IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Measuring the social value of nuclear energy using contingent valuation methodology


  • Jun, Eunju
  • Kim, Wonjoon
  • Jeong, Yong Hoon
  • Chang, Soon-Heung


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.

Suggested Citation

  • Jun, Eunju & Kim, Wonjoon & Jeong, Yong Hoon & Chang, Soon-Heung, 2009. "Measuring the social value of nuclear energy using contingent valuation methodology," MPRA Paper 49668, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:49668

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Trine Hansen, 1997. "The Willingness-to-Pay for the Royal Theatre in Copenhagen as a Public Good," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 21(1), pages 1-28, March.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    5. Arild Vatn, 2004. "Environmental Valuation and Rationality," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 80(1), pages 1-18.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Bergstrom, John C. & Dillman, B. L. & Stoll, John R., 1985. "Public Environmental Amenity Benefits of Private Land: The Case of Prime Agricultural Land," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(01), pages 139-149, July.
    10. 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 269-276, May.
    11. 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 185-199, June.
    12. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Roh, Seungkook & Kim, Wonjoon, 2014. "How can Korea secure uranium enrichment and spent fuel reprocessing rights?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 195-198.
    2. Sun, Chuanwang & Zhu, Xiting, 2014. "Evaluating the public perceptions of nuclear power in China: Evidence from a contingent valuation survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 397-405.
    3. Contu, Davide & Strazzera, Elisabetta & Mourato, Susana, 2016. "Modeling individual preferences for energy sources: The case of IV generation nuclear energy in Italy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 37-58.
    4. 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.
    5. repec:eee:enepol:v:109:y:2017:i:c:p:218-227 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Sun, Chuanwang & Zhu, Xiting & Meng, Xiaochun, 2016. "Post-Fukushima public acceptance on resuming the nuclear power program in China," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 685-694.
    7. Soon, Jan-Jan & Ahmad, Siti-Aznor, 2015. "Willingly or grudgingly? A meta-analysis on the willingness-to-pay for renewable energy use," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 877-887.
    8. Liao, Shu-Yi & Tseng, Wei-Chun & Chen, Chi-Chung, 2010. "Eliciting public preference for nuclear energy against the backdrop of global warming," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(11), pages 7054-7069, November.
    9. Kim, Younghwan & Kim, Wonjoon & Kim, Minki, 2014. "An international comparative analysis of public acceptance of nuclear energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 475-483.
    10. Chuanwang Sun & Nan Lyu & Xiaoling Ouyang, 2014. "Chinese Public Willingness to Pay to Avoid Having Nuclear Power Plants in the Neighborhood," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 6(10), pages 1-27, October.
    11. AlFarra, Hasan Jamil & Abu-Hijleh, Bassam, 2012. "The potential role of nuclear energy in mitigating CO2 emissions in the United Arab Emirates," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 272-285.
    12. repec:eee:juipol:v:46:y:2017:i:c:p:48-57 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Kostakis, I. & Sardianou, E., 2012. "Which factors affect the willingness of tourists to pay for renewable energy?," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 169-172.
    14. Morita, Tamaki & Managi, Shunsuke, 2015. "Consumers’ willingness to pay for electricity after the Great East Japan Earthquake," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 82-105.
    15. Lin, Boqiang & Tan, Ruipeng, 2017. "Estimation of the environmental values of electric vehicles in Chinese cities," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 221-229.

    More about this item


    Social Value; Nuclear Energy; CVM; Public Acceptance;

    JEL classification:

    • Q0 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - General
    • Q40 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - General
    • Q48 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Government Policy


    Access and download statistics


    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: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). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.