Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14249/eia.2019.28.2.101

Analysis on Socio-cultural Aspect of Willingness to Pay for Air Quality (PM10, PM2.5) Improvement in Seoul  

Kim, Jaewan (Graduate School of International Studies, Yonsei University)
Jung, Taeyong (Graduate School of International Studies, Yonsei University)
Lee, Taedong (Department of Political Science, Yonsei University)
Lee, Dong Kun (Department of Landscape Architecture and Rural System Engineering, Seoul National University)
Publication Information
Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment / v.28, no.2, 2019 , pp. 101-112 More about this Journal
Abstract
Over the last few years, air pollution ($PM_{10}$, $PM_{2.5}$) in the Seoul metropolitan area (SMA) has emerged as one of the most concerned and threatening environmental issues among the residents. It brings about various harmful effects on human health, as well as ecosystem and industrial activities. Governments and individuals pay various costs to mitigate the level of air pollutants. This study aims to empirically find the willingness to pays (WTP) among the parents from different socio-cultural groups - international and domestic groups to mitigate air pollution ($PM_{10}$, $PM_{2.5}$) in their residential area. Contingent Valuation Methods (CVM) is used with employing single-bounded dichotomous choice technique to elicit the respondent's WTP. Using tobit (censored regression) and probit models, the monthly mean WTP of the pooled sample for green electricity which contributes to improve air quality in the region was estimated as 3,993 KRW (3.58 USD). However, the mean WTP between the international group and domestic group through a sub-sample analysis shows broad distinction as 3,325KRW (2.98 USD) and 4,449 KRW (3.98 USD) respectively. This is because that socio-cultural characteristics of each group such as socio-economic status, personal experience, trust in institutions and worldview are differently associated with the WTP. Based on the results, the society needs to raise awareness of lay people to find a strong linkage between the current PM issue and green electricity. Also, it needs to improve trust in the government's pollution abatement policy to mobilize more assertive participation of the people from different socio-cultural background.
Keywords
Particulate Matters (PM); Seoul metropolitan area; socio-cultural characteristics; Contingent Valuation Method (CVM); Willingness to Pay (WTP);
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Yoo SH, Kwak SY. 2009. Willingness to pay for green electricity in Korea: A contingent valuation study. Energy Policy. 37(12): 5408-5416.   DOI
2 Zoric J, Hrovatin N. 2012. Household willingness to pay for green electricity in Slovenia. Energy Policy. 47: 180-187.   DOI
3 Cameron TA, James MD. 1987. Efficient Estimation Methods for “Closed-Ended” Contingent Valuation Surveys. The Review of Economics and Statistics. 69(2): 269-276.   DOI
4 Carlsson F, Johansson-Stenman O. 2000. Willingness to Pay for Improved Air Quality in Sweden. Applied Economics. 32(6): 661-669.   DOI
5 Cummings RG, Brookshire DS, Schulze WD. (ed.) 1986. Valuing environmental goods: a state of the arts assessment of the contingent valuation method. Totowa, NJ: Roweman and Allanheld.
6 Diez T, Stern PC, Guagnano GA. 1998. Social structural and social psychological basis of environmental concern. Environment and Behavior. 30(4): 450-471.   DOI
7 Dupont PD. 2004. Do children matter? An examination of gender differences in environmental valuation. Ecological Economics. 49: 273-286.   DOI
8 Francisco ER, Aranha F, Zambaldi F, Goldszmidt R. 2006. Electricity Consumption as a Predictor of Household Income: a Spatial Statistics Approach. Davis CA, Monteiro AMV.(ed.) Advanced Geoinformatics. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. pp. 267-282.
9 Franzen A, Meyer R. 2010. Environmental attitudes in cross-national perspective: a multilevel analysis of the ISSP 1993 and 2000. European Sociological Review. 26: 219-234.   DOI
10 Greene WH. 2000. Econometric Analysis, 4th ed. Prentice Hall International, Inc., New Jersey.
11 Hong JH, Eom YS. 2010. Estimating demand for public goods using a survey technique: major issues and application of valuating environmental satellite project. Korean Economic Analysis. 17(1): 1-72. [Korean Literature].
12 Kim JW. 2018. Analysis on risk perception and willingness to pay for air quality ($PM_{10},\;PM_{2.5}$) improvement in the Seoul metropolitan area. MA dissertation. Graduate School of International Studies, Yonsei University, Seoul.
13 Hoyos D, Mariel P, Fernandez-Macho J. 2009. The influence of cultural identity on the WTP to protect natural resources: Some empirical evidence. 68(8-9): 2372-2381.   DOI
14 Jones N, Evangelinos K, Halvadakis CP, Losifides T, Sophoulis CM. 2010. Social factors influencing perceptions and willingness to pay for market-based policy aiming on solid waste management, Resources. Conservation and Recycling. 54: 533-540.   DOI
15 Jones N, Malesio C, Botetzagias I. 2009. The influence of social capital on willingness to pay for the environment among European citizens. European Societies. 11(4): 511-530.   DOI
16 KORUS-AQ. 2017. KORUS-AQ Rapid Science Synthesis Report. [Cited 2018 Jan 25]. Available from https://espo.nasa.gov/korus-aq
17 Loewenstein GF, Weber EU, Hsee CK, Welch E. 2001. Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin. 127(2): 267-286.   DOI
18 McCright AM. 2010. The effect of gender on climate change knowledge and concern in the American public. Population and Environment. 32: 66-87.   DOI
19 Mitchell RC, Carson RT. 1989. Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
20 Morita T, Managi S. 2015. Consumers' willingness to pay for electricity after the Great East Japan Earthquake. Economic Analysis and Policy. 48: 82-105.   DOI
21 Parry IWH, Heine D, Lis E, Li S. 2014. Getting Energy Prices Right: From Principle to Practice: Washington DC: International Monetary Fund.
22 Stern PC. 2000. New environmental theories: Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues. 56(3): 407-424.   DOI
23 Polyzou E, Jones N, Evangelinos KI, Halvadakis CP. 2011. Willingness to pay for drinking water quality improvement and the influence of social capital. Journal of Socio-Economic. 40: 74-80.   DOI
24 Putnam R. 2000. Bowling Alone, New York: Simon and Schuster.
25 Ressurreicao A, Gibbons J, Kaiser M, Dentinho TP, Zarzycki T, Bentley C, Austen M, Burdon D, Atkins J, Santos RS, Edwards-Jones G. 2012. Different cultures, different values: The role of cultural variation in public's WTP for marine species conservation. Biological Conservation. 145(1): 148-159.   DOI
26 Stern PC, Dietz T, Kalof L. 1993. Value orientations, gender and environmental concern, Environment and Behavior. 23(5): 322-348.   DOI
27 The Seoul Institute. 2016. Research on inventory building for the source of $PM_{2.5}$ and detailed monitoring, Seoul: City of Seoul. [Cited 2018 Feb 3]. Available from http://opengov.seoul.go.kr/research/11895404 [Korean Literature].
28 Tobin J. 1958. Liquidity preference as behavior towards risk. The Review of Economic Studies. 25(2):65-86.   DOI
29 United Nations. 2015. Paris Agreement. [Cited 2018 Jan 25]. Available from http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf.
30 Wei W, Wu Y. 2017. Willingness to pay to control $PM_{2.5}$ pollution in Jing-Jin-Ji Region, China. Applied Economics Letters. 24(11): 753-761.   DOI
31 Whitmarsh L. 2008. Are flood victims more concerned about climate change than other people? The role of direct experience in risk perception and behavioural response. Journal of Risk Research. 11(3): 351-374.   DOI