Opportunity between the turbines: Willingness-to-pay for co-location activities with an offshore wind farm

Figures & data

Figure 1. CVOW Lease area.

Table 1. Clarity and v alidity check questions.

	Strongly agree	Agree	Somewhat agree	Neither	Somewhat disagree	Disagree	Strongly disagree
Survey information/complexity:
Survey provided enough information	41.27%	32.98%	14.85%	8%	1.54	0.58%	0.77%
Information in the survey was easy to understand	36.26%	32.88%	15.24%	10.22%	3.57%	1.35%	0.48%
Information in the survey was fair and balanced.	33.94%	33.75%	14.95%	10.22%	2.60%	0.87%	0.58%
Voting realism/consequentiality:
Price impacted choice	25.84%	23.43%	19.29%	18.80%	5.50%	4.53%	2.60%
Choice questions were easy to answer	39.25%	30.86%	16.30%	9.45%	2.80%	0.87%	0.48%
Would vote in the same way on a public vote or referendum	38.48%	33.65%	12.63%	12.92%	1.35%	0.39%	0.58%
Voted as if the costs were real	41.95%	31.44%	11.96%	10.90%	1.83%	1.35%	0.58%
Perceived concern:
Descriptions provided were sufficient for informed choices	33.75%	36.45%	14.85%	11.28%	2.41%	0.39%	0.87%
Survey let me make up my own mind	40.69%	33.46%	13.79%	8.87%	1.64%	0.77%	0.77%

N = 1,037.

Figure 2. Example choice set.

Table 2. Choice experiment attributes.

Attribute	Levels
Seaweed aquaculture	0%, 25%, 75%, 100%
Seaweed forest	0%, 25%, 75%, 100%
Designated research area	0%, 25%, 75%, 100%
Public access (SQ)	0%, 25%, 75%, 100%
Annual tax	$0, $1, $6, $11, $16

Table 3. General demographics.

Demographic	%	Mean	Std.	Min	Max	Obs.	Census
Respondent-specific
Female	67.42%					1,037	52.15%
Non-binary/prefer not to say	1.55%						N/A
Age		43.51	17.57	18	87	1,037
18–24	19.33%						11.40%
25–34	20.76%						18.12%
35–44	20.64%						17.66%
45–54	13.01%						18.81%
55–64	13.37%						16.47%
65+	12.89%						17.54%
Less than HS Diploma	4.78%					1,037	11.52%
HS/GED	23.39%					1,037	25.46%
Some college	28.04%					1,037	21.90%
AD/2-yr college	8.83%					1,037	70.70%
BD/4-yr college	20.41%					1,037	20.20%
MS, PhD, Prof.	14.56%					1,037	13.86%
Years of VA residency						1,033	N/A
0–5	9.87%
5–10	8.88%
10+	81.30%
HH-specific
HH income <50K	42.60%					1,037	40.00%
50K–99.999K	31.86%					1,037	30.00%
100K–149.999K	15.04%					1,037	16.00%
150K–199.999K	6.44%					1,037	7.60%
> =200K	4.06%					1,037	8.90%
HH size		2.93	1.56	1	14	1,037	N/A
Family members under age 7		0.35	0.79	0	8	1,037	N/A
Family members 7–18		0.65	1.17	0	12	1,037	N/A

N = 1,037.

Figure 3. Zip code survey response distribution map.

Table 4. Conditional logit estimation results.

	All 4 sets				First set only
Variable	Coef.	Std.	z		Coef.	Std.	z
SQ	−0.151	0.165	−0.92		−0.327	0.340	−0.96
aqua = 25%	0.873	0.138	6.31		0.825	0.282	2.93
aqua = 75%	1.145	0.191	5.99		1.127	0.389	2.89
aqua = 100%	0.867	0.192	4.53		1.100	0.392	2.81
swfor = 25%	0.752	0.140	5.37		0.732	0.291	2.51
swfor = 75%	0.918	0.194	4.73		0.811	0.400	2.03
swfor = 100 %	0.851	0.191	4.45		0.927	0.391	2.37
dra = 25%	0.668	0.140	4.77		0.588	0.286	2.05
dra = 75%	0.924	0.184	5.01		0.867	0.377	2.3
dra = 100%	0.680	0.193	3.52		0.670	0.389	1.72
Annual tax (bid)	−0.043	0.004	−10.3		−0.045	0.008	−5.39

All 4 sets = full sample with all 4 votes (N = 838, n = 3,352). First set only = first vote (N = n = 838). Std. = standard deviation. /z = z-score.

Table 5. WTP Estimation results (annual $'s per HH).

Co-location scenario (%)				All 4 sets			First set only
aqua	swfor	dra	pub	Mean	Low	High	Mean	Low	High
25	25	25	25	39.50	32.21	46.80	40.17	25.87	54.47
75	25	0	0	31.19	25.11	37.27	34.64	22.07	47.22
25	75	0	0	28.73	22.92	34.55	29.68	18.24	41.11
75	0	25	0	28.92	23.22	34.62	30.69	19.12	42.26
25	0	75	0	28.56	22.98	34.14	30.17	18.94	41.40
0	75	25	0	21.67	16.63	26.71	22.62	12.57	32.67
0	25	75	0	23.77	18.51	29.03	27.06	16.31	37.82
75	0	0	25	30.04	24.10	35.98	32.40	20.46	44.33
25	0	0	75	23.74	18.70	28.78	25.66	15.37	35.96
0	75	0	25	24.77	19.40	30.14	25.35	14.87	35.83
0	25	0	75	20.94	15.97	25.90	20.39	10.20	30.58
0	0	75	25	24.93	19.66	30.20	26.60	16.08	37.12
0	0	25	75	18.99	13.92	24.07	23.59	13.65	33.52
0	0	0	100	3.51	−3.92	10.93	7.29	−7.40	21.98
100	0	0	0	23.60	18.08	29.12	31.79	19.30	44.28
0	100	0	0	23.22	17.81	28.63	27.93	16.65	39.22
0	0	100	0	19.27	14.09	24.45	22.21	12.07	32.35

All 4 sets = full sample with all 4 votes (N = 838, n = 3,352). First set only = first vote (N = n = 838). Mean = mean WTP over all participants. Low/high = lower/upper bound of 95% confidence interval.

Table 6. Estimated cost vs WTP comparison.

Co-location scenario (%)
Seaweed aquaculture	Seaweed forest	Research area	Public access	Estimated cost	Public WTP^a
25	25	25	25	$0.49	$39.50
75	25	0	0	$0.85	$31.19
25	75	0	0	$0.82	$28.73
75	0	25	0	$0.71	$28.92
25	0	75	0	$0.42	$28.56
0	75	25	0	$0.68	$21.67
0	25	75	0	$0.41	$23.77
75	0	0	25	$0.65	$30.04
25	0	0	75	$0.22	$23.74
0	75	0	25	$0.61	$24.77
0	25	0	75	$0.20	$20.94
0	0	75	25	$0.20	$24.93
0	0	25	75	$0.07	$18.99
0	0	0	100	—	$3.51
100	0	0	0	$0.86	$23.60
0	100	0	0	$0.81	$23.22
0	0	100	0	$0.27	$19.27

N = 838, n = 3,352. Estimated Cost = rough implementation and maintenance estimate for 1,000 acres of ocean space. Public WTP = WTP value for 25% = 250 acres, 75% = 750 acres, 100% = 1,000 acres. ^aWTP values are calculated using all 4 votes.