Journal of Resources and Ecology ›› 2022, Vol. 13 ›› Issue (2): 231-237.DOI: 10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2022.02.006
• Carbon Emission and Sustainable Development • Previous Articles Next Articles
HOU Peng1,2,*(), LIU Xiaojie1,*(
), CHENG Shengkui1
Received:
2021-03-15
Accepted:
2021-05-16
Online:
2022-03-30
Published:
2022-03-09
Contact:
HOU Peng,LIU Xiaojie
Supported by:
HOU Peng, LIU Xiaojie, CHENG Shengkui. Who Is More Willing to Pay for Green Electricity? A Case Study of Anyang City, China[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2022, 13(2): 231-237.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: http://www.jorae.cn/EN/10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2022.02.006
Item | Definition | Mean | S.D. |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | male=1, female=0 | 0.35 | 0.48 |
Age (yr) | Age of the respondents | 52.35 | 13.09 |
Family size (persons) | Total number of household members | 4.13 | 1.54 |
Education (yr) | Educational attainment level | 10.58 | 3.48 |
Perincome (yuan) | The monthly labor income per capita in the household | 1798.42 | 1019.19 |
Length (yr) | The length of time the respondents had lived in cities | 28.37 | 21.56 |
Rate | The ratio of those “Willing” (WTP=1) to the total number of sample households in the same community. (a closed interval from 0 to 1) | 0.60 | 0.22 |
Pollution | Respondent strongly disagrees with the opinion that the development of renewable energy can help to manage environmental pollution=1, partially disagree with the opinion =2, neutral on the opinion =3, partially agree with the opinion =4, absolutely agree with the opinion =5 | 4.47 | 0.65 |
Table 1 Descriptive statistics of the measured variables (n=274)
Item | Definition | Mean | S.D. |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | male=1, female=0 | 0.35 | 0.48 |
Age (yr) | Age of the respondents | 52.35 | 13.09 |
Family size (persons) | Total number of household members | 4.13 | 1.54 |
Education (yr) | Educational attainment level | 10.58 | 3.48 |
Perincome (yuan) | The monthly labor income per capita in the household | 1798.42 | 1019.19 |
Length (yr) | The length of time the respondents had lived in cities | 28.37 | 21.56 |
Rate | The ratio of those “Willing” (WTP=1) to the total number of sample households in the same community. (a closed interval from 0 to 1) | 0.60 | 0.22 |
Pollution | Respondent strongly disagrees with the opinion that the development of renewable energy can help to manage environmental pollution=1, partially disagree with the opinion =2, neutral on the opinion =3, partially agree with the opinion =4, absolutely agree with the opinion =5 | 4.47 | 0.65 |
Name of district | Sample size | WTP=1 (YES) (%) | Magnitude of WTP (yuan) |
---|---|---|---|
Wenfeng District | 24 | 66.67 | 6.00 |
Beiguan District | 24 | 44.44 | 6.67 |
Longan District | 16 | 50.00 | 3.34 |
Yindu District | 31 | 80.65 | 6.66 |
Anyang County | 17 | 41.18 | 9.98 |
Linzhou City | 62 | 55.56 | 6.18 |
Tangyin County | 29 | 48.39 | 11.08 |
Neihuang County | 24 | 69.23 | 8.01 |
Hua County | 47 | 75.00 | 11.93 |
Average | -- | 60.98 | 8.05 |
Table 2 The differences of respondents’ WTP among districts
Name of district | Sample size | WTP=1 (YES) (%) | Magnitude of WTP (yuan) |
---|---|---|---|
Wenfeng District | 24 | 66.67 | 6.00 |
Beiguan District | 24 | 44.44 | 6.67 |
Longan District | 16 | 50.00 | 3.34 |
Yindu District | 31 | 80.65 | 6.66 |
Anyang County | 17 | 41.18 | 9.98 |
Linzhou City | 62 | 55.56 | 6.18 |
Tangyin County | 29 | 48.39 | 11.08 |
Neihuang County | 24 | 69.23 | 8.01 |
Hua County | 47 | 75.00 | 11.93 |
Average | -- | 60.98 | 8.05 |
Fig. 2 The distribution of respondents’ answers on Question 14: “How would you feel if the utilization of GE led to a bigger household electricity bill”.
