Journal of the Korean Society of Environmental Restoration Technology (한국환경복원기술학회지)

The Korea Society of Environmental Restoration Technology (한국환경복원기술학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Study on Improving the Estimation of Social Benefits Using the Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services in Preliminary Feasibility Analyses for Ecological Restoration Projects - Focused on the Case of Janghang Wetland Restoration Project -

생태계서비스 가치평가를 활용한 예비타당성조사 편익분석 개선 방향 연구 - 장항습지복원사업 사례를 중심으로 -

  • Oh, Chi-Ok (Graduate School of Culture, Chonnam National University) ;
  • Joo, Woo-yeong (Team of Protected Areas, National Institute of Ecology) ;
  • Park, Chang-seok (Division for Environmental Planning, Korea Environment Institute)
  • 오치옥 (전남대학교 문화전문대학원 ) ;
  • 주우영 (국립생태원 보호지역팀 ) ;
  • 박창석 (한국환경연구원 환경계획연구실 )
  • Received : 2023.09.20
  • Accepted : 2023.11.27
  • Published : 2023.12.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study is to propose the ecosystem service valuation method as a complementary or alternative tool to overcome the limitations of the contingent valuation method(CVM), typically used to assess social benefits in preliminary feasibility studies. With an increasing interest in natural and environmental restoration projects, we assessed social benefits with theses CVM and ecosystem service valuation method from a case of Janghang wetland restoration project and compared the extent of the two social benefits. For quantitative evaluation of ecosystem services, the biophysical quantity for each ecosystem service indicator was calculated and then converted into currency (KRW) units to estimate the economic value of ecosystem services. The four ecosystem regulating service indicators were selected including greenhouse gas capture/storage, air pollution, water quantity and quality regulation. The amounts of CO2 sequestration and storage as a ecosystem's greenhouse gas regulating service in the study area were 73.04 tCO2/yr and 5,867.53 tCO2/yr respectively. The reduction of SO2, one of air pollutant gases by ecosystems was calculated to be 180.27 kg/yr, the reduction of NO2 to be 378.90 kg/yr, and the reduction of fine dust (PM10) to be 9,713.92 kg/yr. The amount of freshwater regulating service by the ecosystem was estimated to be 459,394,319ℓ/yr, and the amount of nitrogen in freshwater removed by the ecosystem was 78.00kg/yr. Study results show that the benefits derived from the CVM were KRW 227.8 billion over the 30-year analysis period and those from the ecosystem service valuation method were KRW 41.4 billion for regulatory services and KRW 148.8 billion for cultural services, totaling KRW 189.5 billion. With KRW 184.8 billion of the total costs, the benefit/cost ratio using the CVM was 1.23 and that with the ecosystem service valuation method was 1.03. This study implications include that the CVM and ecosystem service valuation method can be applied together to assess and compare social benefits for natural and environmental restoration projects.

