IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i21p9053-d437789.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Segmenting the South Korean Public According to Their Preferred Direction for Electricity Mix Reform

Author

Listed:
  • Qingchang Li

    (Marketing Department, School of Business Administration, Jimei University, Xiamen 361021, China)

  • Seungkook Roh

    (Department of Public Administration, Korean National Police University, Asan 31539, Korea)

  • Jin Won Lee

    (Marketing Department, School of Business Administration, Jimei University, Xiamen 361021, China)

Abstract

The current South Korean government headed by President Moon Jae-in has put a great deal of effort into electricity mix reform by pushing forward the phasing out of coal and nuclear power and the expansion of natural gas and new renewable energy in the country’s electricity generation processes. Noting the importance of understanding public responses to energy policy, the present study segmented the South Korean public according to their preferred direction for electricity mix reform using a nationwide sample. Through a series of latent class analyses, we extracted four distinct segments: Gradual Reformists, Drastic Reformists, Selective Gradual Reformists, and Status-quo Seekers. Overall, apart from the Status-quo Seekers segment (8.75%), support for the transition from coal and nuclear power to natural gas and new renewable energy seems to be the prevailing opinion of the Korean public. However, the degree of such preferences varies across the segments. In addition, regardless of the segment, the South Korean public generally seems to categorize the energy sources in a manner consistent with the underlying framework of the government’s electricity mix reform: they tend to treat coal and nuclear power similarly and natural gas and new renewable energy similarly.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:21:p:9053-:d:437789
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/21/9053/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/21/9053/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alexander Maennel & Hyun-Goo Kim, 2018. "Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Reduction Potential through Renewable Energy Transition in South Korea and Germany," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-12, January.
    2. Choi, Sungyeol & Jun, Eunju & Hwang, IlSoon & Starz, Anne & Mazour, Tom & Chang, SoonHeung & Burkart, Alex R., 2009. "Fourteen lessons learned from the successful nuclear power program of the Republic of Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(12), pages 5494-5508, December.
    3. Hyo-Jin Kim & Ju-Hee Kim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2018. "Do People Place More Value on Natural Gas Than Coal for Power Generation to Abate Particulate Matter Emissions? Evidence from South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-10, May.
    4. Unruh, Gregory C., 2000. "Understanding carbon lock-in," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(12), pages 817-830, October.
    5. Sharpton, Tara & Lawrence, Thomas & Hall, Margeret, 2020. "Drivers and barriers to public acceptance of future energy sources and grid expansion in the United States," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    6. Kim, Younghwan & Kim, Minki & Kim, Wonjoon, 2013. "Effect of the Fukushima nuclear disaster on global public acceptance of nuclear energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 822-828.
    7. 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.
    8. Chung, Ji-Bum & Kim, Eun-Sung, 2018. "Public perception of energy transition in Korea: Nuclear power, climate change, and party preference," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 137-144.
    9. Valentine, Scott Victor & Sovacool, Benjamin K., 2010. "The socio-political economy of nuclear power development in Japan and South Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(12), pages 7971-7979, December.
    10. Ellabban, Omar & Abu-Rub, Haitham & Blaabjerg, Frede, 2014. "Renewable energy resources: Current status, future prospects and their enabling technology," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 748-764.
    11. Gobong Choi & Eunnyeong Heo & Chul-Yong Lee, 2018. "Dynamic Economic Analysis of Subsidies for New and Renewable Energy in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-19, June.
    12. Drew Shindell & Christopher J. Smith, 2019. "Climate and air-quality benefits of a realistic phase-out of fossil fuels," Nature, Nature, vol. 573(7774), pages 408-411, September.
    13. 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.
    14. Christiansen, Atle Christer, 2002. "New renewable energy developments and the climate change issue: a case study of Norwegian politics," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 235-243, February.
    15. Sun-Jin Yun, 2012. "Nuclear power for climate mitigation? Contesting frames in Korean newspapers," Asia Europe Journal, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 57-73, May.
    16. 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.
    17. Choi, Hyunhong & Shin, Jungwoo & Woo, JongRoul, 2018. "Effect of electricity generation mix on battery electric vehicle adoption and its environmental impact," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 13-24.
    18. Sungkyun Ha & Sungho Tae & Rakhyun Kim, 2019. "A Study on the Limitations of South Korea’s National Roadmap for Greenhouse Gas Reduction by 2030 and Suggestions for Improvement," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-18, July.
