Ocean and Polar Research

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

DOI QR Code

Non-market Benefits of Building the Large Oceanographic Research Ship

대형 해양과학연구선 건조사업의 비시장적 편익 평가

  • Yoo, Seung-Hoon (Department of Energy Policy, Graduate School of Energy and Environment Seoul University of Science and Technology) ;
  • Kwon, Suk-Jae (Ocean Policy Research Division, KIOST)
  • 유승훈 (서울과학기술대학교 에너지환경대학원 에너지정책학과) ;
  • 권석재 (한국해양과학기술원 정책연구부)
  • Received : 2011.12.05
  • Accepted : 2012.05.08
  • Published : 2012.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

A project to build a large oceanographic research ship was proposed to improve the level of ocean research. This paper attempts to measure the non-market benefits of the project. To this end, the dichotomous choice contingent valuation method is used. In particular, the recently proposed one and one-half bounded model is applied. The model can reduce the potential for response bias compared to the double bounded model, while maintaining much of its efficiency. Moreover, in order to deal with zero WTP observations, a spike model is adjusted for our data. A survey of 500 randomly selected households was implemented in the Metropolitan area. The respondents were asked in person-to-person interviews about how they would be willing to pay for implementing the project. Overall, respondents accepted the contingent market, and were willing to contribute a significant amount (3,244 won), on average, per household per year. The aggregate value of the project nationwide would amount to approximately 40.1 billion won per year.

Keywords

References

  1. 박현, 유경준, 곽승준 (2004) 문화시설의 가치추정 연구. 한국 개발연구원, 연구보고서 2004-15, 263 p
  2. 유승훈, 이주석, 박수동 (2011) 대형광학망원경 개발사업의 경제적 효과 분석 연구. 기술혁신학회지 14(1):40-59
  3. 한국해양연구원 (2008) 대형 해양과학연구선 건조사업 기획 연구. 한국해양연구원, BSPE 97922-1933-7, 179 p
  4. 한국개발연구원 (2009) 대형해양과학연구선 사업. 272 p
  5. NOAA (1993) Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. 67 p
  6. Bjornstad DJ, Kahn JR (1996) The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resources : Methodological Issues and Research Needs. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 305 p
  7. Brent RJ (1995) Applied cost-benefit analysis. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 470 p
  8. Carson RT, Groves T (2007) Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environ Resour Econ 37:181-210 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-007-9124-5
  9. Cooper JC (1994) A comparison of approaches to calculating confidence intervals for benefit measure from dichotomous choice contingent valuation survey. Land Econ 70:111-122 https://doi.org/10.2307/3146445
  10. Cooper JC, Hanemann WM, Signorello G (2002) One and one-half bound dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Rev Econ Statistics 84:742-750 https://doi.org/10.1162/003465302760556549
  11. Fisher A (1996) The conceptual underpinnings of the contingent valuation method. In: Bjornstad DJ, Kahn JR (eds) The contingent valuation of environmental resources, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 19-37
  12. Hanemann WM (1984) Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am J Agr Econ 66:332-341 https://doi.org/10.2307/1240800
  13. Krinsky I, Robb AL (1986) On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. R Econ Stat 68:715-719 https://doi.org/10.2307/1924536
  14. Kriström B (1997) Spike models in contingent valuation. Am J Agr Econ 79:1013-1023 https://doi.org/10.2307/1244440
  15. Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1989) Using Surveys to Value Public Goods : The Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C., 484 p
  16. Park TJ, Loomis B, Creel M (1991) Confidence intervals for evaluating benefits estimates from dichotomous choice contingent valuation studies. Land Econ 67:64-73 https://doi.org/10.2307/3146486
  17. Yoo SH, Kwak SJ, Kim TY (2001) Modeling willingness to pay responses from dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys with zero observations. Appl Econ 33:523-529 https://doi.org/10.1080/00036840122117
  18. Yoo SH, Kwak SJ (2002) Using a spike model to deal with zero response data from double bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys. Appl Econ Let 9:929-932 https://doi.org/10.1080/13504850210139378