Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Preservation: The Case of a Proposed Hydropower Project in Southern Iceland
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Renewable Energy in Iceland
2.1. Iceland’s Strategic Approach to Energy Development
2.2. Study Site
3. Methods and Materials
3.1. Contingent Valuation Method
3.2. Survey Design and Implementation
3.2.1. Population Identification and Sample Selection
3.2.2. Survey Design
3.2.3. Survey Mode
3.2.4. Pilot Testing
3.2.5. Survey Administration
3.3. Database Management
3.4. Coding and Statistical Model
3.4.1. WTP Value Coding
3.4.2. Statistical Model
3.5. Timeline for Data Analysis and Organization
- A general descriptive analysis of attitudes and behaviors.
- A Tobit regression analysis to understand the influence of the predictor variables on reported WTP values. Variables examined in the descriptive analysis were further explored in the regression to clarify the research questions driving this study.
- Calculation of the mean WTP and its descriptive statistics, such as confidence intervals and standard deviation. Mean WTP values were calculated and used to derive the aggregate WTP associated with the HAHP, which would represent the environmental and social cost value in a CBA.
4. Results
4.1. Representation of Population across Stratified Variables
4.2. Responses to Attitudinal Questions
4.2.1. Attitudes and Preferences toward RE and Environmental Protection
4.2.2. Attitudes toward Renewable Energy Development in Iceland
4.2.3. Attitudes toward Hydropower Developments in Iceland
4.2.4. Familiarity with the Study Area and Activities Engaged in While Visiting
4.3. Data Analysis and Regression
4.3.1. Willingness to Pay
4.3.2. Tobit Regression Analysis
4.4. Estimated Mean WTP and Total Value for Social and Environmental Impacts
5. Discussion
5.1. The Economic Value of the Hólmsá and Tungufljót River Basins
5.2. Factors Influencing WTP
5.3. Contextualizing Results among Previous National and International CVM Studies
5.4. Implications for Policy
5.5. Limitations
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Energy Option | Rankings and Scores | Environmental Assessment (EA) Count (Weight Applied) *** | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Working Group 1 (AHP) * | Working Group 2 ** | EA Weighted Summation | Significant Negative Effects (3) | Moderate Negative Effects (2) | Insignificant Negative Effects (1) | |
R3121A Hólmsárvirkjun at Atley | 13.4 | 6.16 | 40 | 7 (21) | 8 (16) | 3 |
R3296A Fremrinámar | 13.3 | 3.29 | 35 | 8 (24) | 1 (2) | 9 |
R3134A Búðartunguvirkjun | 11.8 | 3.25 | 34 | 3 (9) | 10 (20) | 5 |
R3273A Innstidalur | 11.3 | 3.36 | 37 | 6 (18) | 7 (14) | 5 |
R3265A Trölladyngja | 6.5 | 2.92 | 34 | 4 (12) | 8 (16) | 6 |
R3141A Stóra-Laxá | 5.3 | 3.7 | 37 | 4 (12) | 11 (22) | 3 |
R3139A Hagavatnsvirkjun | 4.9 | 2.49 | 33 | 4 (12) | 7 (14) | 7 |
R4301B Búrfellslundur | 1.7 | 7.99 | 28 | 2 (6) | 6 (12) | 10 |
R3154A Blöndudalsvirkjun | 1.7 | 3.12 | 29 | 2 (6) | 7 (14) | 9 |
R3291A Hágönguvirkjun | 1.3 | 4.77 | 28 | 3 (9) | 4 (8) | 11 |
Independent Variable | Coding Scheme |
---|---|
Socio-demographics | |
Gender | Dummy variable; 0 = male, 1 = female |
Education | Dummy variable; 0 = education at upper-secondary school or less, 1 = university-level education |
Income | Dummy variable; 0 = less than ISK 901k monthly before taxes and deductions, 1 = ISK 901k or more per month before taxes and deductions |
Residence | Nominal variable; reference South, 1 = Southwest, 2 = East, 3 = North, 4 = Capital area, 5 = West and Westfjords |
Live 20 years | Dummy variable for those living locally in Skaftárhreppur, Mýrdalshreppur, or Hornafjörður for more than 20 years; 0 = less than 20 years, 1 = 20 years or more |
Age | Scale variable (min = 18, max = 90, mean = 53.1, S.D. = 15.81, N = 621) |
Attitudinal/Behavioral | |
Outdoor recreation | Dummy variable; 0 = never engage in outdoor recreation in Iceland, 1 = engage in outdoor recreation at least once per year or more |
Energy security | Dummy variable for ‘how important is it to you to ensure Iceland can develop its domestic RE resources in the future?’; 0 = not important or neutral, 1 = important |
