4.7 Article

Willingness to pay for renewable electricity: A contingent valuation study in Beijing, China

Journal

ENERGY POLICY
Volume 68, Issue -, Pages 340-347

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.11.032

Keywords

Contingent valuation method (CVM); Willingness to pay (WTP); Renewable electricity

Funding

  1. EEPSEA (Environment and Economy Program for Southeast Asia)-China in Country Small Research Grant [105920-00001003-016]
  2. Natural Sciences Foundation of China [21005005]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In China, renewable/green electricity, which can provide significant environmental benefits in addition to meeting energy demand, has more non-use value than use-value for electricity consumers, because its users have no way to actually own this use-value. To assess the value of renewable electricity and obtain information on consumer preferences, this study estimated the willingness to pay (WTP) of Beijing residents for renewable electricity by employing the contingent valuation method (CVM) and identified the factors which affect their WTP. The survey randomly selected 700 participants, of which 571 questionnaires were valid. Half of respondents were found to have positive WTP for renewable electricity. The average WTP of Beijing residents for renewable electricity is estimated to be 2.7-33 US$ (18.5-22.5CNY) per month. The main factors affecting the WTP of the respondents included income, electricity consumption, bid and payment vehicle. Knowledge of and a positive attitude towards renewable energy also resulted in the relatively higher willingness of a respondent to pay for renewable electricity. The proportion of respondents replying yes to WTP questions using a mandatory payment vehicle was slightly higher than that for questions using a voluntary vehicle. Lastly, several policy implications of this study are presented. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available