IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v16y2023i8p3413-d1122364.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Willingness to Pay for Renewably-Sourced Home Heating in the Fairbanks North Star Borough

Author

Listed:
  • Georgia K. Roberts

    (School of Earth and Sustainability, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 86011, USA)

  • Dominique J. Pride

    (Alaska Center for Energy and Power, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK 99775, USA)

  • Joseph M. Little

    (W.A. Franke College of Business, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 86011, USA)

  • Julie M. Mueller

    (W.A. Franke College of Business, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 86011, USA)

Abstract

Space heating is a necessity in Alaska; however, the use of heating fuels carries both economic and environmental costs. In the Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB), Alaska, most households utilize heating fuel oil as a primary source for home heating and firewood as a secondary source. In the FNSB, wood-burning devices are the principal source of fine particulate matter with a size of 2.5 microns or less, (PM 2.5 ), but firewood is less expensive when compared to heating fuel oil. The FNSB has been designated as a nonattainment area for PM 2.5 , which has been linked to negative cardiopulmonary impacts and other adverse health consequences. Electric thermal storage heaters (ETSH) could help solve the PM 2.5 problem by displacing firewood used for residential space heating. We use dichotomous choice contingent valuation (DC-CV) to estimate willingness to pay ( WTP ) for an ETSH program which would allow FNSB residents to offset 100 gallons of heating fuel oil annually. Certainty correction is used to control for the presence of hypothetical bias. We find median WTP is USD 33.98 without certainty correction and USD 9.75 with certainty correction. Our results indicate that implementation of a special ETSH electricity rate based on the WTP estimate may lead to broader adoption of ETSH for space heating, which could improve air quality, reduce fuel poverty, and reduce the carbon footprint of residential space heating.