Environmental protection | Dummy variable for ‘how important is environmental protection to you?’; 0 = not important or neutral, 1 = important |
Donate money or time | Dummy variable for ‘how important is it to you to donate money or time to environmental conservation organizations?’; 0 = not important or neutral, 1 = important |
Hydropower | Dummy variable for attitude toward new hydropower developments in Iceland; 0 = neutral or negative attitudes, 1 = positive attitude |
Study-area-specific | |
Past visits | Dummy variable for the number of visits to the study area over the course of their life; 0 = never visited, 1 = visited at least once or live there |
Future visits | Dummy variable for those that intend on visiting the study area in the future; 0 = don’t plan to visit, 1 = plan to visit in the future |
Variable | Survey Respondents (N = 1357) (%) | Adult Icelandic Residents 1 (N = 292,989) (%) | Cases in Descriptive Analysis (N = 1278) (%) | Difference: Residents vs. Descriptive Analysis (%) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender *** | Male | 55.6 | 51.5 | 57.0 | 5.50 |
Female | 44.4 | 48.5 | 43.0 | −5.50 | |
Age *** | 18–25 | 6.3 | 15.1 | 5.6 | −9.50 |
26–35 | 10.8 | 21.0 | 10.6 | −10.40 | |
36–45 | 15.9 | 17.8 | 16.0 | −1.80 | |
46–55 | 20.2 | 15.7 | 20.3 | 4.60 | |
56–65 | 20.6 | 14.3 | 20.9 | 6.60 | |
66–75 | 17.3 | 10.1 | 17.4 | 7.30 | |
76+ | 8.9 | 6.1 | 9.1 | 3.00 | |
Residence *** | Capital Area | 60.6 | 65.1 | 60.0 | −5.10 |
Countryside | 39.4 | 34.9 | 40.0 | 5.10 | |
Education *** | Compulsory or less | 11.2 | 28.3 | 10.5 | −17.80 |
Upper- secondary | 36.7 | 37.2 | 36.7 | −0.50 | |
University | 52.1 | 34.5 | 52.8 | 18.30 |
Region of Residence | Respondents (%) | National Adult Population 1 (%) | % Difference: Respondents to National Population |
---|---|---|---|
Capital area | 60.0 | 64.2 | −4.2 |
Southwest | 4.9 | 7.6 | −2.7 |
East | 3.4 | 2.9 | 0.5 |
North | 11.6 | 10.2 | 1.4 |
West and Westfjords | 7.0 | 6.4 | 0.6 |
South | 13.1 | 8.6 | 4.5 |
Municipalities within the South region | Respondents N (% of Municipality) | Municipality Population 1 N | |
Hornafjörður | 43 (2.2) | 1988 | |
Mýrdalshreppur and Skaftárhreppur | 16 (1.3) | 1242 |
Not Important at All | Not That Important | Neither Important Nor Unimportant | Rather Important | Very Important | Total | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Variable | (%) | (%) | (%) | (%) | (%) | (N) | |
Gender *** | Males | 0.41 | 1.51 | 4.94 | 24.14 | 69.00 | 729 |
Females | 0.73 | 0.55 | 8.38 | 32.97 | 57.38 | 549 | |
Age *** | 18–25 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 5.56 | 31.94 | 62.50 | 72 |
26–35 | 1.47 | 0.74 | 5.15 | 27.94 | 64.71 | 136 | |
36–45 | 0.49 | 1.46 | 4.88 | 33.17 | 60.00 | 205 | |
46–55 | 0.00 | 0.39 | 10.04 | 29.73 | 59.85 | 259 | |
56–65 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 5.62 | 25.47 | 68.91 | 267 | |
66–75 | 1.35 | 1.79 | 7.17 | 21.08 | 68.61 | 223 | |
76+ | 0.86 | 4.31 | 3.45 | 31.03 | 60.34 | 116 | |
Education ** | Compulsory or less | 1.49 | 1.49 | 5.97 | 35.07 | 55.97 | 134 |
Upper secondary | 0.64 | 1.71 | 6.61 | 31.34 | 59.70 | 469 | |
University | 0.30 | 0.59 | 6.37 | 24.15 | 68.59 | 675 |
Variable | Not Important at All (%) | Not That Important (%) | Neither Important Nor Unimportant (%) | Rather Important (%) | Very Important (%) | Total (N) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender *** | Males | 0.96 | 2.19 | 10.15 | 38.00 | 48.70 | 729 |
Females | 0.55 | 1.09 | 6.01 | 31.15 | 61.20 | 549 | |
Place of residence * | Capital area | 0.91 | 1.30 | 6.39 | 34.29 | 57.11 | 767 |
Southwest | 0.00 | 0.00 | 11.11 | 49.21 | 39.68 | 63 | |
East | 0.00 | 4.65 | 16.28 | 30.23 | 48.84 | 43 | |
North | 0.68 | 3.38 | 11.49 | 37.16 | 47.30 | 148 | |
South | 1.19 | 1.79 | 11.31 | 30.36 | 55.36 | 168 | |
West/Westfjords | 0.00 | 2.25 | 8.99 | 39.33 | 49.44 | 89 | |
Education *** | Compulsory or less | 2.99 | 3.73 | 7.46 | 42.54 | 43.28 | 134 |
Upper secondary | 0.85 | 2.35 | 13.65 | 37.53 | 45.63 | 469 | |
University | 0.30 | 0.89 | 4.89 | 31.85 | 62.07 | 675 |
Variable | Not Important at All (%) | Not That Important (%) | Neither Important Nor Unimportant (%) | Rather Important (%) | Very Important (%) | Total (N) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender *** | Males | 16.60 | 13.99 | 31.00 | 26.20 | 12.21 | 729 |
