Public Preferences for Replacing Hydro-Electricity Generation with Coal-Fired Power Generation

석탄화력 발전 대비 수력 발전에 대한 국민 선호도 분석

Choi, Hyo-Yeon;Ryu, Mun-Hyun;Yoo, Seung-Hoon

  • Received : 2015.02.09
  • Accepted : 2015.03.05
  • Published : 2015.03.31


Although coal-fired power generation has played a role as base load unit, it has incurred various social costs in the process of generating and providing electricity. It is necessary to extend the proportion of low-carbon power generations, and reduce the ratio of coal-fired power generation to cope with global climate changes. This study, therefore, attempts to estimate the public's willingness-to-pay (WTP) for substitution of supplied electricity from hydro-electricity generation, a representative renewable energy, for coal-fired power generation. To this end, we apply the contingent valuation (CV) method, widely used technique when valuing non-market goods, to elicit the public's WTP. In addition, a spike model is employed to consider zero WTPs. After the empirical analysis with 1,000 households CV survey data, the results show that mean household's WTP for replacing supplied electricity from hydro-electricity generation with coal-fired power generation is estimated to be about 54 KRW per kWh. The results of this study are expected to contribute to determining energy-mix and provide benefit information of hydro-electricity generation.


coal-fired power generation;hydro-electricity generation;social costs of power generations;contingent valuation method


  1. 산업통상자원부, 제3차 신재생에너지 기술개발 및 이용보급 기본계획, 2008.
  2. 산업통상자원부, 제6차 전력수급기본계획, 2013.
  3. 산업통상자원부, 제2차 에너지기본계획, 2014.
  4. 한국개발연구원, 예비타당성조사 수행을 위한 일반지침 수정․보완 연구(제5판), 2008, 한국개발연구원 공공투자관리센터.
  5. Arrow, K., Solow R., Portney P. R., Leamer E. E., Radner R. and Schuman H., Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation, 1993, Federal Register, 58 pp. 4601-4614.
  6. Bergmann, A., Colombo, S. and Hanley, N., Rural versus urban preferences for renewable energy developments, 2008, Ecological Economics, 65, 616-625.
  7. Hanemann, W. M., Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses, 1984, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66(3), 332-341.
  8. Hanemann, W. M., Loomis, J., and Kaninnen, B. J., Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation, 1991, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 73, pp. 1255-1263.
  9. Kim, J., Park, J., Kim, J. and Heo, E., Renewable electricity as a differentiated good? The case of the Republic of Korea, 2013, Energy Policy, 54, 327-334.
  10. Kosenius, A.-K., Ollikainen, M., Valuation of environmental and societal trade-offs of renewable energy sources, 2013, Energy Policy, 62, 1148-1156.
  11. Kristrom, B., Spike models in contingent valuation, 1997, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 79, pp. 1013-1023.
  12. McFadden, D., Contingent valuation and social choice, 1994, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 76, 689-708.
  13. Markandya, A., Bigano, A., and Prochia, R., The Social Cost of Electricity: Scenarios and Policy Implications, 2009, Edward Elgar.
  14. Murakami, K., Ida, T., Tanaka, M., Lee, F., Consumers' willingness to pay for renewable and nuclear energy: A comparative analysis between the US and Japan, 2014, Working Paper.
  15. Nomura, N., Akai, M., Willingness to pay for green electricity in Japan as estimated through contingent valuation method, 2004, Applied Energy, 78, 453-463.
  16. Wiser, R.H., Using contingent valuation to explore willingness to pay for renewable energy: A comparison of collective and voluntary payment vehicles, 2007, Ecological Economics, 62, 419-432.
  17. Yoo, S. -H., Kwak, S.-Y., Willingness to pay for green electricity in Korea: A contingent valuation study, 2009, Energy Policy, 37, 5408-5416.