IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/103432.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Individual preferences towards nuclear energy: the transient residency effect

Author

Listed:
  • Contu, Davide
  • Mourato, Susana
  • Kaya, Ozgur

Abstract

Nuclear energy is an energy source that is usually unfavourable among the public due to its inherent risks. However, it presents a number of benefits, including the possibility to reduce emissions and the contribution to tackle climate change. Among the countries adopting nuclear energy, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) is unusual in that a large share of its residents consists of expatriates who live only part of their lives in the country with no (or highly unlikely) access to citizenship. This distinctive population structure offers the opportunity to investigate the effect of transient residency on acceptance and preferences towards nuclear energy. We conducted this investigation by designing a stated preferences-based survey, targeting an online nationwide sample. The survey collected information on socio-economic characteristics and attitudes, including views on perceived risks and benefits of nuclear energy, views towards different energy sources and life satisfaction. Results indicate that transient individuals, especially those who are more satisfied with their lives in the UAE, are significantly less likely to oppose the construction of new nuclear plants. These individuals are characterized by a more positive perception of benefits over risks arising from nuclear energy. Policy implications are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Contu, Davide & Mourato, Susana & Kaya, Ozgur, 2020. "Individual preferences towards nuclear energy: the transient residency effect," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 103432, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:103432
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/103432/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Erik Meijer & Jan Rouwendal, 2006. "Measuring welfare effects in models with random coefficients," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(2), pages 227-244, March.
    2. Levinson, Arik, 2012. "Valuing public goods using happiness data: The case of air quality," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(9-10), pages 869-880.
    3. 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.
    4. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D., 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, September.
    5. Sultan, Nabil, 2013. "The challenge of shale to the post-oil dreams of the Arab Gulf," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 13-20.
    6. Strazzera, Elisabetta & Mura, Marina & Contu, Davide, 2012. "Combining choice experiments with psychometric scales to assess the social acceptability of wind energy projects: A latent class approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 334-347.
    7. Zhu, Weiwei & Wei, Jiuchang & Zhao, Dingtao, 2016. "Anti-nuclear behavioral intentions: The role of perceived knowledge, information processing, and risk perception," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 168-177.
    8. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    9. Peter Boxall & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2002. "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 421-446, December.
    10. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    11. Cicia, Gianni & Cembalo, Luigi & Del Giudice, Teresa & Palladino, Andrea, 2012. "Fossil energy versus nuclear, wind, solar and agricultural biomass: Insights from an Italian national survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 59-66.
    12. Office of Health Economics, 2007. "The Economics of Health Care," For School 001490, Office of Health Economics.
    13. Visschers, Vivianne H.M. & Keller, Carmen & Siegrist, Michael, 2011. "Climate change benefits and energy supply benefits as determinants of acceptance of nuclear power stations: Investigating an explanatory model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3621-3629, June.
    14. Judith I. M. de Groot & Linda Steg & Wouter Poortinga, 2013. "Values, Perceived Risks and Benefits, and Acceptability of Nuclear Energy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(2), pages 307-317, February.
    15. 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).
    16. Hammond, Geoffrey P., 1996. "Nuclear energy into the twenty-first century," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 54(4), pages 327-344, August.
    17. repec:dgr:rugsom:00f25 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Wu, Yican, 2017. "Public acceptance of constructing coastal/inland nuclear power plants in post-Fukushima China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 484-491.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Agnieszka Janik & Adam Ryszko & Marek Szafraniec, 2021. "Determinants of the EU Citizens’ Attitudes towards the European Energy Union Priorities," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-32, August.
    2. 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).

    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. 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.
    2. 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).
    3. 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).
    4. O'Dell, Dallas & Contu, Davide & Shreedhar, Ganga, 2025. "Public support for degrowth policies and sufficiency behaviours in the United States: a discrete choice experiment," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 126084, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. Kruse, Tobias & Atkinson, Giles, 2022. "Understanding public support for international climate adaptation payments: Evidence from a choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    6. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren Bøye Olsen & Suzanne E. Vedel & John Kinyuru & Kennedy O. Pambo, 2016. "Integrating sensory evaluations in incentivized discrete choice experiments to assess consumer demand for cricket flour buns in Kenya," IFRO Working Paper 2016/02, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    7. Anastassiadis, Friederike & Liebe, Ulf & Musshoff, Oliver, 2012. "Finanzielle Flexibilität In Landwirtschaftlichen Investitionsentscheidungen: Ein Discrete Choice Experiment," 52nd Annual Conference, Stuttgart, Germany, September 26-28, 2012 137142, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    8. Marit E. Kragt & J.W. Bennett, 2011. "Using choice experiments to value catchment and estuary health in Tasmania with individual preference heterogeneity," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 55(2), pages 159-179, April.
    9. 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).
    10. Strazzera, Elisabetta & Meleddu, Daniela & Atzori, Rossella, 2022. "A hybrid choice modelling approach to estimate the trade-off between perceived environmental risks and economic benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    11. Zander, Kerstin K. & Signorello, Giovanni & De Salvo, Maria & Gandini, Gustavo & Drucker, Adam G., 2013. "Assessing the total economic value of threatened livestock breeds in Italy: Implications for conservation policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 219-229.
    12. Acheampong, Patricia Pinamang & Owusu, Victor & Nurah, Gyiele K., 2013. "Farmers Preferences for Cassava Variety Traits: Empirical Evidence from Ghana," 2013 Fourth International Conference, September 22-25, 2013, Hammamet, Tunisia 161633, African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE).
    13. 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).
    14. Halkos, George & Galani, Georgia, 2016. "Assessing willingness to pay for marine and coastal ecosystems: A Case Study in Greece," MPRA Paper 68767, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Benoit Chèze & Charles Collet & Anthony Paris, 2021. "Estimating discrete choice experiments : theoretical fundamentals," CIRED Working Papers hal-03262187, HAL.
    16. Pfarr, Christian & Schmid, Andreas & Mørkbak, Morten Raun, 2015. "Latent characteristics and preferences for income redistribution," VfS Annual Conference 2015 (Muenster): Economic Development - Theory and Policy 113001, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    17. Andy S. Choi & Kelly S. Fielding, 2016. "Cultural Attitudes as WTP Determinants: A Revised Cultural Worldview Scale," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-18, June.
    18. Rid, Wolfgang & Haider, Wolfgang & Ryffel, Andrea & Beardmore, Ben, 2018. "Visualisations in Choice Experiments: Comparing 3D Film-sequences and Still-images to Analyse Housing Development Alternatives," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 203-217.
    19. Kragt, Marit Ellen & Llewellyn, Rick S., 2013. "Using choice experiments to improve the design of weed decision support tools," Working Papers 147031, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    20. Sardaro, Ruggiero & Faccilongo, Nicola & Roselli, Luigi, 2019. "Wind farms, farmland occupation and compensation: Evidences from landowners’ preferences through a stated choice survey in Italy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    choice experiments; Nuclear energy; social acceptability; transient resident; willingness to accept;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D62 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Externalities
    • D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design
    • Q48 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Government Policy
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
    • Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government Policy

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ehl:lserod:103432. 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: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    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.