Females | 7.65 | 10.20 | 29.51 | 34.24 | 18.40 | 549 | |
Age *** | 18–25 | 5.56 | 0.00 | 19.44 | 45.83 | 29.17 | 72 |
26–35 | 8.82 | 13.24 | 33.09 | 27.94 | 16.91 | 136 | |
36–45 | 14.15 | 8.78 | 30.73 | 32.20 | 14.15 | 205 | |
46–55 | 11.20 | 15.06 | 33.59 | 29.73 | 10.42 | 259 | |
56–65 | 16.10 | 13.48 | 31.46 | 26.22 | 12.73 | 267 | |
66–75 | 13.45 | 15.70 | 26.46 | 26.46 | 17.94 | 223 | |
76+ | 13.79 | 10.34 | 31.03 | 31.03 | 13.79 | 116 | |
Education ** | Compulsory or less | 16.42 | 9.70 | 25.37 | 30.60 | 17.91 | 134 |
Upper secondary | 16.20 | 12.58 | 31.98 | 25.16 | 14.07 | 469 | |
University | 9.63 | 12.74 | 30.22 | 32.59 | 14.81 | 675 |
Variable | Very Negative (%) | Somewhat Negative (%) | Neither Positive Nor Negative (%) | Somewhat Positive (%) | Very Positive (%) | Total N | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender *** | Males | 1.92 | 3.84 | 8.23 | 25.51 | 60.49 | 729 |
Females | 2.91 | 7.47 | 14.03 | 36.25 | 39.34 | 549 | |
Age * | 18–25 | 2.78 | 2.78 | 23.61 | 26.39 | 44.44 | 72 |
26–35 | 2.21 | 8.82 | 12.50 | 29.41 | 47.06 | 136 | |
36–45 | 2.44 | 7.32 | 13.17 | 31.71 | 45.37 | 205 | |
46–55 | 0.77 | 5.79 | 9.65 | 34.36 | 49.42 | 259 | |
56–65 | 2.62 | 4.49 | 7.87 | 30.71 | 54.31 | 267 | |
66–75 | 3.14 | 4.04 | 7.62 | 27.35 | 57.85 | 223 | |
76+ | 3.45 | 3.45 | 11.21 | 25.00 | 56.90 | 116 | |
Place of Residence *** | Capital area | 2.87 | 7.04 | 11.47 | 32.72 | 45.89 | 767 |
Southwest | 0.00 | 1.59 | 7.94 | 26.98 | 63.49 | 63 | |
East | 2.33 | 4.65 | 16.28 | 23.26 | 53.49 | 43 | |
North | 1.35 | 2.03 | 10.81 | 32.43 | 53.38 | 148 | |
South | 2.38 | 4.76 | 10.71 | 22.02 | 60.12 | 168 | |
West/Westfjords | 1.12 | 1.12 | 3.37 | 24.72 | 69.66 | 89 | |
Living in surrounding municipality * | Yes | 5.88 | 7.84 | 11.76 | 15.69 | 58.82 | 51 |
No | 2.02 | 4.95 | 10.28 | 30.46 | 52.99 | 1141 | |
Education *** | Compulsory or less | 2.99 | 1.49 | 10.45 | 30.60 | 54.48 | 134 |
Upper-secondary | 1.92 | 3.20 | 8.74 | 27.72 | 58.42 | 469 | |
University | 2.52 | 7.70 | 12.15 | 31.70 | 45.93 | 675 |
Reported Number of Trips | Responses (N) | Percentage (%) |
---|---|---|
Never | 374 | 29.3 |
Once or twice | 359 | 28.1 |
3 or 4 times | 200 | 15.6 |
5 or 6 times | 112 | 8.8 |
7 or 8 times | 43 | 3.4 |
9 or 10 times | 36 | 2.8 |
More than 10 times | 149 | 11.7 |
I live and/or work in this area | 5 | 0.4 |
Variable | Have Not Visited N (%) | Have Visited at Least Once N (%) | Total (N) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Age *** | 18–25 | 32 (44.44) | 40 (55.56) | 72 |
26–35 | 65 (47.79) | 71 (52.21) | 136 | |
36–45 | 70 (34.15) | 135 (65.85) | 205 | |
46–55 | 77 (29.73) | 182 (70.27) | 259 | |
56–65 | 67 (25.10) | 200 (74.91) | 267 | |
66–75 | 45 (20.18) | 178 (79.82) | 223 | |
76 and older | 18 (15.52) | 98 (84.48) | 116 | |
Gender *** | Male | 190 (26.06) | 539 (73.94) | 729 |
Female | 184 (33.52) | 365 (66.48) | 549 | |
Place of residence *** | Capital area | 216 (28.16) | 551 (71.84) | 767 |
Southwest | 18 (28.57) | 45 (71.43) | 63 | |
East | 20 (46.51) | 23 (53.49) | 43 | |
North | 59 (39.86) | 89 (60.14) | 148 | |
South | 28 (16.67) | 140 (83.33) | 168 | |
West and Westfjords | 33 (37.08) | 56 (62.92) | 89 |
Whether They Intend to Visit the Study Area in the Future | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Variable | Yes N (%) | No N (%) | Don’t Know N (%) | Total (N) | |
Age *** | 18–25 | 25 (34.72) | 9 (12.50) | 38 (52.78) | 72 |
26–35 | 45 (33.09) | 26 (19.12) | 65 (47.79) | 136 | |
36–45 | 90 (43.90) | 17 (8.30) | 98 (47.80) | 205 | |
46–55 | 123 (47.49) | 19 (7.34) | 117 (45.17) | 259 | |
56–65 | 146 (54.68) | 15 (5.62) | 106 (39.70) | 267 | |
66–75 | 92 (41.26) | 19 (8.52) | 112 (50.22) | 223 | |
76 and older | 35 (30.17) | 28 (24.14) | 53 (45.69) | 116 | |
Residence *** | Capital area | 341 (44.46) | 80 (10.43) | 346 (45.11) | 767 |
Southwest | 21 (33.33) | 11 (17.46) | 31 (49.21) | 63 | |
East | 17 (39.53) | 5 (11.63) | 21 (48.84) | 43 | |
North | 54 (36.49) | 9 (6.08) | 85 (57.43) | 148 | |
South | 94 (55.95) | 14 (8.33) | 60 (35.71) | 168 | |
West and Westfjords | 29 (32.58) | 14 (15.73) | 46 (51.69) | 89 |
