| 摘要 | ABSTRACT
Estimation of Consumers�� Willingness to Pay for Convenience of Heating Systems
This report comparatively evaluates the heating convenience from the two most popular apartment heating systems in Korea, city gas and district heating. Heating convenience between city gas and district heating systems is largely distinguished by location of the boiler, use of hot water, administration of facility, and control of indoor temperature. Heating convenience may not appropriately reflect the value of each choice in the Korean heating market, where the government controls heating prices and consumer choice is limited. We apply a double-bounded dichotomous choice method to survey consumer behaviors in a hypothetical market. The survey is conducted for 800 apartment residents in the Bupeong region in Incheon, and the Mokdong region in Seoul.
The survey results indicate that there are two distinct types of consumers, based on the heating system they prefer. Those who have a high living standard
–
who earn a higher household income and whose heads of household complete higher levels of education, and who reside in more expensive apartments
–
prefer district heating to city gas. On the other hand, those who are more concerned with heating costs
–
who use more electrical heating appliances or insulating products, more actively adjust thermostats, and warm each room separately
–
prefer city gas to district heating.
Respondents reveal their Willingness To Pay (WTP), i.e., the value they put on heating convenience, in a hypothetical market. To compare these two systems, this paper derives the WTP��s as the ratio of heating rate of district heating to city gas. The average WTP across all 800 respondents is estimated to be 4.025%. This implies that the respondents are willing to pay a 4.025% higher rate to use district heating rather than city gas. Yet a huge difference between current district heating users and current city gas users indicates that the cross-sample average may be too crude a measure for the sample. The city gas users appear not to differentiate much between the convenience from these two systems, resulting in only a 0.104% WTP. In contrast, the WTP for district heating users runs to 7.921%. So the value associated with those who directly use district heating is much higher than that associated with those who indirectly imagine its convenience in a survey situation.
By design we undertook a comparative study between city gas and district heating, taking into account the current Korean heating market environment, where these two system compete intensively against each other. The values consumers directly put on convenience are derived as specific percentages. Thus, our results provide practical and direct information for policy-makers, particularly at the moment that Korea��s heating market paradigm is moving from public or government management toward management by diversified private interests. First of all, the WTP numbers provide basic consumer information relevant to the design of a full-cost-plus pricing system with a price cap, which recently has been proposed as an alternative to the current pricing system for district heating. The price cap is set as the price of the city gas system. The WTP numbers inform the ��plus�� in ��full-cost-plus pricing��, and so better define the maximum price that consumers may accept for district heating. In addition, policies to zone areas exclusively for district heat supply have been at issue recently for limiting consumer choice. Our results can indirectly predict what will happen if regulations setting up exclusively district heating zones are abolished. Finally, we suggest two strategies to foster district heating systems, which generate a range of external benefits. Instead of the existing strategy that highlights its lower cost, the new strategy to stress is convenience, comfort, and safety, demonstrating that district heating better meets consumer preferences. District heating has stronger consumer loyalty, but higher installation costs. In order to expand district heating supply effectively, policy-makers or managers can consider various policies to lower cost barriers to entry, such as supporting or offering tax benefits to offset installation costs, and helping to secure sources of financing for infrastructure construction. |
