Ecological Economics 141 (2017) 245260

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Economics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon

Wind Power and Externalities

Alexander Zerrahn
German Institute for Economic Research (DIW Berlin), Mohrenstr. 58, 10117 Berlin, Germany

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: This paper provides a literature review on wind power and externalities from multiple perspectives.
Received 10 November 2015 Specically, the economic rationale behind world-wide wind power deployment is to mitigate negative
Received in revised form 12 December 2016 externalities of conventional electricity technologies, notably emissions from fossil fuels. However, wind
Accepted 13 February 2017 power entails externalities itself. Wind turbines can lower quality of human life through noise and visual
Available online 28 June 2017
impacts, and threaten wildlife. Variable wind electricity can impose additional costs within the electric-
ity system. Locally and nationally, employment, output, and security of electricity supply can be affected.
JEL classication: Assembling evidence from diverse strands of research, this literature review provides a structured account
D62
of external and indirect costs, both mitigated and imposed.
Q42
2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Q51

Keywords:
Externalities
Renewable energy
Wind power

1. Introduction
Since the beginning of the 2000s, wind power has gained a con-
siderable share in electricity generation portfolios around the world.
In 2000, 17 gigawatt (GW) of onshore turbines were in operation; by
2014, capacity had increased to 361 GW (IRENA, 2015). In Germany,
for example, wind power accounted for almost 10% of total electric-
ity consumption in 2014 (BMWi, 2015). Wind power is also being
driven by the US, where onshore capacities more than quintupled
between 2007 and 2014, and China, the worlds biggest market in
2014 (IRENA, 2015).
Although costs of wind turbines have declined, there is still a
wedge between the private and the public economics of wind power
(Borenstein, 2012). While private costs can be greater than for con-
ventional alternatives, social costs are presumed to be lower. This
is due to external costs inherent to many conventional technolo-
gies, which are avoided with wind power. Specically, fossil fuel
combustion releases emissions, unfolding detrimental impacts both
regionally and globally. Wind power, on the other hand, is also not
inherently free of externalities. To play an effective role, wind tur-
bines must be constructed in large numbers. Such land use may incur
local external effects and meet resistance from affected individuals.
E-mail address: azerrahn@diw.de.
Wind electricity, due to its variability, poses new challenges for the
short- and long-term operations of power systems.
Thus, the public economics of wind power can be understood
through the lens of the externality concept. In case of negative exter-
nalities, agents do not fully account for social costs, and social welfare
can be reduced. Research or policy concerned with internalization
must be informed about the categories and scope of externalities
as well as the state of knowledge. However, as the application of
a narrow externality concept can be quickly stretched to its limits,
this literature review pursues a more encompassing and pragmatic
approach. Providing a qualitative map of the public economics of
wind power, this paper surveys the literature to identify external
effects, whether triggered or mitigated, as well as further unintended
consequences. Evidence is structured according to scope and effect,
with central ndings synthesized. To the best of my knowledge,
there is no existing comprehensive literature review, consolidat-
ing evidence from otherwise disparate sources: economics, ecology,
geography, public health, as well as economics and engineering; a
gap this paper addresses.
The remainder of this paper proceeds as follows: Section 2 oper-
ationalizes the externality concept. Sections 3 and 4 provide an
account of external and indirect costs related to wind electric-
ity, and wind turbines, respectively. Section 5 discusses economic
and security-related effects outside the electricity system; Section 6
concludes and outlines avenues for future research.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.02.016
0921-8009/ 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
246 A. Zerrahn / Ecological Economics 141 (2017) 245260
2. Operationalization of the Externality Concept
2.1. Scope of the Externality Concept
At rst, the application of the externality concept to the public
economics of wind power needs some clarication. While there is
no single acknowledged denition, in principle, a negative external-
ity is an effect, external to market mechanisms, that inuences an
individual or a rm beyond her control, by reducing her utility or
feasible production set, respectively. In neoclassical theory, it consti-
tutes a market failure and reduces social welfare by putting a wedge
between the private and the social costs of an alternative. A wider
externality concept can also be understood outside a neoclassical set-
ting from a system perspective, as long as some agents well-being is
affected as a side effect beyond market-based transactions (van den
Bergh, 2010).
Welfare policies aim at internalizing externalities, guided by
quantications. When quantifying, several valuation methods exist,
rooted in an individual utility framework. For externalities related
to wind turbines, numerous papers derive a monetary valuation.
However, environmental externalities arising in electricity genera-
tion can be subject to wide spatial and temporal boundaries. The
consequences of emissions, like climate change, affect individuals far
from their origins. Likewise, detrimental impacts unfold over time
and affect future generations. Cause and effect can be spatially and
temporally detached, rendering quantication and comparison to
narrower external effects dicult (Bithas, 2011).
Conceptually, one can argue that the behavioral and ethical foun-
dations of externality valuation can be too restrictive a basis for social
choice (Sderholm and Sundqvist, 2003). Beyond use values, intrinsic
values, for instance of human health or the environment, or exis-
tence values can be affected (Davidson, 2013). Such valuation is not
unanimous and subject to considerable discretion (Laes et al., 2011).
This is particularly important when there is little experience but
much complexity. With far-reaching externalities of emissions (and
nuclear power), valuation and aggregation of preferences based on
an individual utility concept can be stretched to its limits (Freeman
III, 1996).
While externalities are, as such, a descriptive concept, their
implications are normative. Questions regarding which effects to
include, to what extent, and the trade-offs between eciency and
distribution be it spatial, inter-personal, or intergenerational
(Fouquet, 2011) imply a choice of goals (Baumgrtner and Quaas,
2010; Stirling, 1997). A comparison would also imply statements
about commodication (Spash, 2013), distributional issues, and the
aggregation of preferences across space and time (Chambers and
Melkonyan, 2017).
2.2. Methodology
Thus, generalizations and aggregations are not instructive
(Borenstein, 2012; Stirling, 2010). When discussing externalities of
wind power, both imposed and mitigated, I abstain from full-cost
valuations and costbenet analyses. Instead, I synthesize evidence
and qualitatively elaborate on relevant dimensions.
To this end, I conducted a systematic literature search of the
leading peer-reviewed journals in ecological, environmental, and
energy economics. It is complemented with papers from general-
interest economic outlets, and non-economic literature from geog-
raphy, ecology, environmental psychology as well as economics
and engineering. Whenever possible, I draw on existing aggregated
knowledge from systematic review and survey articles. A complete
list of journals and key words can be found in Appendix B.
On this basis, I distil common and diverging ndings on the rela-
tionships under scrutiny. Necessarily, the breadth of the approach
must be traded off against its depth. While I highlight selective
signicant cases, I do not provide a comprehensive discussion of
idiosyncrasies of particular energy systems or case studies. Instead, I
synthesize ndings on an abstract level.
2.3. A Taxonomy
Wind power entails peculiarities distinct from conventional elec-
tricity generation technologies. In this paper, I distinguish three
categories: (i) externalities and indirect costs of wind electricity; (ii)
externalities of wind turbines; and (iii) economic and security-related
side effects. Table 1 provides an overview of the taxonomy.
For wind electricity, pivotal characteristics are the variability of
supply and the virtually zero marginal costs. As electricity is, as such,
not storable, supply and demand must be continuously balanced.
Wind electricity may require sucient exibility to level out short-
term variability. In the long-term, power systems can be re-shaped
to accommodate variable wind supply. Due to its zero marginal costs,
wind electricity displaces conventional generation and, thus, helps
to avoid its negative externalities, including not only regional health
and environmental impacts from emissions, but also world-wide
climate change due to greenhouse gases.
For wind turbines, a pivotal characteristic is the greater num-
ber of single installations, rendering energy supply more salient
(Wstenhagen et al., 2007), and increasing awareness of intrusions in
the environment and personal space (Pasqualetti, 2000). Direct neg-
ative external impacts of wind turbines include threats to wildlife,
noise emissions, and a deterioration of the aesthetic quality of land-
scapes. These externalities can affect nearby residents, thus lowering
the quality of life. Against this background, the siting process nego-
tiates potential conicts of interest. Several studies quantify these
externalities, either in a revealed or a stated preference frame-
work.
Beyond the electricity system, wind power can trigger economic
and security-related side effects. These indirect costs and benets
materialize both on a local scale, in areas where wind turbines
are installed, and on a macroeconomic scale. Security of electricity
supply can be affected, in a narrower view due to variability, or, in a
broader view, due to lower dependency on depletable resources.
2.4. Preferences for Wind Power
An extensive literature explores preferences for green electricity,
in general, and wind power, in particular (Oerlemans et al., 2016;
Zoric and Hrovatin, 2012). Studies evaluate an entire bundle of exter-
nal effects, including direct monetary costs. Thus, they shed light on
socio-political trade-offs between multiple relevant factors from an
individual perspective.
On average, meta-analyses generally nd a positive willingness to
pay (WTP) for renewable electricity (Soon and Ahmad, 2015; Sundt
and Rehdanz, 2015) and, in particular, wind power (Ma et al., 2015).
It is especially driven by information about displaced conventional
generation (Sundt and Rehdanz, 2015), pointing at a high weight of
climate-change considerations. Evidence for Germany, as a country
with developed wind power, underlines this relationship (Bertsch
et al., 2016; Grsche and Schrder, 2011). In particular, among
socio-economic correlates, education, environmental concern, and
a younger age are consistently identied as drivers for a higher
WTP (Akcura, 2015; Conte and Jacobsen, 2016; Oerlemans et al.,
2016; Tabi et al., 2014). Likewise, Welsch and Biermann (2014a)
nd a positive association between higher renewables shares and
subjective well-being across over 25 European countries. Thus, such
implicit costbenet accountings evaluate wind power as a favorable
alternative.
 A. Zerrahn / Ecological Economics 141 (2017) 245260 247

Table 1
Public economics of wind power: externalities and indirect effects.

Wind electricity Wind turbines

Section Section

External cost
Imposed Short-term system integration 3.1.1 Wildlife 4.1
Long-term system restructuring 3.1.2 Noise 4.2
Landscape aesthetics 4.3
Mitigated Climate change 3.2.1
Regional emissions 3.2.2
Nuclear risk and waste App A

Transmission & mitigation

Channels Variability 3.1 Environmental psychology 4.4
Zero short-run marginal costs 3.1 Turbine siting 4.5

Quantication
Method Power system models 3.1.3 Revealed preferences 4.6.1
Integrated Assessment Models 3.2.1 Stated preferences 4.6.2
Life cycle assessments 3.2.2

