Economic Value of Improving Natural Gas Supply Reliability for Residential Consumers in South Korea
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methodology
2.1. CE Approach
2.2. Attributes
2.3. Choice Sets
2.4. Survey Instrument and Method
3. Model
3.1. Utility Function
3.2. How to Obtain the Utility Function
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Estimation Results
4.2. MWTP Estimates for Each Attribute
4.3. Discussion of the Results
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Korea Gas Safety Corporation. Statistics of Natural Gas in Korea. 2017. Available online: http:// http://www.kgs.or.kr (accessed on 20 September 2018).
- London Economics. Estimating Value of Lost Load; Final Report to OFGEM. 2011. Available online: https:// www.ofgem.gov.uk/ofgem-publications/40961/london-economics-estimating-value-lost-load-final-report-ofgempdf (accessed on 19 April 2018).
- Hartman, R.S.; Doane, M.J.; Woo, C.K. Consumer rationality and the baseline status. Q. J. Econ. 1991, 106, 141–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beenstock, M.; Goldin, E. Priority pricing in electricity supply: An application for Israel. Resour. Energy Econ. 1996, 19, 175–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carlsson, F.; Martinsson, P.; Akay, A. The effect of power outages and cheap talk on willingness to pay to reduce outages. Energy Econ. 2011, 33, 790–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jang, J.; Lee, J.; Yoo, S.H. The public’s willingness to pay for securing a reliable natural gas supply in Korea. Energy Policy 2014, 69, 3–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Min, S.H.; Lim, S.Y.; Yoo, S.H. Consumer’s willingness to pay a premium for eco-labeled LED TVs in Korea: A contingent valuation study. Sustainability 2017, 9, 814. [Google Scholar]
- Lim, S.Y.; Kim, H.Y.; Yoo, S.H. Public willingness to pay for transforming Jogyesa Buddhist temple in Seoul, Korea into a cultural tourism resource. Sustainability 2016, 8, 900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Ge, J.; Ma, Y. Urban Chinese consumers’ willingness to pay for pork with certified labels: A discrete choice experiment. Sustainability 2018, 10, 603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vanstockem, J.; Vranken, L.; Bleys, B.; Somers, B.; Hermy, M. Do looks matter? A case study on extensive green roofs using discrete choice experiments. Sustainability 2018, 10, 309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arrow, K.; Solow, R.; Portney, P.R.; Leamer, E.E.; Radner, R.; Schuman, H. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Fed. Regist. 1993, 58, 4601–4614. [Google Scholar]
- Hensher, D.A.; Greene, W.H. The mixed logit model: The state of practice. Transportation 2003, 30, 133–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carlsson, F.; Martinsson, P. Does it matter when a power outage occurs? A choice experiment study on the willingness to pay to avoid power outages. Energy Econ. 2008, 30, 1232–1245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdullah, S.; Mariel, P. Choice experiment study on the willingness to pay to improve electricity services. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 4570–4581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hensher, D.A.; Shore, N.; Train, K. Willingness to pay for residential electricity supply quality and reliability. Appl. Energy 2014, 115, 280–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ozbafli, A.; Jenkins, G.P. Estimating the willingness to pay for reliable electricity supply: A choice experiment study. Energy Econ. 2016, 56, 443–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- London Economics. The Value of Lost Load for Electricity in Great Britain; Final Report for OFGEM and DECC. 2013. Available online: https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/ofgem-publications/82293/london -economics- value-lost-load-electricity-gbpdf (accessed on 19 April 2018).
