Exclusion zones for renewable energy deployment: One man’s blessing, another man’s curse

IF 2.6 3区 经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Paul Lehmann , Philip Tafarte
{"title":"Exclusion zones for renewable energy deployment: One man’s blessing, another man’s curse","authors":"Paul Lehmann ,&nbsp;Philip Tafarte","doi":"10.1016/j.reseneeco.2023.101419","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Exclusion zones, like protected areas or setback distances, are the most common policy instrument to mitigate environmental impacts of human land-use, including the deployment of renewable energy sources (RES). However, exclusion zones may also increase generation and environmental costs of RES deployment. This paper aims to understand and quantify these trade-offs. Using a simple analytical model, we propose that cost effects of exclusion zones can be decomposed into a substitution effect (because RES generation is shifted to sites with higher or lower marginal costs) and an output effect (because more sites may be needed to attain a given RES generation target). We provide a numerical illustration for two examples of exclusion zones – setback distances to settlements and forest bans – which are implemented for wind power deployment in Germany. We find that moderate setback distances reduce disamenity costs but also lead to increases in generation and other environmental costs. This trade-off is primarily due to the output effect. Importantly, the output effect also implies that very restrictive setback distances may fail to reduce, and even increase, aggregate disamenity costs of wind power deployment. For forest bans, our analysis reveals substantial increases in disamenity costs. This trade-off mainly results from the substitution effect. Our analytical insights can be transferred to other fields of environmental policy, for example, exclusion zones regulating agricultural land-use or urban development.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47952,"journal":{"name":"Resource and Energy Economics","volume":"76 ","pages":"Article 101419"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092876552300074X/pdfft?md5=3bd24b19c40964b3b0347ac212f60b38&pid=1-s2.0-S092876552300074X-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Resource and Energy Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092876552300074X","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Exclusion zones, like protected areas or setback distances, are the most common policy instrument to mitigate environmental impacts of human land-use, including the deployment of renewable energy sources (RES). However, exclusion zones may also increase generation and environmental costs of RES deployment. This paper aims to understand and quantify these trade-offs. Using a simple analytical model, we propose that cost effects of exclusion zones can be decomposed into a substitution effect (because RES generation is shifted to sites with higher or lower marginal costs) and an output effect (because more sites may be needed to attain a given RES generation target). We provide a numerical illustration for two examples of exclusion zones – setback distances to settlements and forest bans – which are implemented for wind power deployment in Germany. We find that moderate setback distances reduce disamenity costs but also lead to increases in generation and other environmental costs. This trade-off is primarily due to the output effect. Importantly, the output effect also implies that very restrictive setback distances may fail to reduce, and even increase, aggregate disamenity costs of wind power deployment. For forest bans, our analysis reveals substantial increases in disamenity costs. This trade-off mainly results from the substitution effect. Our analytical insights can be transferred to other fields of environmental policy, for example, exclusion zones regulating agricultural land-use or urban development.

可再生能源部署的禁区:一荣俱荣,一损俱损
禁区(如保护区或后退距离)是减轻人类土地利用(包括可再生能源的应用)对环境影响的最常见政策工具。然而,禁区也可能增加可再生能源利用的发电成本和环境成本。本文旨在了解并量化这些权衡。通过一个简单的分析模型,我们提出禁区的成本效应可分解为替代效应(因为可再生能源发电被转移到边际成本较高或较低的地点)和产出效应(因为可能需要更多地点来实现给定的可再生能源发电目标)。我们用数字说明了德国在风力发电部署中实施的两个禁区实例--与居民区的后退距离和森林禁令。我们发现,适度的后退距离可降低环境污染成本,但也会导致发电成本和其他环境成本的增加。这种权衡主要归因于产出效应。重要的是,输出效应还意味着,非常严格的后退距离可能无法降低,甚至会增加风电部署的总体不公平成本。对于森林禁令,我们的分析揭示了不公平成本的大幅增加。这种权衡主要源于替代效应。我们的分析见解可应用于环境政策的其他领域,例如规范农业用地或城市发展的禁区。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: Resource and Energy Economics provides a forum for high level economic analysis of utilization and development of the earth natural resources. The subject matter encompasses questions of optimal production and consumption affecting energy, minerals, land, air and water, and includes analysis of firm and industry behavior, environmental issues and public policies. Implications for both developed and developing countries are of concern. The journal publishes high quality papers for an international audience. Innovative energy, resource and environmental analyses, including theoretical models and empirical studies are appropriate for publication in Resource and Energy Economics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信