IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eneeco/v65y2017icp262-270.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public preferences for alternative electricity mixes in post-Fukushima Japan

Author

Listed:
  • Rehdanz, Katrin
  • Schröder, Carsten
  • Narita, Daiju
  • Okubo, Toshihiro

Abstract

Using representative household survey data from Japan after the Fukushima accident, we estimate peoples' willingness-to-pay (WTP) for renewable, nuclear, and fossil fuels in electricity generation. We rely on random parameter econometric techniques to capture various degrees of heterogeneity between the respondents, and use detailed regional information to assess how WTP varies with the distance to both the nearest nuclear power plant and to Fukushima. Compared to fossil fuels, we find a positive WTP for renewable and a negative WTP for nuclear fuels. These effects, in absolute terms, increase with the proximity to Fukushima.

Suggested Citation

  • Rehdanz, Katrin & Schröder, Carsten & Narita, Daiju & Okubo, Toshihiro, 2017. "Public preferences for alternative electricity mixes in post-Fukushima Japan," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 262-270.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:eneeco:v:65:y:2017:i:c:p:262-270
    DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2017.04.026
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140988317301330
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.eneco.2017.04.026?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 look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Clark, Jeremy & Friesen, Lana, 2008. "The causes of order effects in contingent valuation surveys: An experimental investigation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 195-206, September.
    2. Koulovatianos, Christos & Schroder, Carsten & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2005. "On the income dependence of equivalence scales," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(5-6), pages 967-996, June.
    3. Arie Kapteyn & James P. Smith & Arthur van Soest, 2007. "Vignettes and Self-Reports of Work Disability in the United States and the Netherlands," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(1), pages 461-473, March.
    4. van der Horst, Dan, 2007. "NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2705-2714, May.
    5. Laura O. Taylor & Ronald G. Cummings, 1999. "Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 649-665, June.
    6. Alberto Alesina & Stefanie Stantcheva & Edoardo Teso, 2018. "Intergenerational Mobility and Preferences for Redistribution," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(2), pages 521-554, February.
    7. Helen R. Neill & Ronald G. Cummings & Philip T. Ganderton & Glenn W. Harrison & Thomas McGuckin, 1994. "Hypothetical Surveys and Real Economic Commitments," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(2), pages 145-154.
    8. Murakami, Kayo & Ida, Takanori & Tanaka, Makoto & Friedman, Lee, 2015. "Consumers' willingness to pay for renewable and nuclear energy: A comparative analysis between the US and Japan," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 178-189.
    9. Koulovatianos, Christos & Schrder, Carsten & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2009. "Nonmarket Household Time and the Cost of Children," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 27, pages 42-51.
    10. Sundt, Swantje & Rehdanz, Katrin, 2015. "Consumers' willingness to pay for green electricity: A meta-analysis of the literature," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 1-8.
    11. Andrew A. Goett & Kathleen Hudson & Kenneth E. Train, 2000. "Customers' Choice Among Retail Energy Suppliers: The Willingness-to-Pay for Service Attributes," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 4), pages 1-28.
    12. Smith, V. Kerry & Osborne, Laura L., 1996. "Do Contingent Valuation Estimates Pass a "Scope" Test? A Meta-analysis," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 287-301, November.
    13. John Loomis & Thomas Brown & Beatrice Lucero & George Peterson, 1997. "Evaluating the Validity of the Dichotomous Choice Question Format in Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(2), pages 109-123, September.
    14. Grösche, Peter & Schröder, Carsten, 2011. "Eliciting public support for greening the electricity mix using random parameter techniques," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 363-370, March.
    15. Diamond, Peter, 1996. "Testing the Internal Consistency of Contingent Valuation Surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 337-347, May.
    16. Bertoni, Marco, 2015. "Hungry today, unhappy tomorrow? Childhood hunger and subjective wellbeing later in life," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 40-53.
    17. 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.
    18. Pinar Ertor Akyazi & Fikret Adaman & Begum Ozkaynak & Unal Zenginobuz, 2012. "Citizens’ Preferences over Nuclear and Renewable Energy Sources: Evidence from Turkey," Working Papers 2012/01, Bogazici University, Department of Economics.
    19. John A. List, 2001. "Do Explicit Warnings Eliminate the Hypothetical Bias in Elicitation Procedures? Evidence from Field Auctions for Sportscards," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1498-1507, December.
    20. Chuanwang Sun & Nan Lyu & Xiaoling Ouyang, 2014. "Chinese Public Willingness to Pay to Avoid Having Nuclear Power Plants in the Neighborhood," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(10), pages 1-27, October.
    21. Ertör-Akyazı, Pınar & Adaman, Fikret & Özkaynak, Begüm & Zenginobuz, Ünal, 2012. "Citizens’ preferences on nuclear and renewable energy sources: Evidence from Turkey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 309-320.
    22. Ajzen, Icek & Brown, Thomas C. & Rosenthal, Lori H., 1996. "Information Bias in Contingent Valuation: Effects of Personal Relevance, Quality of Information, and Motivational Orientation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 43-57, January.
    23. Peter A. Diamond & Jerry A. Hausman, 1994. "Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 45-64, Fall.
    24. Katrin Rehdanz & Welsch Heinz & Daiju Naritaa & Toshihiro Okubod, 2013. "Well-being effects of a major negative externality: The case of Fukushima," Working Papers V-358-13, University of Oldenburg, Department of Economics, revised Jul 2013.
    25. Kenshi Itaoka & Aya Saito & Alan Krupnick & Wiktor Adamowicz & Taketoshi Taniguchi, 2006. "The Effect of Risk Characteristics on the Willingness to Pay for Mortality Risk Reductions from Electric Power Generation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 33(3), pages 371-398, March.
    26. Lauren Knapp & Jacob Ladenburg, 2015. "How Spatial Relationships Influence Economic Preferences for Wind Power—A Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-25, June.
    27. Ida, Takanori & Takemura, Kosuke & Sato, Masayuki, 2015. "Inner conflict between nuclear power generation and electricity rates: A Japanese case study," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 61-69.
    28. Sendhil Mullainathan & Marianne Bertrand, 2001. "Do People Mean What They Say? Implications for Subjective Survey Data," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(2), pages 67-72, May.
    29. Rehdanz, Katrin & Welsch, Heinz & Narita, Daiju & Okubo, Toshihiro, 2015. "Well-being effects of a major natural disaster: The case of Fukushima," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 500-517.
    30. Roland Menges & Carsten Schroeder & Stefan Traub, 2005. "Altruism, Warm Glow and the Willingness-to-Donate for Green Electricity: An Artefactual Field Experiment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 31(4), pages 431-458, 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. Eva Crespo-Cebada & Carlos Díaz-Caro & María Teresa Nevado Gil & Ángel Sabino Mirón Sanguino, 2020. "Does Water Pollution Influence Willingness to Accept the Installation of a Mine Near a City? Case Study of an Open-Pit Lithium Mine," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-13, December.
    2. Jobin, Marilou & Siegrist, Michael, 2018. "We choose what we like – Affect as a driver of electricity portfolio choice," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 736-747.
    3. Okubo, Toshihiro & Narita, Daiju & Rehdanz, Katrin & Schröder, Carsten, 2020. "Preferences for Nuclear Power in Post-Fukushima Japan: Evidence from a Large Nationwide Household Survey," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    4. Hyo-Jin Kim & Seul-Ye Lim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2020. "The South Korean public’s evaluation of the mix of power generation sources: A choice experiment study," Energy & Environment, , vol. 31(7), pages 1181-1190, November.
    5. Cheng, Shulei & Wu, Yinyin & Chen, Hua & Chen, Jiandong & Song, Malin & Hou, Wenxuan, 2019. "Determinants of changes in electricity generation intensity among different power sectors," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 389-408.
    6. Gao, Lu & Hiruta, Yuki & Ashina, Shuichi, 2020. "Promoting renewable energy through willingness to pay for transition to a low carbon society in Japan," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 818-830.
    7. Martínez-Cruz, Adán L. & Núñez, Héctor M., 2021. "Tension in Mexico's energy transition: Are urban residential consumers in Aguascalientes willing to pay for renewable energy and green jobs?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).