    19. Gibbins, Jon & Chalmers, Hannah, 2008. "Carbon capture and storage," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(12), pages 4317-4322, December.
    20. 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.
    21. Gu Choi, Dong & Yong Park, Sang & Park, Nyun-Bae & Chul Hong, Jong, 2015. "Is the concept of ‘grid parity’ defined appropriately to evaluate the cost-competitiveness of renewable energy technologies?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 718-728.
    22. Chung, Ji-Bum, 2020. "Public deliberation on the national nuclear energy policy in Korea – Small successes but bigger challenges," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    23. Bhowmik, Chiranjib & Bhowmik, Sumit & Ray, Amitava, 2018. "Social acceptance of green energy determinants using principal component analysis," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 1030-1046.
    24. 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.
    25. Ryoko Nakano & Tomio Miwa & Takayuki Morikawa, 2018. "Comparative Analysis on Citizen’s Subjective Responses Related to Their Willingness to Pay for Renewable Energy in Japan Using Latent Variables," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-14, July.
    26. Sung-Yoon Huh & Chul-Yong Lee, 2017. "A Demand-Side Perspective on Developing a Future Electricity Generation Mix: Identifying Heterogeneity in Social Preferences," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-19, 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. 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.
    2. Maria Guadalupe Garcia-Garza & Jeyle Ortiz-Rodriguez & Esteban Picazzo-Palencia & Nora Munguia & Luis Velazquez, 2023. "The 2013 Mexican Energy Reform in the Context of Sustainable Development Goal 7," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-24, October.
    3. Linda A. Selvey & Morris Carpenter & Mattea Lazarou & Katherine Cullerton, 2022. "Communicating about Energy Policy in a Resource-Rich Jurisdiction during the Climate Crisis: Lessons from the People of Brisbane, Queensland, Australia," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(8), pages 1-12, April.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Kwak, Kiho & Yoon, Hyungseok (David), 2020. "Unpacking transnational industry legitimacy dynamics, windows of opportunity, and latecomers’ catch-up in complex product systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(4).
    4. Cotterman, Turner & Small, Mitchell J. & Wilson, Stephen & Abdulla, Ahmed & Wong-Parodi, Gabrielle, 2021. "Applying risk tolerance and socio-technical dynamics for more realistic energy transition pathways," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 291(C).
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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).
    8. Avri Eitan & Gillad Rosen & Lior Herman & Itay Fishhendler, 2020. "Renewable Energy Entrepreneurs: A Conceptual Framework," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-23, May.
    9. Sonnberger, Marco & Ruddat, Michael, 2017. "Local and socio-political acceptance of wind farms in Germany," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 56-65.
    10. 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.
    11. Sütterlin, Bernadette & Siegrist, Michael, 2017. "Public acceptance of renewable energy technologies from an abstract versus concrete perspective and the positive imagery of solar power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 356-366.
    12. 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.
    13. Boyle, Evan & Galvin, Martin & Revez, Alexandra & Deane, Aoife & Ó Gallachóir, Brian & Mullally, Gerard, 2022. "Flexibility & structure: Community engagement on climate action & large infrastructure delivery," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    14. Yoonjung Oh & Seoyong Kim & Sohee Kim, 2022. "Searching for New Human Behavior Model in Explaining Energy Transition: Exploring the Impact of Value and Perception Factors on Inconsistency of Attitude toward Policy Support and Intention to Pay for," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(18), pages 1-26, September.
    15. Lyhne, Ivar & Aaen, Sara Bjørn & Nielsen, Helle & Kørnøv, Lone & Larsen, Sanne Vammen, 2018. "Citizens’ self-mobilization, motivational factors, and the group of most engaged citizens: The case of a radioactive waste repository in Denmark," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 433-442.
    16. Hogan, Jessica L. & Warren, Charles R. & Simpson, Michael & McCauley, Darren, 2022. "What makes local energy projects acceptable? Probing the connection between ownership structures and community acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    17. 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).
    18. Antoine Boche & Clément Foucher & Luiz Fernando Lavado Villa, 2022. "Understanding Microgrid Sustainability: A Systemic and Comprehensive Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-29, April.
    19. Schweizer, Pia-Johanna & Bovet, Jana, 2016. "The potential of public participation to facilitate infrastructure decision-making: Lessons from the German and European legal planning system for electricity grid expansion," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 64-73.
    20. Peura, Pekka, 2013. "From Malthus to sustainable energy—Theoretical orientations to reforming the energy sector," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 19(C), pages 309-327.

    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:12:y:2020:i:21:p:9053-:d:437789. 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.