Variable | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Probit | OLS | Probit | OLS | Probit | OLS | |
Gender | -0.298(0.182) | 0.131(1.803) | -0.33*(0.195) | 0.287(1.804) | -0.343*(0.197) | -0.025(1.804) |
Age | -0.009(0.007) | 0.063(0.073) | -0.01(0.009) | 0.075(0.08) | -0.01(0.009) | 0.073(0.079) |
Education | 0.429***(0.098) | 2.005**(0.92) | 0.329***(0.105) | 1.677*(0.953) | 0.323***(0.106) | 1.498(0.954) |
Family size | 0.017(0.057) | 0.971*(0.568) | 0.024(0.062) | 0.917(0.58) | 0.023(0.062) | 0.89(0.578) |
Perincome | 0.0004***(0.000) | 0.002**(0.001) | 0.0004***(0.000) | 0.002**(0.001) | 0.0003***(0.000) | 0.002*(0.001) |
Length | - | - | 0.008*(0.005) | -0.002(0.046) | 0.009*(0.005) | 0.005(0.046) |
Rate | - | - | 2.944***(0.493) | 6.414*(3.865) | 2.938***(0.493) | 6.516*(3.848) |
Pollution | - | - | - | - | 0.088***(0.139) | 2.384**(1.298) |
Constant | -1.207*(0.661) | -9.6(6.539) | -2.706***(0.774) | -12.511*(6.763) | -3.06***(0.958) | -22.074**(8.51) |
R2 | - | 0.049 | - | 0.059 | - | 0.071 |
Table 3 Estimation results of the Probit model and the OLS model
Variable | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Probit | OLS | Probit | OLS | Probit | OLS | |
Gender | -0.298(0.182) | 0.131(1.803) | -0.33*(0.195) | 0.287(1.804) | -0.343*(0.197) | -0.025(1.804) |
Age | -0.009(0.007) | 0.063(0.073) | -0.01(0.009) | 0.075(0.08) | -0.01(0.009) | 0.073(0.079) |
Education | 0.429***(0.098) | 2.005**(0.92) | 0.329***(0.105) | 1.677*(0.953) | 0.323***(0.106) | 1.498(0.954) |
Family size | 0.017(0.057) | 0.971*(0.568) | 0.024(0.062) | 0.917(0.58) | 0.023(0.062) | 0.89(0.578) |
Perincome | 0.0004***(0.000) | 0.002**(0.001) | 0.0004***(0.000) | 0.002**(0.001) | 0.0003***(0.000) | 0.002*(0.001) |
Length | - | - | 0.008*(0.005) | -0.002(0.046) | 0.009*(0.005) | 0.005(0.046) |
Rate | - | - | 2.944***(0.493) | 6.414*(3.865) | 2.938***(0.493) | 6.516*(3.848) |
Pollution | - | - | - | - | 0.088***(0.139) | 2.384**(1.298) |
Constant | -1.207*(0.661) | -9.6(6.539) | -2.706***(0.774) | -12.511*(6.763) | -3.06***(0.958) | -22.074**(8.51) |
R2 | - | 0.049 | - | 0.059 | - | 0.071 |
[1] |
Andor M A, Frondel M, Sommer S. 2018. Equity and the willingness to pay for green electricity in Germany. Nature Energy, 3(10): 876-881.
DOI URL |
[2] | AMBS (Anyang Municipal Bureau of Statistics). 2019. Anyang statistical yearbook. Beijing, China: China Statistics Press. (in Chinese) |
[3] |
Arega T, Tadesse T. 2017. Household willingness to pay for green electricity in urban and peri-urban Tigray, Northern Ethiopia: Determinants and welfare effects. Energy Policy, 100: 292-300.
