All Issue

2018 Vol.27, Issue 4 Preview Page

Research Paper

Analysis of Consumer Preference on Mid to Long Term Power Sources by Using a Choice Experiment

선택실험법을 이용한 중장기 전원별 소비자 선호 분석

정해영*, 배정환**

Heayoung Jung* and Jeong Hwan Bae**

*전남대학교 경제학 박사, 주저자(e-mail: wind13@gmail.com)
**전남대학교 경제학부 교수, 교신저자(e-mail: jhbae@jnu.ac.kr)
*Ph.D in Economics, Chonnam National University, Main author(e-mail: wind13@gmail.com)
**Professor, Department of Economics, Chonnam National University, Corresponding author(e-mail: jhbae@jnu.ac.kr)
31 December 2018. pp. 695-723
PDF Citation
Abstract
Recently, extreme weather due to climate change has become more frequent, and increase of fine dust has worsen air quality in Korea. Therefore, not only negative perception on coal-fired power generation is dominant, but also the social acceptance of nuclear power generation declines. This study aims at deriving consumer preferences on the mid and long term power mix with various energy sources. Willingness to pay for each generation source was estimated and the preference heterogeneity of consumers was examined by using mixed logit and latent class models. Mixed logit estimation results show that the preference heterogeneity of consumers is especially large for the nuclear power relative to renewable or coal energy. According to the estimation results from the latent class model, group 1 prefers renewable energy while group 2 prefers coal energy. Group 3 shows lexicographic preference which means restricted rationality. As for the policy implication, it is necessary to understand the preference heterogeneity of consumer groups in planning the mid to long term power mix.
Keywords
Mid to Long Term Power Mix
Preference Heterogeneity
Lexicographic Preference
Choice Experiment
최근 들어 기후변화로 인한 이상기후가 빈발해지고, 미세먼지 문제가 심각해짐에 따라 석탄화력발전에 대한 부정적인 인식이 커지고 있고, 경주 지진 이후 원자력 발전에 대한 사회적 수용력도 감소하고 있다. 본 연구는 선택실험법을 이용하여 중장기 전원별 일반 소비자들의 지불용의액을 도출함으로써 각 발전원에 대한 경제적 가치를 추정하고, 소비자들의 선호 이질성을 검토하였다. 적용한 방법론은 혼합로짓과 잠재계층모형이며, 혼합로짓 추정결과 특히 원자력에서 선호이질성이 크게 나타나는 것을 확인하였다. 잠재계층모형 추정결과 집단1은 신재생에너지를 선호하며, 집단2는 기존의 화석에너지를 선호하였다. 집단3은 사전편찬식 선호(제한적 합리성)을 보이는 집단으로 추정되었다. 사전편찬식 선호를 보이는 집단을 고려하지 않을 경우 지불용의액 추정의 신뢰성이 낮아지고, 속성의 유의성이 낮아지는 결과가 나타나는 것을 확인하였다. 또한 집단별로 에너지원에 대한 선호 이질성이 크게 나타나, 향후 전원구성에 있어 전력 소비자의 선호 이질성을 감안한 정책이 필요할 것이다.
키워드
중장기 전원구성
선호이질성
사전편찬식 선호
선택실험법
References
  1. 김용주, “가계의 이질적 선호가 비시장재 가치추정에 미치는 영향”, ｢자원환경경제연구｣, 제16권 제4호, 2007, pp. 873~900.
  2. 노동석, “원자력 발전의 경제적･사회적 비용을 고려한 적정 전원믹스 연구”, ｢에너지경제연구원｣, 2013.
  3. 문영석‧노동석‧조상민, “에너지믹스 변화의 비용 추정: 신재생확대 시나리오”, ｢에너지경제연구｣, 제10권 제2호, 2011, pp. 169~186.
  4. 배정환, “지역분산형 녹색전력구매제 도입에 대한 소비자 선호도 분석”, ｢에너지경제연구｣, 제17권 제1호, 2018, pp. 287~316.
  5. 이유수, “포트폴리오 이론을 활용한 전원믹스 계획의 분석”, ｢에너지경제연구원｣, 2012.
  6. 최도영, “국제 에너지가격 변동요인 분석을 이용한 에너지 포트폴리오 구성에 관한 연구”, ｢에너지경제연구원｣, 2010.
  7. 최봉석‧박찬국, “원자력발전의 경제적‧사회적 비용을 고려한 적정 전원믹스 연구: 전원별 외부 비용 추정”, ｢에너지경제연구원｣, 2014.
  8. Anderson, Norman H, “Integration Theory and Attitude Change”, Psychological Review, Vol. 78(May), 1971, pp. 171~206.10.1037/h0030834
  9. Bennett, J. W. and R. Blamey, “The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Evaluation”, Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc, 2001.
  10. Bhat, C. R., “An Endogenous Segmentation Mode Choice Model with the Application to Intercity Travel”, Transportation Science, Vol. 31, 1997, pp. 34~48.10.1287/trsc.31.1.34
  11. Blamey, R. K., J. W. Bennett, J. J. Louviere, M. D. Morrison, and J. C. Rolfe, “Attribute causality in environmental choice modelling”, Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 23, 2002, pp. 167~186.10.1023/A:1021202425295
  12. Bujosa, A., A. Riera, and R. I. Hicks, “Combining Discrete and Continuous Representations of Preference Heterogeneity: A Latent Class Approach”, Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 23, 2010, pp. 477~493.10.1007/s10640-010-9389-y
