IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i6p1530-d213558.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effects of Rank-Ordered Feature Perceptions of Energy Sources on the Choice of the Most Acceptable Power Plant for a Neighborhood: An Investigation Using a South Korean Nationwide Sample

Author

Listed:
  • Seungkook Roh

    (Nuclear Policy Research Center, Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI), 989–111 Daedeok-daero, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 34057, Korea)

  • Jin Won Lee

    (Marketing Department, School of Business Administration, Jimei University, 185 Yinjiang Road, Jimei District, Xiamen 361021, China)

  • Qingchang Li

    (Marketing Department, School of Business Administration, Jimei University, 185 Yinjiang Road, Jimei District, Xiamen 361021, China)

Abstract

The present study incorporates a competitive context into an individual’s response to the construction of a power plant in his/her neighborhood and the determinants of this response. The study adopts an individual’s rank-ordered feature perceptions of competing energy sources to reflect the individual’s comparative perceptions of the sources regarding the features, and it investigates the effects of these perceptions on his/her choice of the most acceptable power plant in the area where he/she lives. Our mixed conditional logit analysis of nationwide survey data from South Korea demonstrated the following: among the rank-ordered feature perceptions, the perceptions regarding safety and eco-friendliness significantly predict an individual’s choice of the most acceptable power plant for his/her neighborhood, while those regarding affordability, contribution to economic development, and job creation do not. In addition, among those significant features, safety was found to be a stricter criterion than eco-friendliness. The selective significance of the feature perceptions and the differentiated criteria between the significant features provide practical implications for professionals in energy industries, as well as theoretical implications for researchers.

