Ocean and Polar Research

Korea Institute of Ocean Science & Technology (한국해양과학기술원)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Measuring the Conservation Value of Lagoons: The Case of Songji Lagoon

석호환경의 보존가치 추정: 송지호를 중심으로

  • Kwak, Seung-Jun (Department of Economics, College of Political Science & Economics Korea University) ;
  • Yoo, Seung-Hoon (School of Business and Economics, Hoseo University) ;
  • Chang, Jeong-In (Department of Economics, College of Political Science & Economics Korea University)
  • 곽승준 (고려대학교 정경대학 경제학과) ;
  • 유승훈 (호서대학교 경상학부) ;
  • 장정인 (고려대학교 정경대학 경제학과)
  • Published : 2005.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In recent days, most of the lagoons in Korea have been lost on account of indiscreet development and pollution. Thus, this study measures the conservation value of the Songji lagoon, a representative lagoon in Korea by using the contingent valuation (CV) method and specifies the non-use value of Songji lagoon. The survey was carefully desigrled and implemented to meet a number of recommendation rules suggested in the literature. The overall results show that the respondents well accepted the contingent market and would be willing to pay a significant amount for the proposed program to conserve Songii lagoon. Total Conservation value of Songji lagoon amounted to approximately 21.2 billion Korean won per year. Moreover, the non-use value of Songji lagoon amounted 15.7 billion Korean won per yew. The results of measuring the conservation value provide decision-makers with data indispensable to devising a conservation and management policy.

Keywords

References

  1. 곽승준, 유승훈, 이충기. 2002. 조건부 가치측정법을 이용한 우포늪의 보존가치 추정. 국제경제연구, 8(3), 203-225.
  2. 곽승준, 유승훈, 장정인. 2003. 해양환경 종합지수의 개발. 자원.환경경제연구, 12(3), 487-513.
  3. 곽승준, 조승국, 유승훈. 2002. 한려해상국립공원 보존의 경제적 가치: 조건부 가치측정법(CVM)을 이용하여. 경제학연구, 50(2), 85-104.
  4. 유병국. 1998. 강화도 남단 갯벌의 경제적 가치 평가. 한국환경경제학회 98년도 정기 학술대회 논문집, 325-356.
  5. 이창희, 강대석, 남정호, 이병국, 유혜진. 2001. 하구.석호 육해전이수역 통합 환경관리방안 연구. 한국해양수산개발원.
  6. 통계청. 2001. 한국통계연감.
  7. 해양수산부. 2004. 해양수산백서(2002-2003).
  8. Arrow, K., R.P. Solow, R. Portney, E.E. Leamer, R. Radner, and H. Schuman. 1993. Report of the NOAA Panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register, 58, 4601-4614.
  9. Brent, R.J. 1998. Cost-benefit Analysis for Developing Countries. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.
  10. Cameron, T.A. 1988. A new paradigm for valuing nonmarket goods using referendum data: maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression. J. Environ. Econ. Manage., 15, 355-379. https://doi.org/10.1016/0095-0696(88)90008-3
  11. Cameron, T.A. and M.D. James. 1987. Efficient estimation methods for closed-ended contingent valuation surveys. Rev. Econ. Stat., 69, 269-276. https://doi.org/10.2307/1927234
  12. Fisher, A. 1996. The conceptual underpinnings of the contingent valuation method. p. 19-37. In: The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resource. ed. by D.J. Bjornstad and J.R. Kahn. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.
  13. Hanemann, W.M. 1984. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am. J. Agric. Econ., 66, 332-341. https://doi.org/10.2307/1240800
  14. Hanemann, W.M. 1989. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses: Reply. Am. J. Agric. Econ., 71, 1057-1061. https://doi.org/10.2307/1242685
  15. Hanemann, W.M. 1994. Contingent valuation and economics. Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics Working Paper 697, University of California, Berkeley.
  16. Hanley, N. and C.L. Spash. 1993. Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.
  17. Krinsky, I. and A.L. Robb. 1986. On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Rev. Econ. Stat., 68, 715-719. https://doi.org/10.2307/1924536
  18. Kwak, S.J., S.H. Yoo, and C.O. Shin. 2002. A Multi-attribute Index for Assessing Environmental Impacts of Regional Development Projects : The Case Study of Korea. Environ. Manage., 29(2), 301-309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-001-0022-2
  19. Loomis, J. 1996. Measuring the economic benefits of removing dams and restoring the Elwha River: results of a contingent valuation survey. Water Resour. Res., 32, 411-447.
  20. Mitchell, R.C. and R.T. Carson. 1989. Using Survey to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
  21. McConnell, K.E. 1990. Models for referendum data: the structure of discrete choice models for contingent valuation. J. Environ. Econ. Manage., 18, 19-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/0095-0696(90)90049-5
  22. Park, T., J. Loomis, and M. Creel. 1991. Confidence intervals for evaluating benefit estimates from dichotomous choice contingent valuation studies. Land Econ., 67, 64-73. https://doi.org/10.2307/3146486
  23. Rowe, R.D. and L.G. Chestnut. 1983. Valuing environmental commodities revisited. Land Econ., 59, 404-410. https://doi.org/10.2307/3145655
  24. Yoo, S.H. and K.S. Chae. 2001. Measuring the economic benefits of the ozone pollution control policy in Seoul: results of a contingent valuation survey. Urban Stud., 38, 49-60. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980020014802

Cited by

  1. Assessment of Non-market Value of Dokdo vol.33, pp.3, 2011, https://doi.org/10.4217/OPR.2011.33.3.223
  2. Measuring the economic benefits of designating Baegnyeong Island in Korea as a marine protected area vol.24, pp.3, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2016.1232318