한국수자원학회논문집 (Journal of Korea Water Resources Association)

  • 제45권1호
  • /
  • Pages.29-37
  • /
  • 2012
  • /
  • 2799-8746(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2799-8754(eISSN)
한국수자원학회 (Korea Water Resources Association)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

울산시 수돗물 수질개선의 편익 추정

Measuring the Economic Benefits of the Tap Water Quality Improvement in Ulsan

  • 곽소윤 (한국환경정책.평가연구원) ;
  • 유승훈 (서울과학기술대학교 에너지환경대학원)
  • Kwak, So-Yoon (Dep. of Economics, Korea Environment Institute) ;
  • Yoo, Seung-Hoon (Graduate School of Energy and Environment, Seoul National Univ. of Science and Technology)
  • 투고 : 2011.08.14
  • 심사 : 2011.11.04
  • 발행 : 2012.01.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구에서는 울산지역의 수돗물 수질 개선에 대한 응답자들의 지불의사액을 도출하였다. 이를 위해 조건부 가치측정법(CVM)을 활용하되, CVM 연구에서 지켜야하는 다양한 지침을 엄격하게 준수하여 가구조사를 시행하고 1.5경계 양분선택형 스파이크 모형을 적용하여 분석하였다. 울산광역시 400개 가구를 대상으로 가구조사를시행하였고 일대일 개별면접을 통해 수돗물 수질개선 프로그램에 대한 지불의사금액을 질문하였다. 응답자 중 71.5%가 지불할 의사가 없다고 응답한 것을 고려할 때 스파이크 모형의 적용은 적절하였으며, 분석결과 가구당 월 평균 1,611원의 지불의사액을 가지고 있는 것으로 나타났다. 이러한 지불의사는 교육 및 소득과 같은 가구 특성변수에 유의하게 영향을 받았다. 이 값을 울산광역시 전체로 확장하면 2011년 6월 기준으로 연간 약 83억 원에 해당하였다. 본 연구의 결과는 수돗물 수질개선이 경제적으로 타당성을 가지는지에 대한 판단을 할 때 편익정보로서 중요한 역할을 할 것으로 기대된다.

