Environmental and Resource Economics Review (자원ㆍ환경경제연구)

Korean Resource Economics Association (한국자원경제학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Non-linear Preferences on Bioethanol in South Korea

국내 바이오에탄올에 대한 비선형적 선호에 관한 연구

  • Received : 2014.07.18
  • Accepted : 2014.09.19
  • Published : 2014.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Recently, there has been a debate as to whether bioethanol should replace some portion of gasoline for fuels in South Korea, as energy security as well as climate change issues are rising as a significant national agenda. However, a considerable amount of subsidy will be required to compensate for the higher price of bioethanol-blended gasoline. In this context, government subsidy will obtain justification only when the positive social gains from consuming bioethanol for fuels can exceed the negative social costs. Through a nation-wide choice experimental survey, we examine if South Koreans have a positive value as well as non-linear preferences on substituting bioethanol for gasoline. The results reveal that the willingness to pay for purely domestic bioethanol-blended gasoline within 10% is about 52 KRW; Koreans have concave preferences on the blending ratio of bioethanol to gasoline. The turning point of the blending ratio of bioethanol was 6.5%. Also, we found inverse U-shaped curve between income and bioethanol choice probability and the turning point of the income was calculated as 250~299million KRW. Politically conservative propensity advocates uses of bioethanol blended gasoline, but awareness on bioethanol or more weights on environmental conservation have significantly negative effects on the choice of bioethanol. However, the design of the survey questionnaire is incompatible with the RFS of Korea and assumes orthogonality among the following four interrelated attributes: (i) domestic or offshore procurement of feedstocks in the case of domestic production, (ii) domestic production or import of bioethanol, (iii) the blending ratios, and (iv) the retail price increases. In addition, the results of model estimation and of model selection test are not definite. Hence, the results in this study should not be directly applied to the design of the specifics of the Korean RFS. Hence, the results in this study require cautions in applying to the design of the Korean RFS policy.

최근 우리나라에서도 바이오에탄올 혼합을 의무화하는 제도 도입을 준비하고 있다. 바이오에탄올은 기후변화에 대응하기위한 수단일 뿐만 아니라 에너지 안보 측면에서 휘발유에 대한 유력한 대체연료이다. 그러나 일반 휘발유보다 판매가격이 더 높은 바이오에탄올 혼합 휘발유를 유통시키기 위해서는 정부 지원이 선행되어야 한다. 따라서 바이오에탄올 소비로 인한 편익이 비용보다 높다면 정부 지원의 정당성이 확보될 수 있을 것이다. 본 연구는 전국의 휘발유 자동차 운전자를 대상으로 바이오에탄올 선호도를 조사하였다. 패널로짓모형을 이용하여 3~10% 바이오에탄올 혼합 휘발유에 대한 속성을 분석한 결과 국산원료를 이용한 에탄올 지불용의액이 리터당 52원으로 나타났다. 한편 바이오에탄올 혼합률이 증가할수록 역 U자형의 비선형 선호도를 갖는 것으로 추정되었고, 전환점에서 바이오에탄올 혼합률은 6.5%로 나타났다. 또한 소득수준과 바이오에탄올 선호간에도 역 U자형의 관계가 나타났고, 전환점 소득 구간이 250~299만 원인 것으로 나타났다. 한편 정치적으로 보수 성향일수록 바이오에탄올혼합유를 선호하고, 바이오에탄올에 대한 사전 지식이 있거나 환경보전에 대한 중요성이 높을수록 바이오에탄올혼합유 이용에 비판적인 것으로 나타났다. 다만 본 연구는 휘발유에 바이오에탄올의 혼유를 의무화하는 정책에 대한 소비자의 지불용의액을 실증분석하고자 하였지만, 우리나라에서 법제화된 RFS 제도에 직접적으로 부합하게 설문이 설계되지 않았고, 바이오에탄올의 원료조달, 제조, 의무혼합비율, 가격인상액 간에 직교관계를 가정했다는 한계가 존재한다. 또한 모형추정결과가 확정적이지 않다는 점에서, 위 결과를 우리나라에서 법제화된 RFS 제도에 그대로 적용하는 데는 주의를 요한다.

