2009
DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2008.07.005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Willingness to pay for environmental improvements in hydropower regulated rivers

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

6
25
2
2

Year Published

2009
2009
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 71 publications
(35 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
6
25
2
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Some studies considered only generic RESs preferences [10,11]. Others considered a specific RES such as wind energy [12e19], solar photovoltaics [20], hydropower [21], tidal power plants [22] or biomass [23,24]. Others still made a comparison among RES preferences considering them simultaneously.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some studies considered only generic RESs preferences [10,11]. Others considered a specific RES such as wind energy [12e19], solar photovoltaics [20], hydropower [21], tidal power plants [22] or biomass [23,24]. Others still made a comparison among RES preferences considering them simultaneously.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Second, it would be of great interest to compare the economic impact of the environmental constraints on the hydropower plant operation with their benefits for the downstream river reaches, trying to overcome, to the possible extent, the existing discrepancies in the time horizons associated with energy and ecological objectives (Jager and Smith, 2008). The results of the comparison could be checked against those of a willingness to pay study similar to Kataria (2009), and used as a reference to make decisions in water resources allocation processes, in the framework of the European Water Framework Directive (Heinz et al, 2007).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A normal distribution is assigned to the random parameters to allow respondents to have either positive or negative marginal utilities for the levels of the attributes (Kataria, 2009;Carlsson et al, 2003;Hanley et al, 2005).…”
Section: Choice Experimentsmentioning
confidence: 99%