  13. Campbell, D., W. G. Hutchinson, and R. Scarpa, “Lexicographic Preferences in Discrete Choice Experiments: Consequences on Individual Specific Willingness to Pay Estimates”, Fondazione Eni Enrico mattei, 2006.
  14. Caussad, S., J. D. Ortúzar, L. I. Rizzi, and D. A. Hensher, “Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice experiment estimates”, Transportation Research Part B, Vol. 39, 2005, pp. 621~640.10.1016/j.trb.2004.07.006
  15. Cicia. Gianni., Cembalo. Luigi., Giudice. Teresa Del., Palladino. Andrea., “Fossil energy versus nuclear, wind, solar and agricultural biomass: Insights from an Italian national survey”, Energy Policy, Vol. 42, 2012, pp. 59~66.10.1016/j.enpol.2011.11.030
  16. Deshazo, J. R. and G. Fermo, “Designing choice sets for stated preference methods: the effects of complexity on choice consistency”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 44, 2002, pp. 123~143.10.1006/jeem.2001.1199
  17. Ferrini, S. and R. Scarpa, “Experimental designs for environmental valuation with choice experiments: a Monte Carlo investigation”, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists Annual Conference: Bremen, 2005.
  18. Fishbein and Ajzen, Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1975.
  19. Green, W. H. and D. A. Hensher, “A Latent Class Model for Discrete Choice Analysis: Contrasts with Mixed Loigt”, Transportation Research Part B, Vol. 37, 2003, pp. 681~698.10.1016/S0191-2615(02)00046-2
  20. Heiner, R. A., “The origin of predictable behavior”, The American Economic Review, Vol. 73, No. 4, 1983, pp. 560~595.
  21. Heinzle. Stefanie., Kanzig. Josef., Wustenhagen. Rolf., Do Default Electricity Mixes Correspond to Customer Preferences?: Empirical evidence from choice experiments in Germany, Draft Working Paper No. 13 within the project, St. Gallen, 2010.
  22. Hensher, D. A., J. M. Ross, and W. H. Green, “Applied Choice Analysis: A primer”, Cambridge, 2005.10.1017/CBO9780511610356
  23. Hensher, David A, Rose., John M., Green. William H., “Applied Choice Analysis 2nd Edition”, Cambridge University Press, 2015.
  24. Hess, S., Bierlaire. Michel, and Polak John. W., “Capturing Correlation and Taste Heterogeniety with Mixed GEV Models, Application of Simulation Methods in Environmental Economics”, Springer Publishers, 2005, pp. 55~75.
  25. Hynes, S., N. Hanley, and R. Scarpa, “Effect on Welfare Measures of Alternative means of Accounting for Preference Heterogeneity in Recreational Demand Models”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 90, 2008, pp. 1011~1027.10.1111/j.1467-8276.2008.01148.x
  26. Kuhfeld. Warren F., Marketing Research Methods in SAS - Experimental Design, Choice, Conjoint, and Graphical Techniques, SAS Institute Inc, 2010.
  27. Longo, A, A. Markandya., and M. Perucci., “The internalization of externalities in the production of electricity: Willingness to pay for the attributes of a policy for renewable energy”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 67, 2008, pp. 140~152.10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.12.006
  28. Louviere, J., D. Hensher, and J. Swait, “Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and application”, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000.10.1017/CBO9780511753831
  29. Luce, M. F., J. W. Payne, and J. R. Bettman, “Coping with unfavorable attribute values in choice”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 81, No. 2, 2000, pp. 274~299.10.1006/obhd.1999.287210706817
  30. Lusk, J. L. and F. B. Norwood, “Effect of experimental design on choice-based conjoint valuation estimates”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 87, No. 30, 2005, pp. 771~785.10.1111/j.1467-8276.2005.00761.x
  31. Masheswaran, Durairaj, Dianne M. Mackie and Shelly Chaiken, “Brand Name as Heuristic Cue: The Effects of Task Importance and Expectancy Confirmation on Consumer Judgments”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 1, No. 4, 1992, pp. 317~336.10.1016/S1057-7408(08)80058-7
