자원ㆍ환경경제연구 (Environmental and Resource Economics Review)

한국자원경제학회 (Korean Resource Economics Association)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

가상가치평가법에서의 결과수렴성과 가상편의

Consequentiality and Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation Method: An Experimental Investigation

  • 이진권 (서강대학교 경제학과) ;
  • 황욱 (경북대학교 경제통상학부)
  • Lee, Jinkwon (School of Economics, Sogang University) ;
  • Hwang, Uk (School of Economics and Trade, Kyungpook National University)
  • 투고 : 2019.11.01
  • 심사 : 2019.12.16
  • 발행 : 2020.03.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

가상가치평가법은 비시장재 가치평가를 위한 중요한 도구이나 가상편의가 존재할 수 있어 그 유효성에 대한 논쟁이 지속되어 왔다. 그러나 가상가치평가 응답자가 그 상황을 완전히 가상적이라고 믿지 않을 수 있는데, 이러한 경우 결과수렴성이 존재한다고 한다. 결과수렴성이 충분히 크다면 추정된 가치가 가상편의로부터 자유로울 수 있다는 점이 최근 해외 연구에 의해 제시되었다. 본 연구에서는 한국 대학생을 대상으로 가상가치평가법으로 추정된 기부금 지불용의액의 결과수렴성이 상대적으로 높은 집단과 낮은 집단의 가상편의를 실험을 통해 비교분석한다. 본 연구의 결과는 결과수렴성이 상대적으로 높은 집단의 가상편의 존재 확률 및 크기가 모두 유의하게 낮아, 결과수렴성이 가상가치평가법의 가상편의를 결정짓는 중요한 요인임을 보여준다. 이러한 결과는 환경정책 등 실제 정책과 관련하여 수행되는 가상가치평가법의 경우 가상편의로부터 자유로울 수 있는 가능성을 제시해 준다는 점에서 그 중요한 정책적 함의를 가지므로, 필드실험 등을 통해 결과수렴성과 가상편의의 관계를 확인해 보는 추가 연구가 필요할 것으로 판단된다.

