IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hir/idecdp/2-12.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Residential preferences for stable electricity supply and a reduction in air pollution risk: A benefit transfer study using choice modeling in China

Author

Listed:
  • Taro Ohdoko

    (Faculty of Economics, Department of Management Science, Dokkyo University)

  • Satoru Komatsu

    (Graduate School for International Development and Cooperation, Hiroshima University)

  • Shinji Kaneko

    (Graduate School for International Development and Cooperation, Hiroshima University)

Abstract

This paper uses choice modeling surveys from the Chinese cities of Jiujiang, Jiangxi Province, and Changsha, Hunan Province, to identify residential preferences for simultaneously increasing the stability of the electricity supply and decreasing the health risks from air pollution. Air pollution in China is mainly attributable to externalities associated with the electricity supply. We employ a contingent ranking approach as our choice modeling method and test for the transfer of benefits for these preferences between the two sites. The original benefit estimates indicate that the implicit price for reducing the number of power breakdowns is about RMB83 /(times*year*household) in Jiujiang and RMB78/(times*year*household) in Changsha, while the implicit price for reducing the duration of power breakdowns is statistically zero in Jiujiang and RMB71/(hours*year*household) in Changsha. From the alternative perspective, we estimate that the annualized value of the statistical lifetime risk of cancer caused by air pollution over a 70-year period is RMB50,844/year in Jiujiang and RMB67,146/year in Changsha. This suggests that we do not reject benefit transferability based on the implicit price of the number of power breakdowns, but do reject it based on the number of deaths from cancer caused by air pollution.

