Quantifying Public Preferences for Community-Based Renewable Energy Projects in South Korea
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
3. Methodology and Data
3.1. CE Survey
3.2. Model
4. Results and Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Lee, C.Y.; Lee, M.K.; Yoo, S.H. Willingness to pay for replacing traditional energies with renewable energy in South Korea. Energy 2017, 128, 284–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MOTIE. The Third Energy Master Plan; MOTIE: Sejong, Korea, 2019. (In Korean)
- Petrova, M.A. From NIMBY to acceptance: Toward a novel framework-VESPA-For organizing and interpreting community concerns. Renew. Energy 2016, 86, 1280–1294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woo, J.R.; Chung, S.; Lee, C.Y.; Huh, S.Y. Willingness to participate in community-based renewable energy projects: A contingent valuation study in South Korea. Renew. Sustain. Energ. Rev. 2019, 112, 643–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aitken, M. Wind power and community benefits: Challenges and opportunities. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 6066–6075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, J.; Park, S.Y.; Lee, J. Do people really want renewable energy? Who wants renewable energy? Discrete choice model of reference-dependent preference in South Korea. Energy Policy 2018, 120, 761–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Álvarez-Farizo, B.; Hanley, N. Using conjoint analysis to quantify public preferences over the environmental impacts of wind farms. An example from Spain. Energy Policy 2002, 30, 107–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vecchiato, D.; Tempesta, T. Public preferences for electricity contracts including renewable energy: A marketing analysis with choice experiments. Energy 2015, 88, 168–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sagebiel, J.; Müller, J.R.; Rommel, J. Are consumers willing to pay more for electricity from cooperatives? Results from an online Choice Experiment in Germany. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2014, 2, 90–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Botelho, A.; Pinto, L.M.C.; Lourenço-Gomes, L.; Valente, M.; Sousa, S. Social sustainability of renewable energy sources in electricity production: An application of the contingent valuation method. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2016, 26, 429–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Merino-Castello, A. Eliciting Consumers Preferences Using Stated Preference Discrete Choice Models: Contingent Ranking versus Choice Experiment. UPF Econ. Bus. Work. Paper 2003, 705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bell, D.; Gray, Y.; Haggett, C. The ‘social gap’ in wind farm siting decisions: Explanations and policy responses. Environ. Politics 2005, 14, 460–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wüstenhagen, R.; Wolsink, M.; Bürer, M.J. Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept. Energy Policy 2007, 35, 2683–2691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wolsink, M. The research agenda on social acceptance of distributed generation in smart grids: Renewable as common pool resources. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 822–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, S.; Lee, H.; Kim, H.; Jang, D.H.; Kim, H.J.; Huh, J.; Cho, Y.S.; Huh, K. Improvement in policy and proactive interconnection procedure for renewable energy expansion in South Korea. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 98, 150–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, J.; Kim, B. An analysis of South Korea’s energy transition policy with regards to offshore wind power development. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 109, 71–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Allen, J.; Sheate, W.R.; Diaz-Chavez, R. Community-based renewable energy in the Lake District National Park—local drivers, enablers, barriers, and solutions. Local Environ. 2012, 17, 261–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kolk, A.; van den Buuse, D. In search of viable business models for development: Sustainable energy in developing countries. Corp. Gov. 2012, 12, 551–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kellett, J. Community-based energy policy: A practical approach to carbon reduction. J. Environ. Plan. Man. 2012, 50, 381–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Camarinha-Matos, L.M.; Afsarmanesh, H.; Boucher, X. The role of collaborative networks in sustainability. In Proceedings of the Working Conference on Virtual Enterprises, St. Etienne, France, 11–13 October 2010; pp. 1–16. [Google Scholar]
