IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/rensus/v34y2014icp588-595.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

External benefits of waste-to-energy in Korea: A choice experiment study

Author

Listed:
  • Lim, Seul-Ye
  • Lim, Kyoung-Min
  • Yoo, Seung-Hoon

Abstract

The Korean government has planned to expand a variety of waste-to-energy (WtE) facilities in order to reduce waste disposal, decrease the crude oil imports, and mitigate greenhouse gases (GHGs) emissions. One response to this concern is to measure the external benefits of WtE. To this end, this study attempts to apply a choice experiment (CE) to four attributes or types of benefits such as the improvement of energy security, reduction of GHG emissions, job creation, and extension of landfill life expectancy. A survey of 500 households was undertaken in Seoul, Korea. The trade-offs between price and the four attributes for selecting a preferred alternative are considered in the CE survey and a marginal willingness to pay (MWTP) estimate for each attribute is derived. A nested logit (NL) model is employed in this study, rather than a multi-nomial logit (MNL) model since two specification tests indicate that the NL model outperforms the MNL model. The estimation results for the NL model show that the MWTPs for a 1% increase in energy security, a 1% reduction in GHG emissions, the creation of 10,000 new jobs, and the doubling of landfill life expectancy as a result of expanding WtE facilities is estimated to be KRW 437 (USD 4.5), 1763 (1.5), 598 (0.5), and 89 (0.1) per household per month, respectively. The findings can provide policy-makers with useful information for evaluating and planning WtE policies and projects.

Suggested Citation

  • Lim, Seul-Ye & Lim, Kyoung-Min & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2014. "External benefits of waste-to-energy in Korea: A choice experiment study," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 588-595.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:rensus:v:34:y:2014:i:c:p:588-595
    DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2014.03.045
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032114002068
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.rser.2014.03.045?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. Catherine L. Kling & Cynthia J. Thomson, 1996. "The Implications of Model Specification for Welfare Estimation in Nested Logit Models," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 78(1), pages 103-114.
    2. 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.
    3. Borchers, Allison M. & Duke, Joshua M. & Parsons, George R., 2007. "Does willingness to pay for green energy differ by source?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 3327-3334, June.
    4. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April.
    5. Duffy, Patricia A. & Hite, Diane & Bransby, David & Slaton, Christa, 2007. "Consumer Willingness-to-Pay for Green Energy: Results from Focus Groups," 2007 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2007, Mobile, Alabama 34913, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    6. Green, Paul E, 1974. "On the Design of Choice Experiments Involving Multifactor Alternatives," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 1(2), pages 61-68, Se.
    7. Soliño, Mario & Prada, Albino & Vázquez, María X., 2010. "Designing a forest-energy policy to reduce forest fires in Galicia (Spain): A contingent valuation application," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), pages 217-233, August.
    8. Timothy Park & John B. Loomis & Michael Creel, 1991. "Confidence Intervals for Evaluating Benefits Estimates from Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Studies," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 67(1), pages 64-73.
    9. 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.
    10. Susaeta, Andres & Lal, Pankaj & Alavalapati, Janaki & Mercer, Evan, 2011. "Random preferences towards bioenergy environmental externalities: A case study of woody biomass based electricity in the Southern United States," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 1111-1118.
    11. 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.
    12. Solomon, Barry D. & Johnson, Nicholas H., 2009. "Valuing climate protection through willingness to pay for biomass ethanol," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(7), pages 2137-2144, May.
    13. Soliño, Mario & Farizo, Begoña A. & Vázquez, María X. & Prada, Albino, 2012. "Generating electricity with forest biomass: Consistency and payment timeframe effects in choice experiments," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 798-806.
    14. Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Liljenstolpe, Carolina, 2003. "Valuing wetland attributes: an application of choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 95-103, November.
    15. Jeff Bennett & Russell Blamey (ed.), 2001. "The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2028.
    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. Xin-gang, Zhao & Gui-wu, Jiang & Ang, Li & Yun, Li, 2016. "Technology, cost, a performance of waste-to-energy incineration industry in China," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 115-130.
    2. Mao, Guozhu & Zou, Hongyang & Chen, Guanyi & Du, Huibin & Zuo, Jian, 2015. "Past, current and future of biomass energy research: A bibliometric analysis," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 1823-1833.
    3. Seul-Ye Lim & Hyo-Jin Kim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2017. "South Korean Household’s Willingness to Pay for Replacing Coal with Natural Gas? A View from CO 2 Emissions Reduction," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-9, December.
    4. Shimbar, Ali & Ebrahimi, Seyed Babak, 2017. "The application of DNPV to unlock foreign direct investment in waste-to-energy in developing countries," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 186-193.
    5. Doo-Chun Kim & Hyo-Jin Kim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2018. "Valuing Improved Power Supply Reliability for Manufacturing Firms in South Korea: Results from a Choice Experiment Survey," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-12, November.
    6. Ju-Hee Kim & Younggew Kim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2021. "Using a choice experiment to explore the public willingness to pay for the impacts of improving energy efficiency of an apartment," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 55(5), pages 1775-1793, October.
    7. Joseph Kim & Hyo-Jin Kim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2018. "Public Value of Marine Biodiesel Technology Development in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-12, November.
    8. Seul-Ye Lim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2019. "Will South Korean Residential Consumers Accept the Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme? A Stated Preference Approach," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-9, May.
    9. Demel, Simona & Longo, Alberto & Mariel, Petr, 2020. "Trading off visual disamenity for renewable energy: Willingness to pay for seaweed farming for energy production," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    10. Hyo-Jin Kim & Sung-Min Kim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2019. "Economic Value of Improving Natural Gas Supply Reliability for Residential Consumers in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-10, January.
    11. Zhao, Xiaoli & Cai, Qiong & Ma, Chunbo & Hu, Yanan & Luo, Kaiyan & Li, William, 2017. "Economic evaluation of environmental externalities in China’s coal-fired power generation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 307-317.
    12. Kim, Hyo-Jin & Lim, Seul-Ye & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2017. "The Korean public's willingness to pay for expanding the use of solid refuse fuel," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 821-827.
    13. Nikolic, Ana & Mikic, Miljan & Naunovic, Zorana, 2017. "Broadening the urban sustainable energy diapason through energy recovery from waste: A feasibility study for the capital of Serbia," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 1-8.
    14. Hye-Jeong Lee & Sung-Yoon Huh & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2018. "Social Preferences for Small-Scale Solar Photovoltaic Power Plants in South Korea: A Choice Experiment Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-15, October.
    15. Zhao, Xiaoli & Cai, Qiong & Li, Shujie & Ma, Chunbo, 2018. "Public preferences for biomass electricity in China," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 242-253.
    16. Kim, Hyo-Jin & Kim, Ju-Hee & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2019. "Social acceptance of offshore wind energy development in South Korea: Results from a choice experiment survey," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 1-1.