Keywords

References

  1. Bergmann, A., Colombo, S., Hanley, N., (2008). Rural versus urban preferences for renewable energy developments. Ecological Economics 65, 616-625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.08.011
  2. Bergmann, A., Hanley, N., Wright, R., (2006). Valuing the attributes of renewable energy investments. Energy Policy 34, 1004-1014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2004.08.035
  3. Botchers, A.M., Duke, J.M., Parsons, G.R., (2007). Does willingness to pay for green energy differ by source? Energy Policy 35, 3327-3334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2006.12.009
  4. Davidson, D.J., Freudenburg, W.R., 1996. Gender and environmental risk concerns: a review and analysis of available research. Environment and Behavior 28, 302-339. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916596283003
  5. de Gorter, Harry and Just, David R., 2007, The Welfare Economics of an Excise-Tax Exemption for Biofuels, MPRA Paper No. 5151.
  6. Ferrish, J. and Joshi, S.V., 2004, Evaluating the Impacts of an Increase in Fuelethanol Demand on Agriculture and the Economy, Selected Paper prepared for presentation at the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Denver, Colorado.
  7. Greene, W. (2000), Econometric Analysis, 4th edn, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
  8. Heiman, M.K., Solomon, B.D., (2007), Fueling U.S. transportation: the hydrogen economy and its alternatives. Environment 49 (8), 10-25.
  9. Hill, J., Nelson, E., Tilman, D., Polasky, S., Tiffany, D., (2006). Environmental, economic, and energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103, 11206-11210. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0604600103
  10. Jaffe, A., Savins, R., 1994. Energy-efficiency investments and public policy. The Energy Journal 15 (2), 43-65.
  11. Jeanty, P., and F. Hitzhusen (2007), Using stated preferences to estimate the environmental benefits of using biodiesel fuel in diesel engines, Biofuels, Food, and Feed Tradeoffs Conference St. Louise, MO.
  12. KALIA (Korea Alcohol and Liquor Industry Association), 2012, Financial accounting data for individual alcoholic company, Accessed at http://www.kalia.or.kr.
  13. Kerr, G., Sharp, B., 2009, Efficiency benefits of choice model experimental design updating: a case study, Presented paper in the 53th annual Australian Agriculture and Resource Economics Society Conference, Cairns, Queensland.
  14. Li, H., Jenkins-Smith, H., Silva, C.L., Berrens, R.P., Herron, K.G., 2009. Public support for reducing US reliance on fossil fuels: investigating household willingness-to-pay for energy research and development. Ecological Economics 68, 731-742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.06.005
  15. Lim, Y., 2012. Literature review, main issues, and future direction in introducing RFS policy in South Korea, A presentation paper for Korea Petroleum Quality & Distribution Authority.
  16. Longo, A., Markandya, A., Petrucci, M., 2008. The internalization of externalities in the production of electricity: willingness to pay for the attributes of a policy for renewable energy. Ecological Economics 67, 140-152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.12.006
  17. Manski, C. and S. Lerman (1977), "The estimation of choice probabilities from choice based samples', Econometrica 45, 1977-1988. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914121
  18. Marschak, J. (1960), 'Binary choice constraints on random utility indications', in K. Arrow, ed., Stanford Symposium on Mathematical Methods in the Social Sciences, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, pp. 312-329.
  19. McFadden, D,. "Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior," Zarembka, ed., Frontiers in Econometrics, New York : Academic Press, 1974.
  20. Petrolia, Daniel R., Sanjoy Bhattacharjee, Darren Hudson, Cary W. Herndon (2010), Do Americans want ethanol? A comparative contingent-valuation study of willingness to pay for E-10 and E-85, Energy Economics 32, 121-128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2009.08.004
  21. Petronet, 2012, Domestic retail gasoline price data, Accessed at http://www.petronet.co.kr.
  22. Rabe, B., 2007. Beyond Kyoto: designing policies to reduce greenhouse gases in competing federal systems. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions 20, 423-444. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2007.00365.x
  23. Roe, B., Teisl, M.F., Levy, A., Russell, M., 2001. US consumers' willingness to pay for green electricity. Energy Policy 29, 917-925. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(01)00006-4
  24. Runge, C.F., Senauer, B., 2007. How biofuels could starve the poor. Foreign Affairs 86 (3), 41-53.
  25. Scarpa, R. and Willis, K., 2010. "Willingness to pay for renewable energy : Primary and discretionary choice of British households' for micro-generation technologies, Energy Economics vo. 32, pp. 129-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2009.06.004
  26. Scarpa, R. and Rose, J.M., 2008, "Design efficiency for non-market valuation with choice modeling : how to measure it, what to report and why", Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 52, 253-282. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8489.2007.00436.x
  27. Solomon, Barry D. and Nicholas H. Johnson, (2009), Valuing climate protection through willingness to pay for biomass ethanol, Ecological Economics 68, 2137-2144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.02.010
  28. Train, K.E., 2009. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  29. Vedenov, D. and Wetzstein, M., 2008, Toward an optimal U.S. ethanol fuel subsidy, Energy Economics 30, 2073-2090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2007.02.004
  30. Wiser, R.H., 2007. Using contingent valuation to explore willingness to pay for renewable energy: a comparison of collective and voluntary payment vehicles. Ecological Economics 62, 19-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.11.005
  31. World Bank, 2008. Biofuels: The Promise and the Risk, Policy Brief, World Development Report 2008. Agriculture and Development, Washington,D.C.http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTDEC/EXTRESEARCH/EXTWDRS/EXTWDR2008/0,,contentMDK:21501336-pagePK:64167689-piPK:64167673-theSitePK:2795143,00.html.
  32. Zarnikau, J., 2003. Consumer demand for 'green power' and energy efficiency. Energy Policy 31, 1661-1672. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(02)00232-X

Cited by

  1. Economic Feasibility and Impact Analysis of Cellulose Bioethanol Production in Korea vol.12, pp.3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.7849/ksnre.2016.9.12.3.149