Hybrid choice model dataset of a representative Swiss online panel survey on peoples' preferences related to mixed renewable energy scenarios in landscapes and the effect of landscape-technology fit

B Salak; K Lindberg; F Kienast; M Hunziker

doi:10.1016/j.dib.2021.107025

Hybrid choice model dataset of a representative Swiss online panel survey on peoples' preferences related to mixed renewable energy scenarios in landscapes and the effect of landscape-technology fit

Data Brief. 2021 Apr 16:36:107025. doi: 10.1016/j.dib.2021.107025. eCollection 2021 Jun.

Authors

B Salak¹, K Lindberg², F Kienast³, M Hunziker¹

Affiliations

¹ Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research WSL, Social Sciences in Landscape Research Group, Research Unit Economics and Social Sciences, Zürcherstrasse 111, 8903 Birmensdorf, Switzerland.
² Oregon State University-Cascades, Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, 1500 SW Chandler Avenue, Bend, OR 97702, United States.
³ Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research WSL, Land Change Science Research Group, Research Unit Land-use Systems, Zürcherstrasse 111, 8903 Birmensdorf, Switzerland.

Abstract

We present stated preference data based on a national representative Swiss online panel survey related to preference of mixed renewable energy infrastructure in landscapes. Data were collected between November 2018 and March 2019 via an online questionnaire and yielded 1026 responses. The online questionnaire consisted of two main parts - (1) questions covering meanings related to landscapes, nature and renewable energy infrastructure and questions regarding the "fit" of landscape/renewable energy infrastructure (REI) combinations and (2) a stated choice experiment. While in the first part of the questionnaire we asked respondents about their personal connection to certain landscapes, to nature and to specific REI, we also asked them to evaluate the fitting of seven different Swiss landscapes (near natural alpine areas, northern alps, touristic alpine areas, agricultural plateau, urban plateau, Jura ridges, urban alpine valley) with five different REI (wind, PV ground/agricultural, PV ground/other, PV roof, power lines) combinations. In the second part of the questionnaire, the stated choice experiment confronted respondents with 15 consecutive choice tasks, with each task involving a choice between two "energy system transformation" options and an opt-out option (none). Each choice option (beside the opt-out option) included four unlabeled attributes (landscape, wind energy infrastructure, photovoltaic energy infrastructure, high voltage overhead power line infrastructure) with varying levels. Due to data cleaning procedures (item nonresponse) the number of responses used within hybrid choice modeling and analysis was n = 844 (12,660 choice observations). An analysis of the hybrid choice model and further insights are presented in the article "How landscape-technology fit affects public evaluations of renewable energy infrastructure scenarios. A hybrid choice model."

Keywords: Hybrid choice model; Integrated choice and latent variable model; Landscape meanings; Landscape-technology fit; Mixed renewable energy landscapes; Perceived landscape quality; Place-technology fit; Renewable energy meanings.