한국조경학회지 (Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture)

  • 제37권6호
  • /
  • Pages.1-11
  • /
  • 2010
  • /
  • 1225-1755(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-9566(eISSN)
한국조경학회 (The Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture)
권호 표지

선택실험법을 이용한 수목원의 경제가치 추정

An Economic Valuation of Arboretum Using Choice Experiments

  • Hong, Sung-Kwon (Dept. of Environmental Science, Konkuk University) ;
  • Kim, Jae-Hyun (Dept. of Environmental Science, Konkuk University) ;
  • Jung, Sue-Jung (Dept. of Landscape Architecture, Graduate School, Seoul National University) ;
  • Tae, Yoo-Lee (Dept. of Environmental Science, Graduate School, Konkuk University)
  • 발행 : 2010.02.28
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구는 이선선택법의 일반형인 선택실험법을 적용해 행정중심복합도시 내에 제공될 국립수목원의 중요 속성과 수준을 확인하고, 이들이 조합되어 실제 반영될 경우 각 대안들에 한 경제적 가치를 추정하였다. '자원보전', '교육', '레크리에이션', '시설', '접근성'과 입장료를 속성으로 사용해 주 효과 모델을 정산하기 위한 가상대안을 작성한 후 컨조인트 선택 을 정산한 결과 '자원보전'의 '습지식물'과 '레크리에이션'의 '숲 산책로'가 유의성 있는 수준이었다. 만약 이 수준들이 수목원에 반영될 경우, 응답자들은 각각 약 1,330원과 약 1,507 의 입장료를 더 낼 용의가 있었다. 또한 '자극추구' 성향이 높을수록, 나이가 어릴수록, 소득이 높을수록 수목원 조성에 호의적이 었지만 자연보호에 대한 관여도가 높은 사람들은 부정적이었다. 도시 내 수목원의 경제가치를 실험선택법으로 평가할 후속연구를 위해 중요 속성별 수준과 기준수준에 대한 여러가지의 제언을 추가하였다.