Variable | Positive WTP (35.1%) (%) | No WTP (64.9%) (%) | Total (N) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Socio-demographics | ||||
Gender *** | Male | 25.6 | 74.4 | 398 |
Female | 52.0 | 48.0 | 223 | |
University | 41.7 | 58.3 | 333 | |
education *** | Compulsory or upper-secondary | 27.4 | 72.6 | 288 |
Over ISK 901k monthly | 28.6 | 71.4 | 213 | |
income ** | Up to ISK 901k monthly | 38.5 | 61.5 | 408 |
Capital area | 40.5 | 59.5 | 358 | |
Residence ** | Southwest | 25.0 | 75.0 | 32 |
East | 43.5 | 56.5 | 23 | |
North | 24.1 | 75.9 | 79 | |
South | 29.1 | 70.9 | 86 | |
West and Westfjords | 25.6 | 74.4 | 43 | |
18-25 | 60.6 | 39.4 | 33 | |
Age ** | 26–35 | 31.1 | 68.9 | 61 |
36–45 | 43.8 | 56.3 | 112 | |
46–55 | 31.8 | 68.2 | 129 | |
56–65 | 31.1 | 68.9 | 135 | |
66–75 | 30.3 | 69.7 | 99 | |
76+ | 32.7 | 67.3 | 52 | |
Attitudinal/Behavioral | ||||
Environmental protection *** | Important | 38.9 | 61.1 | 543 |
Not important or neutral | 9.0 | 91.0 | 78 | |
Donate time or money to conservation *** | Important | 62.2 | 37.8 | 249 |
Not important or neutral | 16.9 | 83.1 | 372 | |
Hydropower *** | Positive attitude | 28.8 | 71.2 | 524 |
Neutral or negative attitude | 69.1 | 30.9 | 97 | |
Study-area-specific | ||||
Intended future visits *** | Plan to visit in the future | 44.4 | 55.6 | 277 |
Don’t plan to visit in the future | 27.6 | 72.4 | 344 | |
No previous visit ** | Plan to visit in the future | 31.1 | 68.9 | 341 |
Don’t plan to visit in the future | 40.0 | 60.0 | 280 |
Predictor Variable | Coefficient (Standard Error) | p-Value |
---|---|---|
Socio-demographics | ||
Gender *** | 6600.648 (1591.390) | <0.001 |
Education | 1954.765 (1647.170) | 0.235 |
Income | −1626.526 (1705.030) | 0.340 |
Residence (in relation to South) | ||
Capital area | 3800.802 (2673.178) | 0.155 |
Southwest | 1745.808 (4376.058) | 0.690 |
North | 259.849 (3456.156) | 0.940 |
East | 6909.447 (4396.865) | 0.116 |
West and Westfjords | 2974.401 (3972.134) | 0.454 |
Live 20 years | 479.150 (4993.944) | 0.924 |
Age | 69.745 (48.527) | 0.151 |
Attitudinal/Behavioral | ||
Outdoor recreation | −2202.658 (4813.864) | 0.647 |
Energy security | −2954.684 (3202.200) | 0.356 |
Environmental protection ** | 8087.520 (3323.174) | 0.015 |
Donate money or time *** | 14,364.852 (1711.524) | <0.001 |
Hydropower *** | −9695.758 (1922.136) | <0.001 |
Study-area-specific | ||
Past visits | −2044.677 (1877.300) | 0.276 |
Future visits *** | 8110.026 (1628.403) | <0.001 |
Constant ** | −17493.730 (7209.993) | 0.015 |
Log/scale | 9.587 (0.054) | |
N | 621 | |
Log-likelihood (degrees of freedom.) | −2500.098 (D.f.: 19) | |
Wald (degrees of freedom) | 194.263 (D.f.: 17) |
References
- Hastik, R.; Basso, S.; Geitner, C.; Haida, C.; Poljanec, A.; Portaccio, A.; Vrščaj, B.; Walzer, C. Renewable energies and ecosystem service impacts. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 48, 608–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harris, J.M.; Roach, B. Environmental and Natural Resource Economics: A Contemporary Approach; Taylor and Francis: Florence, Italy, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Vysna, V.; Maes, J.; Petersen, J.-E.; La Notte, A.; Vallecillo, S.; Aizpurua, N.; Ivits, E.; Teller, A. Accounting for Ecosystems and Their Services in the European Union (INCA): Final Report from Phase II of the INCA Project Aiming to Develop a Pilot for an Integrated System of Ecosystem Accounts for the EU; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Cook, D.; Davíðsdóttir, B.; Kristófersson, D.M. Willingness to pay for the preservation of geothermal areas in Iceland—The contingent valuation studies of Eldvörp and Hverahlíð. Renew. Energy 2018, 116, 97–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cook, D.; Davíðsdóttir, B.; Kristófersson, D.M. Energy projects in Iceland—Advancing the case for the use of economic valuation techniques to evaluate environmental impacts. Energy Policy 2016, 94, 104–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Directive 2014/52/EU. Environmental Impact Assessment; European Commission, Ed.; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Act No. 2012(sc2012c-19). Environmental Assessment Act, Canada; Government of Canada: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2012.
