IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eneeco/v42y2014icp17-26.html

Analyzing public preferences and increasing acceptability for the Renewable Portfolio Standard in Korea

Author

Listed:
  • Shin, Jungwoo
  • Woo, JongRoul
  • Huh, Sung-Yoon
  • Lee, Jongsu
  • Jeong, Gicheol

Abstract

In order to respond to the challenge of climate change, similar to other countries, Korea has announced various policies to vitalize the development and uptake of renewable energy. The Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) is the most striking example of a policy in this area. This study employs a conjoint survey and Bayesian mixed logit model to analyze consumer preferences for specific attributes of the RPS policy. It analyzes households' marginal willingness to pay (MWTP) for the RPS with specific attributes and simulates the degree of household acceptability of the policy through a scenario analysis. Comparison between costs and benefits of implementing the policy is also attempted by analyzing the households' MWTP with the actual transition expense of RPS implementation incurred by electricity supply companies. The simulation results provide implications for improving RPS policy implementation; households consider the creation of new jobs as the most important policy attribute, followed by increase in electricity prices, damage to forests, reduction in CO2 emissions, and length of power outages. Moreover, the Korean household is willing to accept an increase of up to 1.39% in its electricity prices (relative to 2012), and the median MWTP of each household for RPS implementation is KRW 734.99/month (USD 0.67/month).