- Moeltner, K.; Layton, D.F. A censored random coefficients model for pooled survey data with application to the estimation of power outage costs. Rev. Econ. Stat. 2002, 84, 552–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hensher, D.A.; Rose, J.; Greene, W.H. The implications on willingness to pay of respondents ignoring specific attributes. Transportation 2005, 32, 203–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morrison, M.; Nalder, C. Willingness to pay for improved quality of electricity supply across business type and location. Energy J. 2009, 30, 117–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McFadden, D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour in frontiers in econometrics. In Frontiers in Econometrics; Zarembka, P., Ed.; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1973; pp. 105–142. [Google Scholar]
- Krinsky, I.; Robb, A.L. On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Rev. Econ. Stat. 1986, 68, 715–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lim, S.Y.; Lim, K.M.; Yoo, S.H. External benefits of waste-to-energy in Korea: A choice experiment study. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 34, 588–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lim, S.Y.; Kim, H.J.; Yoo, S.H. Assessing the external benefits of contaminated soil remediation in Korea: A choice experiment study. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 17216–17222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sagebiel, J. Preference heterogeneity in energy discrete choice experiments: A review on methods for model selection. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 69, 804–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reinders, A. Perceived and Reported Reliability of the Electricity Supply at Three Urban Locations in Indonesia. Energies 2018, 11, 140. [Google Scholar] [Green Version]
- Jimenez, R.; Serebrisky, T.; Mercado, J. What does “better” mean? Perceptions of electricity and water services in Santo Domingo. Utilities Policy 2016, 41, 15–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Attributes | Descriptions | Levels |
---|---|---|
Duration of interruption | Duration of residential natural gas (NG) supply interruption | Level 1: 120 min # Level 2: 60 min Level 3: 20 min |
Season of interruption | Season when residential NG supply interruption takes place | Level 1: Winter # Level 2: Non-winter |
Time of day | Time when residential NG supply interruption occurs | Level 1: Day time # (09:00 to 18:00) Level 2: Off-daytime (18:00 to 09:00) |
Day of week | Day when residential NG supply interruption happens | Level 1: Weekday # Level 2: Weekend |
Price | Percentage of an additional payment for residential NG use (%) | Level 1: 0 # Level 2: 1% Level 3: 5% Level 4: 10% Level 5: 20% |
Choice Set 1 | Choice Set 2 | Choice Set 3 | Choice Set 4 | Choice Set 5 | Choice Set 6 | Choice Set 7 | Choice Set 8 | Totals | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
First alternative | 218 | 151 | 179 | 139 | 121 | 160 | 139 | 228 | 1335 |
Second alternative | 158 | 243 | 170 | 256 | 255 | 180 | 227 | 142 | 1631 |
Status quo alternative | 124 | 106 | 151 | 105 | 124 | 160 | 134 | 130 | 1034 |
Totals | 500 | 500 | 500 | 500 | 500 | 500 | 500 | 500 | 4000 |
Variables a | Multinomial Logit Coefficient Estimates c | |
---|---|---|
ASCb | −0.4118 # | (−3.67) |
Duration of interruption | −0.0029 # | (−3.03) |
Season of interruption | 0.1523 # | (3.57) |
Time of day | −0.0868 # | (−2.05) |
Day of week | −0.0573 | (−1.24) |
Price | −0.0295 # | (−7.96) |
Number of observations | 4000 | |
Wald-statistic (p-value) d | 265.96 (0.000) | |
Log-likelihood | −4259.79 |
MWTP Per Household Per Month | |||
---|---|---|---|
Estimates | t-Values | 95% Confidence Intervals | |
Avoidance of one minute’s interruption | 0.10% ** | 2.47 | 0.03–0.19% |
Season of interruption (non-winter rather than winter) | 5.16% # | 3.06 | 2.10–8.89% |
Time of day when the interruption occurs (daytime rather than off-day time) | 2.94% ** | 1.98 | 0.09–6.10% |
Day of week when the interruption occurs (weekday rather than weekend) | 1.94% | 1.27 | 1.14–5.00% |
Situation A | Situation B | Situation C | |
---|---|---|---|
Duration of interruption | 60 min | 1 h | 20 min |
Season of interruption | Winter | Non-winter | Non-winter |
Time of day when the interruption occurs | Off-daytime | Off-daytime | Daytime |
Day of week when the interruption occurs | Weekend | Weekend | Weekend |
Household WTP for avoiding the above situation expressed in percentage of an increase in residential NG bill | 6.00% | 11.16% | 18.10% |
© 2019 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
Kim, H.-J.; Kim, S.-M.; Yoo, S.-H. Economic Value of Improving Natural Gas Supply Reliability for Residential Consumers in South Korea. Sustainability 2019, 11, 515. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11020515
Kim H-J, Kim S-M, Yoo S-H. Economic Value of Improving Natural Gas Supply Reliability for Residential Consumers in South Korea. Sustainability. 2019; 11(2):515. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11020515
Chicago/Turabian StyleKim, Hyo-Jin, Sung-Min Kim, and Seung-Hoon Yoo. 2019. "Economic Value of Improving Natural Gas Supply Reliability for Residential Consumers in South Korea" Sustainability 11, no. 2: 515. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11020515
APA StyleKim, H. -J., Kim, S. -M., & Yoo, S. -H. (2019). Economic Value of Improving Natural Gas Supply Reliability for Residential Consumers in South Korea. Sustainability, 11(2), 515. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11020515