IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v182y2023ics0301421523003312.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How far is it from your home? Strategic policy and management to overcome barriers of introducing fuel-cell power generation facilities

Author

Listed:
  • Kim, Kyungah
  • Moon, Sungho
  • Kim, Junghun

Abstract

The Korean government introduced the Hydrogen Portfolio Standard for expanding hydrogen fuel-cell power plants to complement the intermittency and volatility of solar photovoltaic and wind power. As for existing power plants, the public perceives fuel cell power plants as dangerous facilities. In this study, we examined the prevalence of the "Not in My Backyard (NIMBY)" phenomenon and the effect of information provision on public acceptance of power plants based on the choice experiment incorporating consumer behavior theory. Results showed that information regarding the construction and operation of power plants is essential for alleviating the NIMBY phenomenon. In addition, by reflecting on the expected separation distance for the power generation facility, loss avoidance behavior in which people become relatively more sensitive to having the plants closer to the residence was identified. Through various analysis results, this study presents policy and management strategies securing public acceptance toward expanding fuel cell power plants.

Suggested Citation

  • Kim, Kyungah & Moon, Sungho & Kim, Junghun, 2023. "How far is it from your home? Strategic policy and management to overcome barriers of introducing fuel-cell power generation facilities," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:182:y:2023:i:c:s0301421523003312
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2023.113746
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421523003312
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2023.113746?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lim, Sesil & Huh, Sung-Yoon & Shin, Jungwoo & Lee, Jongsu & Lee, Yong-Gil, 2019. "Enhancing public acceptance of renewable heat obligation policies in South Korea: Consumer preferences and policy implications," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 1167-1177.
    2. Gaker, David & Zheng, Yanding & Walker, Joan, 2010. "Experimental Economics in Transportation: A Focus on Social Influences and the Provision of Information," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt7vg9m3r1, University of California Transportation Center.
    3. Andrea Klinglmair & Markus Gilbert Bliem & Roy Brouwer, 2015. "Exploring the public value of increased hydropower use: a choice experiment study for Austria," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(3), pages 315-336, November.
    4. Lang, Ghislaine & Farsi, Mehdi & Lanz, Bruno & Weber, Sylvain, 2021. "Energy efficiency and heating technology investments: Manipulating financial information in a discrete choice experiment," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    5. Liebe, Ulf & Gewinner, Jennifer & Diekmann, Andreas, 2018. "What is missing in research on non-monetary incentives in the household energy sector?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 180-183.
    6. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April.
    7. Peter H. Feindt & P. Marijn Poortvliet, 2020. "Consumer reactions to unfamiliar technologies: mental and social formation of perceptions and attitudes toward nano and GM products," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(4), pages 475-489, April.
    8. van der Horst, Dan, 2007. "NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2705-2714, May.
    9. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, September.
    10. Martins, Fernando Ramos & Pereira, Enio Bueno, 2011. "Enhancing information for solar and wind energy technology deployment in Brazil," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 4378-4390, July.
    11. Vecchiato, Daniel & Tempesta, Tiziano, 2015. "Public preferences for electricity contracts including renewable energy: A marketing analysis with choice experiments," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 168-179.
    12. Lorenz Goette & David Huffman & Ernst Fehr, 2004. "Loss Aversion and Labor Supply," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 2(2-3), pages 216-228, 04/05.
    13. Edwards, P.P. & Kuznetsov, V.L. & David, W.I.F. & Brandon, N.P., 2008. "Hydrogen and fuel cells: Towards a sustainable energy future," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(12), pages 4356-4362, December.
    14. Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth & Johannes Wohlfart, 2023. "Designing Information Provision Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 61(1), pages 3-40, March.
    15. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Kuhn, Michael A., 2012. "Experimental methods: Between-subject and within-subject design," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 81(1), pages 1-8.
    16. Kim, Junghun & Seung, Hyunchan & Lee, Jongsu & Ahn, Joongha, 2020. "Asymmetric preference and loss aversion for electric vehicles: The reference-dependent choice model capturing different preference directions," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    17. Boeri, Marco & Longo, Alberto, 2017. "The importance of regret minimization in the choice for renewable energy programmes: Evidence from a discrete choice experiment," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 253-260.
    18. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-1061.