  32. McFadden, D., “Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior, in P. Zarembka (ed), Frontier In Econometrics”, Academic Press, 1973, pp. 105~142.
  33. McIntosh, E. and M. Ryan, “Using discrete choice experiments to derive welfare estimates for the provision of elective surgery: implications of discontinuous preferences”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 23, 2002, pp. 367~382.10.1016/S0167-4870(02)00081-8
  34. Murakami. Kayo., Ida. Takanori., Tanaka. Makoto., Friedman. Lee., Consumers’ willingness to pay for renewable and nuclear energy: A comparative analysis between the US and Japan, Goldman School of Public Policy, Working Paper Series, 2014.
  35. O’Keeffe. Lucy., “A Choice Experiment Survey Analysis of Public Preferences for Renewable Energy in the United States”, Journal of Environmental and Resource Economics at Colby, Vol. 1, Issue 1, Article 9, 2014, pp. 1~19.
  36. Roe. Brian., Teisl. Mario F., Levy. Alan., Russell. Matthew., “US consumers’ willingness to pay for green electricity”, Energy Policy, Vol. 29, 2001, pp. 917~925.10.1016/S0301-4215(01)00006-4
  37. Rosenberger. Randall S, Peterson. George L., Clarke. Andrea., Brown Thomas C., “Measuring dispositions for lexicographic preferences of environmental goods: integrating economics, psychology and ethics”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 44, 2003, pp. 63~76.10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00221-5
  38. Sælensminde, K., “Inconsistent choices in stated choice data: use of the logit scaling approach to handle resulting variance increases”, Transportation, Vol. 28, 2001, pp. 269~296.10.1023/A:1010351102128
  39. Siomonson, Itamar, “The Influence of Anticipating Regret and Responsibility on Purchase Decisions”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19(June), 1992, pp. 105~118.10.1086/209290
  40. Spash Clive L., and Hanley, Nick, “Preferences, information and biodiversity preservation”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 12, 1995, pp. 191~208.10.1016/0921-8009(94)00056-2
  41. Spash., Clive L., “Ecosystems, contingent valuation and ethics: the case of wetland re-creation”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 34, 2000, pp. 195~215.10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00158-0
  42. Swait, J. and W. Adamowicz, “Choice environment, market complexity, and consumer behavior: a theoretical and empirical approach for incorporating decision complexity inot models of consumer choice”, Organizational Behavior and Human Desion Processes, Vol. 86, No. 2, 2001, pp. 141~167.10.1006/obhd.2000.2941
  43. Train, K., “Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation”, Cambridge University Press, UK., 2003.10.1017/CBO9780511753930
  44. Train, K., and M. Weeks., “Discrete Choice Models in Preference Space and Willing-to-Pay space.” In R. Scarpa and A. Alberini, eds. Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Publisher, chapter 1, 2005, pp. 1~16.10.1007/1-4020-3684-1_1
  45. Yoo. James., Ready. Richard C., “Preference heterogeneity for renewable energy technology”, Energy Economics, Vol. 42, 2014, pp. 101~114.10.1016/j.eneco.2013.12.007
Information
  • Publisher :Environmental and Resource Economics Review
  • Publisher(Ko) :자원 · 환경경제연구
  • Journal Title :자원·환경경제연구
  • Journal Title(Ko) :Environmental and Resource Economics Review
  • Volume : 27
  • No :4
  • Pages :695-723
  • DOI :https://doi.org/10.15266/KEREA.2018.27.4.695
Journal Informaiton 자원·환경경제연구 자원·환경경제연구
E-Book
Manuscript Submission
한국환경경제학회
Manuscript Submission
한국자원경제학회
  • NRF
  • KISTI Current Status
  • KISTI Cited-by
  • crosscheck
  • orcid
  • open access
  • ccl
Journal Informaiton Journal Informaiton - close