IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v12y2019i24p4682-d295893.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Natural Gas or Algal Reef: Survey-Based Valuations of Pro-Gas and Pro-Reef Groups Specifically for Policy Advising

Author

Listed:
  • Yun-Ju Chen

    (Department of Applied Economics, National Chung Hsing University, 145 Xingda Rd., South Dist., Taichung City 402, Taiwan)

  • Sheng Ming Hsu

    (Department of Applied Economics, National Chung Hsing University, 145 Xingda Rd., South Dist., Taichung City 402, Taiwan)

  • Shu-Yi Liao

    (Department of Applied Economics, National Chung Hsing University, 145 Xingda Rd., South Dist., Taichung City 402, Taiwan)

  • Tsung-Chi Chen

    (Department of Applied Economics, National Chung Hsing University, 145 Xingda Rd., South Dist., Taichung City 402, Taiwan)

  • Wei-Chun Tseng

    (Department of Applied Economics, National Chung Hsing University, 145 Xingda Rd., South Dist., Taichung City 402, Taiwan)

Abstract

Much energy-related construction causes environmental concern. Sometimes the environmental issue is so huge that it is difficult to make a policy decision even with the assistance of traditional valuation techniques. The third natural gas receiving station at Datan, Taiwan, is one example of this. The construction would be beneficial to energy security, economic development, and particulate matter (PM) 2.5 reduction. However, it would destroy a precious algal reef, which is a habitat for endangered species, biodiversity, and a unique ecological system. Thus, we used willingness-to-pay to show the strength of both pro-energy and pro-ecology opinions specifically to help with decision-making. First, respondents were asked to choose between the gas station and the reef. Then they were asked about their willingness to pay for that choice. We then estimated parametric/nonparametric models—traditional probit, structured probit, and Turnbull—to obtain reliable estimates. We found that the per-person value for pro-gas-station respondents was higher than that for pro-reef respondents, while the percentage of pro-reef respondents was higher than the percentage of pro-gas-station respondents. These results together form a clear policy implication for this case.

