Measuring the social value of nuclear energy using contingent valuation methodology

Jun, Eunju and Kim, Wonjoon and Jeong, Yong Hoon and Chang, Soon-Heung (2009): Measuring the social value of nuclear energy using contingent valuation methodology. Published in: Energy Policy , Vol. 38, (January 2010): pp. 1470-1476.

Abstract

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.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Social Value, Nuclear Energy, CVM, Public Acceptance
• Subjects: Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q0 - General; Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q4 - Energy > Q40 - General; Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q4 - Energy > Q48 - Government Policy

References

Aabø, S., Strand, S., 2000. Public Library Assessment and Motivation by Altruism. Eleventh Annual Conference on Cultural Economics, Minneapolis, mimeo.

Bateman, I. J., Diamand, E., Langford, I. H., Jones, A., 1996. Hoursehold Willingness to Pay and Farmers' Willingness to Accept Compensation for Establishing a Recreational Woodland. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 39, 21-44.

Bergstrom, J., Dillman, B., Stoll, J., 1985. Public Environment Amenity Benefits of Private Land: the Case of Prime Agricultural Land. Journal of Agricultural Economics 17, 139-149.

Bille-Hansen, T., 1997. The Willingness-To-Pay for the Royal Theatre in Copenhagen as a Public Good. Journal of Cultural Economics 21, 1-28.

Biship, R.C., Herberlein, T. A., Kealy, M. J., 1983. Contingent Valuation of Environmental Assets: Comparisons with a Simulated Market. Natural Resources Journal 23, 619-633.

Bravi, M., Scarpa, R., Sirchia, G., 1998. Measuring WTP for Cultural Services in Italian Museums: a Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Analysis, Tenth International Conference on Cultural Economics, Barcelona.

Cameron, T. A., James, D., 1987. Efficient Estimation Method for Closed-ended Contingent Valuation Surveys. Review of Economics and Statistics 69, 269-276.

Carson, R. T., Flores, N. E., Martin, K. M., Wright, J. L., 1996. Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preference Methodologies: Comparing the Estimates for Quasi-Public Goods. Land Economics 72, 80-99.

Carson, R. T., Flores, N. E., Meade, N. F., 2001. Contingent Valuation: Contreversies and Evidence. Environmental and Resource Economics 19, 173-210.

Carson, R. T., Groves, T., 2007. Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environmental and Resource Economics 37, 181-210.

Carson, R. T., Hanemann, W. M. (Eds.), 2005. Contingent valuation. Handbook of Environmental Economics, Volume 2. Edited by K. G. Mäler and J. R. Vincent. Chapter 17, 821-936, Elsevier.

Ehrenberg, A., Mills, P., 1990. 'Viewers' Willingness to Pay - A Research Report, Broadcast, London.

Farrel, A. E., Plevin, R. J., Turner, B. T., Jones, A. D., O'Hare, M., Kammen, D., 2006. Ethanol Can Contribute to Energy and Environmental Goals. Science 311, 506-508.

Gerking, S., Haan, M., Shulze, W. D., 1988. The Marginal Value of Job Safety: A Contingent Valu Study. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1, 185-199.

Golay, M. W., 2001. A Policy Framework for Micro-Nuclear Technology, New Energy Technology. The James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy of Rice University, Huston.

Gordon, I. M., Knetsch, J., 1979. Consumers Surplus and the Evaluation of Resources. Land Economics 55, 1-10.

Hanemann, W. M., 1984. Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66, 332-341.

IEA, 2007. World Energy Outlook, International Energy Agency.

Kim, H. J., Jun, E. J., Chang, S. H., Kim, W. J., 2009. An Assessment of the Effectiveness of Fuel Cycle Technologies for the National Energy Security Enhancement in the Electricity Sector. Annals of Nuclear Energy 36, 604-611.

Knetsch, J. L., 2005. Gains, Losses, and the U.S. EPA Economic Analysis Guidelines: A Hazardous Product? Environmental and Resource Economics 32, 91-112.

Kovacs, P., Gordelier, S., 2009. Nuclear Power and the Public, NEA News, Facts and Opinions. Nuclear Energy Agency.

Lee, Y. E., 2006. Analysis on the role of various power generation resources for the sustainable development of Korean electric industry, International conference on sustainable energy and environment, Bangkok, Thailand.

McVeigh, J., Burtruw, D., Darmstadter, J., Palmer, K., 2000. Winner, loser, or innocent victim? Has renewable energy performed as expected? Solar Energy 68, 237-255.

Mitchell, R. C., Carson, R. T., 1989. Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Resources for the Future, Washington, D. C. .

Olsen, J. A., Smith, R. D., 2001. Theory versus Practice: a Review of "Willingness to Pay" in Health and Health Case. Health Economics 10, 39-52.

Protière, C., Donaldson, C., Luchini, S., Moatti, J. P., Shackley, P., 2004. The Impact of Information on Non-health Attributes on Willingness to Pay for Multiple Health Care Programmes. Social Science & Medicine 58, 1257-1269.

Spash, C. L., 2006. Non-economic Motivation for Contingent Values: Rights and Attitudinal Beliefs in the Willingness to Pay for Environmental Improvements. Land Economics 82, 602-622.

Tyner, W. E., 2007. Policy Alternatives for the Future Biofuels Industry. Journal of Agricultural and Food Industrial Organization 5, 1-13.

Vatn, A., 2004. Environmental Valuationand Rationality. Land Economics 80, 1-18.