IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/engenv/v31y2020i7p1167-1180.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the environmental benefits of multi-purpose water uses of hydropower reservoirs on the Han River in South Korea

Author

Listed:
  • Ga-Eun Kim
  • Ju-Hee Kim
  • Seung-Hoon Yoo

Abstract

The South Korean Government is trying to implement multi-purpose water uses of six hydropower reservoirs on the Han River to strengthen the linkage between water and energy. The expected environmental improvements are an improvement in flood control, an increase in the water supply for environmental improvement, an increase in the water supply for the instream flow requirement, and the abatement of air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions. This article aims to value the four improvements by applying a choice experiment. For the purpose of reflecting the preference heterogeneity, by investigating the choice experiment data gathered from a survey of 1000 people, a Bayesian estimation of a mixed logit model is employed. The environmental benefits of a 1% improvement in flood control, a 1% increase in the water supply for environmental improvement, a 1% increase in the water supply for the instream flow requirement, and a 1% abatement of air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions are estimated to be KRW 71 (USD 0.06), 51 (0.05), 28 (0.03), and 77 (0.07), respectively, per household per year. The expected improvements for the four attributes are 25.2%, 17.7%, 17.7%, and 1.0%, respectively. Thus, the expected environmental benefits are worth KRW 3265 (USD 2.96) per household per year and the national value amounts to KRW 63.74 billion (USD 57.77 million).

Suggested Citation

  • Ga-Eun Kim & Ju-Hee Kim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2020. "Assessing the environmental benefits of multi-purpose water uses of hydropower reservoirs on the Han River in South Korea," Energy & Environment, , vol. 31(7), pages 1167-1180, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:engenv:v:31:y:2020:i:7:p:1167-1180
    DOI: 10.1177/0958305X19882407
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0958305X19882407
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0958305X19882407?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zhang, Jin & Xu, Linyu & Yu, Bing & Li, Xiaojin, 2014. "Environmentally feasible potential for hydropower development regarding environmental constraints," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 552-562.
    2. 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.
    3. Bazilian, Morgan & Rogner, Holger & Howells, Mark & Hermann, Sebastian & Arent, Douglas & Gielen, Dolf & Steduto, Pasquale & Mueller, Alexander & Komor, Paul & Tol, Richard S.J. & Yumkella, Kandeh K., 2011. "Considering the energy, water and food nexus: Towards an integrated modelling approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(12), pages 7896-7906.
    4. Cherchi, Elisabetta, 2017. "A stated choice experiment to measure the effect of informational and normative conformity in the preference for electric vehicles," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 88-104.
    5. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, January.
    6. Kataria, Mitesh, 2009. "Willingness to pay for environmental improvements in hydropower regulated rivers," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 69-76, January.
    7. Mark Pennington & Manuel Gomes & Cam Donaldson, 2017. "Handling Protest Responses in Contingent Valuation Surveys," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(6), pages 623-634, August.
    8. Wu, Yiping & Chen, Ji, 2013. "Estimating irrigation water demand using an improved method and optimizing reservoir operation for water supply and hydropower generation: A case study of the Xinfengjiang reservoir in southern China," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 110-121.
    9. 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.
    10. Hee-Jong Yang & Seul-Ye Lim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2017. "The Environmental Costs of Photovoltaic Power Plants in South Korea: A Choice Experiment Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-13, September.
    11. Golam Rasul & Bikash Sharma, 2016. "The nexus approach to water–energy–food security: an option for adaptation to climate change," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(6), pages 682-702, 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, Ga-Eun & Kim, Ju-Hee & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2019. "South Korean consumers’ preferences for eco-friendly gasoline sedans: Results from a choice experiment survey," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 1-7.
    2. Kim, Ju-Hee & Kim, Hyo-Jin & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2019. "Willingness to pay for fuel-cell electric vehicles in South Korea," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 174(C), pages 497-502.
    3. Ju-Hee Kim & Younggew Kim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2021. "Using a choice experiment to explore the public willingness to pay for the impacts of improving energy efficiency of an apartment," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 55(5), pages 1775-1793, October.
    4. Sara Sousa & Anabela Botelho & Lígia M. Costa Pinto & Marieta Valente, 2019. "How Relevant Are Non-Use Values and Perceptions in Economic Valuations? The Case of Hydropower Plants," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-18, August.
    5. Federico Pontoni & Daniel Vecchiato & Francesco Marangon & Tiziano Tempesta & Stefania Troiano, 2016. "Choice experiments and environmental taxation: An application to the Italian hydropower sector," ECONOMICS AND POLICY OF ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2016(3), pages 99-118.
    6. 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.
    7. Yamada, Katsunori & Sato, Masayuki, 2013. "Another avenue for anatomy of income comparisons: Evidence from hypothetical choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 35-57.
    8. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    9. Govindan, Rajesh & Al-Ansari, Tareq, 2019. "Computational decision framework for enhancing resilience of the energy, water and food nexus in risky environments," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 653-668.
    10. Pfarr, Christian & Schmid, Andreas, 2013. "The political economics of social health insurance: the tricky case of individuals’ preferences," MPRA Paper 44534, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Hasan-Basri, Bakti & Yahya, Nurul & Musa, Rusmani, 2013. "Status Quo Effect and Preferences Uncertainty: A Heteroscedastic Extreme Value (HEV) Model," Jurnal Ekonomi Malaysia, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, vol. 47(1), pages 163-172.
    12. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.
    13. Bernadeta Gołębiowska & Anna Bartczak & Mikołaj Czajkowski, 2020. "Energy Demand Management and Social Norms," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-20, July.
    14. Yu, Bing & Xu, Linyu, 2016. "Review of ecological compensation in hydropower development," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 729-738.
    15. Juan Carlos Martín & Concepción Román & Cira Mendoza, 2018. "Determinants for sun-and-beach self-catering accommodation selection," Tourism Economics, , vol. 24(3), pages 319-336, May.
    16. Rakatama, Ari & Pandit, Ram & Iftekhar, Sayed & Ma, Chunbo, 2018. "Heterogeneous public preference for REDD+ projects under different forest management regimes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 266-277.
    17. Anastasio J. Villanueva & Klaus Glenk & Macario Rodríguez-Entrena, 2017. "Protest Responses and Willingness to Accept: Ecosystem Services Providers’ Preferences towards Incentive-Based Schemes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(3), pages 801-821, September.
    18. Rogers, Abbie A. & Cleland, Jonelle, 2010. "Comparing Scientist and Public Preferences for Conserving Environmental Systems: A Case of the Kimberley’s Tropical Waterways and Wetlands," Research Reports 107579, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    19. Rinaldo Brau, 2008. "Demand-Driven Sustainable Tourism? A Choice Modelling Analysis," Tourism Economics, , vol. 14(4), pages 691-708, December.
    20. Joel O. Botai & Christina M. Botai & Katlego P. Ncongwane & Sylvester Mpandeli & Luxon Nhamo & Muthoni Masinde & Abiodun M. Adeola & Michael G. Mengistu & Henerica Tazvinga & Miriam D. Murambadoro & S, 2021. "A Review of the Water–Energy–Food Nexus Research in Africa," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-26, 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:sae:engenv:v:31:y:2020:i:7:p:1167-1180. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.