- Rogers, J.C.; Simmons, E.A.; Convery, I.; Weatherall, A. Public perceptions of opportunities for community-based renewable energy projects. Energy Policy 2008, 36, 4217–4226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Khan, M.I.; Chhetri, A.B.; Islam, M.R. Community-based energy model: A novel approach to developing sustainable energy. Energy Sources Part B 2007, 2, 353–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, W.; Xue, X.; Liu, G.; Zhou, R. Techno-economic evaluation of a community-based hybrid renewable energy system considering site-specific nature. Energy Convers. Manag. 2018, 171, 1737–1748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones, C.R.; Eiser, J.R. Understanding ‘local’ opposition to wind development in the UK: How big is a backyard? Energy Policy 2010, 38, 3106–3117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dimitropoulos, A.; Kontoleon, A. Assessing the determinants of local acceptability of wind-farm investment: A choice experiment in the Greek Aegean Islands. Energy Policy 2009, 37, 1842–1854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kalkbrenner, B.J.; Roosen, J. Citizens’ willingness to participate in local renewable energy projects: The role of community and trust in Germany. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2016, 13, 60–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Devine-Wright, P. Local aspects of UK renewable energy development: Exploring public beliefs and policy implications. Local Environ. 2005, 10, 57–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Salm, S.; Hille, S.L.; Wüstenhagen, R. What are retail investors’ risk-return preferences towards renewable energy projects? A choice experiment in Germany. Energy Policy 2016, 97, 310–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Masini, A.; Menichetti, E. The impact of behavioral factors in the renewable energy investment decision making process: Conceptual framework and empirical findings. Energy Policy 2011, 40, 28–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kosenius, A.K.; Ollikainen, M. Valuation of environmental and societal trade-offs of renewable energy sources. Energy Policy 2013, 62, 1148–1156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scarpa, R.; Willis, K. Willingness-to-pay for renewable energy: Primary and discretionary choice of British households’ for micro-generation technologies. Energy Econ. 2010, 32, 129–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Train, K. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation, 2nd ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Hanley, N.; Wright, R.E. Using choice experiments to value the environment. Environ. Resour. Econ. 1998, 11, 413–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, H.J.; Lim, S.Y.; Yoo, S.H. The environmental costs of photovoltaic power plants in South Korea: A choice experiment study. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Haaijer, R.; Wedel, M. Conjoint choice experiments: General characteristics and alternative model specification. In Conjoint Measurement: Methods and Applications, 3rd ed.; Gustafsson, A., Herrmann, A., Huber, F., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2003; pp. 371–412. [Google Scholar]
- KEEI (Korea Energy Economics Institute). 2019 Yearbook of Energy Statistics; KEEI: Ulsan, Korea, 2019. (In Korean) [Google Scholar]
- MOTIE. The Renewable Energy 3020 Implementation Plan; MOTIE: Sejong, Korea, 2017. (In Korean)
- Im, H.; Yun, S.J. Analysis of the policy process of the separation distance regulations of local governments concerning the location conflicts of photovoltaics facilities. New Renew. Energy 2019, 15, 61–73. (In Korean) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, Y.M.; Choung, T.R.; Son, J.H. Study on noise and low frequency noise generated by wind power plant (wind farm). J. Environ. Impact Assess. 2011, 20, 425–434. (In Korean) [Google Scholar]
- Haugen, K.M.B. International Review of Policies and Recommendations for Wind Turbine Setbacks from Residences: Setbacks, Noise, Shadow Flicker, and Other Concerns; Minnesota Department of Commerce: Saint Paul, MN, USA, 2011.
- MOTIE. Announcement of Renewable Energy 3020 Implementation and Countermeasures to Resolve Side Effects of Solar Photovoltaic and Wind Power; MOTIE: Sejong, Korea, 2018; (press release, In Korean).