This paper attempts to measure the economic benefits of tap water quality improvement using a specific case study of Ulsan, one of the large cities in Korea. To this end, we apply the contingent valuation (CV) method by employing a one-and-one-half bounded spike dichotomous choice question format. We surveyed a randomly selected sample of 400 households in Ulsan and asked respondents questions in person-toperson interviews about how they would willing to pay for the program. Respondents overall accepted the contingent market and were willing to contribute a significant amount (1,611 won), on average, per household per month. This willingness varies according to individual characteristics such as education level and income. The aggregate value of the program in Ulsan amounts to approximately 8 billion won per year.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. 과학기술부(2007), 21세기 프론티어연구개발사업-수자원의 지속적 확보기술재발 사업, 수자원 및 기술가치 평가시스템 구축, K-water.
  2. 곽승준(1993) 수질개선의 편익추정 : 조건부가치측정법과 반모수 추정법의 적용. 자원경제학회지, 자원경제학회, 제3권, 제1호, pp. 183-198.
  3. 김재홍(2001),울산시의 상수도 수질개선의 편익 측정. 한국정책학회보, 한국정책학회, 제10권, 제3호, pp. 245-262.
  4. 유승훈, 신철오, 양창영(2007). 원주시 가구의 상수도 수질개선에 대한 지불의사액 추정. 환경정책연구, pp. 79-103.
  5. 유승훈, 홍필기(2007), 무응답 자료 처치모형을 이용한 서울시 수돗물 수질개선편익 추정. 서울도시연구, 제8권, 제1호, pp. 41-54.
  6. 표희동, 박철형, 추재욱(2011), 비모수 추정법에 의한 부산시 가정 용수 수질개선에 대한 지불의사액 추정. 한국수자원학회논문집, 한국수자원학회, 제44권, 제2호, pp. 125-134.
  7. Atkins, J.P., Burdon, D., and Allen, J.H. (2007). "An application of contingent valuation and decision tree analysis to water quality improvements." Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 55, pp. 591-602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2007.09.018
  8. Barton, D.N. (2002). "The transferability of benefit transfer: contingent valuation of water quality improvements in Costa Rica." Ecological Economics, Vol. 42, pp. 147-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00044-7
  9. Bjornstad, D.J., and Kahn, J.R. (1996). The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resources: Methodological Issues and Research Needs. Edward Elgar.
  10. Brox, J.A., Kumer, R.C., and Stollery, K.R. (2003). "Estimating willingness to pay for improved water quality in the presence of nonresponse bias." American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 85, No. 2, pp. 414-428. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8276.00130
  11. Cameron, T.A., and James, D. (1987). "Efficient estimation methods for closed-ended contingent valuation surveys." Review of Economics and Statistics Vol. 69, pp. 269-276. https://doi.org/10.2307/1927234
  12. Cameron, T.A., and Quiggin, J. (1994). "Estimation using contingent valuation data from a dichotomous choice with follow-up questionnaire." Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 27, pp. 218-234. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1994.1035
  13. Cameron, T.A., and Quiggin, J. (1994). "Estimation using contingent valuation data from a dichotomous choice with follow-up questionnaire." Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 27, pp. 218-234. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1994.1035
  14. Cooper, J., and Hanemann, W.M. (1995). Referendum Contingent Valuation: How Many Bounds Are Enough?. USDA Economic Research Search Service, Food and Consumer Economics Division, Working paper.
  15. Cooper, J. C., Hanemann, M., and Signorello, G. (2002). "One and one-half bound dichotomous choice contingent valuation." Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 84, pp. 742-750. https://doi.org/10.1162/003465302760556549
  16. Desvousges, W.H., Smith, V.K., and Fisher, A. (1987). "Option price estimates for water quality improvements: a contingent valuation study for the monongahela river." Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 14, pp. 248-267. https://doi.org/10.1016/0095-0696(87)90019-2
  17. Gupta, V., and Mythili, G. (2008). Estimating intangible benefits of improving water quality of Powai lake in India, paper presented at Consortium Eropeen sur l'Economie du Paysage (CEEP).
  18. Hanemann, W.M. (1984). "Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses." American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 66: pp. 332-341. https://doi.org/10.2307/1240800
  19. Hanemann, W.M., and Kanninen, B.J. (1999). The statistical analysis of discrete-response CV data, in I.J. Bateman and K.E. Willis, ed., Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing Countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  20. Hayes, K.M., Tyrrell, T.J., and Anderson, G., (1992). "Estimating the benefits of water quality improvements in the upper Narragansett bay." Marine Resource Economics, Vol. 7, pp. 75-85. https://doi.org/10.1086/mre.7.1.42629024
  21. Gonzalez-Caban, A., and Loomis, J. (1997) "Economic benefits of maintaining ecological integrity of Rio Mameyes, in Puerto Rico." Ecological Economics, Vol. 21, pp. 63-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(96)00093-6
  22. Kaoru, Y. (1993). "Diffentiating use and nonuse values for coastal pond water quality improvements." Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 3, pp. 487-494.
  23. Krinsky, I., and Robb, A.L. (1986). "On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities." Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 68, pp. 715-719. https://doi.org/10.2307/1924536
  24. Kristrom, B. (1997). "Spike models in contingent valuation." American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 79, pp. 1013-1023. https://doi.org/10.2307/1244440
  25. Langford, I.H., Bateman, I.J., and Langford, H.D. (1996). "A multilevel modelling approach to triple-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation." Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 7, pp. 197-211.
  26. Loomis, J. (1990). "Comparative reliability of the dichotomous choice and open-ended contingent valuation techniques." Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 18, pp. 78-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/0095-0696(90)90053-2
  27. McConnell, K.E. (1990). "Models for referendum data: the structure of discrete choice models for contingent valuation." Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 18, pp. 19-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/0095-0696(90)90049-5
  28. Mitchell, R.C., and Carson, R.T. (1989). Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.
  29. Yoo, S.-H., and Yang, H.-J. (2001). "Application of Sample Selection Model to Double-bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Studies." Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 147-163. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012625929384

피인용 문헌

  1. The Study on the Economic Effects of Advanced Water Treatment by using CVM vol.48, pp.9, 2015, https://doi.org/10.3741/JKWRA.2015.48.9.711