IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i24p16713-d1297495.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Regional Differences in Willingness to Pay for Mitigation of Air Pollution from Coal-Fired Power Plants in South Korea

Author

Listed:
  • Dmitriy Li

    (Department of Economics, Chonnam National University, Gwangju 61186, Republic of Korea)

  • Meenakshi Rishi

    (Department of Economics, Seattle University, Seattle, WA 98122, USA)

  • Jeong Hwan Bae

    (Department of Economics, Chonnam National University, Gwangju 61186, Republic of Korea)

Abstract

This study examined whether people who reside in different regions of South Korea exhibit different WTP for the mitigation of PM2.5 emissions from coal-fired power plants by restricting their operation during the winter and spring when air pollution becomes severe. The eastern portions of the country are relatively insulated from the harmful effects of PM2.5 emissions due to northwest winds which cause air pollutants generated from coal-fired power plants to be carried out to the East Sea (Sea of Japan). Consequently, our sample group was divided into central, western, eastern, and southern regions, and a contingent valuation method, combined with a double-bounded dichotomous choice, was used to derive people’s WTP for the mitigation of PM2.5 emissions. Our estimation results indicated that respondents who live in eastern regions showed a significantly lower WTP (about KRW 1280/month) than the mean WTP of other regions (above KRW 1337/month). Thus, we suggest that the current Seasonal Management System of PM2.5 emissions should be modified to consider regional differences. Statistical results from this study reinforce our suggestions—almost 78 percent of survey respondents support a revision of the current SMS policy and are in favor of a revised SMS policy—one that exempts eastern regions from a nationwide shutdown of coal-fired generation from December to March. Exempting coal-fired power plants in eastern regions from the Seasonal Management System might result in significant fiscal savings without a corresponding increase in nationwide PM2.5 concentrations.

Suggested Citation

  • Dmitriy Li & Meenakshi Rishi & Jeong Hwan Bae, 2023. "Regional Differences in Willingness to Pay for Mitigation of Air Pollution from Coal-Fired Power Plants in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(24), pages 1-17, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:24:p:16713-:d:1297495
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/24/16713/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/24/16713/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hu, Wuyang, 2006. "Use of Spike Models in Measuring Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Non-GM Oil," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 38(3), pages 1-14, December.
    2. Richard C. Ready & Jean C. Buzby & Dayuan Hu, 1996. "Differences between Continuous and Discrete Contingent Value Estimates," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(3), pages 397-411.
    3. Michael Hanemann & John Loomis & Barbara Kanninen, 1991. "Statistical Efficiency of Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 73(4), pages 1255-1263.
    4. Barbara J. Kanninen, 1993. "Optimal Experimental Design for Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 69(2), pages 138-146.
    5. Joseph C. Cooper & Michael Hanemann & Giovanni Signorello, 2002. "One-and-One-Half-Bound Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 84(4), pages 742-750, November.
    6. Pinuccia Calia & Elisabetta Strazzera, 2000. "Bias and efficiency of single versus double bound models for contingent valuation studies: a Monte Carlo analysis," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(10), pages 1329-1336.
    7. Jayson L. Lusk & Darren Hudson, 2004. "Willingness-to-Pay Estimates and Their Relevance to Agribusiness Decision Making," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 26(2), pages 152-169.
    8. Bishop, Richard C. & Heberlein, Thomas A., 1979. "Measuring Values Of Extramarket Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased?," 1979 Annual Meeting, July 29-August 1, Pullman, Washington 277818, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    9. Wang, Hua & He, Jie & Huang, Desheng, 2020. "Public distrust and valuation biases: Identification and calibration with contingent valuation studies of two air quality improvement programs in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    10. Richard C. Bishop & Thomas A. Heberlein, 1979. "Measuring Values of Extramarket Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 61(5), pages 926-930.
    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. Kwideok Han & Jeffrey Vitale & Yong-Geon Lee & Inbae Ji, 2022. "Measuring the Economic Value of the Negative Externality of Livestock Malodor in South Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-13, August.
    2. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    3. Rong-Chang Jou & Yuan-Chan Wu & Ke-Hong Chen, 2011. "Analysis of the environmental benefits of a motorcycle idling stop policy at urban intersections," Transportation, Springer, vol. 38(6), pages 1017-1033, November.
    4. Kim, GwanSeon & Petrolia, Daniel R. & Interis, Matthew G., 2012. "A Method for Improving Welfare Estimates from Multiple-Referendum Surveys," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 37(2), pages 1-12, August.
    5. Jung-Eun Kim & Jungsung Yeo, 2010. "Valuation of Consumers’ Personal Information: A South Korean Example," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 297-306, September.
    6. Zapata, Samuel D. & Carpio, Carlos E., . "Distribution-Free Methods to Estimate Willingness to Pay Models Using Discrete Response Valuation Data," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 49(1).
    7. Gebretsadik, Kidanemariam Abreha & Romstad, Eirik, 2020. "Climate and farmers’ willingness to pay for improved irrigation water supply," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 20(C).
    8. José L Oviedo & Pablo Campos & Alejandro Caparrós, 2022. "Contingent valuation of landowner demand for forest amenities: application in Andalusia, Spain," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(3), pages 615-643.
    9. Dahal, Ram P. & Grala, Robert K. & Gordon, Jason S. & Petrolia, Daniel R. & Munn, Ian A., 2018. "Estimating the willingness to pay to preserve waterfront open spaces using contingent valuation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 614-626.
    10. Kuo-Cheng Hsu, 2020. "House Prices in the Peripheries of Mass Rapid Transit Stations Using the Contingent Valuation Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-21, October.
    11. Richard Bennett & Douglas Larson, 1996. "Contingent Valuation Of The Perceived Benefits Of Farm Animal Welfare Legislation: An Exploratory Survey," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(1‐4), pages 224-235, January.
    12. Tian, Xu & Yu, Xiaohua & Holst, Rainer, 2011. "Applying the payment card approach to estimate the WTP for green food in China," IAMO Forum 2011: Will the "BRICs Decade" Continue? – Prospects for Trade and Growth 23, Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Central and Eastern Europe (IAMO).
    13. Hanemann, W. Michael & Kanninen, Barbara, 1996. "The Statistical Analysis Of Discrete-Response Cv Data," CUDARE Working Papers 25022, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    14. Jesus Barreiro & Mercedes Sanchez & Montserrat Viladrich-Grau, 2005. "How much are people willing to pay for silence? A contingent valuation study," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(11), pages 1233-1246.
    15. Chin-Huang Huang & Chiung-Hsia Wang, 2015. "Estimating the Total Economic Value of Cultivated Flower Land in Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-19, April.
    16. Talwar, Shagorika, 1995. "An evaluation of statistical efficiency and bias trade-off involved with the use of follow-up questioning in the contingent valuation of environmental amenities," ISU General Staff Papers 1995010108000018160, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    17. DeShazo, J. R., 2002. "Designing Transactions without Framing Effects in Iterative Question Formats," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 360-385, May.
    18. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    19. Pere Riera & Raúl Brey & Guillermo Gándara, 2008. "Bid design for non-parametric contingent valuation with a single bounded dichotomous choice format," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 186(3), pages 43-60, October.
    20. Waranan Tantiwat & Christopher Gan & Wei Yang, 2021. "The Estimation of the Willingness to Pay for Air-Quality Improvement in Thailand," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-23, November.

    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:15:y:2023:i:24:p:16713-:d:1297495. 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.