Keywords

References

  1. Ahn, S. (2015). Estimating Economic Values of Ecosystem Services: What and How Will We Do It? Environmental Forums, 19(2), 1-20.
  2. Ahn, S., and J. Kim (2016). Economic Values of Freshwater Ecosystem Services from Demand and Supply Perspectives, Journal of the Korean Society of Environmental Engineers. 38(10): 580-587. https://doi.org/10.4491/KSEE.2016.38.10.580
  3. Boardman, A. E., D. H. Greenberg, A. R. Vining, and D. L. Weimer (2018). Cost-Benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK,
  4. Brown, C., B. Reyers, L. Ingwall-King, A. Mapendembe, J. Nel, P. O'Farrell, M. Dixon, & N. J. Bowles-Newark (2014). Measuring Ecosystem Services: Guidance on Developing Ecosystem Service Indicators, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK.
  5. Budyko, M. I. (1958). The Heat Balance of the Earth's Surface, US Dept. of Commerce. Weather Bureau, Washington, DC, USA.
  6. Bull, J. W., N. Jobstvogt, A. Bohnke-Henrichs, et al. (2016). Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats: A SWOT Analysis of the Ecosystem Services Framework, Ecosystem Services, 17, 99-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.11.012
  7. Choi, S. and C. Oh (2018). Economic Valuation of the Ecosystem Services in Seocheon Intertidal Mudflats, Environmental and Resource Economics Review, 27(2), 233-260.
  8. Christie, M., I. Fazey, R. Cooper, T. Hyde, and J. Kenter (2012). An Evaluation of Monetary and Non-monetary Techniques for Assessing the Importance of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services to People in Countries with Developing Economies, Ecological Economics, 83, 67-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.012
  9. Chungcheong Nam-do (2022). A Report on the Design and Feasibility Analysis for the Ecological Restoration Project of the Decontaminated Land at the Former Janghang Smelting Factory.
  10. Eom Y., O. Kwon, and Y. Shin (2011). Issues in Applying CV Methods to the Preliminary Feasibility Test, Environmental and Resource Economics Review, 20(3), 595-628.
  11. EU Commission (2020). EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, https://ec.europa.eu/environment/strategy/biodiversity-strategy-2030_el
  12. Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Research Center (GGIRC) (2019). National Report for Greenhouse Inventory, Ministry of Environment, Sejong.
  13. Haines-Young, R., and M. Potschin (2010). The Links between Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services and Human Well-being, Ecosystem Ecology, 1, 110-139. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750458.007
  14. Haines-Young, R., and M. B. Potschin (2018). Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) V5.1 and Guidance on the Application of the Revised Structure, Fabis Consulting Ltd, Nottingham, UK.
  15. Hernandez-Sancho, F., M. Molinos-Senante, and R. Sala-Garrido (2010). Economic Valuation of Environmental Benefits from Wastewater Treatment Processes: An Empirical Approach for Spain," Science of the Total Environment, 408(4), 953-957. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.10.028
  16. Hirons, M., C. Comberti, and R, Dunford (2016). Valuing Cultural Ecosystem Services, Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 51, 545-574. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085831
  17. Hwang, M., M. Lee, and T. Jung (2014). The Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Restoration in Suncheon Bay, Journal of the Korea Society of Environmental Restoration Technology, 17(4):69-79(2014). https://doi.org/10.13087/kosert.2014.17.4.69
  18. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2006). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories, Vol. 4 Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use, Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme. Eggleston S, L Buendia, K Miwa, et al. (eds.). Kanagawa, Japan: Institute for Global Environmental Strategies.
  19. Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services(IPBES) (2019). The Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Bonn, Germany.
  20. Korea Development Institute Public and Private Infrastructure Investment Management Center(KDI PIMAC) (2021). Detailed Guidelines for Conducting Preliminary Feasibility Studies in General Sectors, Korea Development Institute, Sejong.
  21. Kim, K., M. Kang, S. Hwang, S. Jun, H. Lee, and S. Kim (2022). Development of Monthly Hydrological Cycle Assessment System Using Dynamic Water Balance Model Based on Budyko Framework. Journal of Korean Society of Agricultural Engineers, 64(2): 71-83.
  22. Kim, M. J. (2021). A New Direction for the Preliminary Feasibility Study of Public Healthcare Facilities, Journal of the Korean Regional Science Association, 37(1), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.46396/Kjem..93.1
  23. Kim, M. S. (2003). The Roles of Restoration Ecology, Landscape Ecology and Conservation Biology to Restore the Environment, Journal of the Korea Society of Environmental Restoration Technology, 6(4): 17~23.
  24. Kim, N., C. Oh, and S. Ahn (2023). Valuing the Cultural Ecosystem Service of Wetland Protected Areas Using Choice Experiments, Journal of Environmental Policy and Administration, 31(2), 1-31. https://doi.org/10.15301/jepa.2023.31.2.1