    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. Grösche, Peter & Schröder, Carsten, 2011. "Eliciting public support for greening the electricity mix using random parameter techniques," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 363-370, March.
    2. Merk, Christine & Rehdanz, Katrin & Schröder, Carsten, 2019. "How consumers trade off supply security and green electricity: Evidence from Germany and Great Britain," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(S1).
    3. Peter Grösche & Carsten Schröder, 2010. "Eliciting Public Support for Greening the Electricity Mix Using Random Parameter Techniques," Ruhr Economic Papers 0233, Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Universität Dortmund, Universität Duisburg-Essen.
    4. repec:zbw:rwirep:0233 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Okubo, Toshihiro & Narita, Daiju & Rehdanz, Katrin & Schröder, Carsten, 2020. "Preferences for Nuclear Power in Post-Fukushima Japan: Evidence from a Large Nationwide Household Survey," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    6. Mark A. Andor & Manuel Frondel & Colin Vance, 2017. "Mitigating Hypothetical Bias: Evidence on the Effects of Correctives from a Large Field Study," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(3), pages 777-796, November.
    7. Burchardi, Henrike & Schroeder, Carsten & Thiele, Holger D., 2005. "Willingness-To-Pay for Food of the Own Region: Empirical Estimates from Hypothetical and Incentive Compatible Settings," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19365, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    8. 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.
    9. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    10. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. Catherine L. Kling & Daniel J. Phaneuf & Jinhua Zhao, 2012. "From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better Than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 3-26, Fall.
    12. Motz, Alessandra, 2021. "Consumer acceptance of the energy transition in Switzerland: The role of attitudes explained through a hybrid discrete choice model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    13. Nicolas Jacquemet & Alexander James & Stéphane Luchini & Jason Shogren, 2011. "Social Psychology and Environmental Economics: A New Look at ex ante Corrections of Biased Preference Evaluation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(3), pages 413-433, March.
    14. Veisten, Knut, 2007. "Contingent valuation controversies: Philosophic debates about economic theory," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 204-232, April.
    15. James Murphy & P. Allen & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 313-325, March.
    16. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:2:y:2007:i:1:p:1-9 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    18. Timothy C. Haab & Matthew G. Interis & Daniel R. Petrolia & John C. Whitehead, 2013. "From Hopeless to Curious? Thoughts on Hausman's 'Dubious to Hopeless' Critique of Contingent Valuation," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 35(4), pages 593-612.
    19. Sundt, Swantje & Rehdanz, Katrin, 2015. "Consumers' willingness to pay for green electricity: A meta-analysis of the literature," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 1-8.
    20. Contu, Davide & Strazzera, Elisabetta & Mourato, Susana, 2016. "Modeling individual preferences for energy sources: The case of IV generation nuclear energy in Italy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 37-58.
    21. 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.
    22. Koulovatianos, Christos & Schröder, Carsten & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2019. "Do demographics prevent consumption aggregates from reflecting micro-level preferences?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 166-190.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Electricity mix; Willingness-to-pay; Preference heterogeneity; Renewables; Spatial heterogeneity; Fukushima; Nuclear power;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
    • Q40 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - General
    • Q42 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Alternative Energy Sources

    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:65:y:2017:i:c:p:262-270. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eneco .

    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 hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.