Wind power

Indirect effects Local economic impacts 5.1

Macroeconomic impacts 5.2
Security of supply 5.3

3. Wind Electricity
Electricity generated by wind turbines has two decisive charac-
teristics: rst, its supply depends on weather conditions and cannot,
as such, be scheduled as needed. Second, it enters the electricity mar-
ket with zero marginal costs. Both peculiarities are relevant when
discussing the public economics of wind power.
3.1. System Integration
The electricity system must provide the necessary exibility to
accommodate variable wind supply. Fig. 1 illustrates a generic situa-
tion. Residual demand, that is electricity demand after wind feed-in
has been subtracted, is subject to greater short- and long-term vari-
ability. Ramps, that is the hourly change in residual demand that
must be served by other generation or storage, are steeper. Residual
demand can also be negative, triggering the need to shift this excess
energy to hours when it is needed.
As many power systems evolved to suit large-scale centralized
generation, they are subject to inherent rigidities. Many conventional
plants cannot react as quickly as needed; or if they can, it comes at
a higher cost. Thus, the short-term accommodation of variable wind
supply can cause indirect integration costs. In the long term, new
exibility options as storage, international integration, more elas-
tic demand, or coupling of the electricity system with other sectors,
for instance mobility, can re-shape the power system to eciently
integrate wind generation.
Importantly, integration costs, the decrease wholesale market
prices, and displacement of conventional generation depend on
many idiosyncratic features of an electricity system, such as the gen-
eration mix, characteristics of wind sites, and coupling with adjacent
markets or other energy sectors. As these features vary by coun-
try and region, generic quantications are not possible. However,
examining the underlying mechanisms provides some insights.
3.1.1. Integration Costs in the Short Term
Ueckerdt et al. (2013) propose splitting integration costs into
three components: rst, balancing costs arising due to stochasticity
of wind supply. They refer to adjustments of generation schedules
and increased reserve requirements to level out short-term variabil-
ity and forecast errors. Second, grid costs for the management of
network congestion, arising from the often decentralized locations
of wind turbines in an electricity grid. Third, utilization or pro-
le costs as an umbrella term capturing effects on the power plant
park that arise from diverging patterns of electricity demand and
wind supply (Scholz et al., 2016): they comprise lower eciency and
increased wear and tear from higher cycling requirements as well as
sub-optimal operation of thermal plants (exibility costs), reduced
full-load hours of conventional plants (opportunity costs of not pro-
ducing), and reduced full-load hours of wind turbines (opportunity
costs of overproduction).
The extent of short-term integration costs depends on the
respective power system. In general, costs increase with the pen-
etration level of wind power (Hirth et al., 2016; Ueckerdt et al.,
2015).1 For Germany, quantications range between 20 and 60
per Megawatt-hour (MWh), at 510% and 40% wind penetration
(Ueckerdt et al., 2013), that is when wind power satises 40% of
annual electricity demand. Utilization costs make up for the high-
est share. Further reviews for different power systems synthesize
numerical values between 1030 per MWh for 10% penetration,
and 2540 per MWh for 2040% penetration (Hirth et al., 2015;
Hirth et al., 2016; Sijm, 2014).
3.1.2. Integration in the Long Term
In the long term, the electricity system can be re-designed to pro-
vide the necessary exibility. Flexibility options to temporally align
variable wind supply with demand consist of energy storage, more
elastic consumption, as well as exible biomass or fossil fuel plants,
like natural gas units (Johnson et al., 2016; Schill, 2014; Zerrahn and
Schill, 2017), and coupling with other energy sectors. For instance,
an electried heat or mobility sector can provide new demand when
supply is abundant. Likewise, sector coupling can shift electricity
demand from low-supply to high-supply periods if electric vehi-
cles and power-to-heat applications provide energy storage options.
Network congestion can be counteracted with more ecient coor-
dination (Kunz and Zerrahn, 2015, 2016), or the building of new
transmission lines (Spiecker et al., 2013; Spiecker and Weber, 2014).
Enhanced integration with adjacent countries can introduce new
1
As such, system-friendly turbine design can align wind feed-in better with
integration requirements (Hirth and Mller, 2016).
248 A. Zerrahn / Ecological Economics 141 (2017) 245260
Demand
Gigawatt
Fig. 1. Variable wind feed-in requires greater electricity system exibility.
exibility and reduce variability of wind feed-in (Scholz et al., 2016),
as wind patterns tend to be smoother over greater geographical areas
(Nagl et al., 2013).
While future costs projections are highly uncertain, the integra-
tion of high wind shares incurs cost increases that are non-negligible;
however in many studies these are not excessive (Brouwer et al.,
2016; Nagl et al., 2013; Schill and Zerrahn, 2017). In this respect, a
system designed to accommodate variable wind supply can substan-
tially lower integration costs (Hirth et al., 2016). For an optimized
system in Europe, they can amount to between 12 and 26 per
MWh, at 16% and 64% wind penetration, respectively (Scholz et
al., 2016). However, all studies make assumptions regarding the
uncertain future costs and availability of technologies, which drive
numerical results to a certain extent.
3.1.3. Replacement of Conventional Technologies
As wind power enters the market with zero marginal costs, the
supply curve, which follows the short-run marginal costs of tech-
nologies in most power markets, is shifted outward. Along with
decreasing wholesale market prices, this results in the displacement
of thermal power plants, which have positive marginal costs. Fig. 2
illustrates the mechanism. The extent to which prices decrease and
externalities of conventional technologies are mitigated depends on
the supply structure of the respective power system. As effects are
specic to place and time, results are, as such, not generalizable.
To provide some notion, power system simulation models
determine CO2 abatement between 0.65 and 0.78 tons per MWh
wind power at roughly 10% wind power penetration for Germany
price
Demand
Nuclear
Wind power feed-in
Fig. 2. Wind power shifts market supply to the right and displaces conventional generation
Wind feed-in Residual demand
time
(UBA, 2014; Weigt et al., 2013). While it is mainly coal power that is
displaced here, wind power also crowds out external costs in systems
based on less emission-intensive technologies, such as natural gas.
Estimates range between an abatement of 0.28 tons CO2 per MWh
wind power for Ireland (Wheatley, 2013), 0.430.63 tons for Texas
(Cullen, 2013; Kane et al., 2013; Novan, 2015), and 0.88 tons for
the US Midwest (Chiang et al., 2016). Likewise, ex-post econometric
studies for the US and OECD countries determine long-run mitigat-
ing effects on CO2 emissions (Jaforullah and King, 2015; Shaei and
Salim, 2014). On the other hand, life cycle assessments of greenhouse
gas emissions due to wind power nd gures considerably below
0.1 tons per MWh (review by Dolan and Heath, 2012; Kumar et al.,
2016; Padey et al., 2012; UBA, 2014; Wang and Wang, 2015).
3.2. Mitigated Environmental Externalities
When wind power replaces other technologies, it prevents their
specic external costs. The extent and assessment of this benet is
discussed in the following.
3.2.1. Climate Change and Social Costs of Carbon
To assess the damage from greenhouse gas emissions, Integrated
Assessment Models (IAM) calculate the social cost of carbon (SCC).
IAMs combine a climate module, mapping emissions to climate
change, and an economic module, projecting growth paths of pop-
ulation and economic activity. Within this framework, damage to
the economy, human health, and ecosystems, as well as adaptation
measures, are assessed (Doyne Farmer et al., 2015). Estimates of SCC
are subject to academic debate and high variance. They reach from
Supply w/o Supply w/
wind power wind power
Lignite Hard coal Natural gas
quantity
Displaced conventional generation
 A. Zerrahn / Ecological Economics 141 (2017) 245260
below US$ 10 per ton of carbon emissions to more than US$ 1000,
with most estimates closer to the lower end of this interval (Anthoff
et al., 2009; Foley et al., 2013; Tol, 2005). Relating to the discussion
regarding which externalities can and should readily be quantied
(Baumgrtner and Quaas, 2010; Bithas, 2011), the methodology of
IAMs is criticized (van den Bergh and Botzen, 2015).
First, dimensions of climate damage are subject to spatial and
non-use boundaries: intrinsic values of biodiversity, and valuations
of a statistical life, political stability, migration ows as well as vio-
lent conict can be incomplete and require more complex ethical
frameworks (Doyne Farmer et al., 2015; Stern, 2013, 2014a). Second,
central insights from behavioral economics, such as ambiguity or
loss aversion, are not incorporated into many studies, resulting in
an under-estimation of the SCC. Third, the intergenerational dis-
counting approach must be clear. A social welfare-discount rate
based on ethical principles allows for a higher weighting of the far
future compared to an economic opportunity cost-based discount
rate (Goulder and Williams III, 2012; Stern 2014b).2 In this respect,
changes in normative assumptions critically alter optimal policy
choice (Chambers and Melkonyan, 2017). Fourth, uncertainty and
extreme consequences are often insuciently incorporated, con-
cerning the effect of both carbon on climate, which is subject to
idiosyncratic uncertainty (Roe and Baker, 2007), and climate on
welfare (Doyne Farmer et al., 2015). Theoretically, structural uncer-
tainty translates to declining discount rates over time (Gollier
and Weitzman, 2010; Weitzman, 1998, 2001). Moreover, structural
uncertainty regarding the fat-tailedness of catastrophic climate out-
comes and can outweigh any discounting (Weitzman, 2009, 2014).
Pindyck (2013) argues that IAMs suggest precision where there
is little. Knowledge concerning the causality from CO2 emissions to
climate change to welfare losses would be limited. Re-examining
impact studies through the lens of climate uncertainty, Burke et al.
(2015) conclude that a broader range of economic outcomes, and
especially non-negligible risks for catastrophic events, were insuf-
ciently considered. Adjustments in risk attitudes, uncertainty-
consistent social discount rates, and normative perspectives yield
much higher damage estimates (Bommier et al., 2015; Botzen and
van den Bergh, 2014; Freeman et al., 2015; Weitzman, 2013).
Addressing these biases, van den Bergh and Botzen (2014) suggest a
lower bound of US$ 125 per ton of carbon.
3.2.2. Mitigated Externalities of Regional Emissions
Relevant regional externalities of fossil fuel combustion com-
prise airborne sulphur dioxides, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter
(PM), and others, which affect human health and the ecological
sphere. A comprehensive assessment for the US quanties damage
from air pollution at between US$ 70 and 280 billion per year
(Muller and Mendelsohn, 2007). For China, mortality rates were sub-
stantially reduced following reductions in PM concentration (He et
al., 2016).3 For Europe, total life cycle assessments based on the
ExternE (Externalities of Energy) framework quantify external costs
on human health, crop yield, material damage, and wildlife between
8 and 14 per MWh for coal, and 3.5 and 5 for natural gas (CASES,
2008; NEEDS, 2009).4
Among fossil fuels, coal has the most adverse consequences for
human health over its life cycle (Treyer et al., 2014). Estimates of
2
Additionally, from a market perspective, an analysis of leaseholds spanning sev-
eral centuries infers low very long-term discount rates (Giglio et al., 2015).
3
From an individual perspective, valuation studies for Europe (Ferreira et al., 2013;
Luechinger, 2009, 2010) and Australia (Ambrey et al., 2014) nd a substantial WTP for
reducing air pollution.
4 6
ExternE is a comprehensive impact assessment framework for valuing cradle-to-
grave external costs of electricity generation. It was developed as part of a large-scale
project funded by the European Commission in 1995 and is continuously updated and
regularly applied. See www.externe.info (European Commission, 2005).
249
total non-climate externalities of US hard coal reach US$ 147 per
MWh when taking into account increased morbidity, mortality, and
land disturbance (Epstein et al., 2011). Along the value chain, extrac-
tion, transport and storage bear severe social, ecological, health, and
accident risks (Cardoso, 2015; Collins et al., 2012; Papagiannis et al.,
2014; Phelan et al., 2017). Estimates of fatalities since 1970 amount
to 40,000 world-wide (Burgherr and Hirschberg, 2014).
Wind power is attributed with substantially lower environmental
externalities from emissions (McCubbin and Sovacool, 2013; Nugent
and Sovacool, 2014; Wiser et al., 2016). Human health impacts are
mostly lower (Treyer et al., 2014) and the accident risk is substan-
tially lower (Burgherr and Hirschberg, 2014). Likewise, the ExterE
framework nds considerably lower complete life-cycle non-climate
externalities (CASES, 2008).5
4. Wind Turbines
The presence of wind turbines increases the salience of energy
supply. Effects impact not just wildlife, but also humans, through
noise and an aesthetic deterioration of landscapes. Underlying trans-
mission and mitigation channels are discussed by environmental
psychology and the broad literature on turbine siting. Stated and
revealed preference approaches provide quantitative assessments.
4.1. Impacts on Wildlife
Wind turbines change the habitat of wildlife. Ecological research
examines whether and how wildlife is impacted. Analyses nd
increased mortality for birds (Barclay et al., 2007; Barrios and
Rodriguez, 2004; Carrete et al., 2009; Loss et al., 2013a) and bats
(Hayes, 2013; Lehnert et al., 2014; Voigt et al., 2015; Wang and
Wang, 2015) as a result of collisions. However, small databases
(Sovacool, 2009; Willis et al., 2010), site-species idiosyncrasies (Loss
et al. 2013a; de Lucas et al., 2012; Schuster et al., 2015), and method-
ological diculties (Kaldellis et al., 2016; Peron et al., 2013) render
a comprehensive assessment intricate (Wang et al., 2015). Likewise,
there is not much evidence on long-term population-level impacts.
(Schuster et al., 2015).
Beyond direct mortality, severe impacts could also arise from
habitat loss through changed land use and construction activities
(Dai et al., 2015; Kuvlesky Jr. et al., 2007; Pearce-Higgins et al.,
2012). While some studies detect locally lower breeding and occur-
rence frequencies of specic bird species around sites (Northrup and
Wittemyer, 2013; Pearce-Higgins et al., 2009), others either do not
nd persistent population losses due to wind farm operations or nd
mixed evidence (Devereux et al., 2008; Douglas et al., 2011; Garcia
et al., 2015; Pearce-Higgins et al., 2012). In this respect, birds may
also adapt to the presence of turbines (Plonczkier and Simms, 2012).
Evidence regarding terrestrial wildlife is inconclusive and points
toward adaptation with no population-level effects (Lovich and
Ennen, 2013; Northrup and Wittemyer, 2013).
At the same time, prudent siting, both on the micro- and macro-
levels, as well as prudent operation can substantially reduce impacts
(Dai et al., 2015; de Lucas et al., 2012; Eichhorn et al., 2012; May et
al., 2015; Schuster et al., 2015; Wang and Wang, 2015). Specically,
avoiding sites within vulnerable areas, that is, for instance, breed-
ing areas or mountain ridges, temporal constraints on operation, and
mitigative turbine design features are found to be effective.6
5
As wind power displaces fossil fuels in most countries, an assessment of mitigated
externalities from nuclear power can be found in Appendix A.
Put into perspective, wind turbines are found to have less impact on birds than
other energy-related infrastructure, for instance nuclear and fossil-fueled plants as
well as transmission lines (Sovacool, 2013b), and other man-made threats such as
windows, communication towers, and pet cats (Loss et al., 2013a,b; Sovacool, 2013b).
250 A. Zerrahn / Ecological Economics 141 (2017) 245260
4.2. Noise and Health
Wind turbines emit noise, mostly from the rotation of blades
(Wang and Wang, 2015), constituting a potential negative impact on
people in the surroundings.
Several stated-preference studies nd that people report being
annoyed by wind turbine noise (Groth and Vogt, 2014; Shepherd
et al., 2011; Shepherd et al., 2014; Whiteld Aslund et al., 2013).
This annoyance can trigger psychological distress, although on a low
level and only for a small fraction of respondents (Bakker et al.,
2012; Pedersen and Waye, 2007, for The Netherlands and Sweden).
It is also found to be associated with a self-reported lower health-
related quality of life and disturbed sleep (Onakpoya et al., 2015, for a
review). Importantly, this annoyance is positively related to turbine
visibility and a generally negative attitude toward wind farms (Feder
et al., 2015; Jalali et al. 2016a; Jalali et al. 2016b; Onakpoya et al.,
2015; Pedersen and Larsman, 2008; Pedersen et al., 2009; Pedersen
et al., 2010).
In this respect, several meta-surveys emphasize that while rela-
tionships between sound pressure levels and self-reported outcomes
can be established there is no evidence for a causal relation-
ship (Dai et al., 2015; McCunney et al., 2014; Onakpoya et al.,
2015; Schmidt and Klokker, 2014). Rather, biases in answers, sit-
uational salience, and general opposition trigger a kind of nocebo
effect (Knopper and Ollson, 2011). Lab experiments underline that
awareness of wind turbines as source of noise emissions can foster
annoyance (Crichton and Petrie, 2015; Van Renterghem et al., 2013).
4.3. Landscape Aesthetics
Energy supply is an important driver of land cover change
(Howard et al., 2009). In this respect, the presence of wind turbines
can be unwanted, constituting a negative externality.
Throughout the literature, negative landscape externalities in
form of visual disamenities are found to be a main trigger of oppo-
sition to wind turbines (DSouza and Yiridoe, 2014; Ek, 2005; Jones
and Eiser, 2010; Meyerhoff et al., 2010; Pohl et al., 2012; Wolsink,
2007), while positive perceptions (Molnarova et al., 2012; Warren
and McFayden, 2010), for example as iconic statements (West et
al., 2010, p. 5747) or triggers of place distinctiveness (Cohen et al.,
2014, p. 6), are also possible. However, overall, the deterioration of
the aesthetic quality dominates and, thus, constitutes a central exter-