Suggested Citation

  • Yun-Ju Chen & Sheng Ming Hsu & Shu-Yi Liao & Tsung-Chi Chen & Wei-Chun Tseng, 2019. "Natural Gas or Algal Reef: Survey-Based Valuations of Pro-Gas and Pro-Reef Groups Specifically for Policy Advising," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-18, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:12:y:2019:i:24:p:4682-:d:295893
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/12/24/4682/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/12/24/4682/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jin‐Tan Liu & James K. Hammitt & Jung‐Der Wang & Meng‐Wen Tsou, 2005. "Valuation of the risk of SARS in Taiwan," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(1), pages 83-91, January.
    2. 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.
    3. Paulo Pires Moreira & Fernando Caetano, 2017. "Liquefied Natural Gas as an Alternative Fuel: a Regional-Level Social Cost-Benefit Appraisal," Eastern European Business and Economics Journal, Eastern European Business and Economics Studies Centre, vol. 3(2), pages 122-161.
    4. JongRoul Woo & Sesil Lim & Yong-Gil Lee & Sung-Yoon Huh, 2018. "Financial Feasibility and Social Acceptance for Reducing Nuclear Power Plants: A Contingent Valuation Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-16, October.
    5. Alberini Anna, 1995. "Efficiency vs Bias of Willingness-to-Pay Estimates: Bivariate and Interval-Data Models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 169-180, September.
    6. Richard T. Carson & W. Michael Hanemann & Raymond J. Kopp & Jon A. Krosnick & Robert Cameron Mitchell & Stanley Presser, 1998. "Referendum Design And Contingent Valuation: The Noaa Panel'S No-Vote Recommendation," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(3), pages 484-487, August.
    7. Hyo-Jin Kim & Sung-Min Kim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2019. "Economic Value of Improving Natural Gas Supply Reliability for Residential Consumers in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-10, January.
    8. Jun, Eunju & Joon Kim, Won & Hoon Jeong, Yong & Heung Chang, Soon, 2010. "Measuring the social value of nuclear energy using contingent valuation methodology," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 1470-1476, March.
    9. Borjas, George J. & Sueyoshi, Glenn T., 1994. "A two-stage estimator for probit models with structural group effects," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1-2), pages 165-182.
    10. Tseng, Wei-Chun & Chen, Chi-Chung, 2008. "Valuing the potential economic impact of climate change on the Taiwan trout," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 282-291, April.
    11. Chun-Hung Lee & Yun-Ju Chen & Chu-Wei Chen, 2019. "Assessment of the Economic Value of Ecological Conservation of the Kenting Coral Reef," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-17, October.
    12. Grafeld, Shanna & Oleson, Kirsten & Barnes, Michele & Peng, Marcus & Chan, Catherine & Weijerman, Mariska, 2016. "Divers' willingness to pay for improved coral reef conditions in Guam: An untapped source of funding for management and conservation?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 202-213.
    13. Brander, Luke M. & Van Beukering, Pieter & Cesar, Herman S.J., 2007. "The recreational value of coral reefs: A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 209-218, June.
    14. Anna Kowalska-Pyzalska, 2019. "Do Consumers Want to Pay for Green Electricity? A Case Study from Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-20, March.
    15. Jang, Jinyong & Lee, Jongsu & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2014. "The public׳s willingness to pay for securing a reliable natural gas supply in Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 3-13.
    16. Damigos, D. & Tourkolias, C. & Diakoulaki, D., 2009. "Households' willingness to pay for safeguarding security of natural gas supply in electricity generation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 2008-2017, May.
    17. Wei-Chun Tseng & Chi-Chung Chen & Ching-Cheng Chang & Yu-Hsien Chu, 2009. "Estimating the economic impacts of climate change on infectious diseases: a case study on dengue fever in Taiwan," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 92(1), pages 123-140, January.
    18. Whitehead John C. & Blomquist Glenn C. & Hoban Thomas J. & Clifford William B., 1995. "Assessing the Validity and Reliability of Contingent Values: A Comparison of On-Site Users, Off-Site Users, and Non-users," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 238-251, September.
    19. 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.
    20. Costanza, Robert & de Groot, Rudolf & Braat, Leon & Kubiszewski, Ida & Fioramonti, Lorenzo & Sutton, Paul & Farber, Steve & Grasso, Monica, 2017. "Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 1-16.
    21. Timothy C. Haab & Kenneth E. McConnell, 2002. "Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2427.
    22. Mathieu, Laurence F. & Langford, Ian H. & Kenyon, Wendy, 2003. "Valuing marine parks in a developing country: a case study of the Seychelles," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(2), pages 373-390, May.
    23. 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.
    24. Marina Farr & Natalie Stoeckl & Michelle Esparon & Silva Larson & Diane Jarvis, 2016. "The Importance of Water Clarity to Great Barrier Reef Tourists and Their Willingness to Pay to Improve it," Tourism Economics, , vol. 22(2), pages 331-352, April.
    25. 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.
    26. Barbara Tchórzewska-Cieślak & Katarzyna Pietrucha-Urbanik, 2018. "Approaches to Methods of Risk Analysis and Assessment Regarding the Gas Supply to a City," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-13, November.
    27. Carlson, Deven E. & Ripberger, Joseph T. & Jenkins-Smith, Hank C. & Silva, Carol L. & Gupta, Kuhika & Berrens, Robert P. & Jones, Benjamin A., 2016. "Contingent Valuation and the Policymaking Process: An Application to Used Nuclear Fuel in the United States," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(3), pages 459-487, October.
