420
2. 1. Altonji, M.,
   2. Lang, C., and
   3. Puggioni, G.

   (2016). Can urban areas help sustain the preservation of open space? Evidence from statewide referenda. Ecological Economics, 130, 82–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.06.026

   OpenUrl
3. 1. Best, S. J., and
   2. Krueger, B. S.

   (2012). Exit polls: Surveying the American electorate, 1972-2010. SAGE/CQ Press,.
4. 1. Botelho, A.,
   2. Lourenço-Gomes, L.,
   3. Pinto, L.,
   4. Sousa, S., and
   5. Valente, M.

   (2017). Accounting for local impacts of photovoltaic farms: The application of two stated preferences approaches to a case-study in Portugal. Energy Policy, 109, 191–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.06.065

   OpenUrl
5. 1. Boyle, K. J.,
   2. Boatwright, J.,
   3. Brahma, S., and
   4. Xu, W.

   (2019). NIMBY, not, in siting community wind farms. Resource and Energy Economics, 57, 85–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2019.04.004

   OpenUrl
6. 1. Carlisle, J. E.,
   2. Kane, S. L.,
   3. Solan, D.,
   4. Bowman, M., and
   5. Joe, J. C.

   (2015). Public attitudes regarding large-scale solar energy development in the U.S. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 48, 835–847. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.047

   OpenUrl
7. 1. Carlisle, J. E.,
   2. Kane, S. L.,
   3. Solan, D., and
   4. Joe, J. C.

   (2014). Support for solar energy: Examining sense of place and utility-scale development in California. Energy Research and Social Science, 3, 124–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.07.006

   OpenUrl
8. 1. Carson, R. T., and
   2. Czajkowski, M.

   (2019). A new baseline model for estimating willingness to pay from discrete choice models. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 95, 57–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2019.03.003

   OpenUrl
9. 1. Carson, R. T., and
   2. Groves, T.

   (2007). Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environmental and Resource Economics, 37(1), 181–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-007-9124-5

   OpenUrlCrossRef
10. 1. Carson, R. T.,
    2. Groves, T., and
    3. List, J. A.

    (2014). Consequentiality: A Theoretical and Experimental Exploration of a Single Binary Choice. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 1(1/2), 171–207. https://doi.org/10.1086/676450

    OpenUrlCrossRef
11. 1. Chen, Z.,
    2. Swallow, S. K., and
    3. Yue, I. T.

    (2020). Non-participation and Heterogeneity in Stated: A Double Hurdle Latent Class Approach for Climate Change Adaptation Plans and Ecosystem Services. Environmental and Resource Economics, 77(1), 35–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-020-00434-z

    OpenUrl
12. 1. Czajkowski, M.,
    2. Hanley, N., and
    3. LaRiviere, J.

    (2016). Controlling for the Effects of Information in a Public Goods Discrete Choice Model. Environmental and Resource Economics, 63(3), 523–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-014-9847-z

    OpenUrl
13. 1. Davis, M.,
    2. Smith, C.,
    3. White, B.,
    4. Goldstein, R.,
    5. Sun, X.,
    6. Cox, M.,
    7. Curtin, G.,
    8. Manghani, R.,
    9. Rumery, S.,
    10. Silver, C., and
    11. Baca, J.

    (2021). U.S. Solar Market Insight. Wood Mackenzie and Solar Energy Industries Association.
14. 1. Denholm, P., and
    2. Margolis, R. M.

    (2008). Land-use requirements and the per-capita solar footprint for photovoltaic generation in the United States. Energy Policy, 36(9), 3531–3543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.05.035

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
15. 1. DeShazo, J. R., and
    2. Fermo, G.

    (2002). Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods: The Effects of Complexity on Choice Consistency. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 44(1), 123–143. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.2001.1199

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
16. 1. Devine-Wright, P.

    (2009). Rethinking NIMBYism: The role of place attachment and place identity in explaining place-protective action. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 19(6), 426–441. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.1004

    OpenUrlCrossRef
17. 1. Dillman, D. A.,
    2. Smyth, J. D., and
    3. Christian, L. M.