Suggested Citation

  • Taro Ohdoko & Satoru Komatsu & Shinji Kaneko, 2012. "Residential preferences for stable electricity supply and a reduction in air pollution risk: A benefit transfer study using choice modeling in China," IDEC DP2 Series 2-12, Hiroshima University, Graduate School for International Development and Cooperation (IDEC).
    • Handle: RePEc:hir:idecdp:2-12
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ir.lib.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/files/public/33063/20141016192343975418/IDEC-DP2_02-12.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2012
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bollen, Johannes & van der Zwaan, Bob & Brink, Corjan & Eerens, Hans, 2009. "Local air pollution and global climate change: A combined cost-benefit analysis," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 161-181, August.
    2. Dominika Parry Dziegielewska & Robert Mendelsohn, 2005. "Valuing Air Quality in Poland," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(2), pages 131-163, February.
    3. Mandy Ryan & Diane Skåtun, 2004. "Modelling non‐demanders in choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(4), pages 397-402, April.
    4. Baskaran, Ramesh & Cullen, Ross & Colombo, Sergio, 2010. "Testing different types of benefit transfer in valuation of ecosystem services: New Zealand winegrowing case studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1010-1022, March.
    5. Carlsson, Fredrik & Martinsson, Peter, 2008. "Does it matter when a power outage occurs? -- A choice experiment study on the willingness to pay to avoid power outages," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 1232-1245, May.
    6. Morrison, Mark & Bergland, Olvar, 2006. "Prospects for the use of choice modelling for benefit transfer," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 420-428, December.
    7. Eli P. Fenichel & Frank Lupi & John P. Hoehn & Michael D. Kaplowitz, 2009. "Split-Sample Tests of "No Opinion" Responses in an Attribute-Based Choice Model," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(2), pages 348-362.
    8. Yuan, Jiahai & Zhao, Changhong & Yu, Shunkun & Hu, Zhaoguang, 2007. "Electricity consumption and economic growth in China: Cointegration and co-feature analysis," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 1179-1191, November.
    9. Arianne de Blaeij & Paulo Nunes & Jeroen C. J. M. van den Bergh, 2007. "'No-choice' options within a nested logit model: one model is insufficient," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(10), pages 1245-1252.
    10. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    11. Wang, Bing, 2007. "An imbalanced development of coal and electricity industries in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 4959-4968, October.
    12. Sujitra Vassanadumrongdee & Shunji Matsuoka, 2005. "Risk Perceptions and Value of a Statistical Life for Air Pollution and Traffic Accidents: Evidence from Bangkok, Thailand," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 261-287, May.
    13. Fredrik Carlsson & Peter Frykblom & Carl Johan Lagerkvist, 2007. "Consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare: mobile abattoirs versus transportation to slaughter," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 34(3), pages 321-344, September.
    14. Mark Morrison & Jeff Bennett & Russell Blamey & Jordan Louviere, 2002. "Choice Modeling and Tests of Benefit Transfer," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(1), pages 161-170.
    15. Zhai, Guofang & Suzuki, Takeshi, 2008. "Public willingness to pay for environmental management, risk reduction and economic development: Evidence from Tianjin, China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 551-566, December.
    16. James Hammitt & Ying Zhou, 2006. "The Economic Value of Air-Pollution-Related Health Risks in China: A Contingent Valuation Study," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 33(3), pages 399-423, March.
    17. Rafaj, Peter & Kypreos, Socrates, 2007. "Internalisation of external cost in the power generation sector: Analysis with Global Multi-regional MARKAL model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 828-843, February.
    18. Söderberg, Magnus, 2008. "A choice modelling analysis on the similarity between distribution utilities' and industrial customers' price and quality preferences," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 1246-1262, May.
    19. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    20. Zhu, Fahua & Zheng, Youfei & Guo, Xulin & Wang, Sheng, 2005. "Environmental impacts and benefits of regional power grid interconnections for China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(14), pages 1797-1805, September.
    21. John Rolfe & Jeff Bennett (ed.), 2006. "Choice Modelling and the Transfer of Environmental Values," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 3336.
    22. Fredrik Carlsson & Peter Martinsson, 2007. "Willingness to Pay among Swedish Households to Avoid Power Outages: A Random Parameter Tobit Model Approach," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 1), pages 75-90.
    23. Robert Johnston & Joshua Duke, 2008. "Benefit Transfer Equivalence Tests with Non-normal Distributions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 41(1), pages 1-23, September.
    24. Sun, Tianqing & Wang, Xiaohua & Ma, Xianguo, 2009. "Relationship between the economic cost and the reliability of the electric power supply system in city: A case in Shanghai of China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 86(10), pages 2262-2267, October.
    25. Yang, Ming & Yu, Xin, 1996. "China's power management," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(8), pages 735-757, August.
    26. Sergio Colombo & Javier Calatrava-Requena & Nick Hanley, 2007. "Testing Choice Experiment for Benefit Transfer with Preference Heterogeneity," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(1), pages 135-151.
    27. Baskaran, Ramesh & Cullen, Ross & Colombo, Sergio, 2010. "Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services in New Zealand Winegrowing Regions: Testing for Benefit Transfer," Review of Applied Economics, Lincoln University, Department of Financial and Business Systems, vol. 6(1-2), pages 1-23, April.
    28. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2003. "A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 681-698, September.
    29. Liu, Deshun & Wang, Youhong & Zhou, Aiming & Zhang, Shurong, 1997. "Cost-benefit analysis on IRP/DSM application -- a case study in Shanghai," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(10), pages 837-843, August.
    30. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    31. Matsukawa, Isamu & Fujii, Yoshifumi, 1994. "Customer Preferences for Reliable Power Supply: Using Data on Actual Choices of Back-Up Equipment," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 76(3), pages 434-446, August.
    32. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-719, November.
    33. Gregory L. Poe & Kelly L. Giraud & John B. Loomis, 2005. "Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(2), pages 353-365.
    34. Beggs, S. & Cardell, S. & Hausman, J., 1981. "Assessing the potential demand for electric cars," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 1-19, September.
    35. Johnston, Robert J. & Duke, Joshua M., 2010. "Socioeconomic adjustments and choice experiment benefit function transfer: Evaluating the common wisdom," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 421-438, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Anthony Boardman & Jeff Geng & Bruno Lam, 2020. "The Social Cost of Informal Electronic Waste Processing in Southern China," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-20, February.
    2. Chiradip Chatterjee & Nafisa Halim & Pallab Mozumder, 2022. "Energy conservation and health risk reduction: an experimental investigation of punishing vs. rewarding incentives," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 24(4), pages 551-570, October.

