IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jscscx/v12y2023i11p634-d1281120.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Households’ Willingness to Pay for Renewable Energy Alternatives in Thailand

Author

Listed:
  • Surasak Jotaworn

    (Department of Social Science, Faculty of Liberal Arts, Rajamangala University of Technology Thanyaburi, 39 Moo 1, Klong 6, Khlong Luang, Pathum Thani 12110, Thailand)

  • Vilas Nitivattananon

    (Urban Innovation and Sustainability, Department of Development and Sustainability, School of Environment, Resources and Development, Asian Institute of Technology, Pathum Thani 12120, Thailand)

  • Ornuma Teparakul

    (Faculty of Sociology and Anthropology, Thammasat University, Rangsit Center, Khlong Nueng Subdistrict, Khlong Luang District, Pathum Thani 12120, Thailand)

  • Thanakom Wongboontham

    (Urban Innovation and Sustainability, Department of Development and Sustainability, School of Environment, Resources and Development, Asian Institute of Technology, Pathum Thani 12120, Thailand)

  • Masahiro Sugiyama

    (Institute for Future Initiatives, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan)

  • Masako Numata

    (Institute for Future Initiatives, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan)

  • Daniel del Barrio Alvarez

    (Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo 113-8656, Japan)

Abstract

While the problems about the environmental effects of traditional energy use are growing, Thailand has a rapid response by increasing its renewable energy (RE) policy. Even though Thailand has seen rapid growth in RE, it has been focusing on supporting the producers and not considering the users. In addition, there were few studies on RE receivers in Thailand. To reach sustainable growth and increase the empirical study, this research aims to analyze the socio-economy, electric consumption behavior, attitude, opinions, and cognition of households in Bangkok Metropolitan to willingly pay for RE alternatives in Thailand. A questionnaire survey was carried out for 250 households covering six administrative districts, selected through multistage and stratified sampling techniques. The data were analyzed by descriptive statistics and conditional logit regression. It is found that the overall household in Bangkok still unchanged the status of electricity production based on the findings of socio-economy, behavior, and psychological factors. Considering to pay for RE alternatives, households are willing to pay (WTP) for solar energy at the highest level among other types, and biomass is the least willing to pay when the RE share is expected to reach 40%. These results are relevant for the planning of RE in the metropolitan region and the methodology applicable to other regions for extending RE opportunities to the national level.

Suggested Citation

  • Surasak Jotaworn & Vilas Nitivattananon & Ornuma Teparakul & Thanakom Wongboontham & Masahiro Sugiyama & Masako Numata & Daniel del Barrio Alvarez, 2023. "Households’ Willingness to Pay for Renewable Energy Alternatives in Thailand," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-21, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:12:y:2023:i:11:p:634-:d:1281120
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/12/11/634/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/12/11/634/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    2. 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.
    3. Tongsopit, Sopitsuda & Greacen, Chris, 2013. "An assessment of Thailand's feed-in tariff program," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 439-445.
    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. 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.
    2. Stefano Ceolotto & Eleanor Denny, 2021. "Putting a new 'spin' on energy labels: measuring the impact of reframing energy efficiency on tumble dryer choices in a multi-country experiment," Trinity Economics Papers tep1521, Trinity College Dublin, Department of Economics.
    3. Bjorner, Thomas Bue & Hansen, L.G.Lars Garn & Russell, Clifford S., 2004. "Environmental labeling and consumers' choice--an empirical analysis of the effect of the Nordic Swan," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 411-434, May.
    4. Christian A. Oberst & Reinhard Madlener, 2015. "Prosumer Preferences Regarding the Adoption of Micro†Generation Technologies: Empirical Evidence for German Homeowners," Working Papers 2015.07, International Network for Economic Research - INFER.
    5. F Alpizar & F Carlsson & P Martinsson, 2003. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 8(1), pages 83-110, March.
    6. Norton, Daniel & Hynes, Stephen, 2014. "Valuing the non-market benefits arising from the implementation of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 84-96.
    7. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Bartczak, Anna & Giergiczny, Marek & Navrud, Stale & Żylicz, Tomasz, 2014. "Providing preference-based support for forest ecosystem service management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 1-12.
    8. Stefania Troiano & Daniel Vecchiato & Francesco Marangon & Tiziano Tempesta & Federico Nassivera, 2019. "Households’ Preferences for a New ‘Climate-Friendly’ Heating System: Does Contribution to Reducing Greenhouse Gases Matter?," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-19, July.
    9. Gillespie Rob & Kragt Marit E., 2012. "Accounting for Nonmarket Impacts in a Benefit-Cost Analysis of Underground Coal Mining in New South Wales, Australia," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 3(2), pages 1-29, May.
    10. Day, Brett & Bateman, Ian & Binner, Amy & Ferrini, Silvia & Fezzi, Carlo, 2019. "Structurally-consistent estimation of use and nonuse values for landscape-wide environmental change," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    11. Norton, D. & Hynes, S., 2014. "A Choice Experiment Approach to assess the costs of degradation as specified by the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive," Working Papers 186382, National University of Ireland, Galway, Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit.
    12. S. Ceolotto & E. Denny, 2024. "Putting a New ‘Spin’ on Energy Information: Measuring the Impact of Reframing Energy Efficiency Information on Tumble Dryer Choices in a Multi-country Experiment," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 51-108, March.
    13. Anabela Botelho & Lina Lourenço-Gomes & Lígia Pinto & Sara Sousa & Marieta Valente, 2016. "Using stated preference methods to assess environmental impacts of forest biomass power plants in Portugal," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 18(5), pages 1323-1337, October.
    14. Robert Gillespie & Jeff Bennett, 2011. "Willingness to pay for kerbside recycling the Brisbane Region," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 1097, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    15. repec:ehu:biltok:8011 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Tiziano Tempesta & Daniel Vecchiato & Federico Nassivera & Maria Bugatti & Biancamaria Torquati, 2019. "Consumers Demand for Social Farming Products: An Analysis with Discrete Choice Experiments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-17, November.
    17. Lécole, Pauline & Préget, Raphaële & Thoyer, Sophie, 2022. "Designing an effective small farmers scheme in France," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    18. Birol, Ekin & Kontoleon, Andreas & Smale, Melinda, 2005. "Using A Choice Experiment To Estimate The Demand Of Hungarian Farmers For Food Security And Agrobiodiversity During Economic Transition," Environmental Economy and Policy Research Discussion Papers 31937, University of Cambridge, Department of Land Economy.
    19. 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).
    20. Alejandra R. Enríquez & Angel Bujosa Bestard, 2020. "Measuring the economic impact of climate-induced environmental changes on sun-and-beach tourism," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 160(2), pages 203-217, May.
    21. Vecchiato, D. & Tempesta, T., 2013. "Valuing the benefits of an afforestation project in a peri-urban area with choice experiments," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 111-120.

    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:gam:jscscx:v:12:y:2023:i:11:p:634-:d:1281120. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.