- Alþingi. Lög um mat á Umhverfisáhrifum nr. 63/1993 [Environmental Impact Assessment Act]; Alþingi: Reykjavík, Iceland, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Krutilla, J.V. Conservation reconsidered. Am. Econ. Rev. 1967, 57, 777–786. [Google Scholar]
- Holmes, T.P. Self-Interest, Altruism, and Health-Risk Reduction: An Economic Analysis of Voting Behavior. Land Econ. 1990, 66, 140–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Popp, D. Altruism and the Demand for Environmental Quality. Land Econ. 2001, 77, 339–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Icelandic Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources. Iceland’s 2020 Climate Action Plan; Ministry of the Environment, Energy and Climate: Reykjavík, Iceland, 2020.
- Sigurdardottir, R.; Burton, M. Iceland Cuts Power to Industry, Turns Away New Bitcoin Miners. 2021. Available online: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-07/iceland-reduces-power-to-heavy-users-denies-bitcoin-miners (accessed on 10 January 2022).
- Guðmundsson, G. Iceland: Transition to Clean Energy, Limitations of the Electric Transmission System, in School of Science and Engineering. Master’s Thesis, Reykjavik University, Reykjavik, Iceland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Olafsson, H. A True Environmental Parable: The Laxá-Mývatn Conflict in Iceland, 1965–1973 An Ecological and Anthropological Approach. Environ. Rev. 1981, 5, 2–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ögmundardóttir, H. The Shepherds of Þjórsárver: Traditional Use and Hydropower Development in the Commons of the Icelandic Highland; Department of Cultural Anthropology and Ethnology, Uppsala University: Uppsala, Sweden, 2011; 320p. [Google Scholar]
- Environmental Agency. Gullfoss: Culture and History. Available online: https://ust.is/nattura/natturuverndarsvaedi/fridlyst-svaedi/sudurland/gullfoss/menning-og-saga/ (accessed on 20 January 2021).
- Bosshard, P. Karahnjukar—A Project on Thin Ice: An Analysis of the Karahnjukar Hydropower and Reydaral Aluminum Smelter Project in Iceland; International Rivers Network: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Thórhallsdóttir, T.E. Environment and energy in Iceland: A comparative analysis of values and impacts. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2007, 27, 522–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ingólfsdóttir, A.H.; Gunnarsdóttir, G.Þ. Tourism as a tool for nature conservation? Conflicting interests between renewable energy projects and wilderness protection in Iceland. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2020, 29, 100276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tverijonaite, E.; Sæþórsdóttir, A.D.; Ólafsdóttir, R.; Hall, C.M. Renewable Energy in Wilderness Landscapes: Visitors’ Perspectives. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sæþórsdóttir, A.D.; Hall, C.M. Contested Development Paths and Rural communities: Sustainable Energy or Sustainable Tourism in Iceland? Sustainability 2019, 11, 3642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burns, G.L.; Haraldsdóttir, L. Hydropower and tourism in Iceland: Visitor and operator perspectives on preferred use of natural areas. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2018, 25, 91–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- OECD. OECD Tourism Trends and Policies 2020: Iceland. 2022. Available online: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/2fde1a1d-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/2fde1a1d-en (accessed on 15 May 2022).
- Benediktsson, K. “Scenophobia”, Geography and the Aesthetic Politics of Landscape. Geogr. Ann. Ser. B Hum. Geogr. 2007, 89, 203–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ólafsdóttir, R.; Runnström, M.C. How wild is Iceland? Wilderness quality with respect to nature-based tourism. Tour. Geogr. 2011, 13, 280–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karlsdóttir, U.B. Nature worth seeing! The tourist gaze as a factor in shaping views on nature in Iceland. Tour. Stud. 2013, 13, 139–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thórhallsdóttir, E. Evaluating Nature and Wilderness in Iceland of the Central Highland. In Wilderness in the Circumpolar North: Searching for Compatibility in Ecological, Traditional, and Ecotourism Values; 2001 May 15–16; Anchorage, AK, Proceedings of the RMRS-P-26. Ogden, UT, USA Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 15–16 May 2001; Watson, A.E., Alessa, L., Sproull, J., Eds.; Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 2002; pp. 96–104. [Google Scholar]
- OECD. Environmental Performance Reviews: Iceland; OECD: Paris, France, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- OECD. Environmental Performance Reviews: Iceland; OECD: Paris, France, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- OECD. Environmental Performance Reviews: Iceland; OECD: Paris, France, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Icelandic Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources. Lokaskýrsla Verkefnisstjórnar 3. Áfanga Verndar- Og Orkunýtingaráætlunar 2013–2017; Gíslason, S., Ed.; Ministry of the Environment, Energy and Climate: Reykjavík, Iceland, 2016.
