Bergstron and Taylor (2006), Hoehn (2006), Lindhjem and Navrud (2008), and
Plummer (2009).
As another example, the value of ocean areas for seafood production from
commercial fishing in the New England region of the United States averages about
$1200/year/km
2 ($12/year/ha), but ranges widely from near zero to more than
$50,000/year/km
2 ($500/year/ha) for specific locations (Kite-Powell et al. 2016).
Estimates of ecosystem service value associated with (hypothetical) open ocean
aquaculture operations in that region range from $1 million to $100
million/year/km
2 ($10,000 to $1 million/year/ha).
10.3 Public Benefits from Multi-use and Co-location
When a wind farm and aquaculture operation are co-located within the footprint of
the wind farm, the two activities together take up less ocean space (habitat space)
than they do when they are not co-located. The public benefit from co-location in
this case is the avoided opportunity cost associated with ecosystem services that
would have been foregone if the aquaculture operation had been located outside the
wind farm footprint.
The categories of ecosystem service value most commonly displaced by wind
farms and marine aquaculture operations are seafood production and recreational
boating and fishing. Both wind farms and aquaculture sites typically designate a
buffer zone around the site in which commercial fishing is not permitted.
Recreational boating and fishing may be permitted within a wind farm site, and may
or may not be compatible with an aquaculture operation, depending on its physical
“footprint” in the water column.
Since neither wind farms nor aquaculture operations are usually located in
extremely high value ocean areas like coral reefs or mangrove wetlands, as a rule it
makes sense to assume that the values at stake will be representative of “Open
Ocean” or “coastal ocean” areas as estimated in Tables 10.1 and 10.2. If an
aquaculture operation that would displace cultural and provisioning services in any
location is sited within a wind farm footprint that does the same, this implies an
avoided cost to the public of $0.05 to $0.3/km
2 /year—of $500–$3000/ha/year—for
the effective footprint of the aquaculture operation.
10.4 Private Benefits from Multi-use and Co-location
Potential private cost savings from co-locating aquaculture operations with wind
farms arise from reductions in combined permitting expenses, structural (mooring)
and/or site marking costs, costs associated with possible power and/or data links to
shore, logistics costs, and/or lease payments. If the aquaculture operation has to
bear these costs in their entirety on a site that is separate from the wind farm, and
242
H.L. Kite-Powell
Plummer (2009).
As another example, the value of ocean areas for seafood production from
commercial fishing in the New England region of the United States averages about
$1200/year/km
2 ($12/year/ha), but ranges widely from near zero to more than
$50,000/year/km
2 ($500/year/ha) for specific locations (Kite-Powell et al. 2016).
Estimates of ecosystem service value associated with (hypothetical) open ocean
aquaculture operations in that region range from $1 million to $100
million/year/km
2 ($10,000 to $1 million/year/ha).
10.3 Public Benefits from Multi-use and Co-location
When a wind farm and aquaculture operation are co-located within the footprint of
the wind farm, the two activities together take up less ocean space (habitat space)
than they do when they are not co-located. The public benefit from co-location in
this case is the avoided opportunity cost associated with ecosystem services that
would have been foregone if the aquaculture operation had been located outside the
wind farm footprint.
The categories of ecosystem service value most commonly displaced by wind
farms and marine aquaculture operations are seafood production and recreational
boating and fishing. Both wind farms and aquaculture sites typically designate a
buffer zone around the site in which commercial fishing is not permitted.
Recreational boating and fishing may be permitted within a wind farm site, and may
or may not be compatible with an aquaculture operation, depending on its physical
“footprint” in the water column.
Since neither wind farms nor aquaculture operations are usually located in
extremely high value ocean areas like coral reefs or mangrove wetlands, as a rule it
makes sense to assume that the values at stake will be representative of “Open
Ocean” or “coastal ocean” areas as estimated in Tables 10.1 and 10.2. If an
aquaculture operation that would displace cultural and provisioning services in any
location is sited within a wind farm footprint that does the same, this implies an
avoided cost to the public of $0.05 to $0.3/km
2 /year—of $500–$3000/ha/year—for
the effective footprint of the aquaculture operation.
10.4 Private Benefits from Multi-use and Co-location
Potential private cost savings from co-locating aquaculture operations with wind
farms arise from reductions in combined permitting expenses, structural (mooring)
and/or site marking costs, costs associated with possible power and/or data links to
shore, logistics costs, and/or lease payments. If the aquaculture operation has to
bear these costs in their entirety on a site that is separate from the wind farm, and
242
H.L. Kite-Powell