Journal of Wetlands Research (한국습지학회지)

Korean Wetlands Society (한국습지학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Study on Preference Heterogeneity of Economic Valuation for the Washland of Upo Wetland - Development of Waterfront Resources -

우포늪 천변저류지의 경제적 가치평가에 대한 선호이질성 연구 - 수변관광자원의 선택적 개발 -

  • Yoo, Byong Kook (Division of International Trade, University of Incheon) ;
  • Kim, Hung Soo (Department of Civil Engineering, Inha University) ;
  • Ju, Dug (Department of Hotel Tourism Management, Sejong University)
  • 유병국 (인천대학교 무역학부) ;
  • 김형수 (인하대학교 사회시스템공학부) ;
  • 주덕 (세종대학교 호텔관광경영학과)
  • Received : 2013.05.15
  • Accepted : 2013.06.03
  • Published : 2013.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study investigates to explain preference heterogeneity of respondents for economic valuation in washland of Upo wetland using Mixed Logit Model and Latent Class Model. Mixed Logit Model showed respondent heterogeneity in the attributes of wetland area and funds as well as some alternatives violated IIA assumption. 2-class Latent Class Model for respondents were used to explain the sources of the heterogeneity. Class 1 respondents who are located relatively close to Upo wetland had more experience and knowledge of Upo wetland and better understood the information suggested in the questionnaire than class 2 respondents in mostly metropolitan area of Seoul, Incheon.

본 연구에서는 혼합로짓모형과 잠재계층모형을 사용하여 우리나라 우포늪 천변저류지 조성사업에 있어서 응답자간 선호이질성을 설명하고자 하였다. 혼합로짓모형의 추정결과 습지면적 및 기금액의 경우에서 응답자별 이질성을 관찰되었으며 일부 대안의 경우 IIA와 같은 특수한 형태의 교체유형을 가정할 수 없음을 알 수 있었다. 잠재계층모형의 경우 조건부로짓 모형보다 향상된 결과를 보여줄 뿐만아니라 응답자를 특성에 따라서 2계층으로 분류하여 이질성의 요인을 설명해주었다. 즉, 우포늪에 가까운 지역에 위치한 계층1의 응답자들은 서울, 인천 등 수도권지역 응답자가 대부분인 계층2의 응답자들에 비해서 우포늪 방문경험이 많고 우포늪에 대한 지식이 있으며 제시된 정보도 잘 이해하고 있는 것으로 나타났다.

Keywords

References

  1. Adamowicz, WP, Boxall, MW and Louviere, J (1998). Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: choice experiments and contingent valuation, American J. of Agricultural Economics, 80, pp. 64-75. https://doi.org/10.2307/3180269
  2. Bhat, CR (1997). An endogenous segmentation mode choice model with an application to intercity travel, Transportation Science, 31, pp. 34-48. https://doi.org/10.1287/trsc.31.1.34
  3. Boxall, PC and Adamowicz, WL (2002). Understanding heterogeneous preferences in random utility models: a latent class approach, Environmental and Resource Economics, 23, pp. 421-446. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021351721619
  4. Bujosa, A, Riera, A and Hicks, RI (2010). Combining discrete and continuous representations of preference heterogeneity: a latent class approach, Environmental and Resource Economics 23, pp. 477-493.
  5. Colombo, S., N. Hanley and J. Louviere (2009). Modeling preference heterogeneity in stated choice data: an analysis for public goods generated by agriculture. Agricultural Economics. 40: 307-322. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2009.00377.x
  6. Glenk, K and Colombo. S (2011). Modelling outcome-related risk in choice experiments, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 18th Annual Conference, 30 June, 2011. Rome.
  7. Green, WH and Hensher, DA (2003). A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit, Transportation Research Part B, 37, pp. 681-698. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-2615(02)00046-2
  8. Hausman, J and McFadden, D (1984). Specification tests for the multinomial logit model, Econometrica, 52, pp. 1219-1240. https://doi.org/10.2307/1910997
  9. Hensher, DA, Ross, JM and Green, WH (2005). Applied Choice Analysis : A Primer, Cambrridge.
  10. Hess, S, Bierlaire, M and Polak, JW (2005). Capturing correlation and taste heterogeneity with mixed GEV models, Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental Economics, Scarpa, R and Alberini, A (eds.), Springer Publishers.
  11. Hynes, S, Hanley, N and Scarpa, R (2008). Effect on welfare measures of alternative means of accounting for preference heterogeneity in recreational demand models. American J. of Agricultural Economics 90, pp. 1011-1027. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8276.2008.01148.x
  12. Kim, DG, Yoo, BK, Kim, JG, Shin, HK, Kim, HS, Park, DH, Ahn, JH and Ahn, KS (2009). Study on assessment of value and functions of Dam-wetlands(2) - Assessment of value by CE : Focussing on Boryung Dam - J. of Wetlands Research, 11(3), pp. 133-143. [Korean Literature]
  13. Kim, YJ (2007). The effect of heterogeneous preference on non-market valuation, Environmental and Resource Economics Review, 16(4) pp. 873-900. [Korean Literature]
  14. Kosenius, AK (2010). Heterogeneous preferences for water quality attributes: the case of eutrophication in the Gulf of Finland, the Baltic Sea, Ecological Economics, 69, pp. 528-538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.08.030
  15. Meyerhoff, J and Liebe, U (2008). Do protest responses to a contingent valuation question and a choice experiment differ?, Environmental Resource Economics, 39, pp. 433-446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-007-9134-3
  16. McFadden, D (1974). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior, Frontier in Econometrics, Zarembka, P (eds.), Academic Press.
  17. Ruto, E, Garrod, G and Scarpa, R (2008). Valuing animal genetic resources: a choice modeling application to indigenous cattle in Kenya, Agricultural Economics. 38, pp. 89-98.
  18. Swait, JR (1994). A structural equation model of latent segmentation and product choice for cross-sectional revealed preference choice data, J. of Retailing and Consumer Services 1, pp. 77-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/0969-6989(94)90002-7
  19. Yoo, BK, Kwak, JW, Kim, HS and Kim JG (2010). Effectiveness analysis of constructed washland : (2) economic valuation, J. of Korean Society of Civil Engineers, 30(1B), pp. 133-143. [Korean Literature]
  20. Train, KE (2003). Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation, Cambridge.

Cited by

  1. Forecasting for the Demand on Water Amenity Zones in the Large Rivers Based on Regional Characteristics and Monthly Variation vol.17, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.17663/JWR.2015.17.4.436