- Carson, R.T. Contingent valuation: A user’s guide. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2000, 34, 1413–1418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arnórsson, Á.; Eiríksdóttir, K. Skýrsla nr. C21:01 Handbók Um Hagrænt Umhverfismat Mars 2021; Háskóli Íslands: Reykjavík, Iceland, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Lienhoop, N.; MacMillan, D. Valuing wilderness in Iceland: Estimation of WTA and WTP using the market stall approach to contingent valuation. Land Use Policy 2007, 24, 289–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steingrimsson, B.; Björnsson, S.; Adalsteinsson, H. Master Plan for Geothermal and Hydropower Development in Iceland. In Proceedings of the ARGeo C-2 Conference, Entebbe, Uganda, 24–25 November 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Master Plan. The Master Plan for Nature Protection and Energy Utilization. Rammaáætlun n.d. Available online: https://www.ramma.is//english (accessed on 21 March 2023).
- Gunnarsson, B.; Gunnarsson, M.-V. Iceland’s Central Highlands: Nature conservation, ecotourism, and energy resource utilization. In Wilderness in the Circumpolar North: Searching for Compatibility in Ecological, Traditional, and Ecotourism Values; 2001 May 15–16; Anchorage, AK, Proceedings of the RMRS-P-26. Ogden, UT, USA Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 15–16 May 2001; Watson, A.E., Alessa, L., Sproull, J., Eds.; Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 2002; pp. 54–63. [Google Scholar]
- Thórhallsdóttir, T.E. Strategic planning at the national level: Evaluating and ranking energy projects by environmental impact. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2007, 27, 545–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klaustur. Facebooksíða Skaftárhreppur. Available online: https://www.klaustur.is/is (accessed on 8 May 2022).
- Pálsdóttir, P.; Ólafsdóttir, R. Jökulvötn in Skaftárhreppur; South East Iceland Nature Research Center: Höfn, Iceland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Ólafsdóttir, R.; Dowling, R.K. Geotourism and Geoparks—A Tool for Geoconservation and Rural Development in Vulnerable Environments: A Case Study from Iceland. Geoheritage 2013, 6, 71–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Katla Geopark. About Katla Geopark. Available online: https://www.katlageopark.com/about-katla/ (accessed on 8 May 2022).
- Landsvirkjun. Hólmsárvirkjun: Allt að 80 MW Vatnsaflsvirkjun í Skaftárhreppi: Mat á Umhverfisáhrifum: Tillaga að Matsáætlun; Skipulagsstofnun: Reykjavik, Iceland, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Árnason, Ó.; Kjeld, A.; Ingólfsdóttir, B.D.; Thoroddsen, R.; Auhage, S.N.V. Tenging Hólmsár- og Búlandsvirkjana, Flutningslínur í Skaftártungu, 132/220 kV, Mat á Umhverfisáhrifum; EFLA: Reykjavik, Iceland, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Ólafsson, E.; Guðmundsson, G.A.; Guðjónsson, G.; Skarphéðinsson, K.H. Hólmsárvirkjun—Atleyjarlón, Fuglar, Gróður og Smádýr; Rafhlaðan: Reykjavik, Iceland, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Thoroddsen, R.; Guðjónsson, G. Hólmsárvirkjun—Atleyjarlón, Náttúrufarsyfirlit um Gróður og Vistgerðir; Natural History Institute of Iceland: Garðabær, Iceland, 2011; NÍ-11005. [Google Scholar]
- Snorrason, A.; Traustason, B.; Eggertsson, Ó. Hólmsárvirkjun—Atleyjarlón: Úttekt á Náttúrulegu Birkilendi Sem fer Undir Vatn Við myndun Atleyjarlóns; Forestry Department: Reykjavík, Iceland, 2011.
- Navrud, S.; Ready, R.C.; Magnussen, K.; Bergland, O. Valuing the social benefits of avoiding landscape degradation from overhead power transmission lines: Do underground cables pass the benefit–cost test? Landsc. Res. 2008, 33, 281–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sæþórsdóttir, A.D. Virkjun Frumkraftanna: Ferðamennska eða Virkjun í Skaftárhreppi? Skemman: Reykjavik, Iceland, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Stefánsson, Þ.; Sæþórsdóttir, A.D.; Hall, C. When tourists meet transmission lines: The effects of electric transmission lines on tourism in Iceland. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2017, 34, 82–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sæþórsdóttir, A.D.; Ólafsson, R. Áhrif Raflínu Frá Hólmsárvirkjun að Sigöldulínu 4 á Ferðamennsku og Útivist; Institute of Land and Tourism: Reykjavik, Iceland, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Alberini, A.; Kahn, J. Handbook on Contingent Valuation; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Carson, R.T.; Hanemann, W.M. Chapter 17 Contingent Valuation. In Handbook of Environmental Economics; Mler, K.-G., Vincent, J.R., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2005; pp. 821–936. [Google Scholar]
- Schils, N. Icelanders protest Karahnjukar Hydropower Project, 2000–2006. 2011. Available online: https://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/icelanders-protest-karahnjukar-hydropower-project-2000-2006 (accessed on 31 January 2000).
- Guðmundsdóttir, H.; Carton, W.; Busch, H.; Ramasar, V. Modernist dreams and green sagas: The neoliberal politics of Iceland’s renewable energy economy. Environ. Plan. E Nat. Space 2018, 1, 579–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Social Science Research Institute. Online Panel. Available online: https://ssri.is/services-questionnaire-surveys/online-panel (accessed on 24 January 2023).