Suggested Citation

  • Seungkook Roh & Jin Won Lee & Qingchang Li, 2019. "Effects of Rank-Ordered Feature Perceptions of Energy Sources on the Choice of the Most Acceptable Power Plant for a Neighborhood: An Investigation Using a South Korean Nationwide Sample," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-21, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:6:p:1530-:d:213558
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/6/1530/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/6/1530/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rachel M. Krause & Sanya R. Carley & David C. Warren & John A. Rupp & John D. Graham, 2014. "“Not in (or Under) My Backyard”: Geographic Proximity and Public Acceptance of Carbon Capture and Storage Facilities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(3), pages 529-540, March.
    2. Marianna Rotilio & Chiara Marchionni & Pierluigi De Berardinis, 2017. "The Small-Scale Hydropower Plants in Sites of Environmental Value: An Italian Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-15, November.
    3. Susana Batel & Patrick Devine-Wright, 2015. "A critical and empirical analysis of the national-local 'gap' in public responses to large-scale energy infrastructures," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(6), pages 1076-1095, June.
    4. Chen, Wei-Ming & Kim, Hana & Yamaguchi, Hideka, 2014. "Renewable energy in eastern Asia: Renewable energy policy review and comparative SWOT analysis for promoting renewable energy in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 319-329.
    5. Leeka Kheifets & John Swanson & Shaiela Kandel & Timothy F. Malloy, 2010. "Risk Governance for Mobile Phones, Power Lines, and Other EMF Technologies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(10), pages 1481-1494, October.
    6. Perlaviciute, G. & Steg, L., 2015. "The influence of values on evaluations of energy alternatives," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 259-267.
    7. Wolsink, Maarten, 2007. "Planning of renewables schemes: Deliberative and fair decision-making on landscape issues instead of reproachful accusations of non-cooperation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2692-2704, May.
    8. Park, Eunil & Ohm, Jay Y., 2014. "Factors influencing the public intention to use renewable energy technologies in South Korea: Effects of the Fukushima nuclear accident," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 198-211.
    9. Toke, David & Breukers, Sylvia & Wolsink, Maarten, 2008. "Wind power deployment outcomes: How can we account for the differences?," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1129-1147, May.
    10. Frey, Gary W. & Linke, Deborah M., 2002. "Hydropower as a renewable and sustainable energy resource meeting global energy challenges in a reasonable way," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(14), pages 1261-1265, November.
    11. Michael Siegrist & George Cvetkovich & Claudia Roth, 2000. "Salient Value Similarity, Social Trust, and Risk/Benefit Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(3), pages 353-362, June.
    12. Poortinga, Wouter & Aoyagi, Midori & Pidgeon, Nick F., 2013. "Public perceptions of climate change and energy futures before and after the Fukushima accident: A comparison between Britain and Japan," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1204-1211.
    13. Toke, Dave, 2005. "Explaining wind power planning outcomes:: some findings from a study in England and Wales," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(12), pages 1527-1539, August.
    14. Greenberg, Michael, 2009. "Energy sources, public policy, and public preferences: Analysis of US national and site-specific data," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 3242-3249, August.
    15. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, January.
    16. Bronfman, Nicolás C. & Jiménez, Raquel B. & Arévalo, Pilar C. & Cifuentes, Luis A., 2012. "Understanding social acceptance of electricity generation sources," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 246-252.
    17. Kyung-Shin Kim, 2018. "Changes in Risk Perception of Seoul National University Students in Nuclear Power under Opposing Government Policy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-14, July.
    18. Visschers, Vivianne H.M. & Keller, Carmen & Siegrist, Michael, 2011. "Climate change benefits and energy supply benefits as determinants of acceptance of nuclear power stations: Investigating an explanatory model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3621-3629, June.
    19. Agterbosch, Susanne & Glasbergen, Pieter & Vermeulen, Walter J.V., 2007. "Social barriers in wind power implementation in The Netherlands: Perceptions of wind power entrepreneurs and local civil servants of institutional and social conditions in realizing wind power project," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 11(6), pages 1025-1055, August.
    20. Roh, Seungkook & Lee, Jin Won, 2018. "Differentiated effects of risk perception dimensions on nuclear power acceptance in South Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 727-735.
    21. Jaesun Wang & Seoyong Kim, 2018. "Comparative Analysis of Public Attitudes toward Nuclear Power Energy across 27 European Countries by Applying the Multilevel Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-21, May.
    22. Kontogianni, A. & Tourkolias, Ch. & Skourtos, M. & Damigos, D., 2014. "Planning globally, protesting locally: Patterns in community perceptions towards the installation of wind farms," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 170-177.
    23. Wustenhagen, Rolf & Wolsink, Maarten & Burer, Mary Jean, 2007. "Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2683-2691, May.
    24. Michael Greenberg & Heather Barnes Truelove, 2011. "Energy Choices and Risk Beliefs: Is It Just Global Warming and Fear of a Nuclear Power Plant Accident?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(5), pages 819-831, May.
    25. Llera, E. & Scarpellini, S. & Aranda, A. & Zabalza, I., 2013. "Forecasting job creation from renewable energy deployment through a value-chain approach," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 262-271.
    26. Howard Kunreuther & Doug Easterling, 1996. "The role of compensation in siting hazardous facilities," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(4), pages 601-622.
    27. Paish, Oliver, 2002. "Small hydro power: technology and current status," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 6(6), pages 537-556, December.
    28. Rojanamon, Pannathat & Chaisomphob, Taweep & Bureekul, Thawilwadee, 2009. "Application of geographical information system to site selection of small run-of-river hydropower project by considering engineering/economic/environmental criteria and social impact," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 13(9), pages 2336-2348, December.
    29. 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.
    30. Cohen, Jed J. & Reichl, Johannes & Schmidthaler, Michael, 2014. "Re-focussing research efforts on the public acceptance of energy infrastructure: A critical review," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 4-9.
    31. Xiaoxia Zhang & Tonggang Zha & Yun Zhao & Jing Qin & Zhiyuan Lyv & Zhijie Ma & Haiyan Yu & Yushen Zhu & Gaomin Wang & Felix Tettenborn & Benedikt Freiherr von Lueninck, 2017. "Sustainable Effects of Small Hydropower Substituting Firewood Program in Majiang County, Guizhou Province, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-16, June.
    32. 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.
    33. Sooriyaarachchi, Thilanka M. & Tsai, I-Tsung & El Khatib, Sameh & Farid, Amro M. & Mezher, Toufic, 2015. "Job creation potentials and skill requirements in, PV, CSP, wind, water-to-energy and energy efficiency value chains," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 653-668.
    34. Aaen, Sara Bjørn & Kerndrup, Søren & Lyhne, Ivar, 2016. "Beyond public acceptance of energy infrastructure: How citizens make sense and form reactions by enacting networks of entities in infrastructure development," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 576-586.
    35. Joshua M. Pearce, 2012. "Limitations of Nuclear Power as a Sustainable Energy Source," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(6), pages 1-15, June.
    36. Alexa Spence & Wouter Poortinga & Nick Pidgeon & Irene Lorenzoni, 2010. "Public Perceptions of Energy Choices: The Influence of Beliefs about Climate Change and the Environment," Energy & Environment, , vol. 21(5), pages 385-407, September.
    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. Lee, You-Kyung, 2020. "Sustainability of nuclear energy in Korea: From the users’ perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    2. Seungkook Roh & Jae Young Choi, 2020. "Exploring Signals for a Nuclear Future Using Social Big Data," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-16, July.

