IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/areint/341571.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Choice modeling approach to evaluate the economic value of renewable energy development

Author

Listed:
  • Khai, Huynh Viet
  • Tran, Huynh Le Thao
  • Ngan, Nguyen Van
  • Duyen, Tran Thi Thu

Abstract

Purpose. This research aims to quantify the willingness to pay (WTP) of urban residents in the Mekong Delta for the environmental and social benefits associated with renewable energy projects. By analysing their preferences and priorities regarding renewable energy implementation, this study aims to contribute to the increasing knowledge on the drivers of sustainable energy transitions in developing regions. Methodology / approach. This paper leverages a choice modeling (CM) framework to analyse the economic viability of renewable energy investments in Vietnam. The CM technique is advantageous for its ability to capture individual preferences for complex goods or services characterised by multiple attributes and trade-offs. This enables a detailed assessment of the diverse economic values associated with renewable energy sources, beyond their traditional energy generation capacity, including environmental externalities, social impacts, and potential synergies with other sectors. Results. Residents showed significant WTP for renewable energy initiatives improving landscape aesthetics, wildlife habitats, air quality, and job opportunities. Higher income, education, and knowledge level are positively associated with greater WTP. Younger respondents showed a strong position in favor of renewable energy sources. Households with more children were less likely to support the status quo, and married respondents were more pro-renewable. Perceived community involvement emerged as a significant factor in supporting renewable energy policies. Originality / scientific novelty. This study represents a novel application of CM within the Vietnamese context, providing valuable quantitative data for policymakers and stakeholders. By estimating WTP for specific renewable energy attributes, we inform cost-benefit assessments and support the development of efficient policies for managing renewable energy investments. This data facilitates resource allocation and prioritisation of projects with the highest societal value. Practical value / implications. Our findings underscore the crucial role of public awareness and education in driving renewable energy implementation. Residents with a clear understanding of the benefits demonstrate a higher WTP. Hence, we recommend a multifaceted communication strategy to educate the public about the environmental, social, and economic benefits of renewable energy. This involves utilising diverse channels like community meetings, media outreach, online platforms, and expert engagement to disseminate accurate and engaging information. By fostering knowledge and understanding, we can cultivate a strong public mandate for renewable energy investment, facilitating informed decision-making and accelerating the transition to a sustainable energy future in the Mekong Delta.

Suggested Citation

  • Khai, Huynh Viet & Tran, Huynh Le Thao & Ngan, Nguyen Van & Duyen, Tran Thi Thu, 2024. "Choice modeling approach to evaluate the economic value of renewable energy development," Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, vol. 10(1), March.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:areint:341571
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.341571
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/341571/files/12_Khai_article.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.341571?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dastan Bamwesigye, 2023. "Willingness to Pay for Alternative Energies in Uganda: Energy Needs and Policy Instruments towards Zero Deforestation 2030 and Climate Change," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-21, January.
    2. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
    3. Kim, Kyung Jae & Lee, Hwarang & Koo, Yoonmo, 2020. "Research on local acceptance cost of renewable energy in South Korea: A case study of photovoltaic and wind power projects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    4. Rommel, Jens & Sagebiel, Julian & Müller, Jakob R., 2016. "Quality uncertainty and the market for renewable energy: Evidence from German consumers," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 106-113.
    5. Lee, Chul-Yong & Heo, Hyejin, 2016. "Estimating willingness to pay for renewable energy in South Korea using the contingent valuation method," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 150-156.
    6. Rolfe, John & Bennett, Jeff & Louviere, Jordan, 2000. "Choice modelling and its potential application to tropical rainforest preservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 289-302, November.
    7. Ndebele, Tom, 2020. "Assessing the potential for consumer-driven renewable energy development in deregulated electricity markets dominated by renewables," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rolfe, John & Windle, Jill, 2008. "Testing for differences in benefit transfer values between state and regional frameworks," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(2), pages 1-20.
    2. Woo, JongRoul & Moon, Sungho & Choi, Hyunhong, 2022. "Economic value and acceptability of advanced solar power systems for multi-unit residential buildings: The case of South Korea," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 324(C).
    3. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    4. Pérez-Hernández, Eva & Peña-Alonso, Carolina & Hernández-Calvento, Luis, 2020. "Assessing lost cultural heritage. A case study of the eastern coast of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria city (Spain)," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    5. Schmitz, Kim & Schmitz, P. Michael & Wronka, Tobias C., 2003. "Bewertung von Landschaftsfunktionen mit Choice Experiments," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 52(08), pages 1-11.
    6. Rolfe, John & Windle, Jill, 2005. "Valuing options for reserve water in the Fitzroy Basin," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 49(1), pages 1-24.
    7. Kalkbrenner, Bernhard J. & Yonezawa, Koichi & Roosen, Jutta, 2017. "Consumer preferences for electricity tariffs: Does proximity matter?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 413-424.
    8. Tadesse, Tewodros & Berhane, Tsegay & Mulatu, Dawit W. & Rannestad, Meley Mekonen, 2021. "Willingness to accept compensation for afromontane forest ecosystems conservation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    9. Kant, Shashi, 2003. "Extending the boundaries of forest economics," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 39-56, January.
    10. Diafas, Iason & Barkmann, Jan & Mburu, John, 2017. "Measurement of Bequest Value Using a Non-monetary Payment in a Choice Experiment—The Case of Improving Forest Ecosystem Services for the Benefit of Local Communities in Rural Kenya," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 157-165.
    11. Alexandros Apostolakis & Shabbar Jaffry, 2005. "Heterogeneous Preferences for Greek Heritage Attractions," Tourism Economics, , vol. 11(2), pages 225-245, June.
    12. Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2010. "Preferences for site and environmental functions when selecting forthcoming national parks," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 1532-1544, May.
    13. Rolfe, John & Loch, Adam & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2002. "Framing effects and benefit transfer in the Fitzroy basin," 2002 Conference (46th), February 13-15, 2002, Canberra, Australia 174038, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    14. Star, Megan & Rolfe, John & Barbi, Emily, 2019. "Do outcome or input risks limit adoption of environmental projects: Rehabilitating gullies in Great Barrier Reef catchments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 73-82.
    15. Flores Tenorio, Pedro, 2017. "A choice modelling experiment to explore the opportunities to invest in biodiversity conservation in the Amazon," 2017 Conference (61st), February 7-10, 2017, Brisbane, Australia 258666, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    16. Sophal Chhun & Paul Thorsnes & Henrik Moller, 2013. "Preferences for Management of Near-Shore Marine Ecosystems: A Choice Experiment in New Zealand," Resources, MDPI, vol. 2(3), pages 1-33, September.
    17. Hoyos Ramos, David, 2010. "Using discrete choice experiments for environmental valuation," BILTOKI 1134-8984, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Economía Aplicada III (Econometría y Estadística).
    18. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley, 2008. "How to ‘Sell’ an Environmental Good: Using Labels to Investigate Scope Effects," Working Papers 2008-03, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    19. Liobikienė, Genovaitė & Dagiliūtė, Renata, 2021. "Do positive aspects of renewable energy contribute to the willingness to pay more for green energy?," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 231(C).
    20. Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Liebe, Ulf & Hartje, Volkmar, 2009. "Benefits of biodiversity enhancement of nature-oriented silviculture: Evidence from two choice experiments in Germany," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1-2), pages 37-58, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Resource /Energy Economics and Policy;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:areint:341571. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://are-journal.com/are .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.