    (2014). Internet, Phone, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. John Wiley and Sons.
18. 1. Dröes, M. I., and
    2. Koster, H. R. A.

    (2021). Wind turbines, solar farms, and house prices. Energy Policy, 155, 112327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112327

    OpenUrl
19. EIA. (2019). Annual Electric Power Industry Report, Form EIA-861 detailed data files. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia861/
20. EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2021. (2021). U.S. Energy Information Administration. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/
21. 1. Farhar, B. C.

    (1994). Trends in US Public Perceptions and Preferences on Energy and Environmental Policy. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 19(1), 211–239. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.eg.19.110194.001235

    OpenUrl
22. 1. Farhar, B. C.,
    2. Hunter, L. M.,
    3. Kirkland, T. M., and
    4. Tierney, K. J.

    (2010). Community Response to Concentrating Solar Power in the San Luis Valley: October 9, 2008 - March 31, 2010 (NREL/SR-550-48041). National Renewable Energy Lab. (NREL), Golden, CO (United States). https://doi.org/10.2172/983406
23. 1. Fiebig, D. G.,
    2. Keane, M. P.,
    3. Louviere, J., and
    4. Wasi, N.

    (2010). The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity. Marketing Science, 29(3), 393–421. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1090.0508

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
24. 1. Gaur, V., and
    2. Lang, C.

    (2020). Property value impacts of Commercial-Scale Solar Energy in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. https://web.uri.edu/coopext/valuing-siting-options-for-commercial-scale-solar-energy-in-rhode-island/
25. 1. Greenberg, M.

    (2009). Energy sources, public policy, and public preferences: Analysis of US national and site-specific data. Energy Policy, 37(8), 3242–3249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.04.020

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
26. 1. Gross, S.

    (2020). Renewables, land use, and local opposition in the United States (p. 24). The Brookings Institution. https://docs.wind-watch.org/FP_20200113_renewables_land_use_local_opposition_gross.pdf
27. 1. Hensher, D.,
    2. Louviere, J., and
    3. Swait, J.

    (1998). Combining sources of preference data. Journal of Econometrics, 89(1), 197–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(98)00061-X

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
28. 1. Herriges, J.,
    2. Kling, C.,
    3. Liu, C.-C., and
    4. Tobias, J.

    (2010). What are the consequences of consequentiality? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 59(1), 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2009.03.004

    OpenUrlCrossRef
29. 1. Hole, A. R.

    (2017). DCREATE: Stata module to create efficient designs for discrete choice experiments. In Statistical Software Components. Boston College Department of Economics. https://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s458059.html
30. 1. Irwin, E. G.

    (2002). The Effects of Open Space on Residential Property Values. Land Economics, 78(4), 465–480. https://doi.org/10.2307/3146847

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
31. 1. Jacobe, D.

    (2013, March 27). Americans Want More Emphasis on Solar, Wind, Natural Gas. Gallup.Com. https://news.gallup.com/poll/161519/americans-emphasis-solar-wind-natural-gas.aspx
32. 1. Jarvis, S.

    (2021). The economic costs of NIMBYism: Evidence from renewable energy projects. 2.
33. 1. Jin, J.,
    2. He, R.,
    3. Wang, W., and
    4. Gong, H.

    (2018). Valuing cultivated land protection: A contingent valuation and choice experiment study in China. Land Use Policy, 74, 214–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.09.023

    OpenUrl
34. 1. Kim, K. J.,
    2. Lee, H., and
    3. Koo, Y.

    (2020). Research on local acceptance cost of renewable energy in South Korea: A case study of photovoltaic and wind power projects. Energy Policy, 144, 111684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111684

    OpenUrl
35. 1. Knight, P.,
    2. Odom, C.,
    3. Camp, E.,
    4. Bhandari, D., and
    5. Frost, J.