    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. Langer, Katharina & Decker, Thomas & Roosen, Jutta & Menrad, Klaus, 2016. "A qualitative analysis to understand the acceptance of wind energy in Bavaria," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 248-259.
    2. Anshelm, Jonas & Simon, Haikola, 2016. "Power production and environmental opinions – Environmentally motivated resistance to wind power in Sweden," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 1545-1555.
    3. 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.
    4. Gordon, Joel A. & Balta-Ozkan, Nazmiye & Nabavi, Seyed Ali, 2022. "Beyond the triangle of renewable energy acceptance: The five dimensions of domestic hydrogen acceptance," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 324(C).
    5. Simón, Xavier & Copena, Damián & Montero, María, 2019. "Strong wind development with no community participation. The case of Galicia (1995–2009)," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    6. Norifumi Tsujikawa & Shoji Tsuchida & Takamasa Shiotani, 2016. "Changes in the Factors Influencing Public Acceptance of Nuclear Power Generation in Japan Since the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 98-113, January.
    7. Seungkook Roh & Hae-Gyung Geong, 2021. "Extending the Coverage of the Trust–Acceptability Model: The Negative Effect of Trust in Government on Nuclear Power Acceptance in South Korea under a Nuclear Phase-Out Policy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-19, June.
    8. Wang, Yu & Gu, Jibao & Wu, Jianlin, 2020. "Explaining local residents’ acceptance of rebuilding nuclear power plants: The roles of perceived general benefit and perceived local benefit," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    9. Lee, You-Kyung, 2020. "Sustainability of nuclear energy in Korea: From the users’ perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    10. Qingchang Li & Seungkook Roh & Jin Won Lee, 2020. "Segmenting the South Korean Public According to Their Preferred Direction for Electricity Mix Reform," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-17, October.
    11. Uji, Azusa & Prakash, Aseem & Song, Jaehyun, 2021. "Does the “NIMBY syndrome” undermine public support for nuclear power in Japan?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 148(PA).
    12. Bergek, Anna, 2010. "Levelling the playing field? The influence of national wind power planning instruments on conflicts of interests in a Swedish county," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 2357-2369, May.
    13. Lienert, Pascal & Suetterlin, Bernadette & Siegrist, Michael, 2015. "Public acceptance of the expansion and modification of high-voltage power lines in the context of the energy transition," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 573-583.
    14. Bjoern Hagen & Adenike Opejin & K. David Pijawka, 2022. "Risk Perceptions and Amplification Effects over Time: Evaluating Fukushima Longitudinal Surveys," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-18, June.
    15. Landeta-Manzano, Beñat & Arana-Landín, Germán & Calvo, Pilar M. & Heras-Saizarbitoria, Iñaki, 2018. "Wind energy and local communities: A manufacturer’s efforts to gain acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 314-324.
    16. Mayeda, A.M. & Boyd, A.D., 2020. "Factors influencing public perceptions of hydropower projects: A systematic literature review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    17. Jaeyoung Lim & Kuk-Kyoung Moon, 2021. "Can Political Trust Weaken the Relationship between Perceived Environmental Threats and Perceived Nuclear Threats? Evidence from South Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(18), pages 1-13, September.
    18. Ioannidis, Romanos & Koutsoyiannis, Demetris, 2020. "A review of land use, visibility and public perception of renewable energy in the context of landscape impact," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    19. Cousse, Julia, 2021. "Still in love with solar energy? Installation size, affect, and the social acceptance of renewable energy technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    20. Knoblauch, Theresa A.K. & Trutnevyte, Evelina & Stauffacher, Michael, 2019. "Siting deep geothermal energy: Acceptance of various risk and benefit scenarios in a Swiss-German cross-national study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 807-816.

    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:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:6:p:1530-:d:213558. 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.