    28. Andersson, Jessica E.C., 2007. "The recreational cost of coral bleaching -- A stated and revealed preference study of international tourists," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(3-4), pages 704-715, May.
    29. Lee, Suh-Young & Lee, In-Beum & Han, Jeehoon, 2019. "Design under uncertainty of carbon capture, utilization and storage infrastructure considering profit, environmental impact, and risk preference," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 238(C), pages 34-44.
    30. Park, Timothy A. & Bowker, James Michael & Leeworthy, Vernon R., 2000. "Valuing Snorkeling Visits To The Florida Keys With Stated And Revealed Preference Models," Faculty Series 16713, University of Georgia, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    31. Hyun-Chul Lee & Eul-Bum Lee & Douglas Alleman, 2018. "Schedule Modeling to Estimate Typical Construction Durations and Areas of Risk for 1000 MW Ultra-Critical Coal-Fired Power Plants," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-15, October.
    32. Ian J. Bateman & Richard T. Carson & Brett Day & Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Tannis Hett & Michael Jones-Lee & Graham Loomes, 2002. "Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2639.
    33. Sung-Yoon Huh & JongRoul Woo & Chul-Yong Lee, 2019. "What Do Potential Residents Really Want When Hosting a Nuclear Power Plant? An Empirical Study of Economic Incentives in South Korea," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-17, March.
    34. Hyo-Jin Kim & Su-Mi Han & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2018. "Measuring the Economic Benefits of Industrial Natural Gas Use in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-10, June.
    35. Londoño, Luz M. & Johnston, Robert J., 2012. "Enhancing the reliability of benefit transfer over heterogeneous sites: A meta-analysis of international coral reef values," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 80-89.
    36. Aravena, Claudia & Hutchinson, W. George & Longo, Alberto, 2012. "Environmental pricing of externalities from different sources of electricity generation in Chile," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 1214-1225.
    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. 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.
    2. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    3. Gebreegziabher, Z. & Mekonnen, A. & Beyene, A.D. & Hagos, F., 2018. "Valuation of access to irrigation water in rural Ethiopia: application of choice experiment and contingent valuation methods," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277168, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    5. Ik-Chang Choi & Hyun No Kim & Hio-Jung Shin & John Tenhunen & Trung Thanh Nguyen, 2017. "Economic Valuation of the Aquatic Biodiversity Conservation in South Korea: Correcting for the Endogeneity Bias in Contingent Valuation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-20, June.
    6. 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).
    7. Ghosh, Ranjan & Goyal, Yugank & Rommel, Jens & Sagebiel, Julian, 2017. "Are small firms willing to pay for improved power supply? Evidence from a contingent valuation study in India," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 659-665.
    8. Andrea Leiter, 2011. "Age effects in monetary valuation of reduced mortality risks: the relevance of age-specific hazard rates," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 12(4), pages 331-344, August.
    9. Kim, Jinsoo & Kim, Jihyo, 2015. "Korean public’s perceptions on supply security of fossil fuels: A contingent valuation analysis," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 301-309.
    10. JongRoul Woo & Jungwoo Shin & Seung-Hoon Yoo & Sung-Yoon Huh, 2023. "Reducing Environmental Impact of Coal-Fired Power Plants by Building an Indoor Coal Storage: An Economic Analysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-14, January.
    11. Halkos, George, 2012. "The use of contingent valuation in assessing marine and coastal ecosystems’ water quality: A review," MPRA Paper 42183, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Cheng, Y.S. & Cao, K.H. & Woo, C.K. & Yatchew, A., 2017. "Residential willingness to pay for deep decarbonization of electricity supply: Contingent valuation evidence from Hong Kong," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 218-227.
    13. Jones, Benjamin A. & Ripberger, Joseph & Jenkins-Smith, Hank & Silva, Carol, 2017. "Estimating willingness to pay for greenhouse gas emission reductions provided by hydropower using the contingent valuation method," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 362-370.
    14. Huh, Sung-Yoon & Lee, Jongsu & Shin, Jungwoo, 2015. "The economic value of South Korea׳s renewable energy policies (RPS, RFS, and RHO): A contingent valuation study," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 64-72.
    15. Hanemann, W. Michael & Kanninen, Barbara, 1996. "The Statistical Analysis Of Discrete-Response Cv Data," CUDARE Working Papers 25022, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    16. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
    17. Soliño, Mario & Farizo, Begoña A. & Campos, Pablo, 2009. "The influence of home-site factors on residents' willingness to pay: An application for power generation from scrubland in Galicia, Spain," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 4055-4065, October.
    18. JongRoul Woo & Sesil Lim & Yong-Gil Lee & Sung-Yoon Huh, 2018. "Financial Feasibility and Social Acceptance for Reducing Nuclear Power Plants: A Contingent Valuation Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-16, October.
    19. Kim, Ju-Hee & Lim, Seul-Ye & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2021. "Public preferences for introducing a power-to-heat system in South Korea," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    20. Lyssenko, Nikita & Martinez-Espineira, Roberto, 2009. "`Been there done that': Disentangling option value effects from user heterogeneity when valuing natural resources with a use component," MPRA Paper 21976, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 08 Apr 2010.

    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:gam:jeners:v:12:y:2019:i:24:p:4682-:d:295893. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.