    19. Wensing, Joana & Caputo, Vincenzina & Carraresi, Laura & Bröring, Stefanie, 2020. "The effects of green nudges on consumer valuation of bio-based plastic packaging," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    20. Stigka, Eleni K. & Paravantis, John A. & Mihalakakou, Giouli K., 2014. "Social acceptance of renewable energy sources: A review of contingent valuation applications," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 100-106.
    21. Sharaf, Omar Z. & Orhan, Mehmet F., 2014. "An overview of fuel cell technology: Fundamentals and applications," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 810-853.
    22. Raluca-Andreea Felseghi & Elena Carcadea & Maria Simona Raboaca & Cătălin Nicolae TRUFIN & Constantin Filote, 2019. "Hydrogen Fuel Cell Technology for the Sustainable Future of Stationary Applications," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-28, December.
    23. 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.
    24. Rahel Renata Tanujaya & Chul-Yong Lee & JongRoul Woo & Sung-Yoon Huh & Min-Kyu Lee, 2020. "Quantifying Public Preferences for Community-Based Renewable Energy Projects in South Korea," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-13, May.
    25. Knut Per Hasund & Mitesh Kataria & Carl Johan Lagerkvist, 2011. "Valuing public goods of the agricultural landscape: a choice experiment using reference points to capture observable heterogeneity," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(1), pages 31-53.
    26. Shunichi Hienuki & Yoshie Hirayama & Tadahiro Shibutani & Junji Sakamoto & Jo Nakayama & Atsumi Miyake, 2019. "How Knowledge about or Experience with Hydrogen Fueling Stations Improves Their Public Acceptance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-12, November.
    27. Stephane Hess & Amanda Stathopoulos & Andrew Daly, 2012. "Allowing for heterogeneous decision rules in discrete choice models: an approach and four case studies," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 565-591, May.
    28. Shin, Jungwoo & Woo, JongRoul & Huh, Sung-Yoon & Lee, Jongsu & Jeong, Gicheol, 2014. "Analyzing public preferences and increasing acceptability for the Renewable Portfolio Standard in Korea," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 17-26.
    29. Contu, Davide & Strazzera, Elisabetta, 2022. "Testing for saliency-led choice behavior in discrete choice modeling: An application in the context of preferences towards nuclear energy in Italy," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    30. Eleni Fimereli & Susana Mourato, 2013. "Assessing the effect of energy technology labels on preferences," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(3), pages 245-265, November.
    31. Lim, Seul-Ye & Kim, Hyo-Jin & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2018. "Household willingness to pay for expanding fuel cell power generation in Korea: A view from CO2 emissions reduction," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 81(P1), pages 242-249.
    32. Judith I. M. de Groot & Elisa Schweiger & Iljana Schubert, 2020. "Social Influence, Risk and Benefit Perceptions, and the Acceptability of Risky Energy Technologies: An Explanatory Model of Nuclear Power Versus Shale Gas," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(6), pages 1226-1243, June.
    33. Walker, Gordon & Devine-Wright, Patrick & Hunter, Sue & High, Helen & Evans, Bob, 2010. "Trust and community: Exploring the meanings, contexts and dynamics of community renewable energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 2655-2663, June.
    34. Long, Zoe & Kormos, Christine & Sussman, Reuven & Axsen, Jonn, 2021. "MPG, fuel costs, or savings? Exploring the role of information framing in consumer valuation of fuel economy using a choice experiment," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 109-127.
    35. Contu, Davide & Mourato, Susana, 2020. "Complementing choice experiment with contingent valuation data: Individual preferences and views towards IV generation nuclear energy in the UK," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    36. Azarova, Valeriya & Cohen, Jed & Friedl, Christina & Reichl, Johannes, 2019. "Designing local renewable energy communities to increase social acceptance: Evidence from a choice experiment in Austria, Germany, Italy, and Switzerland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 1176-1183.
    37. Kim, Junghun & Park, Stephen Youngjun & Lee, Jongsu, 2018. "Do people really want renewable energy? Who wants renewable energy?: Discrete choice model of reference-dependent preference in South Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 761-770.
    38. McFadden, Daniel, 1974. "The measurement of urban travel demand," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 303-328, November.
    39. Bae, Jeong Hwan & Rishi, Meenakshi, 2018. "Increasing consumer participation rates for green pricing programs: A choice experiment for South Korea," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 490-502.
    40. Guo, Yue & Ren, Tao, 2017. "When it is unfamiliar to me: Local acceptance of planned nuclear power plants in China in the post-fukushima era," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 113-125.
    41. Kim, Hyo-Jin & Kim, Ju-Hee & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2019. "Social acceptance of offshore wind energy development in South Korea: Results from a choice experiment survey," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 1-1.
    42. Shin, Jungwoo & Hwang, Won-Sik, 2017. "Consumer preference and willingness to pay for a renewable fuel standard (RFS) policy: Focusing on ex-ante market analysis and segmentation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 32-40.