nality of wind turbines (Mattmann et al., 2016b). In this respect, a
meta-study for Ireland (van Rensburg et al., 2015) econometrically
identies low visual impacts as driver of wind farm project success.
The presence of wind turbines is found to shape negative attitudes
in three dimensions: proximity, habituation, and type of landscape.
Taken together, the literature suggests that proximity of wind tur-
bines to places of residence negatively inuences attitudes toward
installations. Most studies identify a signicant WTP for locating
planned turbines further away (Betakova et al., 2015; Brennan and
van Rensburg, 2016; Drechsler et al., 2011; Guo et al., 2015; Jones
and Eiser, 2010; Ladenburg and Dubgaard, 2007; Meyerhoff et al.,
2010), whereas Devine-Wright (2005) and Ladenburg et al. (2013)
review papers nding no or a reverse relationship.
Evidence on habituation to wind turbines, over time or due to
more frequent encounters, is inconclusive: higher acceptance rates
in affected communities (Baxter et al., 2013; Wheeler, 2016) or a
temporal U-shaped pattern (Krohn and Damborg, 1999; Warren et
al., 2005; Wilson and Dyke, 2016; Wolsink, 2007) suggest habitua-
tion. On the other hand, several other case studies nd either that
frequent exposure negatively shapes attitudes (Ladenburg, 2010;
Ladenburg and Dahlgaard, 2012; Ladenburg et al., 2013) or that there
is no change over time (Eltham et al., 2008).
Concerning heterogeneity of landscapes, Devine-Wright (2005)
does not detect contingent attitudes, although there is some evidence
that opposition is higher in scenic areas (Molnarova et al., 2012) and
lower in rather industrial surroundings (van der Horst, 2007).
4.4. Psychological Rationales
Environmental psychology explains underlying rationales of why
and how individuals can be negatively affected by a deterioration
of landscape aesthetics. Research identies preferences for natu-
ral land covers (Kopmann and Rehdanz, 2013), which have higher
recreational values (Zoellner et al., 2008), and scenic beauty (Bridge
et al., 2013).7 A conservative taste for traditional idiosyncrasies,
notably pastoral appeal or wilderness, and a less fragmented open
view conicts with rather industrial structures, such as wind tur-
bines (Kirchhoff, 2014; Tagliaerro et al., 2016). Such traditionalism
can be an important trigger for wind farm rejection (Bidwell, 2013).
The environmental psychological theory of place attachment
postulates a positive emotional bond between people and places
(Devine-Wright, 2009). Place attachment can create belongingness
(Scannell and Gifford, 2013), rootedness, and security (Lewicka,
2011), as well as generate meaning (Cass and Walker, 2009; Vorkinn
and Riese, 2001). It carries a distinct temporal component, related
to personal familiarity, local tradition, and cultural signicance
(Zografos and Martnez-Alier, 2009), thus giving rise to a preference
for continuity (Devine-Wright, 2005; Pasqualetti, 2011). The con-
struction of wind turbines can disrupt place attachment, thus causing
negative emotions, evoking oppositional attitudes, and reducing life
satisfaction (Cass and Walker, 2009; Firestone et al., 2015; Lewicka,
2011; Manzo and Perkins, 2006; Strazzera et al., 2012).
Case studies identify the conict between an industrialized appeal
and natural scenic beauty as a source of disrupted place-bound
identities (Devine-Wright and Howes, 2010). While low levels of
support for wind power developments are found to be associated
to place-protective behavior (Swofford and Slattery, 2010), respect
for idiosyncratic place attachment can be an important driver for
planning success (Fast and Mabee, 2015; Graham et al., 2009; Toke et
al., 2008; van Veelen and Haggett, 2016). In this vein, wind turbines
can also become part of a renewed place-bound identity (Wheeler,
2016).
4.5. Procedural Aspects: Not in my Back Yard ?
The siting process of wind turbines plays an important role in
reinforcing and mitigating negative externalities of wind turbines.
Global approval of wind power alongside local opposition to wind
turbines is a widespread narrative. However, the academic litera-
ture abandoned NIMBYism, short for not in my back yard, as an
explanation for opposition because it is too supercial to capture the
complexity of the phenomenon (Pepermans and Loots, 2013; West et
al., 2010; Wolsink, 2007). In this respect, Wolsink (2012) subsumes
more than a decade of research on the acceptance of wind turbines
and stresses the harmful character of the NIMBY concept. Positively,
it is not conrmed by most empirical research (Bidwell, 2013; Eiser
et al., 2010; Ek, 2005; Groothuis et al., 2008; Jacquet, 2012; Jones
and Eiser, 2009; Rygg, 2012; van Rensburg et al., 2015 ). Norma-
tively, it is a self-reinforcing institution and harms the important
resource of trust among stakeholders (Batel et al., 2014).
Instead of NIMBYism, the literature identies other relevant
factors, especially distributional and procedural fairness in the sit-
ing process (Devine-Wright, 2005; Friedl and Reichl, 2016; Gross,
2007; Hall et al., 2013; Langer et al., 2016; Nada, 2007; Wolsink,
2000; Wolsink, 2007): residents exhibit a substantially higher level
7
van Zanten et al. (2016) provide an overview of heterogeneous preferences for
landscape attributes.
 A. Zerrahn / Ecological Economics 141 (2017) 245260
of acceptance toward turbines if the decisions process is accom-
panied by transparent information, early political and economic
participation (Warren and McFayden, 2010), possibilities for discre-
tion at the local level (Aitken, 2010; Cowell et al., 2011; Ek and
Persson, 2014; Jobert et al., 2007; McLaren Loring, 2007; Musall
and Kuik, 2011; Ottinger et al., 2014; Slattery et al., 2012), as
well as ecological restoration (Kermagoret et al., 2016), instead of
decide-announce-defend practices (Cohen et al., 2014).
4.6. Quantitative Valuation
As externalities of wind turbines are largely local, and often
salient, established valuation techniques within a neoclassical utility
framework can readily be applied. Quantication provides the basis
for the design of mitigation and redistribution measures.
4.6.1. Revealed Preferences: Hedonic Pricing and Subjective Well-being
The hedonic pricing approach econometrically infers a monetary
valuation from a change in real estate prices in the surroundings
of wind turbines. Evidence for signicant negative external costs
comes from Denmark (Jensen et al., 2014), England and Wales
(Gibbons, 2015), Germany (Sunak and Madlener, 2016), The
Netherlands (Dres and Koster, 2016), and the US (Heintzelmann and
Tuttle, 2012), while other studies do not detect signicant effects
(Hoen et al., 2011; Lang et al., 2014; Sims and Dent, 2007; Sims et
al., 2008). The decrease in real estate prices is estimated to range
between 2% and 16%, depending on proximity to, and visibility of,
wind turbines. In all studies, visual impacts are found to signi-
cantly materialize in property prices. Jensen et al. (2014) additionally
identify a relevant noise pollution component.
The life satisfaction approach estimates a micro-econometric
function, relating self-reported subjective well-being to the presence
of wind turbines and other covariates that were found to be inuen-
tial (for an exposition, see Welsch, 2007, 2009). For Germany, signif-
icant negative effects of turbine construction were found, although
limited both spatially and temporary (Krekel and Zerrahn, 2017; von
Moellendorff and Welsch, 2015).
4.6.2. Stated Preferences: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation
In choice experiments (CE) and contingent valuation (CV) studies,
respondents either state directly how much they are willing to pay
to avoid a certain externality, or a valuation is inferred from choices
for certain bundles of characteristics. A meta-regression analysis
based on 32 CV studies identies visual intrusions as the sole con-
sistently relevant externality (Mattmann et al., 2016b). However,
several CE and CV studies for both European countries and the US
also elicit a positive WTP for reducing impacts on wildlife (lvarez
Farizo and Hanley, 2002; Bergmann et al., 2006; Drechsler et al.,
2011; Meyerhoff et al., 2010), as well as the protection of typical
landscapes, referring to place-bound identities, and a participatory
and cooperative siting process (Dimitropoulos and Kontoleon, 2009).
5. Economic Impacts and Security of Supply
Beyond the electricity system, wind power can affect the econ-
omy both locally, where the turbines are installed, and on a macroe-
conomic scale. Likewise, the security of electricity supply may either
increase, due to domestic production, or decrease, due to variability
and new dependencies.
5.1. Local Economic Impacts
Evidence from the US on local economic effects is mixed:
while several papers detect a growth in employment, positive GDP
spillovers (Brown et al., 2012; Greene and Geisken, 2013; Slattery et
al., 2011), or increased public nance quality concerning schooling
251
and taxes (Kahn, 2013), others do not nd signicant effects (Hartley
et al., 2015). For Europe, case studies also do not come to unanimous
conclusions. Results range between substantial positive permanent
GDP and job effects (Varela-Vzquez and del Carmen Snchez-
Carreira, 2015, for Spain), modest permanent job effects (Edjemo
and Sderholm, 2015; Okkonen and Lehtonen, 2016, for Sweden and
Scotland), and at most marginal nancial benets, with no positive
spillovers on local GDP (Bristow et al., 2012; May and Nilsen, 2015;
Munday et al., 2011, for Germany and Wales).
Evidence on local tourism effects for different countries is also
mixed: some case studies nd negative impacts on local touristic
appeal (Broekel and Alfken, 2015; Janhunen et al., 2014; Ladenburg,
2010), while also negligible effects or enhanced touristic attractive-
ness are detected (Dalton et al., 2008; Frantal and Kunc, 2011; Landry
et al., 2012; Lilley et al., 2010; Nordman and Mutinda, 2016).
5.2. Macroeconomic Impacts
From a macroeconomic perspective, Borenstein (2012) and
Edenhofer et al. (2013) conclude that there is little deep evidence
on green jobs and green growth. Social returns on investment are
unclear, and general equilibrium effects are not well understood. In
the literature, it is mostly the general impacts of renewables that are
analyzed; specic studies for wind power are rare.
Analyses based on computable general equilibrium models do not
come to unanimous conclusions. While employment and welfare in
Germany can be negatively affected (Bhringer et al., 2013), a sub-
stantial green growth potential for China is assessed through 2050,
with a central role for wind power (Dai et al., 2016).
Bottom-up macroeconomic simulations for Germany project pos-
itive net effects on GDP, employment, and wages of an ambitious
future renewable energy expansion. Benets are mainly driven by
wind power (Blazejczak et al., 2014; Lehr et al., 2008; Lehr et al.,
2012). These studies take international trade and offsetting effects,
like foregone expenditures, into account. Results critically depend
on usage (Oliveira et al., 2013) and high exports of domestically
built hardware. Similar effects can make countries lead markets for
wind technology with substantial export opportunities (Beise and
Rennings, 2005; Dechezleprtre et al., 2011; Dechezleprtre and
Glachant, 2014), and potentially positive net effects (Lund, 2009).
A US survey of green job studies nds positive net employment
effects from renewables deployment (Wei et al., 2010), while another
review is inconclusive (Wiser et al., 2016). Substantial job creation
from wind power in Europe could mainly be attributed to manufac-
turing, and, to a lesser and temporary extent, installation (Dalton and
Lewis, 2011). More skeptical views highlight crowding out effects in
other industries and increasing energy prices (Frondel et al., 2010).
Another stream of the literature applies ex-post econometric
analyses. Panel studies with varying geographical coverage provide
mixed evidence on causality from renewable energy consumption
on macroeconomic outcomes. The inuence is estimated to be posi-
tive for several developed and emerging economies (Alper and Oguz,
2016; Apergis et al., 2010; Apergis and Payne 2010b; Apergis and
Payne 2010a; Kahia et al., 2016; Pao et al., 2014; Tugcu et al., 2012),
for instance through increased macroeconomic eciency and capi-
tal formation (Chien and Hu, 2007, 2008), but can be also neutral or
negative (Bhattacharya et al., 2016; Menegaki, 2011).
5.3. Security of Electricity Supply
Overall, several indicator studies attribute a positive inuence
to wind power on national energy security (Sovacool et al., 2011;
Sovacool 2013a), with respect to diversication of portfolios (Grubb
et al., 2006; lz et al., 2007). However, any straightforward quanti-
cation of energy security, for instance in indicators, may fall short of
capturing relevant complexities (Bhringer and Bortolamedi, 2015).
252 A. Zerrahn / Ecological Economics 141 (2017) 245260
GW Residual load Germany 2050 (simulation)
80
60
40
20
0
-20
-40
-60
-80
Fig. 3. Inter-temporal exibility is needed to shift renewable energy supply to hours when it is needed.
Therefore, two aspects are discussed in detail: variability of supply
and dependence on resources.
5.3.1. Variability of Wind Supply
The variability of wind supply leads to a low capacity value, that
is the fraction of installed capacity available at any point in time with
a suciently high likelihood (Amelin, 2009; Boccard, 2010). In case
studies for electricity systems with substantial onshore wind capaci-
ties, it is typically below 20% (Hasche et al., 2011; Keane et al., 2011).
Therefore, supply may not be adequate when demand is high.
However, long-term analyses underline the feasibility of re-
shaping the electricity system toward more exibility. In more ex-
ible systems, variable wind-feed electricity can be shifted to periods
with high energy demand (Brouwer et al., 2016; Schill and Zerrahn,
2017). Fig. 3 depicts residual load durations curves for Germany.
The curves are an ordered representation of residual demand, that is
demand minus feed-in of variable renewable supply, for all 8760 h of
a year. The dotted line is based on actual 2012 data, the bold line is
based on a simulation for 77% renewable electricity supply in 2050,
consisting of 60% wind energy.8 As there is a considerable share of
hours with high or even surplus energy supply, at the right end of
the curves, inter-temporal exibility options, such as storage, can
shift this energy to hours when supply is short, at the left end of the
curves.
As wind power enters the market with zero marginal costs, it low-
ers wholesale electricity prices. This merit-order effect (Cludius et al.,
2014; Hirth, 2013; Ketterer, 2014) is also illustrated in Fig. 2. Lower
prices reduce incentives to invest into conventional capacities, which
are able to generate electricity when wind supply is low, and may,
eventually, decrease security of supply (Cepeda and Finon, 2013;
Cramton et al., 2013; Joskow, 2008). However, whether additional
mechanisms are necessary to maintain investment incentives in the
long term is subject to debate (Finon and Pignon, 2008; Roques,
2008). Low prices can also arise from over-capacities of conventional
plants, with price signals, thus, preventing inecient investments.
5.3.2. Resources
In a broader view, the continuity of energy supplies relative
to demand (Winzer, 2012) can be impacted over the transforma-
tion process from primary energy to end-user utility (Mnsson et
al., 2014). From a political perspective, wind power can decrease
import dependency for fossil fuels and, thus, reduce reliance on few
8
The simulation is carried out using the open-source electricity system model
DIETER (Zerrahn and Schill, 2017). See also www.diw.de/dieter. Actual data is taken
from ENTSO-E (ENTSO-E, 2016) and the German transmission system operators
(50Hertz, 2016a,b; Amprion, 2016a,b; TenneT TSO, 2016a,b; Transnet BW, 2016a,b).
Residual load Germany 2012
hours
dominant suppliers and central transport routes (Jewell et al., 2014;
Lschel et al., 2010; Richter and Holz, 2015). Consequently, politi-
cal pressure and conict can be mitigated (Johansson, 2013a,b).9 As
wind power is decentralized, vulnerability toward physical and vir-
tual attacks or technology failure is decreased (Grubb et al., 2006;
lz et al., 2007; Sovacool and Saunders, 2014). Importantly, unlike
fossil fuels, wind power cannot be depleted, which is why it is a key
domestic resource (Sovacool et al., 2011).
So-called rare-earth metals are used in wind turbines as compo-
nents in permanent magnets (Kleijn and van der Voet, 2010; Kleijn
et al., 2011). While demand may rise (Alonso et al., 2012) and supply
is highly concentrated in 2015 (EC, 2014), reduced material inten-
sity (ERECON, 2015), substitute technologies (Graedel et al., 2015;
Pathak et al., 2015; Rabe et al., 2016), recycling (Du and Graedel,
2011) as well as diversied supply (ERECON, 2015) can mitigate crit-
ical reliance on single suppliers. In this respect, new dependencies
would not pose major threats to the security of supply (Johansson,
2013b; Rabe et al., 2016). Compared to other technologies, the out-
look of future metal resources necessary for wind power is relatively
favorable (Fizaine and Court, 2015).
6. Conclusions
Surveying the literature, this paper provides a comprehensive
account of wind power and externalities from diverse strands of
research. Table 2 provides a synthesis of central results. Some exter-
nalities and unintended consequences of wind power are well under-
stood. Case studies and large-scale analyses on the presence of wind
turbines provide rich evidence on landscape impacts and mitigation
channels. For wind electricity, there are various power system mod-
els that assess short-term and long-term consequences within the
electricity system. Research gaps remain for macroeconomic effects
like green jobs and green growth. Likewise, consequences of climate
change remain subject to great uncertainties.
This literature review is subject to limitations: a focus on ther-
mal power systems leaves trade-offs between wind power and
hydropower aside.10 Likewise, other renewable technologies, like
photovoltaics and biomass combustion, are not taken into account
and this analysis is only concerned with onshore wind power. A
different focus could provide a valuable complement to this paper.
Idiosyncratic aspects of place and time as well as normative
choices prevent aggregation of external effects and further conse-
quences of wind power deployment into a single metric. However,
conclusions taking into account different externality concepts shed
light on relevant trade-offs. Many externalities of wind turbines
9
From a liberal perspective, international trade can also be seen as fostering
security through mutual interests (Oneal and Russett, 1999).
10
See Mattmann et al. (2016a) for a review of hydropower externalities.
 A. Zerrahn / Ecological Economics 141 (2017) 245260 253