    (2020). Solar Siting Opportunities for Rhode Island: An analysis of potentials and costs of rooftop, landfill, gravel pit, brownfield, commercial and industrial ground-mounted and carport solar [Report prepared for Rhode Island Office of Energy Resources]. Synapse Energy Economics. http://www.energy.ri.gov/documents/renewable/Solar%20Siting%20Opportunities%20for%20Rhode%20Island.pdf
36. 1. Kuffner, A.

    (2018, March 16). Worry over solar sprawl spreads across Rhode Island. Providencejournal.Com. https://www.providencejournal.com/news/20180316/worry-over-solar-sprawl-spreads-across-rhode-island
37. 1. Lang, C.

    (2018). Assessing the efficiency of local open space provision. Journal of Public Economics, 158, 12–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2017.12.007

    OpenUrl
38. 1. Lang, C., and
    2. Cavanagh, P.

    (2018). Incomplete Information and Adverse Impacts of Environmental Cleanup. Land Economics, 94(3), 386–404. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.94.3.386

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
39. 1. Lang, C., and
    2. Pearson-Merkowitz, S.

    (2022). Aggregate data yield biased estimates of voter preferences. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 111, 102604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2021.102604

    OpenUrl
40. 1. Lehtonen, E.,
    2. Kuuluvainen, J.,
    3. Pouta, E.,
    4. Rekola, M., and
    5. Li, C.-Z.

    (2003). Non-market benefits of forest conservation in southern Finland. Environmental Science and Policy, 6(3), 195–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1462-9011(03)00035-2

    OpenUrl
41. 1. Louviere, J. J.

    (2001). What If Consumer Experiments Impact Variances as well as Means? Response Variability as a Behavioral Phenomenon. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(3), 506–511. https://doi.org/10.1086/323739

    OpenUrlCrossRef
42. 1. Louviere, J.,
    2. Street, D.,
    3. Carson, R.,
    4. Ainslie, A.,
    5. Deshazo, J. R.,
    6. Cameron, T.,
    7. Hensher, D.,
    8. Kohn, R., and
    9. Marley, T.

    (2002). Dissecting the Random Component of Utility. Marketing Letters, 13(3), 177–193. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020258402210

    OpenUrl
43. 1. Lovich, J. E., and
    2. Ennen, J. R.

    (2011). Wildlife Conservation and Solar Energy Development in the Desert Southwest, United States. BioScience, 61(12), 982–992. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2011.61.12.8

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
44. 1. Mamkhezri, J.,
    2. Thacher, J. A., and
    3. Chermak, J. M.

    (2020a). Consumer Preferences for Solar Energy: A Choice Experiment Study. The Energy Journal, 41(5). http://dx.doi.org.uri.idm.oclc.org/10.5547/01956574.41.5.jmam
45. 1. Mamkhezri, J.,
    2. Thacher, J. A.,
    3. Chermak, J. M., and
    4. Berrens, R. P.

    (2020b). Does the solemn oath lower WTP responses in a discrete choice experiment application to solar energy? Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 9(4), 447–473. https://doi.org/10.1080/21606544.2020.1738276

    OpenUrl
46. MA-Smart Solar. (n.d.). Retrieved April 17, 2021, from https://masmartsolar.com/
47. 1. McDonald, J.,
    2. MacInnis, B., and
    3. Krosnick, J. A.

    (2020). Surveying American Public Opinion on Climate Change and the Environment. 53.
48. 1. McFadden, D.

    (1974). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. https://eml.berkeley.edu/reprints/mcfadden/zarembka.pdf
49. 1. McMaster, H. S.,
    2. LeardMann, C. A.,
    3. Speigle, S.,
    4. Dillman, D. A.,
    5. Stander, V.,
    6. Pflieger, J.,
    7. Carballo, C.,
    8. Powell, T.,
    9. Woodall, K.,
    10. Sun, E.,
    11. Bauer, L.,
    12. Lee, W.,
    13. Corry, N.,
    14. Williams, C.,
    15. Fairbank, J.,
    16. Murphy, R.,
    17. Briggs-King, E.,
    18. Gerrity, E.,
    19. Lee, R.