The purpose of this research is to identify satisfaction levels of the arboretum which will be provided in the Multifunctional Administrative City and to estimate the economic value of using choice experiments. The attributes were "Preservation", "Education", "Recreation", "Facility", "Accessibility" and the entrance fee. The main effects model was utilized to construct hypothetical alternatives. Calibration of the conjoint choice model revealed that 'wetlands' and 'forest trails' in "Preservation" and the "Recreation", respectively, were significant variables. This result indicates that respondents are willing to pay more for these if they are provided in the arboretum. Also, 'variety seeking' tendency, age, and income level positively influenced the provision of the arboretum. Involvement in preservation of natural environment, however, had a negative influence on the establishment of the arboretum. Because this study is the first attempt to estimate the economic valuation of an urban arboretum using choice experiment, there are several suggestions for future research in terms of determining the base level and inclusion of salient attribute levels.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. 곽승준, 유승훈, 이주석 (2005) 컨조인트 분석법을 이용한 박물과 시설의 공익적 가치추정. 경제연구 23(2): 95-119.
  2. 곽행구, 조영환, 김태근 (2007) GIS 기법을 활용한 국내 수목원 입지분석(I) 한국식물. 인간. 환경학회지 10(2): 87-93.
  3. 국립수목원 (2008) 국립수목원 방문객 모니터링 결과보고서 (2005 - 2007). 국립수목원.
  4. 김수란(2007) 우리나라 식물원의 현황 및 교육적 활용을 위한 활성화 방안 연구, 성균관대학교 석사학위논문.
  5. 김신원, 서주환, 허준(1999) 서울대공원 식물원 재조성계획, 한국산림휴양학회지 3(1, 2): 71-81.
  6. 김영재 (2006) 국내 수목원의 특성비교를 통한 바람직한 수목원 조성에 관한 연구. 목포대학교 대학원 석사학위논문.
  7. 김재영, 정향영 (2003) 관상화훼 식물원 현황과 전망. 한국화훼연구회 2003년 춘계 심포지움 자료집. pp. 27-60.
  8. 김태진, 홍윤승, 안승홍, 변우혁 (2005) 국내 사립수목원의 조성경향에 관한 연구. 한국산림휴양학회지 9(1): 49-59.
  9. 박찬수(1994) 컨조인트 분석(유펼화 편, "현대의 마케팅과학"). 서울- 법문사.
  10. 산림청 (2008a) 제5차 산림기본계획 2008-2017. 산림청
  11. 산림청 (2008b) 2009년 업무계획 농림수산식품부
  12. 산림청 (2008c) 국립수목원 조성 및 산림역사박물관 건립방안 연구, 산림청.
  13. 유승훈, 곽승준, 이주석 (2003) 컨조인트 분석을 이용한 서울시 대기오염영향의 환경비용 추정. 지역연구 19(3): 1-17.
  14. 이창복(1979) 자연보호에 있어서 수목원의 역할. 산림 160: 59-63
  15. 엄연진, 배준규, 주진순, 김현종(2005) 국립수목원 방문객의 이용행태 및 만족도 분석. 한국산림휴양학회지 2: 21-27.
  16. 전승훈(1995) 식물원의 야생식물 종자보전 전략. 서울대학교 수목원연구보고 15: 67-72.
  17. 최명섭 (1997) 식물원과 수목원. 숲과 문화 6(2): 41-43
  18. 하성근(2007) 수목원 기능별 지표의 중요도와 특성화 방안 경북대학 교 대학원 석사학위논문.
  19. 한국갤럽조사연구소(2006) 산림에 대한 국민의식조사. 산림청.
  20. 한국식물원연합회 (1991) 한국식물원 총람. 수원: 한국식물원연합회
  21. 허성수, 김종현, 한광현, 신언동, 강지민(1999) 관광식물원 조성을 위한 식재수종의 선택과 배치 및 운영에 관한 연구. 한국조경학회지 26(4) : 36-58.
  22. 홍성권(1998) 여의도공원의 경제적 가치 평가, 이단계 이선 가상가치 추정법을 적용하여. 한국조경학회지 26(3): 90-103.
  23. 홍성권(2000) Conjoint Choice Model을 이용한 주제공원 이용자들의 선택행동 연구. 한국조경학회지 28(1): 19-28
  24. Aaker. D. A. V. Kumar. and G. S. Day(1995) Marketing Research. New York: John Wlley & Sons.
  25. Adamowicz. W. J. Louviere. and M Williams(1994) Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics 26: 271-292. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1994.1017
  26. Adamowicz. WIktor L.. Peter C. Boxall. Michael Williams. and Jordan Louviere(1998a) Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: Choice experiments and contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80: 64-75. https://doi.org/10.2307/3180269
  27. Adamowicz. WIktor. Jordan Louviere. and Joffre Swait(1998b) Introduction to Attribute-Based Stated Choice Methods. Report to NOM Resource Valuation Branch. Damage Assessment Center. January.
  28. Babbie. EarI(1986) The Practice of Social Research. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing.
  29. Boxall. Peter C.. WIktor L. Adamowicz. Joffre Swait. Michael Williams. and Jordan Louviere(1996) A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation. Ecological Economics 18: 243-253. https://doi.org/10.1016/0921-8009(96)00039-0
  30. Brockway. Lucile H.(1979) Science and colonial expansion: The role of the British Royal Botanic Gardens. American Ethnologist 6(3): 449-465. https://doi.org/10.1525/ae.1979.6.3.02a00030
  31. Carson. R. T.. J. Louviere. D. Anderson. P. Arabie. D. Bunch, D. Hensher. R. Johnson. W Kuhfeld D. Steinberg. J. Swait. J. Timmermanns. and J. Wlley(1994) Experimental analysis of choice. Marketing Letter 5: 351-368. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00999210
  32. Christie. Michael. Nick Hanley. and Stephen Hynes(2007) Valuing enhancements to forest recreation using choice experiment and contingent behaviour method. Journal of Forest Economics 13: 75-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2007.02.005
  33. Forster. B. A(1989) Valuing outdoor recreational activity: A methodological survey. Journal of Leisure Research 21 (2): 181-201.
