IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v147y2020ics0301421520305486.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Heterogeneous preferences for shale water management: Evidence from a choice experiment in Fuling shale gas field, southwest China

Author

Listed:
  • Yao, Liuyang
  • Sui, Bo

Abstract

Increasing concerns about the water-related impacts posed by shale gas development have prompted the need for protecting water resources. Determining the preferences for shale water management is critical for the design and implementation of cost-effective management strategies. Nevertheless, the public's multidimensional preferences for different aspects of the shale water management have not yet been addressed in shale-related studies. To this end, a choice experiment is used to examine the preference heterogeneity for shale water management that would improve water consumption, wastewater recycling, and water quality monitoring in Fuling shale gas field, southwest China. Results from a random parameter logit model show that residents' average WTP is 45.76 yuan per year per household for the improvements of all water-related attributes to the highest qualitative level. The accumulated welfare gains indicate that local government could increase the gas price by 0.058 yuan per cubic meter for implementing water management strategies. We also find considerable preference heterogeneity in both systematic and random utility components, and average WTP is significantly influenced by the respondent's demographical and psychological characteristics. The findings highlight the potential to find socially acceptable ways to promote shale water management and provide insight into the relevant policymaking process.

Suggested Citation

  • Yao, Liuyang & Sui, Bo, 2020. "Heterogeneous preferences for shale water management: Evidence from a choice experiment in Fuling shale gas field, southwest China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:147:y:2020:i:c:s0301421520305486
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111831
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421520305486
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111831?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 search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Charles F. Mason & Lucija A. Muehlenbachs & Sheila M. Olmstead, 2015. "The Economics of Shale Gas Development," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 7(1), pages 269-289, October.
    2. Kinnaman, Thomas C., 2011. "The economic impact of shale gas extraction: A review of existing studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(7), pages 1243-1249, May.
    3. Clarke, Christopher E. & Bugden, Dylan & Hart, P. Sol & Stedman, Richard C. & Jacquet, Jeffrey B. & Evensen, Darrick T.N. & Boudet, Hilary S., 2016. "How geographic distance and political ideology interact to influence public perception of unconventional oil/natural gas development," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 301-309.
    4. Krupnick, Alan & Wang, Zhongmin & Wang, Yushuang, 2014. "Environmental risks of shale gas development in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 117-125.
    5. Paula Bernstein & Thomas C Kinnaman & Mengqi Wu, 2013. "Estimating Willingness to Pay for River Amenities and Safety Measures Associated with Shale Gas Extraction," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 39(1), pages 28-44.
    6. Haitao Guo & Yongsheng Wang & Zhongmin Wang, 2016. "Shale Development and China," Natural Resource Management and Policy, in: Yongsheng Wang & William E. Hefley (ed.), The Global Impact of Unconventional Shale Gas Development, pages 131-147, Springer.
    7. Merryn Thomas & Nick Pidgeon & Darrick Evensen & Tristan Partridge & Ariel Hasell & Catherine Enders & Barbara Herr Harthorn & Michael Bradshaw, 2017. "Public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing for shale gas and oil in the United States and Canada," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(3), May.
    8. Wang, Qiang & Chen, Xi & Jha, Awadhesh N. & Rogers, Howard, 2014. "Natural gas from shale formation – The evolution, evidences and challenges of shale gas revolution in United States," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 1-28.
    9. Greiner, Romy & Bliemer, Michiel & Ballweg, Julie, 2014. "Design considerations of a choice experiment to estimate likely participation by north Australian pastoralists in contractual biodiversity conservation," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 34-45.
    10. Jenner, Steffen & Lamadrid, Alberto J., 2013. "Shale gas vs. coal: Policy implications from environmental impact comparisons of shale gas, conventional gas, and coal on air, water, and land in the United States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 442-453.
    11. Ren, Jingzheng & Tan, Shiyu & Goodsite, Michael Evan & Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Dong, Lichun, 2015. "Sustainability, shale gas, and energy transition in China: Assessing barriers and prioritizing strategic measures," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 551-562.
    12. Boudet, Hilary & Clarke, Christopher & Bugden, Dylan & Maibach, Edward & Roser-Renouf, Connie & Leiserowitz, Anthony, 2014. "“Fracking” controversy and communication: Using national survey data to understand public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 57-67.
    13. Aolin Leng & Zihan Liu & Guangyuan Xing & Yixin Li, 2019. "China’s Investment Incentive Strategy for Shale Gas Development," Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(6), pages 1343-1356, May.
    14. Hu, Desheng & Xu, Shengqing, 2013. "Opportunity, challenges and policy choices for China on the development of shale gas," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 21-26.
    15. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, September.
    16. 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.
    17. Liuyang Yao & Junfeng Deng & Robert J. Johnston & Imran Khan & Minjuan Zhao, 2019. "Evaluating willingness to pay for the temporal distribution of different air quality improvements: Is China's clean air target adequate to ensure welfare maximization?," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 67(2), pages 215-232, June.
    18. Elaine Hill & Lala Ma, 2017. "Shale Gas Development and Drinking Water Quality," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(5), pages 522-525, May.