    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. Zhao, Xiaoli & Cai, Qiong & Ma, Chunbo & Hu, Yanan & Luo, Kaiyan & Li, William, 2017. "Economic evaluation of environmental externalities in China’s coal-fired power generation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 307-317.
    2. Demel, Simona & Longo, Alberto & Mariel, Petr, 2020. "Trading off visual disamenity for renewable energy: Willingness to pay for seaweed farming for energy production," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    3. 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.
    4. Zhao, Xiaoli & Cai, Qiong & Li, Shujie & Ma, Chunbo, 2018. "Public preferences for biomass electricity in China," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 242-253.
    5. Mogas, Joan & Riera, Pere & Bennett, Jeff, 2006. "A comparison of contingent valuation and choice modelling with second-order interactions," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 5-30, March.
    6. Campbell, Robert M. & Venn, Tyron J. & Anderson, Nathaniel M., 2016. "Social preferences toward energy generation with woody biomass from public forests in Montana, USA," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 58-67.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Hee-Jong Yang & Seul-Ye Lim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2017. "The Environmental Costs of Photovoltaic Power Plants in South Korea: A Choice Experiment Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-13, September.
    10. 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.
    11. Johanna Forster & Peter Schuhmann & Iain Lake & Andrew Watkinson & Jennifer Gill, 2012. "The influence of hurricane risk on tourist destination choice in the Caribbean," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 114(3), pages 745-768, October.
    12. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    13. Kallas, Z. & Gómez-Limón, J.A., 2007. "Valoración De La Multifuncionalidad Agraria: Una Aplicación A Través Del Método De Los Experimentos De Elección/Agricultural Multifunctionality Valuation: A Case Study Using The Choice Experiment," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 25, pages 107-144, Abril.
    14. Concu, Giovanni B., 2007. "Investigating distance effects on environmental values: a choice modelling approach," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 51(2), pages 1-20.
    15. Kwak, So-Yoon & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2015. "The public’s value for developing ocean energy technology in the Republic of Korea: A contingent valuation study," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 432-439.
    16. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.
    17. Varela, Elsa & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Soliño, Mario, 2014. "Understanding the heterogeneity of social preferences for fire prevention management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 91-104.
    18. Broberg, Thomas & Daniel, Aemiro Melkamu & Persson, Lars, 2021. "Household preferences for load restrictions: Is there an effect of pro-environmental framing?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    19. Catherine M. H. Keske & Adam Mayer, 2014. "Visitor Willingness to Pay U.S. Forest Service Recreation Fees in New West Rural Mountain Economies," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 28(1), pages 87-100, February.
    20. Rai, Rajesh Kumar & Scarborough, Helen, 2012. "Estimating the public benefits of mitigating damages caused by invasive plant species in a subsistence economy," 2012 Conference (56th), February 7-10, 2012, Fremantle, Australia 124421, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.

    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:rensus:v:34:y:2014:i:c:p:588-595. 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/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/600126/description#description .

    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.