Measuring the social value of nuclear energy using contingent valuation methodology
As one of the promising energy sources for the next few decades, nuclear energy receives more attention than before as environmental issues become more important and the supply of fossil fuels becomes unstable. One of the reasons for this attention is based on the rapid innovation of nuclear technology which solves many of its technological constraints and safety issues. However, regardless of these rapid innovations, social acceptance for nuclear energy has been relatively low and unchanged. Consequently, the social perception has often been an obstacle to the development and execution of nuclear policy requiring enormous subsidies which are not based on the social value of nuclear energy. Therefore, in this study, we estimate the social value of nuclear energy-consumers’ willingness-to-pay for nuclear energy—using the Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) and suggest that the social value of nuclear energy increases approximately 68.5% with the provision of adequate information about nuclear energy to the public. Consequently, we suggest that the social acceptance management in nuclear policy development is important along with nuclear technology innovation.
|Date of creation:||22 Sep 2009|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Ludwigstraße 33, D-80539 Munich, Germany|
Web page: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Tyner Wallace E., 2007. "Policy Alternatives for the Future Biofuels Industry," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 5(2), pages 1-13, December.
- Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001.
"Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence,"
Environmental & Resource Economics,
European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
- Carson, Richard T & Flores, Nicholas A, 2000. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series qt75k752s7, Department of Economics, UC San Diego.
- W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
- Gerking, Shelby & de Haan, Menno & Schulze, William, 1988. " The Marginal Value of Job Safety: A Contingent Valuation Study," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 185-99, June.
- Irene M. Gordon & Jack L. Knetsch, 1979. "Consumer's Surplus Measures and the Evaluation of Resources," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 55(1), pages 1-10.
- Arild Vatn, 2004. "Environmental Valuation and Rationality," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 80(1), pages 1-18.
- Cameron, Trudy Ann & James, Michelle D, 1987.
"Efficient Estimation Methods for "Closed-ended' Contingent Valuation Surveys,"
The Review of Economics and Statistics,
MIT Press, vol. 69(2), pages 269-76, May.
- Trudy Ann Cameron & Michelle D. James, 1986. "Efficient Estimation Methods for "Closed-Ended" Contingent Valuation Surveys," UCLA Economics Working Papers 404, UCLA Department of Economics.
- Trine Hansen, 1997. "The Willingness-to-Pay for the Royal Theatre in Copenhagen as a Public Good," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 1-28, March.
- Bergstrom, John C. & Dillman, B.L. & Stoll, John R., 1985. "Public Environmental Amenity Benefits Of Private Land: The Case Of Prime Agricultural Land," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 17(01), July.
- Carson, Richard T. & Flores, Nicholas E. & Martin, Kerry M. & Wright, Jennifer L., 1995.
"Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preference Methodologies: Comparing the Estimates for Quasi-Public Goods,"
1995 Conference (39th), February 14-16, 1995, Perth, Australia
148793, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
- Richard T. Carson & Nicholas E. Flores & Kerry M. Martin & Jennifer L. Wright, 1996. "Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preference Methodologies: Comparing the Estimates for Quasi-Public Goods," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(1), pages 80-99.
- Carson, Richard T. & Hanemann, W. Michael, 2006. "Contingent Valuation," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 17, pages 821-936 Elsevier.
- Jack Knetsch, 2005. "Gains, Losses, and the US-EPA Economic Analyses Guidelines: A Hazardous Product?," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 32(1), pages 91-112, 09.
- Jan Abel Olsen & Richard D. Smith, 2001. "Theory versus practice: a review of 'willingness-to-pay' in health and health care," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(1), pages 39-52.
- Carson, Richard T & Groves, Theodore, 2010.
"Incentive and Information Properties of Preference Questions,"
University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series
qt88d8644g, Department of Economics, UC San Diego.
- Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
- Clive L. Spash, 2006. "Non-Economic Motivation for Contingent Values: Rights and Attitudinal Beliefs in the Willingness To Pay for Environmental Improvements," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(4), pages 602-622.
- Burtraw, Dallas & Palmer, Karen & Darmstadter, Joel & McVeigh, James, 1999. "Winner, Loser, or Innocent Victim? Has Renewable Energy Performed As Expected?," Discussion Papers dp-99-28, Resources For the Future.
- Protière, Christel & Donaldson, Cam & Luchini, Stéphane & Paul Moatti, Jean & Shackley, Phil, 2004. "The impact of information on non-health attributes on willingness to pay for multiple health care programmes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 58(7), pages 1257-1269, April.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:49668. 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: (Joachim Winter)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.