- Langer, K.; Decker, T.; Menrad, K. Public participation in wind energy projects located in Germany: Which form of participation is the key to acceptance? Renew. Energy 2017, 112, 63–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lienhoop, N. Acceptance of wind energy and the role of financial and procedural participation: An investigation with focus groups and choice experiments. Energy Policy 2018, 118, 97–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, L.; Bouman, T.; Perlaviciute, G.; Steg, L. Effects of trust and public participation on acceptability of renewable energy projects in the Netherlands and China. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2019, 53, 137–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suškevičs, M.; Eiter, S.; Martinat, S.; Stober, D.; Vollmer, E.; de Boer, C.L.; Buchecher, M. Regional variation in public acceptance of wind energy development in Europe: What are the roles of planning procedures and participation? Land Use Pol. 2019, 81, 311–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bauwens, T. Explaining the diversity of motivations behind community renewable energy. Energy Policy 2016, 93, 278–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hammami, S.M.; Chtourou, S.; Triki, A. Identifying the determinants of community acceptance of renewable energy technologies: The case study of a wind energy project from Tunisia. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 54, 151–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Langer, K.; Decker, T.; Roosen, J.; Menrad, K. A qualitative analysis to understand the acceptance of wind energy in Bavaria. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 64, 248–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bateman, I.J.; Carson, R.T.; Day, B.; Hanemann, M.; Hanley, N.; Hett, T.; Jones-Lee, M.; Loomes, G.; Mourato, S.; Özdemiroglu, E.; et al. Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual; Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.: Cheltenham, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- KEEI. Research on Residents Participatory New Renewable Energy Power Plant Promotion Plan; MOTIE: Sejong, Korea, 2014. (In Korean)
- Korea Energy Agency. Residents Participatory New and Renewable Power Generation Project Incentive Plan; Korea Energy Agency: Yongin, Korea, 2016. (In Korean)
- Ouedraogo, B. Household energy preferences for cooking in urban Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso. Energy Policy 2006, 34, 3787–3795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rao, M.N.; Reddy, B.S. Variations in energy use by Indian households: An analysis of micro level data. Energy 2007, 32, 143–153. [Google Scholar]
- McFadden, D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In Frontiers of Econometrics, 1st ed.; Zarembka, P., Ed.; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1974; pp. 142–150. [Google Scholar]
- Guo, S.; Fraser, M.W. Propensity Score Analysis: Statistical Methods and Applications, 2nd ed.; SAGE: Thousands Oaks, CA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Borchers, A.M.; Duke, J.M.; Parsons, G.R. Does willingness to pay for green energy differ by source? Energy Policy 2007, 35, 3327–3334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, C.; Rogers, A.A.; Kragt, M.E.; Zhang, F.; Polyakov, M.; Gibson, F.; Chalak, M.; Pandit, R.; Tapsuwan, S. Consumers’ willingness to pay for renewable energy: A meta-regression analysis. Resour. Energy Econ. 2015, 42, 93–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ribeiro, F.; Ferreira, P.; Araújo, M.; Braga, A.C. Public opinion on renewable energy technologies in Portugal. Energy 2014, 69, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, H.J.; Huh, S.Y.; Woo, J.; Lee, C.Y. A comparative study on acceptance of public and local residents for renewable energy projects: Focused on solar, wind, and biomass. Innov. Stud. 2020, 15, 29–61. (In Korean) [Google Scholar]