DOI URL |
[4] | Armaroli N, Balzani V. 2011. Towards an electricity-powered world. Energy & Environmental Science, 4(9): 3193-3222. |
[5] |
Borchers A M, Duke J M, Parsons G R. 2007. Does willingness to pay for green energy differ by source? Energy Policy, 35(6): 3327-3334.
DOI URL |
[6] |
Carleton T A, Hsiang S M. 2016. Social and economic impacts of climate. Science, 353(6304). DOI: 10.1126/science.aad9837.
DOI |
[7] | CNBS (Chinese National Bureau of Statistics). 2019. China city statistical yearbook (2018). Beijing, China: China Statistics Press. (in Chinese) |
[8] |
Damette O, Delacote P, Lo G D. 2018. Households energy consumption and transition toward cleaner energy sources. Energy Policy, 113: 751-764.
DOI URL |
[9] | Dogan E, Muhammad I. 2019. Willingness to pay for renewable electricity: A contingent valuation study in Turkey. The Electricity Journal, 32(10): 1-6. |
[10] |
Egli F, Steffen B, Schmidt T S. 2018. A dynamic analysis of financing conditions for renewable energy technologies. Nature Energy, 3(12): 1084-1092.
DOI URL |
[11] | Gan L, Eskeland G S, Kolshus H H. 2007. Green electricity market development: Lessons from Europe and the US. Energy Policy, 35(1): 144-155. |
[12] | International Energy Agency. 2019. Elctricity Information (2019 edition). Paris, France: IEA. |
[13] |
Krausmann F, Erb K H, Gingrich S, et al. 2013. Global human appropriation of net primary production doubled in the 20th century. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 110(25): 10324-10329.
DOI URL |
[14] |
Lee C Y, Heo H. 2016. Estimating willingness to pay for renewable energy in South Korea using the contingent valuation method. Energy Policy, 94: 150-156.
DOI URL |
[15] |
Liu J G, Dietz T, Carpenter S R, et al. 2007. Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science, 317(5844): 1513-1516.
DOI URL |
[16] | Murakami K, Ida T, Tanaka M, et al. 2015. Consumers’ willingness to pay for renewable and nuclear energy: A comparative analysis between the US and Japan. Energy Economics, 50: 178-189. |
[17] |
Nomura N, Akai M. 2004. Willingness to pay for green electricity in Japan as estimated through contingent valuation method. Applied Energy, 78(4): 453-463.
DOI URL |
[18] |
Oberschelp C, Pfister S, Raptis C E, et al. 2019. Global emission hotspots of coal power generation. Nature Sustainability, 2(2): 113-121.
DOI |
[19] |
Oliver H, Volschenk J, Smit E. 2011. Residential consumers in the Cape Peninsula’s willingness to pay for premium priced green electricity. Energy Policy, 39(2): 544-550.
DOI URL |
[20] |
Schmidt T S. 2014. Low-carbon investment risks and de-risking. Nature Climate Change, 4(4): 237-239.
DOI URL |
[21] |
Štreimikienė D, Baležentis A. 2015. Assessment of willingness to pay for renewables in Lithuanian households. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 17(2): 515-531.
DOI URL |
[22] |
Su W H, Liu M L, Zeng S Z, et al. 2018. Valuating renewable microgeneration technologies in Lithuanian households: A study on willingness to pay. Journal of Cleaner Production, 191: 318-329.
DOI URL |
[23] | United Nations. 2015a. The paris agreement. Paris, France: UN. |
[24] | United Nations. 2015b. Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. New York, USA: UN. |
[25] |
Xie B C, Zhao W. 2018. Willingness to pay for green electricity in Tianjin, China: Based on the contingent valuation method. Energy Policy, 114: 98-107.
DOI URL |
[26] |
Zhang L, Wu Y. 2012. Market segmentation and willingness to pay for green electricity among urban residents in China: The case of Jiangsu Province. Energy Policy, 51: 514-523.
DOI URL |
[1] | CHEN Bixia, QIU Zhenmian. Green Tourism in Japan:Opportunities for a GIAHS Pilot Site [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2013, 4(3): 285-292. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||