DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

다속성 효용이론에 근거한 조건부 가치측정법을 이용한 낙동강 하구의 환경가치 추정

Using the Contingent Valuation Method Based on Multi-attribute Utility Theory to Measure the Environmental Value of the Nakdong-river Estuary

  • 유승훈 (호서대학교 사회과학대학 해외개발학과)
  • Yoo, Seung-Hoon (Department of International Area Studies, College of Social Science Hoseo Univsersity)
  • 발행 : 2007.03.31

초록

This paper attempts to measure the environmental value of the Nakdong-river estuary, which is ecologically important but confronted with the threat of development. Especially, in order to elicit the environmental values of its four attributes, contingent valuation method(CVM) based on multi-attribute utility theory is applied and the CVM survey was rigorously designed to comply with the guidelines for best-practiced CVM studies. We surveyed a randomly selected sample of 400 and 350 households in Busan and six large cities(Seoul, Incheon, Daegu, Daejeon, Gwangju, and Ulsan), respectively and asked respondents questions in person-to-person interviews about how they would willing to pay for the estuary conservation and management program. Respondents overall accepted the contingent market and were willing to contribute a significant amount(2,457 won in Busan and 3,560 won in six large cities), on average, per household per year, which implies that there exists a large difference between the two. The aggregate values of the Nakdong-river estuary in Busan and six large cities amount to 2.92 and 22.32 billion won, respectively, per year. In addition, expanding the values to Korea produces 51.34 billion won per year. The quantitative values can be utilized in planning and decision-making about development versus conservation of the estuary.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. 곽승준, 유승훈, 장정인. 2006. 컨조인트 분석을 이용한 한강하구의 가치추정. 경제학연구, 54(4), 141-161
  2. 송교육, 제윤미. 2004. 낙동강 하구역의 생태경제학적 가치평가와 보전방안에 관한 연구. 연구보고서 2004-20, 부산발전연구원
  3. 이창희, 강대석, 남정호, 이병국, 유혜진. 2001. 하구석호 육해전이수역 통합환경관리방안 연구. 한국해양수산개발원
  4. 이창희, 남정호, 김선희, 김홍상, 노백호, 문현주, 심영규, 안소은, 박창석, 이수재, 노태호, 강대석, 신용식, 최유진, 강수진, 한은진, 김재경, 한종화, 박해경. 2005. 지속가능한 하구역 관리방안 II, 경제인문사회연구회 협동연구총서 05-21-03. 한국환경정책평가연구원
  5. Arrow, K., R. Solow, P.R. Portney, E.E. Leamer, R. Radner, and H. Schuman. 1993. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register, 58, 4601-4614
  6. Bateman, I.J. and K.E. Willis. 1999. Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing Countries. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford
  7. Bjornstad, D.J. and J.R. Kahn. 1996. The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resources: Methodological Issues and Research Needs. Edward Elgar
  8. Freeman III A.M. 1993. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values. Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C
  9. Gregory, R., S. Lichtenstein, and P. Slovic. 1993. Valuing environmental resources: a constructive approach. J. Risk Uncertainty, 7, 177-197 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01065813
  10. Hanemann, W.M. 1984. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am. J. Agr. Econ., 66, 332-341 https://doi.org/10.2307/1240800
  11. Hanemann, W.M., J.B. Loomis, and B.J. Kaninnen. 1991. Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Am. J. Agr. Econ., 73, 1255-1263 https://doi.org/10.2307/1242453
  12. Hanly, N. and C.L. Spash. 1993. Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment. Edward Elgar, Aldershot
  13. Jeong, J. and G.S. Maddala. 1993. A Perspective on Application of Bootstrap Methods in Econometrics. In: G.S. Maddala, C.R. Rao, and H.D. Vinod, ed., Handbook of Statistics (Econometrics), Vol. 11. North-Holland
  14. Keeney, R. 1992. Value-Focused Thinking. Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge
  15. 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
  16. Kristrom, B. 1997. Spike models in contingent valuation. Am. J. Agr. Econ., 79, 1013-1023 https://doi.org/10.2307/1244440
  17. Krupnick, A. and D. Burtraw. 1996. The social costs of electricity: do the numbers add up?. Resour. Energy Econ., 18, 423-466 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0928-7655(97)00023-7
  18. Kwak, S.-J., S.-H., Yoo, and T.-Y. Kim. 2002. A constructive approach to air-quality valuation in Korea. Ecol. Econ., 38, 327-344 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(01)00190-2
  19. Mitchell, R.C. and R.T. Carson. 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C
  20. Russell, C.S., V. Dale, J. Lee, M. Hadley, M. Kane, and R. Gregory. 2001. Experimenting with multi-attribute utility survey methods in a multi-dimensional valuation problem. Ecol. Econ., 36, 87-108 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00207-X
  21. 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
  22. Yoo, S.-H. and S.-J. Kwak. 2002. Using a spike model to deal with zero response data from double bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys. Appl. Econ. Lett., 9, 929-932 https://doi.org/10.1080/13504850210139378
  23. Yoo, S.-H., S.-J. Kwak, and T.-Y. Kim. 2001. Modeling willingness to pay responses from dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys with zero observations. Appl. Econ., 33, 523-529 https://doi.org/10.1080/000368401300008214

피인용 문헌

  1. Assessment of the Environmental Value of the Geum-river Estuary vol.19, pp.5, 2013, https://doi.org/10.7837/kosomes.2013.19.5.417
  2. Assessment of Economic Value of Youngsan River Estuary vol.44, pp.8, 2011, https://doi.org/10.3741/JKWRA.2011.44.8.629
  3. Emergy-Based Value of the Contributions of the Youngsan River Estuary Ecosystem to the Korean Economy vol.18, pp.1, 2013, https://doi.org/10.7850/jkso.2013.18.1.13
  4. Estimating the Attribute Values of 4 Major River Estuaries in Korea -Focusing on Testing for the IIA Assumption in MNL Model and the Alternative Models- vol.22, pp.3, 2013, https://doi.org/10.15266/KEREA.2013.22.3.521
  5. 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
  6. Emergy Evaluation of the Korean Economy and Environment: Implications for the Valuation of Marine Ecosystem Services vol.18, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.7846/JKOSMEE.2015.18.2.102
  7. Emergy Valuation of Tidal Flat Ecosystems in Korea: I. Characteristics of Environmental Emergy Inputs vol.21, pp.4, 2016, https://doi.org/10.7850/jkso.2016.21.4.134