    43. Kim, Kyungah & Lee, Jongsu & Kim, Junghun, 2021. "Can liquefied petroleum gas vehicles join the fleet of alternative fuel vehicles? Implications of transportation policy based on market forecast and environmental impact," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    44. Viviana Cigolotti & Matteo Genovese & Petronilla Fragiacomo, 2021. "Comprehensive Review on Fuel Cell Technology for Stationary Applications as Sustainable and Efficient Poly-Generation Energy Systems," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-28, August.
    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. Kim, Kyungah & Kim, Junghun, 2024. "The study of brand loyalty and switching cost on OTT bundled service choice: Focusing on reference-dependent preferences in the saturated market," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    2. Moon, Sungho & Kim, Youngwoo & Kim, Minsang & Lee, Jongsu, 2023. "Policy designs to increase public and local acceptance for energy transition in South Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    3. Contu, Davide & Strazzera, Elisabetta, 2022. "Testing for saliency-led choice behavior in discrete choice modeling: An application in the context of preferences towards nuclear energy in Italy," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    4. Park, Subin & Lee, Jongsu & Kim, Junghun, 2024. "Exploring the fittest choice model for consumer preference analysis on over-the-top service," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    5. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    6. Faulques, Martin & Bonnet, Jean & Bourdin, Sébastien & Juge, Marine & Pigeon, Jonas & Richard, Charlotte, 2022. "Generational effect and territorial distributive justice, the two main drivers for willingness to pay for renewable energies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    7. Kim, Junghun & Seung, Hyunchan & Lee, Jongsu & Ahn, Joongha, 2020. "Asymmetric preference and loss aversion for electric vehicles: The reference-dependent choice model capturing different preference directions," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    8. Joalland, Olivier & Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre, 2023. "Developing large-scale offshore wind power programs: A choice experiment analysis in France," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 204(PA).
    9. Kim, Junghun & Lee, Hyunjoo & Lee, Jongsu, 2020. "Smartphone preferences and brand loyalty: A discrete choice model reflecting the reference point and peer effect," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    10. Moon, Sungho & Kim, Kyungah & Seung, Hyunchan & Kim, Junghun, 2022. "Strategic analysis on effects of technologies, government policies, and consumer perceptions on diffusion of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    11. Kim, Kyungah & Lee, Jongsu & Kim, Junghun, 2021. "Can liquefied petroleum gas vehicles join the fleet of alternative fuel vehicles? Implications of transportation policy based on market forecast and environmental impact," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    12. Gianluca Grilli, 2017. "Renewable energy and willingness to pay: Evidences from a meta-analysis," ECONOMICS AND POLICY OF ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2017(1-2), pages 253-271.
    13. Rahel Renata Tanujaya & Chul-Yong Lee & JongRoul Woo & Sung-Yoon Huh & Min-Kyu Lee, 2020. "Quantifying Public Preferences for Community-Based Renewable Energy Projects in South Korea," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-13, May.
    14. Fanghella, Valeria & Guetlein, Marie-Charlotte & Schleich, Joachim & Sebi, Carine, 2023. "Preferences on financing mechanisms for thermal retrofit measures in multi-owner buildings: A discrete choice experiment with landlords and owner-occupiers in France," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    15. Bae, Jeong Hwan & Rishi, Meenakshi & Li, Dmitriy, 2021. "Consumer preferences for a green certificate program in South Korea," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 230(C).
    16. Sclen, Håkon & Kallbekken, Steffen, 2011. "A choice experiment on fuel taxation and earmarking in Norway," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 2181-2190, September.
    17. Kim, Kyungah & Choi, Jihye & Lee, Jihee & Lee, Jongsu & Kim, Junghun, 2023. "Public preferences and increasing acceptance of time-varying electricity pricing for demand side management in South Korea," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    18. Motz, Alessandra, 2021. "Consumer acceptance of the energy transition in Switzerland: The role of attitudes explained through a hybrid discrete choice model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    19. Woo, JongRoul & Moon, Sungho & Choi, Hyunhong, 2022. "Economic value and acceptability of advanced solar power systems for multi-unit residential buildings: The case of South Korea," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 324(C).
    20. Stefania Troiano & Daniel Vecchiato & Francesco Marangon & Tiziano Tempesta & Federico Nassivera, 2019. "Households’ Preferences for a New ‘Climate-Friendly’ Heating System: Does Contribution to Reducing Greenhouse Gases Matter?," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-19, July.

    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:eee:enepol:v:182:y:2023:i:c:s0301421523003312. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    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.