    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. Taro Ohdoko & Kentaro Yoshida, 2012. "Public preferences for forest ecosystem management in Japan with emphasis on species diversity," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 14(2), pages 147-169, April.
    2. Baskaran, Ramesh & Cullen, Ross & Colombo, Sergio, 2010. "Testing different types of benefit transfer in valuation of ecosystem services: New Zealand winegrowing case studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1010-1022, March.
    3. Klaus Glenk & Julia Martin-Ortega & Manuel Pulido-Velazquez & Jacqueline Potts, 2015. "Inferring Attribute Non-attendance from Discrete Choice Experiments: Implications for Benefit Transfer," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 60(4), pages 497-520, April.
    4. Schaafsma, Marije & Brouwer, Roy & Liekens, Inge & De Nocker, Leo, 2014. "Temporal stability of preferences and willingness to pay for natural areas in choice experiments: A test–retest," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 243-260.
    5. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Olynk, Nicole & Wolf, Christopher, 2009. "Consumer Preferences for Animal Welfare Attributes: The Case of Gestation Crates," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(3), pages 713-730, December.
    6. Baskaran, Ramesh & Cullen, Ross & Colombo, Sergio, 2010. "Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services in New Zealand Winegrowing Regions: Testing for Benefit Transfer," Review of Applied Economics, Lincoln University, Department of Financial and Business Systems, vol. 6(1-2), pages 1-23, April.
    7. Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley & Jordan Louviere, 2009. "Modeling preference heterogeneity in stated choice data: an analysis for public goods generated by agriculture," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 307-322, May.
    8. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    9. Daniel A. Brent & Lata Gangadharan & Allison Lassiter & Anke Leroux & Paul A. Raschky, 2016. "Valuing Environmental Services Provided by LocalStormwater Management," Monash Economics Working Papers 35-16, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    10. Robert J. Johnston & Ewa Zawojska, 2020. "Relative Versus Absolute Commodity Measurements in Benefit Transfer: Consequences for Validity and Reliability," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(4), pages 1245-1270, August.
    11. 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.
    12. Ochs, Dan & Wolf, Christopher A. & Widmar, Nicole Olynk & Bir, Courtney & Lai, John, 2019. "Hen housing system information effects on U.S. egg demand," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 1-1.
    13. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    14. 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.
    15. Ozbafli, Aygul & Jenkins, Glenn P., 2016. "Estimating the willingness to pay for reliable electricity supply: A choice experiment study," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 443-452.
    16. Faical Akaichi & Klaus Glenk & Cesar Revoredo‐Giha, 2022. "Bundling food labels: What role could the labels “Organic,” “Local” and “Low Fat” play in fostering the demand for animal‐friendly meat," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 38(2), pages 349-370, April.
    17. Mohammed Hussen Alemu & Søren Bøye Olsen, 2020. "An analysis of the impacts of tasting experience and peer effects on consumers’ willingness to pay for novel foods," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(4), pages 653-674, October.
    18. Czajkowski, Mikolaj & Scasný, Milan, 2010. "Study on benefit transfer in an international setting. How to improve welfare estimates in the case of the countries' income heterogeneity?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 2409-2416, October.
    19. Lew, Daniel K., 2018. "Discounting future payments in stated preference choice experiments," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 150-164.
    20. Wang, Xuehong & Bennett, Jeff & Xie, Chen & Zhang, Zhitao & Liang, Dan, 2007. "Estimating non-market environmental benefits of the Conversion of Cropland to Forest and Grassland Program: A choice modeling approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 114-125, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Power plants; Power breakdowns; Air pollution; Choice modeling; Benefit transfer;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q41 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Demand and Supply; Prices
    • Q53 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Air Pollution; Water Pollution; Noise; Hazardous Waste; Solid Waste; Recycling

    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:hir:idecdp:2-12. 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: Keisuke Kawata (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gshirjp.html .

    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.