IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Residential preferences for stable electricity supply and a reduction in air pollution risk: a benefit transfer study using choice modeling in China

  • Taro Ohdoko

    ()

  • Satoru Komatsu

    ()

  • Shinji Kaneko

    ()

This paper uses choice modeling surveys from the Chinese cities of Jiujiang, Jiangxi Province, and Changsha, Hunan Province, to identify residential preferences for simultaneously increasing the stability of the electricity supply and decreasing the health risks from air pollution. Air pollution in China is mainly attributable to externalities associated with the electricity supply. We employ a contingent ranking approach as our choice modeling method and test for the transfer of benefits for these preferences between the two sites. The original benefit estimates indicate that the implicit price for reducing the number of power breakdowns is about RMB 83 per times × year × household in Jiujiang and RMB 78 per times × year × household in Changsha, while the implicit price for reducing the duration of power breakdowns is statistically zero in Jiujiang and RMB 71 per times × year × household in Changsha. From the alternative perspective, we estimate that the annualized value of the statistical lifetime risk of cancer caused by air pollution over a 70-year period is RMB 50,844 per year in Jiujiang and RMB 67,146 per year in Changsha. This suggests that we do not reject benefit transferability based on the implicit price of the number of power breakdowns, but do reject it based on the number of deaths from cancer caused by air pollution. Copyright Springer Japan 2013

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10018-013-0061-y
Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS in its journal Environmental Economics and Policy Studies.

Volume (Year): 15 (2013)
Issue (Month): 3 (July)
Pages: 309-328

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:spr:envpol:v:15:y:2013:i:3:p:309-328
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.seeps.org/Email:


More information through EDIRC

Order Information: Web: http://link.springer.de/orders.htm

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. Morrison, Mark & Bergland, Olvar, 2006. "Prospects for the use of choice modelling for benefit transfer," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 420-428, December.
  2. Dominika Parry Dziegielewska & Robert Mendelsohn, 2005. "Valuing Air Quality in Poland," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(2), pages 131-163, 02.
  3. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2003. "A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 681-698, September.
  4. Eli P. Fenichel & Frank Lupi & John P. Hoehn & Michael D. Kaplowitz, 2009. "Split-Sample Tests of "No Opinion" Responses in an Attribute-Based Choice Model," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(2), pages 348-362.
  5. Robert Johnston & Joshua Duke, 2008. "Benefit Transfer Equivalence Tests with Non-normal Distributions," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 41(1), pages 1-23, September.
  6. 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 715-19, November.
  7. Fredrik Carlsson & Peter Martinsson, 2007. "Willingness to Pay among Swedish Households to Avoid Power Outages: A Random Parameter Tobit Model Approach," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 1), pages 75-90.
  8. James Hammitt & Ying Zhou, 2006. "The Economic Value of Air-Pollution-Related Health Risks in China: A Contingent Valuation Study," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 33(3), pages 399-423, 03.
  9. Beggs, S. & Cardell, S. & Hausman, J., 1981. "Assessing the potential demand for electric cars," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 1-19, September.
  10. Yuan, Jiahai & Zhao, Changhong & Yu, Shunkun & Hu, Zhaoguang, 2007. "Electricity consumption and economic growth in China: Cointegration and co-feature analysis," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 1179-1191, November.
  11. Söderberg, Magnus, 2008. "A choice modelling analysis on the similarity between distribution utilities' and industrial customers' price and quality preferences," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 1246-1262, May.
  12. Yang, Ming & Yu, Xin, 1996. "China's power management," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(8), pages 735-757, August.
  13. Sujitra Vassanadumrongdee & Shunji Matsuoka, 2005. "Risk Perceptions and Value of a Statistical Life for Air Pollution and Traffic Accidents: Evidence from Bangkok, Thailand," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 261-287, May.
  14. Liu, Deshun & Wang, Youhong & Zhou, Aiming & Zhang, Shurong, 1997. "Cost-benefit analysis on IRP/DSM application -- a case study in Shanghai," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(10), pages 837-843, August.
  15. Baskaran, Ramesh & Cullen, Ross & Colombo, Sergio, 2010. "Testing different types of benefit transfer in valuation of ecosystem services: New Zealand winegrowing case studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1010-1022, March.
  16. 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.
  17. Wang, Bing, 2007. "An imbalanced development of coal and electricity industries in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 4959-4968, October.
  18. Johnston, Robert J. & Duke, Joshua M., 2010. "Socioeconomic adjustments and choice experiment benefit function transfer: Evaluating the common wisdom," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 421-438, August.
  19. Bollen, Johannes & van der Zwaan, Bob & Brink, Corjan & Eerens, Hans, 2009. "Local air pollution and global climate change: A combined cost-benefit analysis," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 161-181, August.
  20. Gregory L. Poe & Kelly L. Giraud & John B. Loomis, 2005. "Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(2), pages 353-365.
  21. Matsukawa, Isamu & Fujii, Yoshifumi, 1994. "Customer Preferences for Reliable Power Supply: Using Data on Actual Choices of Back-Up Equipment," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 76(3), pages 434-46, August.
  22. Sergio Colombo & Javier Calatrava-Requena & Nick Hanley, 2007. "Testing Choice Experiment for Benefit Transfer with Preference Heterogeneity," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(1), pages 135-151.
  23. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
  24. Mandy Ryan & Diane Skåtun, 2004. "Modelling non-demanders in choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(4), pages 397-402.
  25. Arianne de Blaeij & Paulo Nunes & Jeroen C. J. M. van den Bergh, 2007. "'No-choice' options within a nested logit model: one model is insufficient," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(10), pages 1245-1252.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:envpol:v:15:y:2013:i:3:p:309-328. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Guenther Eichhorn)

or (Christopher F Baum)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.