Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.7744/kjoas.20210015

Evaluating the social benefit of providing marketing information of livestock products  

Kim, Sounghun (Department of Agricultural Economics, Chungnam National University)
Jeon, Sang Gon (Department of Food and Resource economics, Gyeongsang National University, Institute of Agriculture and Life Science)
Publication Information
Korean Journal of Agricultural Science / v.48, no.2, 2021 , pp. 219-230 More about this Journal
Abstract
In Korea, the industry and marketing of livestock has grown because of increases in consumers' income and changes in food consumption trends. Livestock production and consumption increased tenfold from 1970 to 2018, and this rise will continue. However, the quality of marketing information for Korean livestock has remained low. The Korea Institute for Animal Products Quality Evaluation (KAPE) operates programs that provide marketing information on livestock, but the social benefits of these programs have not been objectively evaluated. The purpose of this study was to estimate the social benefit of the programs offering marketing information on Korean livestock. Survey and analysis using an economic model (double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation model), revealed a few findings. First, the users of the marketing information programs offered by KAPE recognized the value of these programs and demonstrated their willingness to pay for this marketing information. Second, the social values of the programs offering marketing information on livestock were estimated as 1.1 billion won (marketing information on main livestock) or 5.3 billion won (price information on poultry), and these social values were 2 or 6 times greater than the cost to operate the programs for offering information. Finally, the program that provides marketing information on domestic livestock provides sufficient social benefits, so KAPE should expand these programs.
Keywords
contingent valuation method; double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation model; marketing information; survey analysis;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Ahn SE. 2007. A meta-regression analysis of wetland valuation studies in Korea. Environmental and Resource Economics Review 16:65-98. [in Korean]
2 Bishop RC, Heberlein TA. 1979. Measuring values of extra-market goods: Are indirect measures biased? American Journal of Agricultural Economics 61:926-930.   DOI
3 Freeman AM. 2003. The measurement of environmental and resource values: Theory and methods, 2nd ed. Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C., USA.
4 Jang HD, Kim SH. 2016. Analysis of the economic value of the production of lily bulbs in Korea. Korean Journal of Agricultural Science 43:481-495. [in Korean]   DOI
5 Jeon SG, Chai SH. 2009. The Impact of beef grading system and policy suggestions. Korea Rural Economic Institute, Naju, Korea. [in Korean]
6 Kim SH, Han JH. 2019. Measuring the social effects of the origin labeling of beef in the Korean food service sector. Korean Journal of Agricultural Science 46:323-333. [in Korean]   DOI
7 Jeong MK, Woo BJ, Lee MK, Kim HJ, Lee HW, Kim WT. 2011. A study on improving a livestock production-distribution system for stabilizing inflation. Korea Rural Economic Institute, Naju, Korea. [in Korean]
8 Kwon OS. 2003. Estimating the willingness to pay for the Non-GMO agricultural products: A contingent valuation study. Korean Journal of Agricultural Economics 44:111-131. [in Korean]
9 Nonghyup Livestock Center. 2021. Demand and supply of livestock. Accessed in https://livestock.nonghyup.com/frdist/statList.do on 3 January 2021.
10 Carson RT, Hanemann WM. 2005. Handbook of environmental economics: Valuing environmental changes, Vol 2. In Contingent Valuation edited by Maler KG, Vincent J. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
11 Kim SH, Jeon SG. 2020. Measuring the social benefit of eggs processing center in Korea. Korean Journal of Agricultural Science 47:283-290. [in Korean]   DOI
12 Mitchell RC, Carson RT. 1989. Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation method. Resources for the Future, Washing, D.C., USA.
13 Kim YJ, Yoo YS. 2005. Valuing non-market benefits of water quality improvements in Paldang reservoir and Han river: A choice experiments study. Environmental and Resource Economics Review 14:337-381. [in Korean]
14 Kling CL, Phanuef DJ, Zhao J. 2012. From Exxon to BP: Has some number become better than no number? Journal of Economic Perspectives 26:3-26.   DOI
15 Kwon OS. 2006. Valuing recreational benefits of dam lakes using a choice experiment approah. Environmental and Resource Economics Review 15:555-576. [in Korean]