Table 2
Central ndings, core references, and aspects for future research.

Section Regional scope Central ndings Core references Future research

Green electricity 2.4 Consumers exhibit positive WTP for green Ma et al. (2015), Soon WTP studies specic for
electricity; positive evaluation of net and Ahmad (2015), wind power
externalities Sundt and Rehdanz
(2015)

Wind electricity
Evidence on short- and long-term effects within the electricity system
System integration 3.1 Nationalinternational Short-term integration costs, long-term Brouwer et al. (2016), Ecient provision of
re-shaping of power system possible, mitigation Cramton et al. (2013), exibility and rm
of externalities; all system effects idiosyncratic Hirth et al. (2016), capacity
Ueckerdt et al. (2013)
Evidence on avoided externalities
Climate change 3.2.1 Localglobal Substantial negative externalities possible; Doyne Farmer et al. Distributional issues,
knowledge on extent and consequences of (2015), van den Bergh political stability,
climate change subject to uncertainty and Botzen (2015) migration
Regional emissions 3.2.2 Localregional Substantial negative externalities on human CASES (2008), Nugent
health and ecosystems and Sovacool (2014),
Treyer et al. (2014)
Nuclear power App A Localinternational Substantial negative externalities possible; Laes et al. (2011),
unclear long-term storage and Welsch and Biermann
high-impact-low-probability events render (2014b)
assessment dicult

Wind turbines
Evidence on external costs
Wildlife 4.1 Localinternational Impacts on birds and bats, mitigation possible, May et al. (2015), Large-scale studies on
evidence on population losses mixed Northrup and long-term population
Wittemyer (2013), effects
Schuster et al. (2015)
Noise 4.2 Local Reported annoyance, no evidence on causal Knopper and Ollson Studies on causal effects
health effects (2011), McCunney et al.
(2014), Onakpoya et al.
(2015), Schmidt and
Klokker (2014)
Landscape 4.3 Local Deterioration of landscape aesthetics as central Mattmann et al. Long-term evidence on
externality (2016b), van Rensburg habituation and positive
et al. (2015) perceptions

Evidence on transmission and mitigation channels

Psychological rationales 4.4 Local Preferences for natural landscapes, place-bound Cass and Walker (2009), Evidence on
identities Lewicka (2011), heterogeneous
Pasqualetti (2011) preferences and identities
NIMBYism 4.5 Local Procedural fairness and participatory siting Devine-Wright (2005), Identication of best
process more important than NIMBY concept Wolsink (2012) practices
Quantitative valuation 4.6 Local Signicant negative monetizations of Gibbons (2015), More detailed
externalities of wind turbines across Mattmann et al. (2016b) investigation of channels
methodological approaches

Economic and security-related side effects

Evidence on local and macroeconomic impacts
Local 5.1 Local Evidence on local employment, GDP, and Brown et al. (2012), Broader geographic scope,
tourism mixed Hartley et al. (2015) more analyses on
mechanisms
Macro 5.2 Localinternational Some indications for positive effects, but no Edenhofer et al. (2013), Detailed implementation
comprehensive evidence Wiser et al. (2016) of energy sectors into
macroeconomic models
Evidence on security of electricity supply
Supply security 5.3 Nationalinternational Wind power as non-depletable key domestic Jewell et al. (2014), More evidence specic on
resource; however, low capacity credit Johansson (2013b) wind power

