Measuring the social value of nuclear energy using contingent valuation methodology

Energy Policy

Volumn 38, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 1470-1476

  Jun, Eunju ^a   Kim, Won Joon ^b   Jeong, Yong Hoon ^b   Chang, Soon Heung ^b  

^a Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute   (South Korea)

^b Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST)   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation method; Nuclear energy; Social value

Indexed keywords

CONTINGENT VALUATION METHOD; CONTINGENT VALUATION METHODS; CONTINGENT VALUATIONS; ENERGY SOURCE; ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES; NUCLEAR POLICY; NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY; RAPID INNOVATION; SAFETY ISSUES; SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE; SOCIAL PERCEPTION; SOCIAL VALUES; TECHNOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

FOSSIL FUELS; INNOVATION;

NUCLEAR ENERGY;

CONTINGENT VALUATION; ENERGY POLICY; ENERGY RESOURCE; ENERGY USE; ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE; INNOVATION; NUCLEAR POWER; POLICY DEVELOPMENT; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EID: 75449092274     PISSN: 03014215     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2009.11.028     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Aabø, S., Strand, S., 2000. Public Library Assessment and Motivation by Altruism. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Conference on Cultural Economics, Minneapolis, mimeo.
2. Bateman I.J., Diamand E., Langford I.H., Jones A. Household willingness to pay and farmers' willingness to accept compensation for establishing a recreational woodland. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 1996, 39:21-44.
3. Bergstrom J., Dillman B., Stoll J. Public environment amenity benefits of private land: the case of prime agricultural land. Journal of Agricultural Economics 1985, 17:139-149.
4. Bille-Hansen T. The willingness-to-pay for the royal theatre in copenhagen as a public good. Journal of Cultural Economics 1997, 21:1-28.
5. Biship R.C., Herberlein T.A., Kealy M.J. Contingent valuation of environmental assets: comparisons with a simulated market. Natural Resources Journal 1983, 23:619-633.
6. Bravi, M., Scarpa, R., Sirchia, G., 1998. Measuring WTP for Cultural Services in Italian Museums: a Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Analysis. In: Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Cultural Economics, Barcelona.
7. Cameron T.A., James D. Efficient estimation method for closed-ended contingent valuation surveys. Review of Economics and Statistics 1987, 69:269-276.
8. Carson R.T., Flores N.E., Martin K.M., Wright J.L. Contingent valuation and revealed preference methodologies: comparing the estimates for quasi-public goods. Land Economics 1996, 72:80-99.
9. Carson R.T., Flores N.E., Meade N.F. Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence. Environmental and Resource Economics 2001, 19:173-210.
10. Carson R.T., Groves T. Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environmental and Resource Economics 2007, 37:181-210.
11. Carson R.T., Hanemann W.M. Contingent valuation. Handbook of Environmental Economics 2005, vol. 2:821-936. Elsevier, Amsterdam, North-Holland.
12. Ehrenberg, A., Mills, P., 1990. 'Viewers' Willingness to Pay-A Research Report, Broadcast, London.
13. Farrel A.E., Plevin R.J., Turner B.T., Jones A.D., O'Hare M., Kammen D. Ethanol can contribute to energy and environmental goals. Science 2006, 311:506-508.
14. Gerking S., Haan M., Shulze W.D. The marginal value of job safety: a contingent value study. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1988, 1:185-199.
15. GIF, 2002. A Technology Roadmap for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems. Issued by the US DOE Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee and the Generation IV International Forum.
16. Golay, M.W., 2001. A Policy Framework for Micro-Nuclear Technology, New Energy Technology. The James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy of Rice University, Huston.
17. Gordon I.M., Knetsch J. Consumers surplus and the evaluation of resources. Land Economics 1979, 55:1-10.
18. Hanemann W.M. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1984, 66:332-341.
19. IEA, 2007. World Energy Outlook, International Energy Agency.
20. Kim H.J., Jun E.J., Chang S.H., Kim W.J. An assessment of the effectiveness of fuel cycle technologies for the national energy security enhancement in the electricity sector. Annals of Nuclear Energy 2009, 36:604-611.
21. Knetsch J.L. Gains, losses, and the US EPA economic analysis guidelines: a hazardous product?. Environmental and Resource Economics 2005, 32:91-112.
22. Kovacs, P., Gordelier, S., 2009. Nuclear Power and the Public, NEA News, Facts and Opinions. Nuclear Energy Agency.
23. Lee, Y.E., 2006. Analysis on the role of various power generation resources for the sustainable development of Korean electric industry. In: International conference on sustainable energy and environment, Bangkok, Thailand.
24. McVeigh J., Burtruw D., Darmstadter J., Palmer K. Winner, loser, or innocent victim? Has renewable energy performed as expected?. Solar Energy 2000, 68:237-255.
25. Mitchell R.C., Carson R.T. Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Resources for the Future 1989.
26. Olsen J.A., Smith R.D. Theory versus practice: a review of "willingness to pay" in health and health case. Health Economics 2001, 10:39-52.
27. Protière C., Donaldson C., Luchini S., Moatti J.P., Shackley P. The impact of information on non-health attributes on willingness to pay for multiple health care programmes. Social Science & Medicine 2004, 58:1257-1269.
28. Spash C.L. Non-economic motivation for contingent values: rights and attitudinal beliefs in the willingness to pay for environmental improvements. Land Economics 2006, 82:602-622.
29. Tyner W.E. Policy alternatives for the future biofuels industry. Journal of Agricultural and Food Industrial Organization 2007, 5:1-13.
30. Vatn A. Environmental valuation and rationality. Land Economics 2004, 80:1-18.