    19. Whitmarsh, Lorraine & Nash, Nick & Upham, Paul & Lloyd, Alyson & Verdon, James P. & Kendall, J.-Michael, 2015. "UK public perceptions of shale gas hydraulic fracturing: The role of audience, message and contextual factors on risk perceptions and policy support," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 419-430.
    20. Stamford, Laurence & Azapagic, Adisa, 2014. "Life cycle environmental impacts of UK shale gas," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 506-518.
    21. Ben-Akiva, Moshe & McFadden, Daniel & Train, Kenneth & Börsch-Supan, Axel, 2002. "Hybrid Choice Models: Progress and Challenges," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 02-29, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
    22. 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.
    23. Weber, Jeremy G., 2012. "The effects of a natural gas boom on employment and income in Colorado, Texas, and Wyoming," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 1580-1588.
    24. 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.
    25. Kosenius, Anna-Kaisa, 2010. "Heterogeneous preferences for water quality attributes: The Case of eutrophication in the Gulf of Finland, the Baltic Sea," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 528-538, January.
    26. Yu, Chin-Hsien & Huang, Shih-Kai & Qin, Ping & Chen, Xiaolan, 2018. "Local residents' risk perceptions in response to shale gas exploitation: Evidence from China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 123-134.
    27. Wang, Qiang & Li, Rongrong, 2016. "Natural gas from shale formation: A research profile," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 1-6.
    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. Liuyang Yao & Dangchen Sui & Xiaotong Liu & Hui Fan, 2020. "The Psychological Process of Residents’ Acceptance of Local Shale Gas Exploitation in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-20, September.
    2. Liuyang Yao & Qian Zhang & Kin Keung Lai & Xianyu Cao, 2020. "Explaining Local Residents’ Attitudes toward Shale Gas Exploitation: The Mediating Roles of Risk and Benefit Perceptions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-13, 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. Liuyang Yao & Dangchen Sui & Xiaotong Liu & Hui Fan, 2020. "The Psychological Process of Residents’ Acceptance of Local Shale Gas Exploitation in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-20, September.
    2. Yu, Chin-Hsien & Huang, Shih-Kai & Qin, Ping & Chen, Xiaolan, 2018. "Local residents' risk perceptions in response to shale gas exploitation: Evidence from China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 123-134.
    3. Martínez-Espiñeira, Roberto & García-Valiñas, María Á. & Matesanz, David, 2019. "Public Attitudes towards Hydraulic Fracturing in Western Newfoundland," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    4. Liuyang Yao & Qian Zhang & Kin Keung Lai & Xianyu Cao, 2020. "Explaining Local Residents’ Attitudes toward Shale Gas Exploitation: The Mediating Roles of Risk and Benefit Perceptions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-13, October.
    5. Kirat, Yassine, 2021. "The US shale gas revolution: An opportunity for the US manufacturing sector?," International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 59-77.
    6. 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.
    7. Oviedo, José L. & Caparrós, Alejandro, 2015. "Information and visual attention in contingent valuation and choice modeling: field and eye-tracking experiments applied to reforestations in Spain," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 185-204.
    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. Helen Scarborough & Jeff Bennett, 2012. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and Distributional Preferences," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14376.
    10. Hess, Joshua H. & Manning, Dale T. & Iverson, Terry & Cutler, Harvey, 2019. "Uncertainty, learning, and local opposition to hydraulic fracturing," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 102-123.
    11. Evensen, Darrick & Stedman, Rich, 2017. "Beliefs about impacts matter little for attitudes on shale gas development," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 10-21.
    12. Sardaro, Ruggiero & Faccilongo, Nicola & Roselli, Luigi, 2019. "Wind farms, farmland occupation and compensation: Evidences from landowners’ preferences through a stated choice survey in Italy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    13. Baranzelli, Claudia & Vandecasteele, Ine & Ribeiro Barranco, Ricardo & Mari i Rivero, Ines & Pelletier, Nathan & Batelaan, Okke & Lavalle, Carlo, 2015. "Scenarios for shale gas development and their related land use impacts in the Baltic Basin, Northern Poland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 80-95.
    14. Anders Dugstad & Kristine M. Grimsrud & Gorm Kipperberg & Henrik Lindhjem & Ståle Navrud, 2021. "Scope Elasticity of Willingness to pay in Discrete Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 80(1), pages 21-57, September.
    15. Bilgili, Faik & Koçak, Emrah & Bulut, Ümit & Sualp, M. Nedim, 2016. "How did the US economy react to shale gas production revolution? An advanced time series approach," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 116(P1), pages 963-977.
    16. 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.
    17. Rombach, Meike & Widmar, Nicole Olynk & Byrd, Elizabeth & Bitsch, Vera, 2018. "Do all roses smell equally sweet? Willingness to pay for flower attributes in specialized retail settings by German consumers," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 91-99.
    18. Holland, Benedict M. & Johnston, Robert J., 2014. "Spatially-Referenced Choice Experiments: Tests of Individualized Geocoding in Stated Preference Questionnaires," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170191, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. José L. Oviedo & Alejandro Caparrós, 2014. "Comparing contingent valuation and choice modeling using field and eye-tracking lab data," Working Papers 1401, Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP), CSIC.
    20. Yang, Yan & Wang, Limao & Fang, Yebing & Mou, Chufu, 2017. "Integrated value of shale gas development: A comparative analysis in the United States and China," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 1465-1478.

    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:enepol:v:147:y:2020:i:c:s0301421520305486. 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/enpol .

    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.