are local, in principle reversible, and unfold their effect directly on
individual well-being. Thus, they can be captured within a neoclas-
sical utility framework and quantied using established methods.
The literature also acknowledges that prudent siting and operation
can mitigate two important externalities: adverse effects on wildlife
and nearby residents. Likewise, power systems can be re-shaped to
accommodate variable wind in-feed, of course at a certain cost.
On the other hand, externalities of conventional generation tech-
nologies, which are avoided by wind power, affect a large num-
ber of individuals, also at places remote to the source, and future
generations. Likewise, they impact domains in which the applica-
bility of neoclassical valuation techniques is stretched to its limits.
Commensurability is not necessarily given. Normative considera-
tions of intergenerational discounting, intrinsic values, and sound
aggregation of preferences must be taken into account.
Therefore, an overall favorable deployment of wind power entails
distributional effects that must be moderated by policy-makers.
These run between the local scale, at sites where wind turbines
are installed, the national scale, where costs for re-shaping the
electricity system arise, and the global scale, where mitigation of
254 A. Zerrahn / Ecological Economics 141 (2017) 245260
world-wide environmental damages are negotiated. In this respect,
an understanding of the public economics of wind power is vital for
prudent design or evaluation of policies.
Acknowledgments
The author thanks Kimberley Collins for her outstanding research
assistance.
Appendix A. Mitigated Externalities of Nuclear Power
For nuclear power, external costs can arise upstream, during ura-
nium mining and processing as well as downstream, during site
dismantling and the long-term storage of radioactive waste. In par-
ticular, low-probability events of high-impact accidents make an
assessment intricate. Due to high uncertainty, the literature provides
a wide range of estimates.
At the lower end, estimates based on the ExternE methodology
report external costs between around 1 (Laes et al., 2011) and 2.5,
with somewhat higher accident costs up to 32 per MWh (Rabl and
Rabl, 2013). In particular, the external cost calculation for severe
nuclear accidents is delicate (Freeman III, 1996; Laes et al., 2011).
Assumptions for low-probability-high-impact events are debated
among experts, and intangible costs in the psychological and moral
domain are dicult to quantify using a neoclassical framework. Like-
wise, no full private insurance exists, meaning that a part of the risk
is always borne by society. In this respect, an extensive report con-
cludes on external costs between 110 and 340 per MWh (Meyer,
2012).
Analyzing intangible externalities of nuclear power, studies in
the aftermath of the 2011 Fukushima disaster found higher risk
aversion (Goebel et al., 2015), fear (Hartmann et al., 2013), and
signicantly reduced subjective well-being (Welsch and Biermann,
2014b, 2016). More generally, the application of a neoclassical exter-
nal cost concept may not fully capture externalities, as accident risk
and long-term storage of radioactive waste are subject to a very
wide spatial and temporal scope. Likewise, damage categories may
require the application of more fundamental behavioral and ethical
considerations (Laes et al., 2011; Sderholm and Sundqvist, 2003).
Appendix B. Literature Coverage and Article Selection
B.1. Literature Coverage
This survey paper is based on a systematic literature search.
Specically, I draw on the leading peer-reviewed journals on
ecological, environmental, and energy economics. These comprise
Ecological Economics, Economics of Energy and Environmental
Policy, Energy Economics, Energy Policy, Environmental and Resource
Economics, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,
Land Economics, Resource and Energy Economics, Review of Environ-
mental Economics and Policy, and The Energy Journal. Moreover, I
systematically searched leading eld journals in the interdisciplinary
context of economics and engineering. These are Applied Energy,
Energy, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, and Renewable
Energy.
In the universe of the above journals, I searched for all combi-
nations between the keyword wind and the keywords acceptance,
biodiversity, choice experiment, contingent valuation, ecological, eco-
nomic growth, external, externality, hedonic, house price, jobs, land-
scape, local economic, macroeconomic, NIMBY, noise, opposition, place,
preferences, satisfaction, sound, siting, tourism, well-being, wildlife, and
willingness to pay.
The detailed search is complemented by a search for the keyword
wind power in the journals Ecology and Society, Energy Research and
Social Science, Environmental Planning A, Environmental Planning C,
Journal of Industrial Ecology, and Land Use Policy. Moreover, to cover
economic general-interest outlets, I searched for the keyword wind
power within the database EconLit. Likewise I applied the keyword
wind power to search the database JSTOR within the sub-categories
ecology, economics, geography, health policy, and health science.
The systematic journal and database search was complemented
by a detailed hand search within the single articles retrieved,
especially on non-economic topics, and own previous work in the
eld of power system economics. All publications through October
2016 were considered. Given the breadth of the topic, the collec-
tion of papers cannot be complete. However, I am convinced that
the current state of knowledge in the relevant elds is suciently
covered.
Overall, I took 485 articles into account. Preference was given to
review and survey articles, meta-analyses, theoretical papers, and
larger applied studies. However, I also took more specic case studies
into account. When case studies on certain aspects were abundant,
for instance on the WTP for green electricity, I concentrated on
meta-analyses and some selective case study papers. For topics out-
side the core economic curriculum, that is wildlife (Section 4.1) and
noise (Section 4.2), I drew on consolidated evidence from system-
atic review and survey papers. After article selection, 332 references,
including a few studies from the gray literature, entered this litera-
ture review.
References
50Hertz, 2016a. Extrapolated actual solar power feed-in. Accessed February
23, 2017. www.50hertz.com/en/Grid-Data/Photovoltaics/Extrapolated-actual-
Photovoltaics-feed-in.
50Hertz, 2016b. Extrapolated actual wind power feed-in. Accessed February 23,
2017. www.50hertz.com/en/Grid-Data/Wind-power/Extrapolated-actual-wind-
power-feed-in.
Aitken, M., 2010. Wind power and community benets: challenges and opportunities.
Energy Policy 38, 60666075. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.05.062.
Akcura, E., 2015. Mandatory versus voluntary payment for green electricity. Ecol. Econ.
116, 8495. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.02.027.
Alonso, E., Sherman, A.M., Wallington, T.J., Everson, M.P., Field, F.R., Roth, R., Kirchain,
R.E., 2012. Evaluating rare earth element availability: a case with revolutionary
demand from clean technologies. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 34063414. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1021/es203518d.
Alper, A., Oguz, O., 2016. The role of renewable energy consumption in economic
growth: evidence from asymmetric causality. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 60, 953
959. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.01.123.
lvarez-Farizo, B., Hanley, N., 2002. Using conjoint analysis to quantify public pref-
erences over the environmental impacts of wind farms. An example from Spain.
Energy Policy 30, 107116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(01)00063-5.
Ambrey, C.L., Fleming, C.M., Chan, A.Y.-C., 2014. Estimating the cost of air pollution
in South East Queensland: an application of the life satisfaction non-market val-
uation approach. Ecol. Econ. 97, 172181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.
2013.11.007.
Amelin, M., 2009. Comparison of capacity credit calculation methods for conventional
power plants and wind power. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 24 (2), 685691. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1109/TPWRS.2009.2016493.
Amprion, 2016a. Photovoltaikeinspeisung. Accessed December 3, 2016. www.
amprion.net/photovoltaikeinspeisung.
Amprion, 2016b. Windenergieeinspeisung. Accessed December 3, 2016. www.
amprion.net/windenergieeinspeisung.
Anthoff, D., Hepburn, C., Tol, R.S., 2009. Equity weighting and the marginal dam-
age cost of climate change. Ecol. Econ. 68, 836849. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolecon.2008.06.017.
Apergis, N., Payne, J.E., 2010a. Renewable energy consumption and growth: evidence
from a panel of OECD countries. Energy Policy 38, 656660. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.enpol.2009.09.002.
Apergis, N., Payne, J.E., 2010b. Renewable energy consumption and growth in Eurasia.
Energy Econ. 32 (6), 13921397. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2010.06.001.
Apergis, N., Payne, J.E., Menyah, K., Wolde-Rufael, Y., 2010. On the causal dynamics
between emissions, nuclear energy, renewable energy, and economic growth.
Ecol. Econ. 69, 22552260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.06.014.
Bakker, R.H., Pedersen, E., van den Berg, G.P., Stewart, R.E., Lok, W., Bouma, J., 2012.
Impact of wind turbine sound on annoyance, self-reported sleep disturbance and
psychological distress. Sci. Total Environ. 425, 4251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.scitotenv.2012.03.005.
Barclay, R.M., Baerwals, E., Gruver, J., 2007. Variation in bat and bird fatalities at wind
energy facilities: assessing the effects of rotor size and tower height. Can. J. Zool.
85, 381387. http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/Z07-011.
 A. Zerrahn / Ecological Economics 141 (2017) 245260
Barrios, L., Rodriguez, A., 2004. Behavioural and environmental correlates of soaring-
bird mortality at on-shore wind turbines. J. Appl. Ecol. 41, 7281. http://
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2004.00876.x/pdf. Accessed
November 9, 2015.
Batel, S., Devine-Wright, P., Tangeland, T., 2014. Social acceptance of low carbon
energy and associated infrastructures: a critical discussion. Energy Policy 58, 15.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.03.018.
Baumgrtner, S., Quaas, M., 2010. Sustainability economics general versus specic,
and conceptual versus practical. Ecol. Econ. 69, 20562059. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.ecolecon.2010.06.018.
Baxter, J., Morzaria, R., Hirsch, R., 2013. A case-control study of support/opposition
to wind turbines: perceptions of health risk, economic benets, and community
conict. Energy Policy 61, 931943. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.
050.
Beise, M., Rennings, K., 2005. Lead markets and regulation: a framework for analyzing
the international diffusion of environmental regulations. Ecol. Econ. 52, 517.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.06.007.
Bergmann, A., Hanley, N., Wright, R., 2006. Valuing the attributes of renewable energy
investments. Energy Policy 34, 10041014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.
2004.08.035.
Bertsch, V., Hall, M., Weinhardt, C., Fichtner, W., 2016. Public acceptance and prefer-
ences related to renewable energy and grid expansion policy: empirical insights
for Germany. Energy 114, 465477. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.08.
022.
Betakova, V., Vojar, J., Sklenicka, P., 2015. Wind turbine location: how many and how
far? Appl. Energy 151, 2331. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.04.060.
Bhattacharya, M., Paramati, S.R., Ozturk, I., Bhattacharya, S., 2016. The effect of renew-
able energy consumption on economic growth: evidence from top 38 countries.
Appl. Energy 162, 733741. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.10.104.
Bidwell, D., 2013. The role of values in public beliefs and attitudes towards commercial
wind energy. Energy Policy 58, 189199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.
03.010.
Bithas, K., 2011. Sustainability and externalities: is the internalization of externalities
a sucient condition for sustainability? Ecol. Econ. 70, 17031706. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.05.014.
Blazejczak, J., Braun, F.G., Edler, D., Schill, W.-P., 2014. Economic effects of renewable
energy expansion: a model-based analysis for Germany. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev.
40, 10701080. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.134.
BMWi, 2015. Zeitreihen zur Entwicklung der erneuerbaren Energien in Deutschland.
Bundesministerium fr Wirtschaft und Energie (BMWi). Accessed February
23, 2017, http://www.erneuerbare-energien.de/EE/Navigation/DE/Service/
Erneuerbare_Energien_in_Zahlen/Zeitreihen/zeitreihen.html.
Boccard, N., 2010. Economic properties of wind power a European assessment.
Energy Policy 38, 32323244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.07.033.
Bhringer, C., Bortolamedi, M., 2015. Sense and no(n)-sense of energy security indi-
cators. Ecol. Econ. 119, 359371. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.09.
020.
Bhringer, C., Keller, A., van der Werf, E., 2013. Are green hopes too rosy? Employment
and welfare impacts of renewable energy promotion. Energy Econ. 36, 277285.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2012.08.029.
Bommier, A., Lanz, B., Zuber, S., 2015. Models-as-usual for unusual risks? On the value
of catastrophic climate change. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 74, 122. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.jeem.2015.07.003.
Borenstein, S., 2012. The private and public economics of renewable electricity gener-
ation. J. Econ. Perspect. 26 (1), 6792. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/jep.26.1.67.
Botzen, W., van den Bergh, J.C., 2014. Specications of social welfare in economic
studies of climate policy: overview of criteria and related policy insights. Environ.
Resour. Econ. 58, 133. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10640-013-9738-8.
Brennan, N., van Rensburg, T.M., 2016. Wind farm externalities and public preferences
for community consultation in Ireland: a discrete choice experiments approach.
Energy Policy 94, 355365. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.04.031.
Bridge, G., Bouzarovski, S., Bradshaw, M., Eyre, N., 2013. Geographies of energy
transition: space, place and the low-carbon economy. Energy Policy 53, 331
340. http://dx.doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.10.066.
Bristow, G., Cowell, R., Munday, M., 2012. Windfalls for whom? The evolving notion
of community in community benet provisions from wind farms. Geofroum 43
(6), 11081120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.06.015.
Broekel, T., Alfken, C., 2015. Gone with the wind? The impact of wind turbines on
tourism demand. Energy Policy 86, 506519. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.
2015.08.005.
Brouwer, A.S., van den Broek, M., Zappa, W., Turkenburg, W.C., Faaij, A., 2016.
Least-cost options for integrating intermittent renewables in low-carbon power
systems. Appl. Energy 161, 4874. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.09.
090.
Brown, J.P., Pender, J., Lantz, E., Hoen, B., 2012. Ex post analysis of economic impacts
from wind power development in U.S. counties. Energy Econ. 34, 17431754.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2012.07.010.
Burgherr, P., Hirschberg, S., 2014. Comparative risk assessment of severe accidents in
the energy sector. Energy Policy 74, S45S56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.
2014.01.035.
Burke, M., Dykema, J., Lobell, D.B., Miguel, E., Satyanath, S., 2015. Incorporating climate
uncertainty into estimates of climate change impacts. Rev. Econ. Stat. 97 (2), 461
471. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/REST_a_00478.
Cardoso, A., 2015. Behind the life cycle of coal: socio-economic liabilities of coal
mining in Cesar, Colombia. Ecol. Econ. 120, 7182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolecon.2015.10.004.
255
Carrete, M., Snchez-Zapata, J.A., Bnitez, J.R., Lobn, M., Donzar, J.A., 2009. Large-
scale risk-assessment of wind farms on population viability of a global endan-
gered long-lived raptor. Biol. Conserv. 142, 29542961. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.biocon.2009.07.027.
CASES, 2008. Full cost estimates for the use of different energy sources. CASES
(Cost Assessment of Sustainable Energy Systems), D.6.1, Project No 518294
SES6 Accessed February 23, 2017 www.feem-project.net/cases/downloads_
deliverables.php
Cass, N., Walker, G., 2009. Emotion and rationality: the characterisation and evaluation
of opposition to renewable energy projects. Emot., Space Soc. 2, 6269. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.emospa.2009.05.006.
Cepeda, M., Finon, D., 2013. How to correct for long-term externalities of large-scale
wind power development by a capacity mechanism? Energy Policy 61, 671685.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.046.
Chambers, R.G., Melkonyan, T., 2017. Ambiguity, reasoned determination, and climate-
change policy. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 81, 7492. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
jeem.2016.09.007.
Chiang, A.C., Moore, M.R., Johnson, J.X., Keolian, G.A., 2016. Emissions reduction
benets of siting an offshore wind farm: a temporal and spatial analysis of Lake
Michigan. Ecol. Econ. 130, 263276. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.
07.010.
Chien, T., Hu, J.-L., 2007. Renewable energy and macroeconomic eciency of OECD and
non-OECD economies. Energy Policy 35, 36063615. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
enpol.2006.12.033.
Chien, T., Hu, J.-L., 2008. Renewable energy: an ecient mechanism to improve
GDP. Energy Policy 36 (8), 30453052. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.04.
012.
Cludius, J., Hermann, H., Matthes, F.C., Graichen, V., 2014. The merit order effect of
wind and photovoltaic electricity generation in Germany 20082016: estimation
and distributional implications. Energy Econ. 44, 302313. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.eneco.2014.04.020.
Cohen, J.J., Reichl, J., Schmidthaler, M., 2014. Re-focussing research efforts on the
public acceptance of energy infrastructure: a critical review. Energy 76, 49.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.12.056.
Collins, A.R., Hansen, E., Hendryx, M., 2012. Wind versus coal: comparing the local
economic impacts of energy resource development in Appalachia. Energy Policy
50, 551561. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.08.001.
Conte, M.N., Jacobsen, G.D., 2016. Explaining demand for green electricity using data
from all U.S. utilities. Energy Econ. 60, 112130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
eneco.2016.09.001.
Cowell, R., Bristow, G., Munday, M., 2011. Acceptance, acceptability and environ-
mental justice: the role of community benets in wind energy development.
J. Environ. Manag. Plann. 54 (4), 539557. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640568.
2010.521047.
Cramton, P., Ockenfels, A., Stoft, S., 2013. Capacity market fundamentals. Econ.
Energy Environ. Policy 2 (2), 2746. http://dx.doi.org/10.5547/2160-5890.2.2.2.
Crichton, F., Petrie, K.J., 2015. Health complaints and wind turbines: the ecacy of
explaining the nocebo response to reduce symptom reporting. Environ. Res. 140,
449455. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2015.04.016.
Cullen, J., 2013. Measuring the environmental benets of wind-generated
electricity. Am. Econ. J. Econ. Pol. 5 (4), 107133. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/pol.5.
4.107.
Dai, H., Xie, X., Lu, J., Masui, T., 2016. Green growth: the economic impacts of large-
scale renewable energy development in China. Appl. Energy 162, 435449.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.10.049.
Dai, K., Bergot, A., Liang, C., Xiang, W.-N., Huang, Z., 2015. Environmental issues asso-
ciated with wind energy a review. Renew. Energy 75, 911921. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.10.074.