While contingent valuation method (CVM) has been widely used for non-market valuations, it has been argued that it may suffer from hypothetical bias. However, if CVM respondents believe that their responses could affect the real consequence, the method could satisfy consequentiality. If a CVM satisfies a sufficiently high consequentiality, hypothetical bias could disappear as shown by some previous studies. In this study, we experimentally compare the willingness to pay (WTP) for donation of a relatively high consequentiality group with that of a relatively low consequentiality group for Korean university students. We find that both the existence probability and the size of hypothetical bias are lower for the high consequentiality group. This result implies that a CVM for a real policy including environmental policies could be free from hypothetical bias because its consequentiality would be relatively high, and warrants a future field study investigating the effect of consequentiality on hypothetical bias.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. 여호근. 최규환. 정광현, "실험적 가상가치평가법(CVM-X)을 이용한 녹차밭의 관광가치 평가: 하동군을 중심으로", 호텔경영학연구, 제16권 제1호, 2007, pp. 189-200.
  2. 이진권, "개인의 성격속성이 위험기피도의 가상편의에 미치는 효과", Journal of the Korean Data Analysis, Vol. 18, No. 1, 2016, pp. 281-293.
  3. 이진권. 황욱, "합리적 재정운영을 위한 공공정책 효과의 가치 추정: CVM에서의 가상편의 원인과 해결방안을 중심으로", 재정정책논집, 제12권 제4호, 2010, pp. 137-170.
  4. 최규환. 여호근, "양분선택형 실험적 가상가치평가법(CVM-X)을 적용한 가야고분유적의 경제적 가치평가: 대가야와 금관가야의 비교연구를 중심으로", 관광. 레저연구, 제19권 제1호, 2007, pp.77-92.
  5. 한상열. 최관, "산림휴양. 관광자원의 경제적 가치평가를 위한 새로운 접근 : 실험적 가상가치 평가법의 적용", 산림휴양연구, 제2권 제2호, 1998, pp. 39-51.
  6. Arrow, K. J., R. M. Solow, P. R. Portney, E. E. Learner, R. Radner, and H. Schuman, "Report of the NOAA Panel on contingent valuation," Federal Register, Vol. 58, 1993, pp. 4601-4614.
  7. Blomquist, G. C., K. Blumenschein, and M. Johannesson, "Eliciting willingness to pay without bias using follow-up certainty statements: Comparison between probably/definitely and a 10-point certainty scale," Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 43, 2009, pp. 473-502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-008-9242-8
  8. Brown, T. C., I. Ajzen, and D. Hrubes, "Further tests of entreaties to avoid hypothetical bias in referendum contingent valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 46, No. 2, 2003, pp. 353-361. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0095-0696(02)00041-4
  9. Carson, R. T. and T. Groves, "Incentive and information properties of preference questions," Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 37, 2007, pp. 181-210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-007-9124-5
  10. Carson, R. T., T. Groves, and J. A. List, "Consequentiality: A Theoretical and Experimental Exploration of a Single Binary Choice," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, Vol. 1, No. 1/2, 2014, pp. 171-207. https://doi.org/10.1086/676450
  11. Champ, P. A. and R. C. Bishop, "Donation payment mechanisms and contingent valuation: An empirical study of hypothetical bias," Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 19, No. 4, 2001, pp. 383-402. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011604818385
  12. Champ, P. A., N. E. Flores, T. C. Brown, and J. Chivers, "Using donation mechanisms to value nonuse benefits from public goods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 33, No. 2, 1997, pp. 151-162. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1997.0988
  13. Champ, P. A., R. Moore, and R. C. Bishop, "A comparison of approaches to mitigate hypothetical bias," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Vol. 38, No. 2, 2009, pp. 166-180. https://doi.org/10.1017/S106828050000318X
  14. Cummings, R. G., S. Elliott, G. W. Harrison, and J. Murphy, "Are hypothetical referenda incentive compatible?," Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 105, 1997, pp. 609-621. https://doi.org/10.1086/262084
  15. Cummings, R. G., G. W. Harrison, and E. Rutstrom. "Homegrown values and hypothetical surveys: Is the dichotomous choice approach incentive compatible?," American Economic Review, Vol. 85, No. 1, 1995, pp. 260-266.
  16. Cummings, R. G., and L. O. Taylor, "Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: A cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method," American Economic Review, Vol. 89, No. 3, 1999, pp. 649-665. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.89.3.649
  17. Ethier, R. G., G. L. Poe, W. D. Schulze, and J. Clark, "A comparison of hypothetical phone and mail contingent valuation response for green-pricing electricity programs," Land Economics, Vol. 76, No. 1, 2000, pp. 54-67. https://doi.org/10.2307/3147257
  18. Fox, J. A., J. F. Shogren, D. J. Hayes, and J. B. Kliebenstein, "CVM-X: calibrating contingent values with experimental auction markets," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 80, No. 3, 1998, pp. 455-465. https://doi.org/10.2307/1244548
  19. Gosling, S. D., P. J. Rentfrow, and W. B. Jr. Swann, "A very brief measure of the big five personality domains," Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 37, 2003, pp. 504-528. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1
  20. Grebitus, C., J. L. Lusk, and R. M. Jr. Nayga, "Explaining differences in real and hypothetical experimental auctions and choice experiments with personality," Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 36, 2013, pp. 11-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2013.02.004
  21. Herriges, J., C. L. Kling, C. C. Liu, and J. Tobias, "What are the consequences of consequentiality?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 59, No. 1, 2010, pp. 67-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2009.03.004
  22. Holt, C. A. and S. K. Laury, "Risk aversion and incentive effects," American Economic Review, Vol. 92, No. 5, 2002, pp. 1644-1655. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282802762024700
  23. Johannesson, M., B. Liljas, and P-O. Johansson, "An experimental comparison of dichotomous choice contingent valuation questions and real purchase decisions," Applied Economics, Vol. 30, No. 5, 1998, pp. 643-647. https://doi.org/10.1080/000368498325633
  24. Lee, J. and U. Hwang, "Hypothetical bias in risk preferences as a driver of hypothetical bias in willingness to pay: Experimental evidence," Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 65, 2016, pp. 789-811. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-015-9926-9
  25. Li, C-Z. and L. Mattsson, "Discrete choice under preference uncertainty: an improved structural model for contingent valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 28, No. 2, 1995, pp. 256-269. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1995.1017
  26. Li, G., "Robust regression," in Hoaglin, D., C., Mosteller, F., Tukey, J. W. (eds), Exploring Data Tables, Trends, and Shapes. Wiley, New York, 1985, pp. 41-69.
  27. List, J. A. and C. A. Gallet, "What experimental protocol influences disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values?: Evidence from a meta-analysis," Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 20, No. 3, 2001, pp. 241-254. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012791822804
  28. Little, J. and R. Berrens, "Explaining disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values:Further investigation using meta-analysis," Economics Bulletin, Vol. 3, No. 6, 2004, pp. 1-13.
  29. Loomis, J., "What's to know about hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation studies?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Vol. 25, No. 2, 2011, pp. 363-370. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6419.2010.00675.x
  30. Murphy, J. J., P. G. Allen, T. H. Stevens, and D. Weatherhead, "A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation," Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 30, No. 3, 2005, pp. 313-325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-004-3332-z
  31. Murphy, J. J., T. H. Stevens, and D. Weatherhead, "Is cheap talk effective at eliminating hypothetical bias in a provision point mechanism?," Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 30, No. 3, 2005, pp. 327-343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-004-4224-y
  32. Nepal, M., R. P. Berrens, and A. K. Bohara, "Assessing perceived consequentiality: evidence from a contingent valuation survey on global climate change," International Journal of Ecological Economics and Statistics, Vol. 14, 2009, pp. 14-29.
  33. Norwood, F. B., J. L. Lust, and T. Boyer, "Forecasting hypothetical bias: A tale of two calibrations," in Cherry, T., I., Kroll, S., Shogren, J. F. (eds), Environmental Economics, Experimental Methods, Routledge, New York, 2008, pp. 447-465.
  34. Vossler, C. A., M. Doyon, and D. Rondeau, "Truth in consequentiality: Theory and field evidence on discrete choice experiments," American Economics Journal: Microeconomics, Vol. 4, No. 4, 2012, pp. 145-171. https://doi.org/10.1257/mic.4.4.145
  35. Vossler, C. A., and M. F. Evans, "Bridging the gap between the field and the lab: environmental goods, policy maker input, and consequentiality," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 58, No. 3, 2009, pp. 338-345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2009.04.007
  36. Vossler, C. A., and S. B. Watson, "Understanding the consequences of consequentiality: Testing the validity of stated preferences in the field," Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, Vol. 86, 2013, pp. 137-147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2012.12.007