  25. Korea Institute of Public Finance (2018). A Study on the Reasonable Adjustment of Energy Tax Charges for Power Generation, KIPF, Sejong.
  26. Korea Research Institute for Local Administration (2019). A Study on the Standardization Method of the Conditional Valuation Method (CVM) Survey of the Feasibility Analysis of Local Financial Investment Projects, KRILA, Wonju.
  27. Korea Research Institute for Local Administration (2020). A Study on Improving Urban Park Feasibility Analysis, KRILA, Wonju.
  28. Lee, C. (2020). Application of Benefit Transfer in Preliminary Feasibility Study, Future Growth Studies, 6(1), 55-73. https://doi.org/10.29143/KUIFG.2020.6.1.55
  29. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment(MEA) (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC.
  30. Ministry of Economy and Finance (2021). Significant Improvement of the Standard Guidelines for Preliminary Feasibility Studies such as Strengthening Balanced Regional Development and Improving the Accuracy of the Analysis - Resolution of the 3rd Financial Project Evaluation Committee in 2021, MEF, Sejong.
  31. Ministry of Environment (2021). The Comprehensive Plan for Green Restoration of the National Land Environments, https://me.go.kr/home/web/main.do, [2023.6.5.]
  32. Ministry of Environment (2022). Establishing the Main Track of Natural Environment Restoration Projects, and Proposing the Detailed Standards and Procedures [2023.6.5.].
  33. Miyake, H. (1990). Evaluation of Air Purification Function of Green Spaces Based on Plant Productivity. Ministry of Education, Human Environmental Sciences, Research Report, 038-N31, 1530.
  34. National Institute of Ecology(NIE) (2016). National Ecosystem Services Assessment (NESA) : Indicators Selection and Assessment for NESA, Seochun-gun, National Institute of Ecology.
  35. National Institute of Ecology(NIE) (2019). A Guideline for Ecosystem Services Assessment of Wetland Protected Areas, Seochun-gun, National Institute of Ecology.
  36. National Institute of Ecology(NIE) (2020). Assessment of Key Ecosystem Assets and Ecosystem Services for Conservation Planning, Seochun-gun, National Institute of Ecology, NIE-Strategic Research-2020-03.
  37. National Institute of Ecology(NIE) (2020). Assessment of Key Ecosystem Assets and Ecosystem Services for Conservation Planning, Seochun-gun, National Institute of Ecology, NIE-Strategic Research-2021-03.
  38. National Assembly Budget Office (2022). Carbon Pricing System Operation Status and Implications: Cases of Major Countries, Seoul, National Assembly Budget Office.
  39. National Assembly Research Service (2013). A Study on Issues and improvement of the preliminary feasibility analysis institution, Seoul, National Assembly Research Service
  40. Ojea, E., J. Martin-Ortega, and A. Chiabai (2012). Defining and Classifying Ecosystem Services for Economic Valuation: The Case of Forest Water Services, Environmental Science & Policy, 19, 1-15.
  41. Plottu, E., and B. Plottu (2007). The Concept of Total Economic Value of Environment: A Reconsideration within in a Hierarchical Rationality, Ecological Economics, 61, 52-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.09.027
  42. Selivanov, E., and P. Hlavackova (2021). Methods for Monetary Valuation of Ecosystem Services: A Scoping Review, Journal of Forest Science, 67(11), 499-511. https://doi.org/10.17221/96/2021-JFS
  43. Seochen-gun (2021). 2020 Seocheon Statistical Yearbook, Seochon-gun, Chungnam-do.
  44. Son, H.J., D. Kim, N. Kim, J. Hong, and Y. Song (2019). Evaluation indicators for the restoration of degraded urban ecosystems and the analysis of restoration performance, Journal of the Korea Society of Environmental Restoration Technology, 22(6): 97~114.
  45. Statistics Korea (2022). Population and Household Survey, Statistics Korea, Daejon.
  46. TEEB (2010). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations, Pushpam Kumar(Ed), Routledge, New York, USA.
  47. Totsuka, S., and H. Miyake (1991). Air Purification Function of Green Space, Journal of Atmospheric Environment Society, 26(4): 71-80.
  48. UK National Ecosystem Assessment (UK NEA) (2011). The UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Synthesis of the Key Findings, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK.
  49. United Nations (2019). Decade on Ecosystem Restoration 2021-2030. https://www.decadeonrestoration.org/
  50. US Office of Management and Budget (2023), Guidance for Assessing Changes in Environmental and Ecosystem Services in Benefit-Cost Analysis, Washington DC, USA.
  51. Vatn, A. (2005). Institutions and the Environment, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.
  52. Wegner, G. and U. Pascual (2011). Cost-benefit Analysis in the Context of Ecosystem Services for Human Well-being: A Multidisciplinary Critique, Global Environmental Change, 21, 492-594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.12.008
  53. You, J., G. Kim, G. Yeo, and M. Shim (2008). Improvement Direction for Feasibility Analysis of Water Resources Projects by Analyzing Preliminary Feasibility Analysis Projects, Proceedings of the Korea Water Resources Association, 545-549.
  54. Zhang, L., K. Hickel, W. Dawes, F. Chiew, A. Western,, amd P. Briggs (2004). A Rational Function Approach for Estimating Mean Annual Evapotranspiration, Water resources research, 40(2).