- Haab, T.; McConnell, K.E. Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Arrow, K.; Solow, R.; Portney, P.R.; Leamer, E.E.; Radner, R.; Schuman, H. Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation. Fed. Regist. 1993, 58, 4601–4614. [Google Scholar]
- Johnston, R.J.; Boyle, K.J.; Adamowicz, W.; Bennett, J.; Brouwer, R.; Cameron, T.A.; Hanemann, W.M.; Hanley, N.; Ryan, M.; Scarpa, R.; et al. Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies. J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2017, 4, 319–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sajise, A.J.; Samson, J.N.; Quiao, L. Contingent Valuation of Nonmarket Benefits in Project Economic Analysis: A Guide to Good Practice; Asian Development Bank: Mandaluyong, Philippines, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- OECD. Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment: Further Developments and Policy Use; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Black, J.; Milner-Gulland, E.J.; Sotherton, N.; Mourato, S. Valuing complex environmental goods: Landscape and biodiversity in the North Pennines. Environ. Conserv. 2010, 37, 136–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Groves, R.M. Survey Methodology; J. Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Malinauskaite, L.; Cook, D.; Davíðsdóttir, B.; Ögmundardóttir, H.; Roman, J. Willingness to pay for expansion of the whale sanctuary in Faxaflói Bay, Iceland: A contingent valuation study. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 2020, 183, 105026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Einarsdóttir, S.R.; Cook, D.; Davíðsdóttir, B. The contingent valuation study of the wind farm Búrfellslundur—Willingness to pay for preservation. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 209, 795–802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cook, D.; Eiríksdóttir, K.; Davíðsdóttir, B.; Kristófersson, D.M. The Contingent Valuation Study of Heiðmörk, Iceland—Willingness to pay for its preservation. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 209, 126–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Statista. Share of Households with Internet Access in Iceland from 2010 to 2021. 2023. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/377769/household-internet-access-in-iceland/ (accessed on 10 January 2023).
- Wu, M.-J.; Zhao, K.; Fils-Aime, F. Response rates of online surveys in published research: A meta-analysis. Comput. Hum. Behav. Rep. 2022, 7, 100206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Strazzera, E.; Scarpa, R.; Calia, P.; Garrod, G.D.; Willis, K.G. Modelling zero values and protest responses in contingent valuation surveys. Appl. Econ. 2003, 35, 133–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hynes, S.; O’Donoghue, C. Value transfer using spatial microsimulation modelling: Estimating the value of achieving good ecological status under the EU Water Framework Directive across catchments. Environ. Sci. Policy 2020, 110, 60–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Voltaire, L.; Jeanty, P.W.; Pirrone, C.; Mahieu, P.-A. A convergent validity test within the payment card format using simulation techniques. Appl. Econ. 2019, 51, 3770–3786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buckley, C.; Hynes, S.; Mechan, S. Supply of an ecosystem service—Farmers’ willingness to adopt riparian buffer zones in agricultural catchments. Environ. Sci. Policy 2012, 24, 101–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cook, D.; Malinauskaite, L.; Davíðsdóttir, B.; Ögmundardóttir, H. A contingent valuation approach to estimating the recreational value of commercial whale watching—The case study of Faxaflói Bay, Iceland. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2020, 36, 100754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hynes, S.; Hanley, N. The “Crex crex” lament: Estimating landowners willingness to pay for corncrake conservation on Irish farmland. Biol. Conserv. 2009, 142, 180–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moffitt, R.; McDonald, J. The Uses of Tobit Analysis. Rev. Econ. Stat. 1980, 62, 318–321. [Google Scholar]
- Statistics Iceland. 2023. Available online: https://www.statice.is (accessed on 10 January 2023).
- Ólafsson, K.B. Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) og Virkjunarkostir til Umfjöllunar i 3. Áfanga Rammaáætlunar. 2016. Available online: https://vatnsidnadur.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Virkjanakostir-LCOE-greining-fyrir-Samorku.pdf (accessed on 10 January 2023).
- Tverijonaite, E.; Sæþórsdóttir, A.D.; Ólafsdóttir, R.; Hall, C.M. How close is too close? Mapping the impact area of renewable energy infrastructure on tourism. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2022, 90, 102574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ponce, R.D.; Vásquez, F.; Stehr, A.; Debels, P.; Orihuela, C. Estimating the Economic Value of Landscape Losses Due to Flooding by Hydropower Plants in the Chilean Patagonia. Water Resour. Manag. 2011, 25, 2449–2466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carson, R.T.; Flores, N.E.; Meade, N.F. Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2001, 19, 173–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aas, Ø.; Onstad, O. Strategic and temporal substitution among anglers and white-water kayakers: The case of an urban regulated river. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2013, 1, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jackson, E.L. Outdoor recreation participation and attitudes to the environment. Leis. Stud. 1986, 5, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boudet, H.S. Public perceptions of and responses to new energy technologies. Nat. Energy 2019, 4, 446–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones, B.A.; Berrens, R.P.; Jenkins-Smith, H.; Silva, C.; Ripberger, J.; Carlson, D.; Gupta, K.; Wehde, W. In search of an inclusive approach: Measuring non-market values for the effects of complex dam, hydroelectric and river system operations. Energy Econ. 2018, 69, 225–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Håkansson, C. Costs and benefits of improving wild salmon passage in a regulated river. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2009, 52, 345–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hongyun, H.; Liange, Z.; Tong, Z. Estimating Ecological Value of Small Hydropower Using Contingent Valuation Method: An Application to Tongjiqiao Reservoir in Zhejiang Province, China. Chin. J. Popul. Resour. Environ. 2012, 10, 87–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lehtoranta, V.; Louhi, P. Does conservation in Natura 2000 areas promote water quality improvement? Findings from a contingent valuation study on environmental benefits and residents’ preferences. Environ. Sci. Policy 2021, 124, 226–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IRENA; CPI. Renewable Energy Statistics 2023; International Renewable Energy Agency: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- TEEB. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A Synthesis of the Approach, Conclusions and Recommendations of TEEB. 2010. Available online: https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/9684 (accessed on 5 March 2023).
