IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jscscx/v12y2023i11p634-d1281120.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Households’ Willingness to Pay for Renewable Energy Alternatives in Thailand

Author

Listed:
  • Surasak Jotaworn

    (Department of Social Science, Faculty of Liberal Arts, Rajamangala University of Technology Thanyaburi, 39 Moo 1, Klong 6, Khlong Luang, Pathum Thani 12110, Thailand)

  • Vilas Nitivattananon

    (Urban Innovation and Sustainability, Department of Development and Sustainability, School of Environment, Resources and Development, Asian Institute of Technology, Pathum Thani 12120, Thailand)

  • Ornuma Teparakul

    (Faculty of Sociology and Anthropology, Thammasat University, Rangsit Center, Khlong Nueng Subdistrict, Khlong Luang District, Pathum Thani 12120, Thailand)

  • Thanakom Wongboontham

    (Urban Innovation and Sustainability, Department of Development and Sustainability, School of Environment, Resources and Development, Asian Institute of Technology, Pathum Thani 12120, Thailand)

  • Masahiro Sugiyama

    (Institute for Future Initiatives, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan)

  • Masako Numata

    (Institute for Future Initiatives, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan)

  • Daniel del Barrio Alvarez

    (Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo 113-8656, Japan)

Abstract

While the problems about the environmental effects of traditional energy use are growing, Thailand has a rapid response by increasing its renewable energy (RE) policy. Even though Thailand has seen rapid growth in RE, it has been focusing on supporting the producers and not considering the users. In addition, there were few studies on RE receivers in Thailand. To reach sustainable growth and increase the empirical study, this research aims to analyze the socio-economy, electric consumption behavior, attitude, opinions, and cognition of households in Bangkok Metropolitan to willingly pay for RE alternatives in Thailand. A questionnaire survey was carried out for 250 households covering six administrative districts, selected through multistage and stratified sampling techniques. The data were analyzed by descriptive statistics and conditional logit regression. It is found that the overall household in Bangkok still unchanged the status of electricity production based on the findings of socio-economy, behavior, and psychological factors. Considering to pay for RE alternatives, households are willing to pay (WTP) for solar energy at the highest level among other types, and biomass is the least willing to pay when the RE share is expected to reach 40%. These results are relevant for the planning of RE in the metropolitan region and the methodology applicable to other regions for extending RE opportunities to the national level.

Suggested Citation

  • Surasak Jotaworn & Vilas Nitivattananon & Ornuma Teparakul & Thanakom Wongboontham & Masahiro Sugiyama & Masako Numata & Daniel del Barrio Alvarez, 2023. "Households’ Willingness to Pay for Renewable Energy Alternatives in Thailand," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-21, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:12:y:2023:i:11:p:634-:d:1281120
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/12/11/634/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/12/11/634/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    2. Tongsopit, Sopitsuda & Greacen, Chris, 2013. "An assessment of Thailand's feed-in tariff program," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 439-445.
    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. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Zagórska, Katarzyna & Letki, Natalia & Tryjanowski, Piotr & Wąs, Adam, 2021. "Drivers of farmers’ willingness to adopt extensive farming practices in a globally important bird area," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    2. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    3. Pereira, Pedro & Ribeiro, Tiago, 2011. "The impact on broadband access to the Internet of the dual ownership of telephone and cable networks," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 283-293, March.
    4. Mogens Fosgerau & André de Palma, 2016. "Generalized entropy models," Working Papers hal-01291347, HAL.
    5. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    6. Doherty, Edel & Campbell, Danny, 2011. "Demand for improved food safety and quality: a cross-regional comparison," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108791, Agricultural Economics Society.
    7. Vij, Akshay & Walker, Joan L., 2016. "How, when and why integrated choice and latent variable models are latently useful," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 192-217.
    8. Abdurrahman B. Aydemir & Erkan Duman, 2021. "Migrant Networks and Destination Choice: Evidence from Moves across Turkish Provinces," Koç University-TUSIAD Economic Research Forum Working Papers 2109, Koc University-TUSIAD Economic Research Forum.
    9. Lai, John & Olynk Widmar, Nicole J. & Gunderson, Michael A. & Widmar, David A. & Ortega, David L., 2018. "Prioritization of farm success factors by commercial farm managers," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 21(6), July.
    10. Redding, Stephen J. & Weinstein, David E., 2016. "A unified approach to estimating demand and welfare," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 67681, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    11. Fosgerau, Mogens & Bierlaire, Michel, 2007. "A practical test for the choice of mixing distribution in discrete choice models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 784-794, August.
    12. Allais, Olivier & Etilé, Fabrice & Lecocq, Sébastien, 2015. "Mandatory labels, taxes and market forces: An empirical evaluation of fat policies," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 27-44.
    13. Paleti, Rajesh, 2018. "Generalized multinomial probit Model: Accommodating constrained random parameters," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 248-262.
    14. Veneziani, Mario & Sckokai, Paolo & Moro, Daniele, 2012. "Consumers’ willingness to pay for a functional food," 2012 First Congress, June 4-5, 2012, Trento, Italy 124101, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA).
    15. Nathan H. Miller, 2008. "Competition When Consumers Value Firm Scope," EAG Discussions Papers 200807, Department of Justice, Antitrust Division.
    16. Bonnet, Céline & Requillart, Vincent, 2010. "Is The Eu Sugar Policy Reform Likely To Increase Obesity?," 115th Joint EAAE/AAEA Seminar, September 15-17, 2010, Freising-Weihenstephan, Germany 116414, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Atallah, Shadi S. & Huang, Ju-Chin & Leahy, Jessica & Bennett, Karen, 2020. "Preference Heterogeneity and Neighborhood Effect in Invasive Species Control: The Case of Glossy Buckthorn in New Hampshire and Maine Forests," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304623, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    18. Kesternich, Iris & Heiss, Florian & McFadden, Daniel & Winter, Joachim, 2013. "Suit the action to the word, the word to the action: Hypothetical choices and real decisions in Medicare Part D," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1313-1324.
    19. Carlos Pestana Barros & Zhongfei Chen & Peter Wanke, 2016. "Efficiency in Chinese seaports: 2002–2012," Maritime Economics & Logistics, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME), vol. 18(3), pages 295-316, September.
    20. Ito, Nobuyuki & Takeuchi, Kenji & Managi, Shunsuke, 2019. "Do battery-switching systems accelerate the adoption of electric vehicles? A stated preference study," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 85-92.

    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:gam:jscscx:v:12:y:2023:i:11:p:634-:d:1281120. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.