    , and for the Millennium Cohort Family Study Team. (2017). An experimental comparison of webpush vs. Paper-only survey procedures for conducting an in-depth health survey of military spouses. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 17(1), 73. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0337-1

    OpenUrl
50. 1. Millar, M. M., and
    2. Dillman, D. A.

    (2011). Improving Response to Web and Mixed-Mode Surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75(2), 249–269. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfr003

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
51. 1. Nilson, R. S., and
    2. Stedman, R. C.

    (2022). Are big and small solar separate things?: The importance of scale in public support for solar energy development in upstate New York. Energy Research and Social Science, 86, 102449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102449

    OpenUrl
52. 1. Oehlmann, M.,
    2. Glenk, K.,
    3. Lloyd-Smith, P., and
    4. Meyerhoff, J.

    (2021). Quantifying landscape externalities of renewable energy development: Implications of attribute cut-offs in choice experiments. Resource and Energy Economics, 101240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2021.101240
53. 1. Ong, S.,
    2. Campbell, C.,
    3. Denholm, P.,
    4. Margolis, R., and
    5. Heath, G.

    (2013). Land-Use Requirements for Solar Power Plants in the United States (NREL/TP-6A20-56290, 1086349). https://doi.org/10.2172/1086349
54. Pew Research Center. (2019, November 25). U.S. Public Views on Climate and Energy. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/11/25/u-s-public-views-on-climate-and-energy/
55. Pew Research Center. (2020). Two-Thirds of Americans Think Government Should Do More on Climate. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of-americans-think-government-should-do-more-on-climate/
56. 1. Qi, L., and
    2. Zhang, Y.

    (2017). Effects of solar photovoltaic technology on the environment in China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24(28), 22133–22142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-9987-0

    OpenUrl
57. RIPUC. (n.d.). State of Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission. Retrieved April 17, 2021, from http://www.ripuc.ri.gov/eventsactions/docket/5088page.html
58. 1. Shoyama, K.,
    2. Managi, S., and
    3. Yamagata, Y.

    (2013). Public preferences for biodiversity conservation and climate-change mitigation: A choice experiment using ecosystem services indicators. Land Use Policy, 34, 282–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.04.003

    OpenUrl
59. 1. Train, K., and
    2. Weeks, M.

    (2005). Discrete Choice Models in Preference Space and Willingness-to-Pay Space. In R. Scarpa and A. Alberini (Eds.), Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics (pp. 1–16). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3684-1_1
60. 1. Trainor, A. M.,
    2. McDonald, R. I., and
    3. Fargione, J.

    (2016). Energy Sprawl Is the Largest Driver of Land Use Change in United States. PLOS ONE, 11(9), e0162269. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0162269

    OpenUrl
61. 1. Tsoutsos, T.,
    2. Frantzeskaki, N., and
    3. Gekas, V.

    (2005). Environmental impacts from the solar energy technologies. Energy Policy, 33(3), 289–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(03)00241-6

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
62. 1. Turney, D., and
    2. Fthenakis, V.

    (2011). Environmental impacts from the installation and operation of large-scale solar power plants. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(6), 3261–3270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.04.023

    OpenUrl
63. 1. von Haefen, R. H.,
    2. Massey, D. M., and
    3. Adamowicz, W. L.

    (2005). Serial Nonparticipation in Repeated Discrete Choice Models. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 87(4), 1061–1076. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8276.2005.00794.x

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
64. 1. Vossler, C. A., and
    2. Watson, S. B.

    (2013). Understanding the consequences of consequentiality: Testing the validity of stated preferences in the field. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 86, 137–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2012.12.007

    OpenUrlCrossRef
65. 1. Yang, H.-J.,
    2. Lim, S.-Y., and
    3. Yoo, S.-H.

    (2017). The Environmental Costs of Photovoltaic Power Plants in South Korea: A Choice Experiment Study. Sustainability, 9(10), 1773. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101773

    OpenUrl