Suggested Citation

  • Shin, Jungwoo & Woo, JongRoul & Huh, Sung-Yoon & Lee, Jongsu & Jeong, Gicheol, 2014. "Analyzing public preferences and increasing acceptability for the Renewable Portfolio Standard in Korea," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 17-26.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:eneeco:v:42:y:2014:i:c:p:17-26
    DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2013.11.014
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140988313002764
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.eneco.2013.11.014?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Scarpa, Riccardo & Willis, Ken, 2010. "Willingness-to-pay for renewable energy: Primary and discretionary choice of British households' for micro-generation technologies," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 129-136, January.
    2. Savvanidou, Electra & Zervas, Efthimios & Tsagarakis, Konstantinos P., 2010. "Public acceptance of biofuels," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 3482-3488, July.
    3. Stern,Nicholas, 2007. "The Economics of Climate Change," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521700801, Enero-Abr.
    4. Roe, Brian & Teisl, Mario F. & Levy, Alan & Russell, Matthew, 2001. "US consumers' willingness to pay for green electricity," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(11), pages 917-925, September.
    5. Kydes, Andy S., 2007. "Impacts of a renewable portfolio generation standard on US energy markets," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 809-814, February.
    6. Longo, Alberto & Markandya, Anil & Petrucci, Marta, 2008. "The internalization of externalities in the production of electricity: Willingness to pay for the attributes of a policy for renewable energy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 140-152, August.
    7. Wiser, Ryan H., 2007. "Using contingent valuation to explore willingness to pay for renewable energy: A comparison of collective and voluntary payment vehicles," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(3-4), pages 419-432, May.
    8. Ku, Se-Ju & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2010. "Willingness to pay for renewable energy investment in Korea: A choice experiment study," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 14(8), pages 2196-2201, October.
    9. repec:aen:journl:2009v30-02-a04 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Palmer, Karen & Burtraw, Dallas, 2005. "Cost-effectiveness of renewable electricity policies," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(6), pages 873-894, November.
    11. Abdullah, Sabah & Jeanty, P. Wilner, 2011. "Willingness to pay for renewable energy: Evidence from a contingent valuation survey in Kenya," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(6), pages 2974-2983, August.
    12. Zografakis, Nikolaos & Sifaki, Elli & Pagalou, Maria & Nikitaki, Georgia & Psarakis, Vasilios & Tsagarakis, Konstantinos P., 2010. "Assessment of public acceptance and willingness to pay for renewable energy sources in Crete," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 1088-1095, April.
    13. Nomura, Noboru & Akai, Makoto, 2004. "Willingness to pay for green electricity in Japan as estimated through contingent valuation method," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 78(4), pages 453-463, August.
    14. Yoo, Seung-Hoon & Kwak, So-Yoon, 2009. "Willingness to pay for green electricity in Korea: A contingent valuation study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(12), pages 5408-5416, December.
    15. Bigerna, Simona & Polinori, Paolo, 2011. "Italian consumers’ willingness to pay for renewable energy sources," MPRA Paper 34408, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, November.
    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. Jihee Lee & HyungBin Moon & Jongsu Lee, 2021. "Consumers’ heterogeneous preferences toward the renewable portfolio standard policy: An evaluation of Korea’s energy transition policy," Energy & Environment, , vol. 32(4), pages 648-667, June.
    2. Oerlemans, Leon A.G. & Chan, Kai-Ying & Volschenk, Jako, 2016. "Willingness to pay for green electricity: A review of the contingent valuation literature and its sources of error," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 875-885.
    3. Soon, Jan-Jan & Ahmad, Siti-Aznor, 2015. "Willingly or grudgingly? A meta-analysis on the willingness-to-pay for renewable energy use," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 877-887.
    4. Menegaki, Angeliki N., 2012. "A social marketing mix for renewable energy in Europe based on consumer stated preference surveys," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 30-39.
    5. Ladenburg, Jacob, 2014. "Dynamic properties of the preferences for renewable energy sources – A wind power experience-based approach," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 542-551.
    6. Carsten Herbes & Lorenz Braun & Dennis Rube, 2016. "Pricing of Biomethane Products Targeted at Private Households in Germany—Product Attributes and Providers’ Pricing Strategies," Energies, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-15, March.
    7. Kontogianni, Areti & Tourkolias, Christos & Skourtos, Michalis, 2013. "Renewables portfolio, individual preferences and social values towards RES technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 467-476.
    8. Gracia, Azucena & Barreiro-Hurlé, Jesús & Pérez y Pérez, Luis, 2012. "Can renewable energy be financed with higher electricity prices? Evidence from a Spanish region," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 784-794.
    9. Alló, Maria & Loureiro, Maria L., 2014. "The role of social norms on preferences towards climate change policies: A meta-analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 563-574.
    10. Dalia Streimikiene & Tomas Balezentis & Ilona Alisauskaite-Seskiene & Gintare Stankuniene & Zaneta Simanaviciene, 2019. "A Review of Willingness to Pay Studies for Climate Change Mitigation in the Energy Sector," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-38, April.
    11. Herbes, Carsten & Friege, Christian & Baldo, Davide & Mueller, Kai-Markus, 2015. "Willingness to pay lip service? Applying a neuroscience-based method to WTP for green electricity," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 562-572.
    12. Heng, Yan & Lu, Chao-Lin & Yu, Luqing & Gao, Zhifeng, 2020. "The heterogeneous preferences for solar energy policies among US households," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    13. Xie, Bai-Chen & Zhao, Wei, 2018. "Willingness to pay for green electricity in Tianjin, China: Based on the contingent valuation method," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 98-107.
    14. Cardella, Eric & Ewing, Bradley T. & Williams, Ryan B., 2017. "Price volatility and residential electricity decisions: Experimental evidence on the convergence of energy generating source," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 428-437.
    15. 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.
    16. Elcin Akcura, 2013. "Mandatory versus voluntary payment for green electricity," Working Papers 161, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Office of the Chief Economist.
    17. Elcin Akcura, 2013. "Mandatory vs Voluntary Payment for Green Electricity," Working Papers EPRG 1316, Energy Policy Research Group, Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge.
    18. Bae, Jeong Hwan & Rishi, Meenakshi, 2018. "Increasing consumer participation rates for green pricing programs: A choice experiment for South Korea," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 490-502.
    19. Gianluca Grilli, 2017. "Renewable energy and willingness to pay: Evidences from a meta-analysis," ECONOMICS AND POLICY OF ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2017(1-2), pages 253-271.
    20. Kim, Jihyo & Park, Jooyoung & Kim, Jinsoo & Heo, Eunnyeong, 2013. "Renewable electricity as a differentiated good? The case of the Republic of Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 327-334.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
    • Q48 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Government 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:eee:eneeco:v:42:y:2014:i:c:p:17-26. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eneco .

    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.