- Burningham, K.; Barnett, J.; Walker, G. An array of deficits: Unpacking NIMBY discourses in wind energy developers’ conceptualizations of their local opponents. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2015, 28, 246–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ek, K. Public and private attitudes towards “green” electricity: The case of Swedish wind power. Energy Policy 2005, 33, 1677–1689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koch, J.; Christ, O. Household participation in an urban photovoltaic project in Switzerland: Exploration of triggers and barriers. Sust. Cities Soc. 2018, 37, 420–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, B.; Hu, Y.; Wang, A.; Yu, Z.; Yu, J.; Wu, X. Critical factors of effective public participation in sustainable energy projects. J. Manag. Eng. 2018, 34, 04018029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Attribute | Attribute Level |
---|---|
RE technology | (1) Solar photovoltaic |
(2) Wind | |
(3) Biomass | |
Distance from residence | (1) 100 m |
(2) 500 m | |
(3) 1000 m | |
Participation form | (1) Bond investment |
(2) Equity investment | |
Participation level | (1) Low |
(2) High | |
Expected rate of return | (1) 2%/year |
(2) 4%/year | |
(3) 6%/year |
A | B | C | D | |
---|---|---|---|---|
RE technology | Wind | Solar Photovoltaic | Biomass | No interest to participate (Status quo) |
Distance from residence | 500 m | 1000 m (1 km) | 100 m | |
Participation form | Equity investment | Equity investment | Bond investment | |
Participation level | Low | Low | High | |
Expected rate of return | 4%/year | 6%/year | 2%/year | |
Most preferable option | V |
Type | (1) Survey for General Public | (2) Survey for Local Residents |
---|---|---|
Population | Head of household (and spouse), aged 20 to 65, nationwide | Head of household (and spouse), aged 20 to 65, living in administrative areas within 1 km of RE power plant grounds |
Sample size | 508 persons | 306 persons |
Sampling method | Sampled at random from proportional quotas based on age and region | Purposive quota sampling method |
Method | Web survey | Face-to-face interview |
Period | May 22 to May 29, 2017 | May 19 to May 30, 2017 |
Survey firm | Hankook Research |
Type | Definition | (1) Survey for General Public | (2) Survey for Local Residents |
---|---|---|---|
No. Respondents (%) | |||
Total | 508 (100%) | 306 (100%) | |
Gender | Male | 244 (52%) | 155 (50.7%) |
Female | 264 (8.5%) | 151 (49.3%) | |
Age | 19–29 | 43 (8.5%) | 12 (3.9%) |
30–39 | 103 (20.3%) | 48 (15.7%) | |
40–49 | 147 (28.9%) | 80 (26.1%) | |
50–59 | 151 (29.7%) | 107 (35.0%) | |
≥60 | 64 (12.6%) | 59 (19.3%) | |
Education level | Less than high school | 88 (17.3%) | 220 (71.9%) |
More than college | 420 (82.7%) | 86 (28.1%) | |
Type of RE power plant | Wind power | 101 (33.0%) | |
PV | 103 (33.7%) | ||
Biomass | 102 (33.3%) |
Variable | General Public | Local Residents | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Coefficient (Standard Error) | MWTA (%) | Coefficient (Standard Error) | MWTA (%) | ||
Renewable energy technology | Wind | −1.2211 ** (−0.1856) | 10.3197 | −2.9697 ** (0.2475) | 15.3282 |
Solar | 0.4214 * (0.1695) | −3.5618 | −1.8350 ** (0.2236) | 9.4717 | |
Biomass | −0.9040 ** (0.1808) | 7.6395 | −2.8115 ** (0.2313) | 14.5115 | |
Distance from residence | 0.0005 ** (0.9519) | −0.0042 | 0.0006 ** (0.0002) | −0.0031 | |
Participation form (Equity) | −0.0680 (0.0964) | 0.5750 | −0.0694 (0.1274) | 0.3580 | |
Participation level (Low) | 0.0454 (0.0808) | −0.3837 | −0.2588 * (0.1180) | 1.3360 | |
Expected rate of return | 0.1183 ** (0.0287) | 0.1937 ** (0.0373) | |||
N = 1524; Pseudo R2 = 0.01 LL = −1750.080 | N = 918; Pseudo R2 = 0.022 LL = −970.149 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Tanujaya, R.R.; Lee, C.-Y.; Woo, J.; Huh, S.-Y.; Lee, M.-K. Quantifying Public Preferences for Community-Based Renewable Energy Projects in South Korea. Energies 2020, 13, 2384. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13092384
Tanujaya RR, Lee C-Y, Woo J, Huh S-Y, Lee M-K. Quantifying Public Preferences for Community-Based Renewable Energy Projects in South Korea. Energies. 2020; 13(9):2384. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13092384
Chicago/Turabian StyleTanujaya, Rahel Renata, Chul-Yong Lee, JongRoul Woo, Sung-Yoon Huh, and Min-Kyu Lee. 2020. "Quantifying Public Preferences for Community-Based Renewable Energy Projects in South Korea" Energies 13, no. 9: 2384. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13092384