Dalton, G., Lewis, T., 2011. Metrics for measuring job creation by renewable energy
technologies, using Ireland as a case study. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 15, 2123
2133. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.01.015.
Dalton, G., Lockington, D., Baldock, T., 2008. A survey of tourist attitudes to renewable
energy supply in Australian hotel accommodation. Renew. Energy 33, 2174
2185. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2007.12.016.
Davidson, M.D., 2013. On the relation between ecosystem service, intrinsic value exis-
tence value and economic valuation. Ecol. Econ. 96, 171177. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.09.002.
de Lucas, M., Ferrer, M., Bechard, M.J., Muoz, A.R., 2012. Griffon vulture mortality at
wind farms in southern Spain: distribution of fatalities and active mitigation mea-
sures. Biol. Conserv. 147 (1), 184189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.
12.029.
Dechezleprtre, A., Glachant, M., 2014. Does foreign environmental policy inuence
domestic innovation? Evidence from the wind industry. Environ. Resour. Econ.
58, 391413. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10640-013-9705-4.
Dechezleprtre, A., Glachant, M., Hacic, I., Johnstone, N., Mnire, Y., 2011.
Invention and transfer of climate change-mitigation technologies: a global
analysis. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 5 (1), 109130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/
reep/req023.
Devereux, C.L., Denny, M.J., Whittingham, M.J., 2008. Minimal effects of wind turbines
on the distribution of wintering farmland birds. J. Appl. Ecol. 45 (6). http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/1365-2664.2008.01560.x.
Devine-Wright, P., 2005. Beyond NIMBYism: towards an integrated framework for
understanding public perceptions of wind energy. Wind Energy 8, 125139.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/we.124.
Devine-Wright, P., 2009. Rethinking NIMBYism: the role of place attachment and place
identity in explaining place-protective action. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol.
19, 426441. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/casp.1004.
256 A. Zerrahn / Ecological Economics 141 (2017) 245260
Devine-Wright, P., Howes, Y., 2010. Disruption to place attachment and the protection
of restorative environments: a wind energy case Study. J. Environ. Psychol. 30 (3),
271280. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.01.008.
Dimitropoulos, A., Kontoleon, A., 2009. Assessing the determinants of local acceptabil-
ity of wind-farm investment: a choice experiment in the Greek Aegean Islands.
Energy Policy 37, 18421854. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.01.002.
Dolan, S.L., Heath, G.A., 2012. Life Cycle Greenhouse gas emissions of utility-scale wind
power. J. Ind. Ecol. 16 (S1), S136S154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.
2012.00464.x.
Douglas, D.J., Bellamy, P.E., Pearce-Higgins, J.W., 2011. Change in the abundance and
distribution of upland breeding birds at an operational wind farm. Bird Stud. 58
(1), 3743. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00063657.2010.524914.
Doyne Farmer, J., Hepburn, C., Meaky, P., Teytelboym, A., 2015. A third wave in the
economics of climate change. Environ. Resour. Econ. 62, 329357. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/s10640-015-9965-2.
Drechsler, M., Ohl, C., Meyerhoff, J., Eichhorn, M., Monsees, J., 2011. Combining spatial
modeling and choice experiments for the optimal spatial allocation of wind
turbines. Energy Policy 39, 38453854. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.
04.015.
Dres, M.I., Koster, H.R.A., 2016. Renewable Energy and Negative Externalities: The
Effect of Wind Turbines on House Prices. J. Urban Econ. 96, 121141. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2016.09.001.
DSouza, C., Yiridoe, E.K., 2014. Social acceptance of wind energy development and
planning in rural communities of Australia: a consumer analysis. Energy Policy
74, 262270. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.08.035.
Du, X., Graedel, T., 2011. Global rare earth in-use stocks in NdFeB permanent magnets.
J. Ind. Ecol. 15 (6), 836843. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00362.x.
EC, 2014. Report on critical materials for the EU. European Commission (EC), DG
Enterprise and Industry Accessed February 23, 2017 ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/
documents/10010/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/native
Edenhofer, O., Hirth, L., Knopf, B., Pahle, M., Schlmer, S., Schmid, E., Ueckerdt, F., 2013.
On the economics of renewable energy sources. Energy Econ. 40, S12S23. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2013.09.015.
Edjemo, T., Sderholm, P., 2015. Wind power, regional development and benet-
sharing: the case of Northern Sweden. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 47, 476485.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.03.082.
Eichhorn, M., Jost, K., Seppelt, R., Drechsler, M., 2012. Model-based estimation of col-
lision risk of predatory birds with wind turbines. Ecol. Soc. 17 (2). http://dx.doi.
org/10.5751/ES-04594-170201.
Eiser, J.R., Aluchna, K., Jones, C.R., 2010. Local wind or Russian gas? Contextual inu-
ences on Polish attitudes to wind energy developments. Environ. Plann. C 28,
595608. http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/c0976.
Ek, K., 2005. Public and private attitudes towards green electricity: the case of
Swedish wind power. Energy Policy 33, 16771689. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
enpol.2004.02.005.
Ek, K., Persson, L., 2014. Wind farms where and how to place them? A choice experi-
ment approach to measure consumer preferences for characteristics of wind farm
establishments in Sweden. Ecol. Econ. 105, 193203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolecon.2014.06.001.
Eltham, D.C., Harrison, G.P., Allen, S.J., 2008. Change in public attitude towards a Cor-
nish wind farm: implications for planning. Energy Policy 36, 2333. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.09.010.
ENTSO-E, 2016. Consumption Data Hourly Load Values for a Specic Country for a
Specic Month (in MW). European Network of Transmission System Operators
for Electricity (ENTSO-E) Accessed February 23, 2017 www.entsoe.eu/db-query/
consumption/mhlv-a-specic-country-for-a-specic-month
Epstein, P.R., Buonocore, J.J., Eckerle, K., Hendryx, M., III, B.M.S., Heinberg, R., Clapp,
R.W., May, B., Reinhart, N.L., Ahern, M.M., Doshi, S.K., Glustrom, L., 2011. Full cost
accounting for the life cycle of coal. In: Constanza, R., Limburg, K., Kubiszewski,
I. (Eds.), . 1219. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences., pp. 7398. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05890.x.
ERECON, Kooroshy, J., Tiess, G., Tukker, A., Walton, A. (Eds.), 2015. Strengthen-
ing the European rare earths supply chain: challenges and policy options.
European Rare Earths Competency Network (ERECON). Accessed February 23,
2017 ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/10882/attachments/1/translations/en/
renditions/native
European Commission, 2005. ExternE Externalities of Energy, Methodology 2005
Update. Project Report EUR 16525. Oce for the Ocial Publications of
the European Communities. Accessed February 23, 2017. http://ec.europa.eu/
research/energy/pdf/kina_en.pdf.
Fast, S., Mabee, W., 2015. Place-making and trust-building: the inuence of policy on
host community responses to wind farms. Energy Policy 81, 2737. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.02.008.
Feder, K., Michaud, D.S., Keith, S.E., Voicescu, S.A., Marro, L., Than, J., Guay, M., Denning,
A., Bower, T.J., Lavigne, E., Whelan, C., van den Bergh, F., 2015. An assessment
of quality of life using WHOQOL-BREF among participants living in the vicinity
of wind turbines. Environ. Res. 142, 227238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.
2015.06.043.
Ferreira, S., Akay, A., Brereton, F., Cunado, J., Martinsson, P., Moro, M., Ningal, T.F., 2013.
Life satisfaction and air quality in Europe. Ecol. Econ. 88, 110. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.12.027.
Finon, D., Pignon, V., 2008. Electricity and long-term capacity adequacy: the quest
for regulatory mechanism compatible with electricity market. Util. Policy 16 (3),
143158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2008.01.002.
Firestone, J., Bates, A., Knapp, L.A., 2015. See me, feel me, touch me, heal me: wind
turbines, culture, landscapes, and sound impressions. Land Use Policy 46, 241
249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.02.015.
Fizaine, F., Court, V., 2015. Renewable electricity producing technologies and metal
depletion: a sensitivity analysis using the EROI. Ecol. Econ. 110, 106118. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.12.001.
Foley, D.K., Rezai, A., Taylor, L., 2013. The social cost of carbon emissions: seven
propositions. Econ. Lett. 121, 9097. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2013.07.
006.
Fouquet, R., 2011. Long-run trends in energy-related external costs. Ecol. Econ. 70,
23802389. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.07.020.
Frantal, B., Kunc, J., 2011. Wind turbines in tourism landscapes: Czech experience. Ann.
Tour. Res. 38 (2), 499519. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2010.10.007.
Freeman, M.C., Groom, B., Panopoulou, E., Pantelidis, T., 2015. Declining discount rates
and the Fisher effect: inated past, discounted future? J. Environ. Econ. Manag.
73, 3249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2015.06.003.
Freeman, A.M., III, 1996. Estimating the environmental costs of electricity: an
overview and review of issues. Resour. Energy Econ. 18, 347362. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/S0928-7655(97)00019-5.
Friedl, C., Reichl, J., 2016. Realizing energy infrastructure projects a qualitative
empirical analysis of local practices to address social acceptance. Energy Policy
89, 184193. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.11.027.
Frondel, M., Ritter, N., Schmidt, C.M., Vance, C., 2010. Economic impacts from the
promotion of renewable energy technologies: the German experience. Energy
Policy 38, 40484056. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.03.029.
Garcia, D.A., Canavero, G., Ardenghi, F., Zambon, M., 2015. Analysis of wind farm
effects on the surrounding environment: assessing population trends of breeding
passerines. Renew. Energy 80, 190196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.
02.004.
Gibbons, S., 2015. Gone with the wind: valuing the visual impact of wind turbines
through house prices. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 72, 177196. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.jeem.2015.04.006.
Giglio, S., Maggiori, M., Stroebel, J., 2015. Very long-run discount rates. Q. J. Econ. 130
(1), 154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/qje/qju036.
Goebel, J., Krekel, C., Tiefenbach, T., Ziebarth, N.R., 2015. How natural disasters can
affect environmental concerns, risk aversion, and even politics: evidence from
Fukushima and three European countries. J. Popul. Econ. 28 (4), 11371180.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00148-015-0558-8.
Gollier, C., Weitzman, M.L., 2010. How should the distant future be discounted when
discount rates are uncertain? Econ. Lett. 107, 350353. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.econlet.2010.03.001.
Goulder, L.H., Williams, R.C., III, 2012. The choice of discount rate for climate
change policy evaluation. Clim. Chang. Econ. 3 (4). http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/
S2010007812500248.
Graedel, T., Harper, E., Nassar, N., Reck, B.K., 2015. On the materials basis of modern
society. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 112 (20), 62956300. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1073/pnas.1312752110.
Graham, J.B., Stephenson, J.R., Smith, I.J., 2009. Public perceptions of wind energy
development: case studies from New Zealand. Energy Policy 37, 33483357.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.12.035.
Greene, J.S., Geisken, M., 2013. Socioeconomic impacts of wind farm development: a
case study of Weatherford, Oklahoma. Energy, Sustain. Soc. 3 (2), 19. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1186/2192-0567-3-2.
Groothuis, P.A., Groothuis, J.D., Whitehead, J.C., 2008. Green vs. green: measuring
the compensation required to site electrical generation windmills in a
viewshed. Energy Policy 36, 15451550. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.
01.018.
Grsche, P., Schrder, C., 2011. Eliciting public support for greening the electricity mix
using random parameter techniques. Energy Econ. 33, 363370. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.eneco.2010.10.002.
Gross, C., 2007. Community perspective of wind energy in Australia: the appli-
cation of a justice and community fairness framework to increase social
acceptance. Energy Policy 35, 27272736. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.
2006.12.013.
Groth, T.M., Vogt, C., 2014. Residents perceptions of wind turbines: an analysis of two
townships in Michigan. Energy Policy 65, 251260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
enpol.2013.10.055.
Grubb, M., Butler, L., Twomey, P., 2006. Diversity and security in UK electricity
generation: the inuence of low-carbon objectives. Energy Policy 34, 40504062.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2005.09.004.
Guo, Y., Ru, P., Su, J., Diaz Anadon, L., 2015. Not in my backyard, but not far away
from me: local acceptance of wind power in China. Energy 82, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2015.01.082.
Hall, N., Ashworth, P., Devine-Wright, P., 2013. Societal acceptance of wind farms:
analysis of four common themes across Australian case studies. Energy Policy 58,
200208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.03.009.
Hartley, P.R., Medlock, K.B., III, Temezlides, T., Zhang, X., 2015. Local employment
impact from competing energy sources: shale gas versus wind generation in
Texas. Energy Econ. 49, 610619. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2015.02.023.
Hartmann, P., Apaolaza, V., DSouza, C., Echebarria, C., Barrutia, J.M., 2013. Nuclear
power threats, public opposition and green electricity adoption: effects of threat
belief appraisal and fear arousal. Energy Policy 62, 13661376. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.enpol.2013.07.058.
Hasche, B., Keane, A., OMalley, M., 2011. Capacity value of wind power, calculation,
and data requirements: the Irish power system case. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 26
(1), 420430. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TPWRS.2010.2051341.
Hayes, M.A., 2013. Bats killed in large numbers at United States wind energy
facilities. BioScience 63 (12), 975979. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/bio.2013.63.
12.10.
 A. Zerrahn / Ecological Economics 141 (2017) 245260
He, G., Fan, M., Zhou, M., 2016. The effect of air pollution on mortality in China: evi-
dence from the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 79, 1839.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2016.04.004.
Heintzelmann, M.D., Tuttle, C.M., 2012. Values in the wind: a hedonic analysis of wind
power facilities. Land Econ. 88 (3), 561588. http://dx.doi.org/10.3368/le.88.3.
571.
Hirth, L., 2013. The market value of variable renewables: the effect of solar wind power
variability on their relative price. Energy Econ. 38, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
eneco.2013.02.004.
Hirth, L., Mller, S., 2016. System-friendly wind power how advanced wind turbine
design can increase the economic value of electricity generated by wind power.
Energy Econ. 56, 5163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2016.02.016.
Hirth, L., Ueckerdt, F., Edenhofer, O., 2015. Integration costs revisited an economic
framework for wind and solar variability. Renew. Energy 74, 925939. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.08.065.
Hirth, L., Ueckerdt, F., Edenhofer, O., 2016. Why wind is not coal: on the economics of
electricity generation. Energy J. 37 (3), 127. http://dx.doi.org/10.5547/01956574.
37.3.lhir.
Hoen, B., Wiser, R., Cappers, P., Thayer, M., Sethi, G., 2011. Wind energy facilities and
residential properties: the effect of proximity and view on sales prices. J. Real
Estate Res. 33 (3), 279316. http://pages.jh.edu/jrer/papers/pdf/past/vol33n03/
01.279_316.pdf. Accessed February 23, 2017.
Howard, D.C., Wadsworth, R.A., Whitaker, J.W., Hughes, N., Bunce, R.G., 2009. The
impact if sustainable energy production on land use in Britain through 2050.
Land Use Policy 26S, S284S292. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.
09.017.
IRENA, 2015. Renewable Energy Capacity Statistics 2015. International Renew-
able Energy Agency (IRENA) Accessed November 9, 2015 www.irena.org/
DocumentDown%20loads/Publications/IRENA_RE_Capacity_Statistics_2015.pdf.
Jacquet, J.B., 2012. Landowners attitudes toward natural gas and wind farm develop-
ment in Northern Pennsylvania. Energy Policy 50, 677688. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.enpol.2012.08.011.
Jaforullah, M., King, A., 2015. Does the use of renewable energy sources mitigate CO2
emissions? A reassessment of the US evidence. Energy Econ. 49, 711717. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2015.04.006.
Jalali, L., Bigelow, P., McColl, S., Majowicz, S., Gohari, M., Waterhouse, R., 2016a.
Changes in quality of life and perceptions of general health before and after oper-
ation of wind turbines. Environ. Pollut. 216, 608615. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.envpol.2016.06.020.
Jalali, L., Nezhad-Ahmadi, M.-R., Gohari, M., McColl, P.B.S., 2016b. The impact of psy-
chological factors on self-reported sleep disturbance among people living in the
vicinity of wind turbines. Environ. Res. 148, 401410. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.envres.2016.04.020.
Janhunen, S., Hujala, M., Ptri, S., 2014. Owners of second homes, locals and their
attitudes towards future rural wind farm. Energy Policy 73, 450460. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.05.050.
Jensen, C.U., Panduro, T.E., Lundhede, T.H., 2014. The vindication of Don Quixote: the
impact of noise and visual pollution from wind turbines. Land Econ. 90 (4), 668
682. http://dx.doi.org/10.3368/le.90.4.668.
Jewell, J., Cherp, A., Riahi, K., 2014. Energy security under de-carbonization scenarios:
an assessment framework and evaluation under different technology and policy
choices. Energy Policy 65, 743760. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.
051.
Jobert, A., Laborgne, P., Mimler, S., 2007. Local acceptance of wind energy: factors of
success identied in French and German case studies. Energy Policy 35, 2751
2760. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2006.12.005.
Johansson, B., 2013a. A broadened typology on energy and security. Energy 53, 199
205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.03.012.
Johansson, B., 2013b. Security aspects of future renewable energy systems: a short
overview. Energy 61, 598605. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.09.023.
Johnson, N., Strubegger, M., McPherson, M., Parkinson, S.C., Krey, V., Sullivan, P., 2016.
A reduced-form approach for representing the impacts of wind and solar PV
deployment on the structure and operation of the electricity system. Energy Econ.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2016.07.010.
Jones, C.R., Eiser, J.R., 2009. Identifying predictors of attitudes towards local onshore
wind development with reference to an English case study. Energy Policy 37,
46044614. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.06.01.
Jones, C.R., Eiser, J.R., 2010. Understanding local opposition to wind development in
the UK: how big is a backyard? Energy Policy 38, 31063117. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.enpol.2010.01.051.
Joskow, P.L., 2008. Capacity payments in imperfect electricity markets: need
and design. Util. Policy 16 (3), 159170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2007.10.
003.
Kane, D.T., McBee, B.J., Lieskovsky, J., 2013. Emissions savings from wind power gen-
eration in Texas. Energy J. 34 (1), 155175. http://dx.doi.org/10.5547/01956574.