  34. Green. Paul E .. and V. Srinivasan(1990) Conjoint analysis in marketing: New developments with implications for research and practices. Journal of Marketing 54: 3-19. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251756
  35. Heame. Robert R.. and Zenia M Salinas(2002) The use of choice experiments in the analysis of tourist preferences for ecotourism development. Journal of Environmental Management 65: 153-163. https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.2001.0541
  36. Lee. Choong-Ki. and Sang-Yoel Han(2002) Estimating the use and preservation values of national parks' tourism resources using a contingent method. Tourism Management 23: 531-540. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(02)00010-9
  37. Louviere. Jordan J .. David A Hensher. and Joffre D. Swait(2000) Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  38. Louviere. Jordan J.. and Towhidul Islarn(2008) A comparison of importance weights and wi!lingness-to-pay measures derived from choice-based conjoint. constant sum scales and best -worst scaling. Journal of Business Research 61: 903-911. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.11.010
  39. McFadden. D.(1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In. P. Zarembka(Ed). Frontiers in Econometrics. New York: Academic Press. pp. 105-142.
  40. McQuarrie. E. F.. and J. M Munson(1992) A revised product involvement inventory: Improved usability and validity. Advances in Consumer Research 19: 108-115.
  41. Nielsen. Anders Busse. Soren Boye Olsen. and Thomas Lundhede( 2007) An economic valuation of the recreational benefits associated with nature-based forest management practice. Landscape and Urban Planning 80: 63-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.06.003
  42. Phelps. R. H.. and J. Shanten(1978) Livestock judges: How much information can an expert use? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 21: 209-219. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(78)90050-8
  43. Primack. Richard B .. and Abraham J. Miller-Rushing(2009) The role of botanical gardens in climate change research. New Phytologist. 182: 303-313. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2009.02800.x
  44. Sanesi. G., B. Coianinno. B. Pace. and R. Lafortezza(2003) Status and potential educational role of Arboreta in Italy. Proceedings of the Sixth IUFRO European Forum on Urban Forestry "Educating the Urban Foresters". pp. 105-112.
  45. Scheaffer. Richard L., Mendenhall. Wllliam and Ott Lyman(1986) Elementary Survey Sampling. Boston: Duxbury Press.
  46. Shin, W. R. Jaakson. and E. Kim(2001) Environmental auditing: Benefit-based analysis of visitor use of Sorak-.San National Park in Korea. Environmental Management 28(3): 413-419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s0026702458
  47. Tian. S., J. Crompton. and P. Wit(1996) Integrating constraints and benefits to identify responsive target markets for museum attraction. Journal of Travel Research 35(2): 34-45. https://doi.org/10.1177/004728759603500207
  48. Tuan. Tran Hull, and Stale Navrud (2007) V 9iuing cultural heritage in developing countries: Comparing and pooling contingent valuation and choice modelling estimates. Environmental and Resource Economics 38(1): 51-69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-006-9056-5
  49. Tumbusch. J. J. (1987) How to design a conjoint study. Proceedings of the Sawtooth Software Conference on Perceptual Mapping. Conjoint Analysis. and Computer Interview.
  50. Tyrvainen. L., and H. Vaananen(1998) The economic value of urban forest amenities: An application of the contingent valuation method. Landscape and Urban Pianning 43: 105-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(98)00103-0
  51. Veisten. Knut(2007) Willingness to pay for eco-labelled wood furniture: Choice-based conjoint analysis versus open-ended contingent valuation. Journal of Forest Economics 13: 29-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2006.10.002
  52. Wang. Xuehong. Jeff Bennett. Chen Xie. Zhitao Zhang. and Dan Liang(2007) Estimating non-market environmental benefits of the conversion of cropland to forest and grassland program: A choice modeling approach. Ecological Economics 63: 114-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.10.001
  53. Wittink. Dick R.. L. Krishnamurthi. and J. B. Nutter (1982) Comparing derived importance weights across attributes. Joumal of Consumer Research 8: 471-474 https://doi.org/10.1086/208890
  54. Zaichkowsky, J. L.(1985) Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research 12: 341-352. https://doi.org/10.1086/208520
  55. http://www.kna.go.kr/actions/PageList?cmd =su60104&menunum =60104
  56. http://www.kfri.go.kr/cms/133.do
  57. http://arbor.snu.ac.kr/introduction/history.html
  58. http://stat.seoul. go.kr