Suggested Citation

  • Georgia K. Roberts & Dominique J. Pride & Joseph M. Little & Julie M. Mueller, 2023. "Willingness to Pay for Renewably-Sourced Home Heating in the Fairbanks North Star Borough," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-14, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:16:y:2023:i:8:p:3413-:d:1122364
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/8/3413/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/8/3413/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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. Seul-Ye Lim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2019. "Will South Korean Residential Consumers Accept the Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme? A Stated Preference Approach," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-9, May.
    3. Hee-Hoon Kim & Seul-Ye Lim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2019. "Residential Consumers’ Willingness to Pay Price Premium for Renewable Heat in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-14, February.
    4. Anna Alberini, 1995. "Testing Willingness-to-Pay Models of Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Survey Data," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 71(1), pages 83-95.
    5. Gregory Poe & Jeremy Clark & Daniel Rondeau & William Schulze, 2002. "Provision Point Mechanisms and Field Validity Tests of Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(1), pages 105-131, September.
    6. Karytsas, Spyridon & Polyzou, Olympia & Karytsas, Constantine, 2019. "Factors affecting willingness to adopt and willingness to pay for a residential hybrid system that provides heating/cooling and domestic hot water," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 591-603.
    7. Champ, Patricia A. & Bishop, Richard C. & Brown, Thomas C. & McCollum, Daniel W., 1997. "Using Donation Mechanisms to Value Nonuse Benefits from Public Goods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 151-162, June.
    8. Meles, Tensay Hadush & Ryan, Lisa & Mukherjee, Sanghamitra C., 2022. "Heterogeneity in preferences for renewable home heating systems among Irish households," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 307(C).
    9. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-719, November.
    10. Dmitriy Li & Jeong-Hwan Bae & Meenakshi Rishi, 2022. "A Preference Analysis for a Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Electricity Trading Platform in South Korea," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(21), pages 1-20, October.
    11. Masako Numata & Masahiro Sugiyama & Wunna Swe & Daniel del Barrio Alvarez, 2021. "Willingness to Pay for Renewable Energy in Myanmar: Energy Source Preference," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-17, March.
    12. Qingbin Wang & Laurel Valchuis & Ethan Thompson & David Conner & Robert Parsons, 2019. "Consumer Support and Willingness to Pay for Electricity from Solar, Wind, and Cow Manure in the United States: Evidence from a Survey in Vermont," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-13, November.
    13. Yap, P.-S. & Garcia, C., 2015. "Effectiveness of residential wood-burning regulation on decreasing particulate matter levels and hospitalizations in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 105(4), pages 772-778.
    14. Ruokamo, Enni, 2016. "Household preferences of hybrid home heating systems – A choice experiment application," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 224-237.
    15. Sung-Min Kim & Ju-Hee Kim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2020. "Households’ Willingness to Pay for Substituting Natural Gas with Renewable Methane: A Contingent Valuation Experiment in South Korea," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-13, June.
    16. Thomas Krikser & Adriano Profeta & Sebastian Grimm & Heiko Huther, 2020. "Willingness-to-Pay for District Heating from Renewables of Private Households in Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-14, May.
    17. Tensay Meles & L. (Lisa B.) Ryan & Sanghamitra Mukherjee, 2019. "Preferences for Renewable Home Heating: A Choice Experiment Study of Heat Pump System in Ireland," Open Access publications 10197/11467, School of Economics, University College Dublin.
    18. Jesse Kaczmarski & Benjamin Jones & Janie Chermak, 2022. "Determinants of Demand Response Program Participation: Contingent Valuation Evidence from a Smart Thermostat Program," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-18, January.
    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. Vossler, Christian A., 2003. "Multiple bounded discrete choice contingent valuation: parametric and nonparametric welfare estimation and a comparison to the payment card," MPRA Paper 38867, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Hofstetter, Reto & Miller, Klaus M. & Krohmer, Harley & Zhang, Z. John, 2021. "A de-biased direct question approach to measuring consumers' willingness to pay," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 70-84.
    3. Hermann Donfouet & P. Jeanty & P.-A. Mahieu, 2014. "Dealing with internal inconsistency in double-bounded dichotomous choice: an application to community-based health insurance," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 317-328, February.
    4. Poe, Gregory L. & Giraud, Kelly L. & Loomis, John B., 2001. "Simple Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions: Application to Internal and External Scope Tests in Contingent Valuation," Staff Papers 121130, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    5. Vossler, Christian A. & Kerkvliet, Joe, 2003. "A criterion validity test of the contingent valuation method: comparing hypothetical and actual voting behavior for a public referendum," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 631-649, May.
    6. Johnston, Robert J., 2006. "Is hypothetical bias universal? Validating contingent valuation responses using a binding public referendum," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 469-481, July.
    7. Rilling, Benedikt & Kurz, Peter & Herbes, Carsten, 2024. "Renewable gases in the heating market: Identifying consumer preferences through a Discrete Choice Experiment," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    8. Strazzera, Elisabetta & Meleddu, Daniela & Contu, Davide & Fornara, Ferdinando, 2024. "Willingness to pay for innovative heating/cooling systems: A comprehensive appraisal of drivers and barriers to adoption in Ireland and Italy," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    9. Thunström, Linda & Nordström, Jonas & Shogren, Jason F., 2015. "Certainty and overconfidence in future preferences for food," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 101-113.
    10. Burghard, Uta & Breitschopf, Barbara & Wohlfarth, Katharina & Müller, Fabian & Keil, Julia, 2021. "Perception of monetary and non-monetary effects on the energy transition: Results of a mixed method approach," Working Papers "Sustainability and Innovation" S04/2021, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    11. So-Yeon Park & Ju-Hee Kim & Jungkwan Seo & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2022. "Evaluating the Economic Benefits of Tightening Regulations on the Use of Toluene, a Hazardous Chemical, in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-15, May.
    12. Bougherara, Douadia & Denant-Boemont, Laurent & Masclet, David, 2011. "Cooperation and framing effects in provision point mechanisms: Experimental evidence," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(6), pages 1200-1210, April.
    13. Samnaliev, Mihail & Stevens, Thomas H. & More, Thomas, 2006. "A comparison of alternative certainty calibration techniques in contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 507-519, May.
    14. Mozumder, Pallab & Vásquez, William F. & Marathe, Achla, 2011. "Consumers' preference for renewable energy in the southwest USA," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 1119-1126.
    15. Nicolas Jacquemet & Alexander James & Stéphane Luchini & Jason Shogren, 2011. "Social Psychology and Environmental Economics: A New Look at ex ante Corrections of Biased Preference Evaluation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(3), pages 413-433, March.
    16. Mark Morrison & Thomas Brown, 2009. "Testing the Effectiveness of Certainty Scales, Cheap Talk, and Dissonance-Minimization in Reducing Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(3), pages 307-326, November.
    17. Veisten, Knut, 2007. "Contingent valuation controversies: Philosophic debates about economic theory," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 204-232, April.
    18. James Murphy & P. Allen & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 313-325, March.
    19. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Bartczak, Anna & Giergiczny, Marek & Navrud, Stale & Żylicz, Tomasz, 2014. "Providing preference-based support for forest ecosystem service management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 1-12.
    20. Catherine M. H. Keske & Adam Mayer, 2014. "Visitor Willingness to Pay U.S. Forest Service Recreation Fees in New West Rural Mountain Economies," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 28(1), pages 87-100, February.

    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:16:y:2023:i:8:p:3413-:d:1122364. 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.