34.1.7.
Kahia, M., Ben Assa, M.S., Charfeddine, L., 2016. Impact of renewable and non-
renewable energy consumption on economic growth: new evidence from the
MENA Net Oil Exporting Countries (NOECs). Energy 116, 102115. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.07.126.
Kahn, M.E., 2013. Local non-market quality of life dynamics in new wind farms
communities. Energy Policy 59, 800807. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.
04.037.
Kaldellis, J., Apostolou, D., Kapsali, M., Kondili, E., 2016. Environmental and social foot-
print of offshore wind energy. Comparison with onshore counterpart. Renew.
Energy 92, 543556. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.02.018.
257
Keane, A., Milligan, M., Dent, C., Hasche, B., DAnnunzio, C., Dragon, K., Holttinen,
H., Samaan, N., Sder, L., OMalley, M., 2011. Capacity value of wind power.
IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 26 (2), 564572. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TPWRS.2010.
2062543.
Kermagoret, C., Levrel, H., Carlier, A., Dachary-Bernard, J., 2016. Individual preferences
regarding environmental offset and welfare compensation: a choice experiment
application to an offshore wind farm project. Ecol. Econ. 129, 230240. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.05.017.
Ketterer, J.C., 2014. The impact of wind power generation on the electricity price in
Germany. Energy Econ. 44, 270280. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2014.04.
003.
Kirchhoff, T., 2014. Energiewende und Landschaftssthetik. Naturschutz und Land-
schaftsplanung 46 (1), 1016. www.naturphilosophie.org/wp-content/uploads/
2014/01/Kirchhoff_2014_Energiewende-und-Landschaftsaesthetik.pdf.
Kleijn, R., van der Voet, E., 2010. Resource constraints in a hydrogen economy based
on renewable energy sources: an exploration. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 14, 2784
2795. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.07.066.
Kleijn, R., van der Voet, E., Kramer, G.J., van Oers, L., van der Giesen, C., 2011. Metal
requirements of low-carbon power generation. Energy 36, 56405648. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2011.07.003.
Knopper, L.D., Ollson, C.A., 2011. Health effects and wind turbines: a review of the
literature. Environ. Health 10 (78), http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1476-069X-10-
78.
Kopmann, A., Rehdanz, K., 2013. A human well-being approach for assessing the value
of natural land areas. Ecol. Econ. 93, 2033. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.
2013.04.014.
Krekel, C., Zerrahn, A., 2017. Does the presence of wind turbines have externalities for
people in their surroundings? Evidence from well-being data. J. Environ. Econ.
Manag. 82, 221238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2016.11.009.
Krohn, S., Damborg, S., 1999. On public attitudes towards wind power. Renew. Energy
16, 954960. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0960-1481(98)00339-5.
Kumar, I., Turner, W.E., Sinha, K.C., 2016. Inputoutput life cycle environmental
assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from utility scale wind energy in the
United States. Energy Policy 89, 294301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.
12.004.
Kunz, F., Zerrahn, A., 2015. Benets of coordinating congestion management in elec-
tricity transmission networks: theory and application for Germany. Util. Policy
37, 3445. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2015.09.009.
Kunz, F., Zerrahn, A., 2016. Coordinating cross-country congestion management: evi-
dence from Central Europe. Energy J. 37 (SI3), 81100. http://dx.doi.org/10.5547/
01956574.37.SI3.fkun.
Kuvlesky, W.P., Jr., Brennan, L.A., Morrisson, M.L., Boydston, K.K., Ballard, B.M., Bryant,
F.C., 2007. Wind energy and wildlife conservation: challenges and opportunities.
J. Wildl. Manag. 71 (8), 24872498. http://dx.doi.org/10.2193/2007-248.
Ladenburg, J., 2010. Attitudes towards offshore wind farms the role of beach visits on
attitude and attitude and demographic relations. Energy Policy 38, 12971304.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.11.005.
Ladenburg, J., Dahlgaard, J.-O., 2012. Attitudes, threshold levels and cumulative effects
of the daily wind-turbine encounters. Appl. Energy 98, 4046. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.02.070.
Ladenburg, J., Dubgaard, A., 2007. Willingness to pay for reduced visual disamenities
from offshore wind farms in Denmark. Energy Policy 35, 40594071. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.01.023.
Ladenburg, J., Termansen, M., Hasler, B., 2013. Assessing acceptability of two onshore
wind power development schemes: a test of viewshed effects and the cumulative
effects of wind turbines. Energy 54, 4554. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.
2013.02.021.
Laes, E., Meskens, G., van der Sluijs, J.P., 2011. On the contribution of external cost cal-
culations to energy system governance: the case of a potential large-scale nuclear
accident. Energy Policy 39, 56645673. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.
04.016.
Landry, C.E., Allen, T., Cherry, T., Whitehead, J.C., 2012. Wind turbines and coastal
recreation demand. Resour. Energy Econ. 34, 93111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.reseneeco.2011.10.001.
Lang, C., Opaluch, J.J., Snarolakis, G., 2014. The windy city: property value impacts of
wind turbines in an urban setting. Energy Econ. 44, 413421. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.eneco.2014.05.010.
Langer, K., Decker, T., Roosen, J., Menrad, K., 2016. A qualitative analysis to understand
the acceptance of wind energy in Bavaria. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 64, 248259.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.05.084.
Lehnert, L.S., Kramer-Schadt, S., Schnborn, S., Lindecke, O., Niermann, I., Voigt, C.C.,
2014. Wind farm facilities in Germany kill noctule bats from near and far. PLOS
ONE 9 (8), 18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0103106.
Lehr, U., Lutz, C., Edler, D., 2012. Green jobs? Economic impacts of renewable energy
in Germany. Energy Policy 47, 358364. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.
04.076.
Lehr, U., Nitsch, J., Kratzat, M., Lutz, C., Edler, D., 2008. Renewable energy and employ-
ment in Germany. Energy Policy 36, 108117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.
2007.09.004.
Lewicka, M., 2011. Place attachment: how far have we come in the last 40 years? J.
Environ. Psychol. 31, 207230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.10.001.
Lilley, M.B., Firestone, J., Kempton, W., 2010. The effect of wind power installations on
coastal tourism. Energies 3, 122. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en3010001.
Lschel, A., Moslener, U., Rbbelke, D.T., 2010. Indicators of energy security in industri-
alised countries. Energy Policy 38, 16651671. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.
2009.03.061.
258 A. Zerrahn / Ecological Economics 141 (2017) 245260
Loss, S.R., Will, T., Marra, P.P., 2013a. Estimates of bird collision mortality at wind facil-
ities in the contiguous United States. Biol. Conserv. 168, 201209. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.10.007.
Loss, S.R., Will, T., Marra, P.P., 2013b. The impact of free-ranging domestic cats
on wildlife of the United States. Nat. Commun. 4, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/
ncomms2380.
Lovich, J.E., Ennen, J.R., 2013. Assessing the state of knowledge of utility-scale wind
energy development and operation on non-volant terrestrial and marine wildlife.
Appl. Energy 103, 5260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.10.001.
Luechinger, S., 2009. Valuing air quality using the life satisfaction approach. Econ. J.
119, 482515. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2008.02241.x.
Luechinger, S., 2010. Life satisfaction and transboundary air pollution. Econ. Lett. 107,
46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2009.07.007.
Lund, P.D., 2009. Effects of energy policies on industry expansion in renewable energy.
Renew. Energy 34, 5364. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2008.03.018.
Ma, C., Rogers, A.A., Kragt, M.E., Zhang, F., Polyakov, M., Gibson, F., Chalak, M., Pandit,
R., Tapsuwan, S., 2015. Consumers willingness to pay for renewable energy: a
meta-regression analysis. Resour. Energy Econ. 42, 93109. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.reseneeco.2015.07.003.
Manzo, L.C., Perkins, D.D., 2006. Finding common ground: the importance of place
attachment to community participation and planning. J. Plann. Lit. 20 (4), 335
350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0885412205286160.
Mattmann, M., Logar, I., Brouwer, R., 2016a. Hydropower externalities: a meta-
analysis. Energy Econ. 57, 6677. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2016.04.016.
Mattmann, M., Logar, I., Brouwer, R., 2016b. Wind power externalities: a meta-
analysis. Ecol. Econ. 127, 2336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.04.
005.
May, N.G., Nilsen, .A., 2015. The Local Economic Impact of Wind Power Deployment.
IZA Discussion Paper 9025. Accessed February 23, 2017. http://brage.bibsys.no/
xmlui/handle/11250/283038.
May, R., Reitan, O., Bevanger ans, K., Lorentzen, S.-H., Nygaard, T., 2015. Mitigating
wind-turbine induced avian mortality: sensory, aerodynamic and cognitive con-
straints and options. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 42, 170181. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.rser.2014.10.002.
McCubbin, D., Sovacool, B.K., 2013. Quantifying the health and environmental benets
of wind power to natural gas. Energy Policy 53, 429441. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.enpol.2012.11.004.
McCunney, R.J., Mundt, K.A., Colby, W.D., Dobie, R., Kaliski, K., Blais, M., 2014. Wind tur-
bines and health a critical review of the scientic literature. J. Occup. Environ.
Med. 56 (11), 108130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000000313.
McLaren Loring, J., 2007. Wind energy planning in England, Wales and Denmark: fac-
tors inuencing project success. Energy Policy 35, 26482660. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.enpol.2006.10.008.
Menegaki, A.N., 2011. Growth and renewable energy in Europe: a random effect model
with evidence for neutrality hypothesis. Energy Econ. 33 (2), 257263. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2010.10.004.
Meyer, B., 2012. Externe Kosten der Atomenergie und Reformvorschlge zum Atom-
haftungsrecht. Study Conducted by Green Budget Germany on Behalf of Green-
peace Energy EG and German Wind Energy Association BWE e.V. Accessed
February 23, 2017 www.foes.de/pdf/2012-09-Externe_Kosten_Atomenergie.pdf
Meyerhoff, J., Ohl, C., Hartje, V., 2010. Landscape externalities from onshore
wind power. Energy Policy 38, 8292. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.08.
055.
Molnarova, K., Sklenicka, P., Stirobek, J., Svobodova, K., Salek, M., Brabec, E., 2012.
Visual preferences for wind turbines: location, numbers and respondent charac-
teristics. Appl. Energy 92, 269278. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.
11.001.
Mnsson, A., Johansson, B., Nilsson, L.J., 2014. Assessing energy security: an overview
of commonly used methodologies. Energy 73, 114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2014.06.073.
Muller, N.Z., Mendelsohn, R., 2007. Measuring the damages of air pollution in the
United States. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 54, 114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.
2006.12.002.
Munday, M., Bristow, G., Cowell, R., 2011. Wind farms in rural areas: how far do
community benets from wind farms represent a local economic development
opportunity? J. Rural. Stud. 27 (1), 112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.
2010.08.003.
Musall, F.D., Kuik, O., 2011. Local acceptance of renewable energy a case study from
southeast Germany. Energy Policy 39, 32523260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
enpol.2011.03.017.
Nada, A., 2007. Planning, siting and the local acceptance of wind power: some
lessons from the French case. Energy Policy 35, 27152726. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.enpol.2006.12.003.
Nagl, S., Frsch, M., Lindenberger, D., 2013. The costs of electricity systems with a
high share of uctuating renewables: a stochastic investment and dispatch opti-
mization model for Europe. Energy J. 34 (4), 151179. http://dx.doi.org/10.5547/
01956574.34.4.8.
NEEDS, 2009. External costs from emerging electricity generation technologies. NEEDS
(New Energy Externalities Developments for Sustainability), Project no 502687,
Deliverable no 6.1 - RS1a. European Commission, Sixth Framework Programme
Accessed February 23, 2017 www.needs-project.org
Nordman, E., Mutinda, J., 2016. Biodiversity and wind energy in Kenya: revealing land-
scape and wind turbine perceptions in the worlds wildlife capital. Energy Res.
Soc. Sci. 19, 108118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2016.05.020.
Northrup, J.M., Wittemyer, G., 2013. Characterising the impacts of emerging energy
development on wildlife, with an eye towards mitigation. Ecol. Lett. 16, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1111/ele.12009.
Novan, K., 2015. Valuing the wind. Renewable energy policies and air pollution avoided.
Am. Econ. J. Econ. Pol. 7 (3), 291326. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/pol.20130268.
Nugent, D., Sovacool, B.K., 2014. Assessing the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from
solar PV and wind energy: a critical meta-survey. Energy Policy 65, 229244.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.048.
Oerlemans, L.A., Chan, K.-Y., Volschenk, J., 2016. Willingness-to-pay for green electric-
ity: a review of the contingent valuation literature and its sources of error. Renew.
Sust. Energ. Rev. 66, 875885. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.08.054.
Okkonen, L., Lehtonen, O., 2016. Socio-economic impacts of community wind power
projects in Northern Scotland. Renew. Energy 85, 826833. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.renene.2015.07.047.
Oliveira, C., Coelho, D., Pereira da Silva, P., Antunes, C.H., 2013. How many jobs can
the RES-E sector generate in the Portuguese context? Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 21,
444455. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.01.011.
lz, S., Sims, R., Kirchner, N., 2007. Contribution of renewables to energy security.
International Energy Agency Information Paper. Accessed February 23, 2017.
https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/contribution-of-
renewables-to-energy-security.html.
Onakpoya, I.J., OSullivan, J., Thompson, M.J., Heneghan, C.J., 2015. The effect of wind
turbine noise on sleep and quality of life: a systematic review and meta-analysis
of observational studies. Environ. Int. 82, 19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.
2015.04.014.
Oneal, J.R., Russett, B., 1999. Assessing the liberal peace with alternative specica-
tions: trade still reduces conict. J. Peace Res. 36 (4), 423442. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/0022343399036004003.
Ottinger, G., Hargreave, T.J., Hopson, E., 2014. Procedural justice in wind facility siting:
recommendations for state-led siting processes. Energy Policy 65, 662669.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.09.066.
Padey, P., Blanc, I., Le Boulch, D., Zhao, X., 2012. A simplied life cycle approach for
assessing greenhouse gas emissions of wind electricity. J. Ind. Ecol. 16 (S1), S28
S38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00466.x.
Pao, H.-T., Li, Y.-Y., Fu, H.-C., 2014. Clean energy, non-clean energy, and economic
growth in the MIST countries. Energy Policy 67, 932942. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.enpol.2013.12.039.
Papagiannis, A., Roussos, D., Menegaki, M., Damigos, D., 2014. Externalities from lignite
mining-related dust emissions. Energy Policy 74, 414424. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.enpol.2014.08.026.
Pasqualetti, M.J., 2000. Morality, space, and the power of wind-energy landscapes.
Geograph. Rev. 90 (3), 381394. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1931-0846.2000.
tb00343.x.
Pasqualetti, M.J., 2011. Opposing wind energy landscapes: a search for common
causes. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 101 (4), 907917. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
00045608.2011.568879.
Pathak, A.K., Khan, M., Gschneider, K.A., Jr., McCallum, R.W., Zhou, L., Sun, K.,
Dennis, K.W., Zhou, C., Pinkerton, F.E., Kramer, M.J., Pecharsky, V.K., 2015. Cerium:
an unlikely replacement of dysprosium in high performance NdFeB perma-
nent magnets. Adv. Mater. 27 (16), 26632667. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/adma.
201404892.
Pearce-Higgins, J.W., Stephen, L., Douse, A., Langston, R.H., 2012. Greater impacts of
wind farms on bird populations during construction than subsequent operation:
results of a multi-site and multi-species analysis. J. Appl. Ecol. 49, 386394.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2012.02110.x.
Pearce-Higgins, J.W., Stephen, L., Langston, R.H., Bainbridge, I.P., Bullman, R., 2009. The
distribution of breeding birds around upland wind farms. J. Appl. Ecol. 46, 1323
1331. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01715.x.
Pedersen, E., Larsman, P., 2008. The impact of visual factors on noise annoyance among
people living in the vicinity of wind turbines. J. Environ. Psychol. 28, 379389.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.02.009.
Pedersen, E., van den Berg, F., Bakker, R., Bouma, J., 2010. Can road trac mask sound
from wind turbines? Response to wind turbine sound at different levels of road
trac sound. Energy Policy 38, 25202527. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.
2010.01.001.
Pedersen, E., van den Bergh, F., Bakker, R., Bouma, J., 2009. Response to noise from
modern wind farms in The Netherlands. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 126 (2), 634643.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.3160293.
Pedersen, E., Waye, K.P., 2007. Wind turbine noise, annoyance and self-reported
health and well-being in different living environments. Occup. Environ. Med. 64,
480486. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/oem.2006.031039.
Pepermans, Y., Loots, I., 2013. Wind farm struggles in Flanders elds: a sociological
perspective. Energy Policy 59, 321328. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.
03.044.
Peron, G., Hines, J.E., Nichols, J.D., Kendall, W.L., Peters, K.A., Mizrahi, D.S., 2013.
Estimation of bird and bat mortality at wind-power farms with superpopulation
models. J. Appl. Ecol. 50, 902911. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12100.
Phelan, A.A., Dawes, L., Constanza, R., Kubiszewski, I., 2017. Evaluation of social exter-
nalities in regional communities affected by coal seam gas projects: a case study
from South Queensland. Ecol. Econ. 131, 300311. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolecon.2016.09.010.
Pindyck, R.S., 2013. Climate change policy: what do the models tell us? J. Econ. Lit. 51,
860872. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/jel.51.3.860.
Plonczkier, P., Simms, I.C., 2012. Radar monitoring of migrating pink-footed geese:
behavioural responses to offshore wind farm development. J. Appl. Ecol. 49,
11871194. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.2012.02181.x.
Pohl, J., Hbner, G., Mohs, A., 2012. Acceptance and stress of aircraft obstruction mark-
ings of wind turbines. Energy Policy 50, 592600. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
enpol.2012.07.062.
 A. Zerrahn / Ecological Economics 141 (2017) 245260
Rabe, W., Kostka, G., Smith Stegen, K., 2016. Chinas supply of critical raw materials:
risk for Europes solar and wind industries? Energy Policy http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.enpol.2016.09.019.
Rabl, A., Rabl, V.A., 2013. External costs of nuclear: greater or less than the alternatives?
Energy Policy 57, 575584. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.02.028.
Richter, P.M., Holz, F., 2015. All quiet on the eastern front? Disruption scenarios of
Russian natural gas supply to Europe. Energy Policy 80, 177189. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.01.024.
