| dc.description.abstract | The issue of energy saving and carbon reduction is due to global warming. So that the most important consideration is to reduce the emissions of carbon dioxide. On 11 March 2011, it happened the Fukushima nuclear disaster. People pay more attention to the security of nuclear power. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to estimate the willingness to pay of avoiding the risks of nuclear power and climate change. Furthermore, this study also concerns about the attitude to nuclear energy after the Fukushima nuclear disaster.
This study estimates mainly by contingent valuation method, and asks about the willingness to pay and related attitudes by way of questionnaire survey. As for estimating the willingness to pay, it contains Ordinary least squares regression, Tobit, and Double-Hurdle Model. Besides, this study checks endogeneity between those willingness to pay by Seemingly unrelated regression equations. Finally, the attitude to nuclear energy analyses by Multinomial logit model.
As the empirical results shown, the willingness to pay of substitute for nuclear power by natural gas in order to avoid the risks of nuclear power is between NT$110 and NT$195. To mitigate the risks of climate change by way of nuclear power, the willingness to pay of promotion of nuclear security to avoid the risks of nuclear power is between NT$98 and NT$202. To mitigate the risks of climate change by way of renewables, the willingness to pay of being charged with the higher cost of renewables is between NT$160 and NT$223. Then, the results of Seemingly unrelated regression equations show that the model exists endogeneity significantly. Eventually, the analysis of attitude to nuclear energy show that the tendencies to be opposed attitude whether given before or after are: higher degree of nuclear risk averse, more concerned with environmental risk, less concerned with human health risks, pay much attention to security of electricity generation, less education. However, the tendency to attitude changed from support to oppose only contains higher degree of nuclear risk averse.
| en_US |