Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.15266/KEREA.2021.30.1.049

Impact of Various Feedstock Attributes on the Social Acceptance on Bioethanol Promotion in South Korea  

Li, Dmitriy D. (Department of Economics, Chonnam National University)
Bae, Jeong Hwan (Department of Economics, Chonnam National University)
Publication Information
Environmental and Resource Economics Review / v.30, no.1, 2021 , pp. 49-77 More about this Journal
Abstract
This study uses a choice experiment approach to examine whether different types of feedstocks as well as other attributes such as the cost of bioethanol, bioethanol blending ratio, and government support policies affect consumers' biofuel preferences. We apply a standard conditional logit model, a mixed logit model (MLM), and individual coefficient estimation model (ICM) to estimate the parameters of the investigated attributes. The results show that people prefer domestic and non-food feedstock, along with tax exemption as a support policy. All the attributes show unobservable preference heterogeneity in the MLM and ICM. In particular, willingness to pay for attributes are higher in the genetically modified (GM) feedstock-unknown group than in the known one. We show the importance of using domestic and non-food feedstocks and managing GM feedstocks carefully to avoid consumer resistance when producing bioethanol in South Korea.
Keywords
Bioethanol; Biofuel; Feedstock; Choice experiment; Preference heterogeneity;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Fimereli, E., and S. Mourato, Consumer preferences for bioethanol blends, 2009 EAERE Summer School, 5th-11th July 2009, Venice, pp. 1-17, 2009.
2 Hensher, D. A., J. M. Rose, and W. H. Green, Applied Choice Analysis. Second ed, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1-1698, 2015.
3 Hole, A. R., "Fitting mixed logit models by using maximum simulated likelihood," Stata J, Vol. 7, 2007, pp. 388-401.   DOI
4 International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications(ISAAA), "Global status of commercialized biotech/GM Crops:2017," ISAAA Briefs, Vol. 53, 2017, pp. 1-100.
5 Jensen, K. L., C. D. Clark, B. C. English, R. J. Menard, D. K. Skahan, and A. C. Marra, "Willingness to pay for E85 from corn, switchgrass, and wood residues," Energy Economics, Vol. 32, No. 6, 2010, pp. 1253-1262.   DOI
6 Lanzini, P., F. Testa, and F. Iraldo, "Factors affecting drivers' willingness to pay for biofuels: the case of Italy," Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 112, 2016, pp. 2684-2692.   DOI
7 Li, T., and J. J. Mccluskey, "Consumer preferences for second-generation bioethanol," Energy Economics, Vol. 61, 2017, pp. 1-7.   DOI
8 Lim, S. Y., H. J. Kim, and S. H. Yoo, "Public's willingness to pay a premium for bioethanol in South Korea: A contingent valuation study," Energy Policy, Vol. 101, 2017, pp. 20-27.   DOI
9 Loureiro, M. L., X. Labandeira, and M. Hanemann, "Transport and low-carbon fuel: A study of public preferences in Spain," Energy Economics, Vol. 40, 2013, pp. 1-26.   DOI
10 Mamadzhanov, A., J. J. McCluskeym, and T. Li, "Willingness to pay for a second- generation bioethanol: A case study of South Korea," Energy Policy, Vol. 127, 2019, pp. 464-474.   DOI
11 Bae, J. H., "Supply Portfolio of Bioethanol in the Republic of South Korea," The South Korean Economic Review, Vol. 30, No. 1, 2014, pp. 133-161.
12 Bae, J. H., and M. Rishi, "Increasing consumer participation rates for green pricing programs: A choice experiment for South South Korea," Energy Economics, Vol. 74, 2018, pp. 490-502.   DOI
13 Bujosa, A., A. Riera, and R. L. Hicks, "Combining Discrete and Continuous Representations of Preference Heterogeneity: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 47, No. 4, 2010, pp. 477-493.   DOI
14 McFadden, D., Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior, Berkeley: CA. University of California, pp. 1-38, 1973.
15 Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy, Implementation Plan for Renewable Energy 3020 Agenda, 2017.
16 Miren, I. S., S. Javier, and W. Carmina, "Consumer reaction to information on the labels of genetically modified food," Rev Saude Publica 2014, Vol. 48, No. 1, 2014, pp. 154-169.
17 Mueller, S., J. Lie, B. Keesom, and S. Unnasch, The impact of higher ethanol blend levels on vehicle emissions in 5 global cities, Workshop at the University of Illinois at Chicago, pp. 1-104, 2018.
18 Petrolia, D. R., S. Bhattacharjee, D. Hudson, and C. W. Herndon, "Do Americans want ethanol? A comparative contingent-valuation study of willingness to pay for E-10 and E-85," Energy Economics, Vol. 32, No. 1, 2010, pp. 121-128.   DOI
19 Revelt, D., and K. Train, Customer-specific Taste Parameters and Mixed Logit: Households' Choice of Electricity Supplier, Econometrics 0012001, University Library of Munich, Germany, 2001.
20 Shin, J., and W. -S. Hwang, "Consumer preference and willingness to pay for a renewable fuel standard (RFS) policy: Focusing on ex-ante market analysis and segmentation," Energy Policy, Vol. 106, 2017, pp. 32-40.   DOI
21 Solomon, B. D., and N. H. Johnson, "Valuing climate protection through willingness to pay for biomass ethanol," Ecological Economics, Vol. 68, No. 7, 2009, pp. 2137-2144.   DOI
22 Stein, R. A., J. E. Anderson, and T. J. Wallington, "An Overview of the Effects of Ethanol-Gasoline Blends on SI Engine Performance, Fuel Efficiency, and Emissions," SAE International Journal of Engines, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2013, pp. 470-487.   DOI
23 Yoo, J., and R. C. Ready, "Preference heterogeneity for renewable energy technology," Energy Economics, Vol. 42, 2014, pp. 101-114.   DOI
24 Train, K. E., Discrete choice methods with simulation, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-388. 2009.
25 Wang, M., J. Han, J. Dunn, H. Cai, and A. Elgowainy, "Well-to-Wheels Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Ethanol From Corn, Sugarcane, and Cellulosic Biomass for US Use," Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 7, No. 4, 2012, pp. 1-13.