- Diamond, P.A.; Hausman, J.A. Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number better than No Number? J. Econ. Perspect. 1994, 8, 45–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haab, T.; Interis, M.G.; Petrolia, D.R.; Whitehead, J.C. From Hopeless to Curious? Thoughts on Hausman’s “Dubious to Hopeless” Critique of Contingent Valuation. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 2013, 35, 593–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cummings, R.G.; Taylor, L.O. Does Realism Matter in Contingent Valuation Surveys? Land Econ. 1998, 74, 203–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rowe, R.D.; Schulze, W.D.; Breffle, W.S. A Test for Payment Card Biases. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 1996, 31, 178–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Category | Number | Percentage in Final Dataset | Level of Analysis |
---|---|---|---|
Early withdrawal and strategic responses | 79 | Removed from analysis | |
Failed to complete survey beyond attitude/behavior | 43 | 3.4 | Attitudinal and behavioral analysis only |
Not stating WTP | 361 | 28.2 | Attitudinal and behavioral analysis only |
Protest vote for no WTP | 174 | 13.6 | Attitudinal and behavioral analysis only |
Protest vote for positive WTP | 57 | 4.5 | Attitudinal and behavioral analysis only |
Failure to answer at least one debriefing question correctly | 9 | 0.7 | Attitudinal and behavioral analysis only |
Values in Survey (ISK) | Recoded Values (ISK) |
---|---|
0 | 1000 |
2000 | 3000 |
4000 | 5000 |
6000 | 7000 |
8000 | 9000 |
10,000 | 11,000 |
12,000 | 13,000 |
14,000 | 15,000 |
16,000 | 17,000 |
18,000 | 19,000 |
20,000 | 21,000 |
22,000 | 23,000 |
24,000 | 25,000 |
26,000 | 27,000 |
28,000 | 29,000 |
30,000 | 31,000 |
50,000 | 40,000 ** |
(N = 1278) | Not Important at All | Not That Important | Neither Important Nor Unimportant | Rather Important | Very Important |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
(%) | (%) | (%) | (%) | (%) | |
Ensuring Iceland can develop renewable energy in the future | 0.5 | 1.1 | 6.4 | 27.9 | 64.0 |
Importance of environmental protection | 0.8 | 1.7 | 8.4 | 35.1 | 54.1 |
Donate money or time to environmental conservation organizations | 12.8 | 12.4 | 30.4 | 29.7 | 14.9 |
Very Negative | Somewhat Negative | Neither Positive Nor Negative | Somewhat Positive | Very Positive | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Energy Type | (%) | (%) | (%) | (%) | (%) |
Geothermal | 1.17 | 1.25 | 7.36 | 27.15 | 63.07 |
Hydropower | 2.35 | 5.40 | 10.72 | 30.13 | 51.41 |
Tidal | 0.63 | 1.72 | 19.56 | 37.87 | 40.22 |
Hydrogen | 1.96 | 3.76 | 29.34 | 31.38 | 33.57 |
Biofuels | 3.13 | 6.49 | 32.24 | 33.88 | 24.26 |
Offshore wind | 6.26 | 5.71 | 32.08 | 35.52 | 20.42 |
Onshore wind | 6.57 | 7.51 | 32.08 | 33.88 | 19.95 |
Fossil fuels | 31.46 | 21.13 | 29.11 | 11.97 | 6.34 |
Nuclear | 59.39 | 15.10 | 16.28 | 4.77 | 4.46 |
Cases Included | Mean WTP (ISK) | Standard Deviation (ISK) | Median WTP (ISK) | 95% Confidence Interval | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lower | Upper | ||||
(ISK) | |||||
All respondents (N = 621) | 5515.30 | 4008.94 | 5431.38 | 5199.38 | 5831.22 |
Excluding non-WTP (N = 218) | 13,862.39 | 10,087.15 | 11,000.00 | 12,515.85 | 15,208.92 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Cook, C.; Sæþórsdóttir, A.D.; Cook, D. Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Preservation: The Case of a Proposed Hydropower Project in Southern Iceland. Land 2024, 13, 159. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13020159
Cook C, Sæþórsdóttir AD, Cook D. Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Preservation: The Case of a Proposed Hydropower Project in Southern Iceland. Land. 2024; 13(2):159. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13020159
Chicago/Turabian StyleCook, Clint, Anna Dóra Sæþórsdóttir, and David Cook. 2024. "Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Preservation: The Case of a Proposed Hydropower Project in Southern Iceland" Land 13, no. 2: 159. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13020159
APA StyleCook, C., Sæþórsdóttir, A. D., & Cook, D. (2024). Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Preservation: The Case of a Proposed Hydropower Project in Southern Iceland. Land, 13(2), 159. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13020159