Roe, G.H., Baker, M.B., 2007. Why is climate sensitivity so unpredictable? Science 318,
629632. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1144735.
Roques, F.A., 2008. Market design for generation adequacy: healing causes rather than
symptoms. Util. Policy 16 (3), 171183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2008.01.
008.
Rygg, B.J., 2012. Wind power an assault on local landscapes or an opportunity for
modernization? Energy Policy 48, 167175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.
2012.05.004.
Scannell, L., Gifford, R., 2013. Personally relevant climate change: the role of place
attachment and local versus global message framing in engagement. Environ.
Behav. 45 (1), 6085. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916511421196.
Schill, W.-P., 2014. Residual load, renewable surplus generation and storage require-
ments in Germany. Energy Policy 73, 6579. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.
2014.05.032.
Schill, W.-P., Zerrahn, A., 2017. Long-run power storage requirements for high shares
of renewables: results and sensitivities. Renew. Sust. Eneg. Rev. (forthcoming).
Schmidt, J.H., Klokker, M., 2014. Health effects related to wind turbine noise expo-
sure: a systematic review. PLOS ONE 9 (12), e112183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0114183.
Scholz, Y., Gils, H.C., Pietzcker, R., 2016. Application of a high-detail energy system
model to derive power sector characteristics at high wind and solar shares.
Energy Econ. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2016.06.021.
Schuster, E., Bulling, L., Kppel, J., 2015. Consolidating the state of knowledge: a syn-
optical review of wind energys wildlife effects. Environ. Manag. 56, 300331.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0501-5.
Shaei, S., Salim, R.A., 2014. Non-renewable and renewable energy consumption and
CO2 emissions in OECD countries: a comparative analysis. Energy Policy 66, 547
556. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.064.
Shepherd, D., McBride, D., Dirks, K.N., Welch, D., 2014. Annoyance and health-related
quality of life: a cross-sectional study involving two noise sources. J. Environ. Prot.
5, 400407. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jep.2014.55043.
Shepherd, D., McBride, D., Welch, D., Dirks, K.N., Hill, E.M., 2011. Evaluating the impact
of wind turbine noise on health-related quality of life. Noise Health 13 (54), 333
339. http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/1463-1741.85502.
Sijm, J.P., 2014. Cost and revenue related impacts of integrating electricity from
variable renewable energy into the power system a review of the recent liter-
ature. ECN-E 14-022 ftp://ftp.ecn.nl/pub/www/library/report/2014/e14022.pdf.
Accessed February 23, 2017.
Sims, S., Dent, P., 2007. Property stigma: wind farms are just the latest
fashion. J. Prop. Invest. Financ. 25 (6), 626651. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
14635780710829315.
Sims, S., Dent, P., Oskrochi, G.R., 2008. Modelling the impact of wind farms on house
prices in the UK. Int. J. Strateg. Prop. Manag. 12, 251269. http://dx.doi.org/10.
3846/1648-715X.2008.12.251-269.
Slattery, M.C., Johnson, B.L., Swofford, J.A., Pasqualetti, M.J., 2012. The predominance
of economic development in the support for large-scale wind farms in the U.S.
Great Plains. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 16, 36903701. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2012.03.016.
Slattery, M.C., Lantz, E., Johnson, B.L., 2011. State and local economic impacts from
wind energy projects: Texas case Study. Energy Policy 39, 79307940. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.09.047.
Sderholm, P., Sundqvist, T., 2003. Pricing environmental externalities in the power
sector: ethical limits and implications for social choice. Ecol. Econ. 46, 333350.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(03)00185-X.
Soon, J.-J., Ahmad, S.-A., 2015. Willingly or grudgingly? A meta-analysis on the
willingness-to-pay for renewable energy use. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 44, 877
887. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.01.041.
Sovacool, B.K., 2009. Contextualizing avian mortality: a preliminary appraisal of bird
and bat fatalities from wind, fossil-fuel and nuclear electricity. Energy Policy 37,
22412248. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.02.011.
Sovacool, B.K., 2013a. An international assessment of energy security performance.
Ecol. Econ. 88, 148158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.01.019.
Sovacool, B.K., 2013b. The avian benets of wind energy: a 2009 update. Renew.
Energy 49, 1924. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2012.01.074.
Sovacool, B.K., Mukherjee, I., Drupady, I.M., DAgostino, A.L., 2011. Evaluating energy
security performance from 1990 to 2010 for eighteen countries. Energy 36, 5846
5853. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2011.08.040.
Sovacool, B.K., Saunders, H., 2014. Competing policy packages and the complexity of
energy security. Energy 67, 641651. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.01.
039.
Spash, C.J., 2013. The shallow or the deep ecological economics movement? Ecol. Econ.
93, 351362. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.05.016.
Spiecker, S., Vogel, P., Weber, C., 2013. Evaluating interconnector investments in the
north European electricity system considering uctuating wind power penetration.
Energy Econ. 37, 114127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2013.01.012.
Spiecker, S., Weber, C., 2014. The future of the European electricity system and the
impact of uctuating renewable energy a scenario analysis. Energy Policy 65,
185197. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.032.
259
Stern, N., 2013. The structure of economic models of the potential impacts of cli-
mate change: grafting gross underestimation of risk onto already narrow science
models. J. Econ. Lit. 51 (3), 838859. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/jel.51.3.838.
Stern, N., 2014a. Ethics, equity and the economics of climate change paper 1:
science and philosophy. Econ. Phil. 30, 397444. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/
S0266267114000297.
Stern, N., 2014b. Ethics, equity and the economics of climate change paper 2:
economic and politics. Econ. Philo. 30, 334501. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/
S0266267114000303.
Stirling, A., 1997. Limits to the value of external costs. Energy Policy 25 (5), 517540.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(97)00041-4.
Stirling, A., 2010. Keep it complex. Nature 468, 10291031. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/
4681029a.
Strazzera, E., Mura, M., Contu, D., 2012. Combining choice experiments with psycho-
metric scales to assess the social acceptability of wind energy projects: a latent
class approach. Energy Policy 48, 334347. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.
2012.05.037.
Sunak, Y., Madlener, R., 2016. The impact of wind farm visibility on property values: a
spatial difference-in-differences analysis. Energy Econ. 55, 7991. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.eneco.2015.12.025.
Sundt, S., Rehdanz, K., 2015. Consumers willingness to pay for green electricity: a
meta-analysis of the literature. Energy Econ. 51, 18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.eneco.2015.06.005.
Swofford, J., Slattery, M., 2010. Public attitudes of wind energy in Texas: local
communities in close proximity to wind farms and their effect on decision-
making. Energy Policy 38, 25082519. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.12.
046.
Tabi, A., Hille, S.L., Wstenhagen, R., 2014. What makes people seal the green power
deal? Customer segmentation based on choice experiment in Germany. Ecol.
Econ. 107, 206215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.09.004.
Tagliaerro, C., Boeri, M., Longo, A., Hutchinson, G., 2016. Stated preference methods
and landscape ecology indicators: an example of transdisciplinarity in landscape
economic valuation. Ecol. Econ. 127, 1122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.
2016.03.022.
TenneT TSO, 2016a. Actual and forecast photovoltaic energy feed-in. Accessed
February 23, 2017. http://www.tennettso.de/site/en/Transparency/publications/
network-gures/actual-and-forecast-photovoltaic-energy-feed-in_land?.
TenneT TSO, 2016b. Actual and forecast wind energy feed-in. Accessed February
23, 2017. http://www.tennettso.de/site/en/Transparency/publications/network-
gures/actual-and-forecast-wind-energy-feed-in.
Toke, D., Breukers, S., Wolsink, M., 2008. Wind power deployment outcomes: how can
we account for the differences? Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 12, 11291147. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2006.10.021.
Tol, R.S., 2005. The marginal damage costs of carbon dioxide emissions: an assessment
of the uncertainties. Energy Policy 33, 20642074. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
enpol.2004.04.002.
Transnet BW., 2016a. Key gures - Renewable energies: Photovoltaic infeed. Accessed
February 23, 2017. https://www.transnetbw.com/en/transparency/market-data/
key-gures.
Transnet BW., 2016b. Key gures - Renewable Energies: Wind infeed. Accessed
February 23, 2017. https://www.transnetbw.com/en/transparency/market-data/
key-gures.
Treyer, K., Bauer, C., Simons, A., 2014. Human health impacts in the life cycle of future
European electricity generation. Energy Policy 74, S31S44. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.enpol.2014.03.034.
Tugcu, C.T., Ozturk, I., Aslan, A., 2012. Renewable and non-renewable energy
consumption and economic growth relationship revisited: evidence from G7
countries. Energy Econ. 34 (6), 19421950. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.
2012.08.021.
UBA, 2014. Emissionsbilanz erneuerbarer Energietrger - Bestimmung der vermiede-
nen Emissionen im Jahr 2013. Climate Change 29/2014. Umweltbundesamt
(UBA), Dessau-Rolau. Accessed February 23, 2017 www.umweltbundesamt.
de/sites/default/les/medien/378/publikationen/climate_change_29_2014_
schrempf_komplett_10.11.2014_0.pdf
Ueckerdt, F., Brecha, R., Luderer, G., 2015. Analyzing major challenges of wind and
solar variability in power systems. Renew. Energy 81, 110. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.renene.2015.03.002.
Ueckerdt, F., Hirth, L., Luderer, G., Edenhofer, O., 2013. System LCOE: what are the costs
of variable renewables? Energy 63, 6175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.
2013.10.072.
van den Bergh, J.C., 2010. Externality or sustainability economics? Ecol. Econ. 69,
20472052. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.02.009.
van den Bergh, J.C., Botzen, W., 2014. A lower bound to the social cost of CO2 emissions.
Nat. Clim. Chang. 4, 253258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2135.
van den Bergh, J.C., Botzen, W., 2015. Monetary valuation of the social cost of CO2
emissions: a critical survey. Ecol. Econ. 114, 3346. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolecon.2015.03.015.
van der Horst, D., 2007. NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and the
politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies. Energy Policy
35, 27052714. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2006.12.012.
van Rensburg, T.M., Kelley, H., Jeserich, N., 2015. What inuences the probability of
wind farm planning approval: evidence from Ireland. Ecol. Econ. 111, 1222.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.12.012.
Van Renterghem, T., Bockstael, A., De Weirt, V., Botteldooren, D., 2013. Annoyance,
detection and recognition of wind turbine noise. Sci. Total Environ. 456-457,
333345. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.03.095.
260 A. Zerrahn / Ecological Economics 141 (2017) 245260
van Veelen, B., Haggett, C., 2016. Uncommon ground: the role of different place attach-
ments in explaining community renewable energy projects. Sociol. Rural. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/soru.12128. forthcoming.
van Zanten, B.T., Verburg, P.H., Scholte, S.S.K., Tieskens, K.F., 2016. Using choice model-
ing to map aesthetic values at a landscape scale: lessons from a Dutch case Study.
Ecol. Econ. 130, 221231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.07.008.
Varela-Vzquez, P., del Carmen Snchez-Carreira, M., 2015. Socioeconomic impact of
wind energy on peripheral regions. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 50, 982990. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.05.045.
Voigt, C.C., Lehnert, L.S., Petersons, G., Adorf, F., Bach, L., 2015. Wildlife and renewable
energy: German politics cross migratory bats. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 61 (2), 213219.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10344-015-0903-y.
von Moellendorff, C., Welsch, H., 2015. Measuring renewable energy externalities:
evidence from subjective well-being data. SOEP Papers 779. Accessed February
23, 2017. http://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.512450.de/
diw_sp0779.pdf.
Vorkinn, M., Riese, H., 2001. Environmental concern in a local context: the signi-
cance of place attachment. Environ. Behav. 33, 249263. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1177/00139160121972972.
Wang, S., Wang, S., 2015. Impacts of wind energy on environment: a review. Renew.
Sust. Energ. Rev. 49, 437443. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.137.
Wang, S., Wang, S., Smith, P., 2015. Ecological impacts of wind farms on birds: ques-
tions, hypotheses, and research needs. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 44, 599607.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.01.031.
Warren, C.R., Lumsden, C., ODown, S., Birnie, R.V., 2005. Green on green: public per-
ceptions of wind power in Scotland and Ireland. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 48 (6),
853875. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640560500294376.
Warren, C.R., McFayden, M., 2010. Does community ownership affect public attitudes
to wind energy? A case study from south-west Scotland. Land Use Policy 27, 204
213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.12.010.
Wei, M., Patadia, S., Kammen, D.M., 2010. Putting renewables and energy eciency to
work: how many jobs can the clean energy industry generate in the US? Energy
Policy 38, 919931. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.10.044.
Weigt, H., Ellerman, D., Delarue, E., 2013. CO2 abatement from renewables in the
German electricity sector: does a CO2 price help? Energy Econ. 40, S149S158.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2013.09.013.
Weitzman, M.L., 1998. Why the far-distant future should be discounted at its lowest
possible rate. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 36, 201208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/
jeem.1998.1052.
Weitzman, M.L., 2001. Gamma discounting. Am. Econ. Rev. 91 (1), 260271. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1257/aer.91.1.260.
Weitzman, M.L., 2009. On modeling and interpreting the economics of catastrophic
climate change. Rev. Econ. Stat. 91, 119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/rest.91.1.1.
Weitzman, M.L., 2013. Tail-hedge discounting and the social cost of carbon. J. Econ. Lit.
51 (3), 873882. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/jel.51.3.873.
Weitzman, M.L., 2014. Fat tails and the social cost of carbon. Am. Econ. Rev. Pap. Proc.
104 (5), 544546. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/aer.104.5.544.
Welsch, H., 2007. Environmental welfare analysis: a life satisfaction approach. Ecol.
Econ. 62 (3-4), 544551. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.07.017.
Welsch, H., 2009. Implications of happiness research for environmental economics.
Ecol. Econ. 68, 27352742. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.06.003.
Welsch, H., Biermann, P., 2014a. Electricity supply preferences in Europe: evidence
from subjective well-being data. Resour. Energy Econ. 38, 3860. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2014.05.003.
Welsch, H., Biermann, P., 2014b. Fukushima and the preference for nuclear power
in Europe: evidence from subjective well-being data. Ecol. Econ. 108, 171179.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.10.022.
Welsch, H., Biermann, P., 2016. Measuring nuclear power plant externalities using
life satisfaction data: a spatial analysis for Switzerland. Ecol. Econ. 126, 98111.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.02.016.
West, J., Bailey, I., Winter, M., 2010. Renewable energy policy and public perceptions
of renewable energy: a cultural theory approach. Energy Policy 38, 57395748.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.05.024.
Wheatley, J., 2013. Quantifying CO2 savings from wind power. Energy Policy 63, 89
96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.07.123.
Wheeler, R., 2016. Place identity: exploring residents attitudes to existing sites. Sociol.
Rural. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/soru.12121.
Whiteld Aslund, M.L., Ollson, C.A., Knopper, L.D., 2013. Projected contributions
of future wind farm developments to community noise and annoyance levels
in Ontario, Canada. Energy Policy 62, 4450. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.
2013.07.070.
Willis, C.K.G., Barclay, R.M.R., Boyles, J.G., Brigham, R.M., Brack, V., Jr, Waldien, D.L.,
Reichard, J., 2010. Bats are not birds and other problems with Sovacools (2009)
analysis of animal fatalities due to electricity generation. Energy Policy 38, 2067
2069. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.08.034.
Wilson, G.A., Dyke, S.L., 2016. Pre- and post-installation community perceptions of
wind farm projects: the case of Roskow Barton (Cornwall, UK). Land Use Policy
52, 287296. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.12.008.
Winzer, C., 2012. Conceptualizing energy security. Energy Policy 46, 3648. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.02.067.
Wiser, R., Bollinger, M., Heath, G., Keyser, D., Lantz, E., Macknick, J., Mai, T., Millstein,
D., 2016. Long-term implications of sustained wind power growth in the United
States: potential benets and second impacts. Appl. Energy 179, 146158. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.06.123.
Wolsink, M., 2000. Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the
limited signicance of public support. Renew. Energy 21, 4964. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/S0960-1481(99)00130-5.
Wolsink, M., 2007. Planning of renewable schemes: deliberative and fair decision-
making on landscape issues instead of reproachful accusation of non-cooperation.
Energy Policy 35, 26922704. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2006.12.002.
Wolsink, M., 2007. Wind power implementation: the nature of public attitudes: equity
and fairness instead of backyard motives. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 11, 1188
1207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2005.10.005.
Wolsink, M., 2012. Undesired reinforcement of harmful self-evident truths concern-
ing the implementation of wind power. Energy Policy 48, 8387. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.06.010.
Wstenhagen, R., Wolsink, M., Brer, M.J., 2007. Social acceptance of renewable
energy innovation: an introduction to the concept. Energy Policy 35, 26832691.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2006.12.001.
Zerrahn, A., Schill, W.-P., 2017. Long-run power storage requirements for high shares
of renewables: review and a new model. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. (forthcoming).
Zoellner, J., Schwarzer-Ries, P., Wemheuer, C., 2008. Public acceptance of renewable
energy: results from case studies in Germany. Energy Policy 36, 41364141.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.06.026.
Zografos, C., Martnez-Alier, J., 2009. The politics of landscape value: a case study of
wind farm conict in rural Catalonia. Environ. Plann. A 41, 17261744. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1068/a41208.
Zoric, J., Hrovatin, N., 2012. Household willingness to pay for green electricity
in Slovenia. Energy Policy 47, 180187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.
04.055.