Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.5859/KAIS.2018.27.4.149

Valuation of Public Data Using Stated Preference Method: The Case of Agriculture Soil Database  

Lee, Sang-Ho (영남대학교 식품경제외식학과)
Ha, Sung-Ho (경북대학교 경영학부)
Jeong, Ki-Ho (경북대학교 경제통상학부)
Publication Information
The Journal of Information Systems / v.27, no.4, 2018 , pp. 149-165 More about this Journal
Abstract
Purpose As Korean economy has been sluggish in recent years, firms' interest in publicly financed projects has increased due to the relatively increasing proportion in the economy. Since 1999, publicly financed projects in Korea need to undergo preliminary feasibility study to evaluate economic efficiency and policy quality if they are larger than a certain scale. The benefits of public projects are one of the most important factors in the preliminary feasibility study but are difficult to estimate due to their nature. Design/methodology/approach This study estimates the benefits of the agricultural soil information database, a public database in Korea. The method used in the study is the stated preference method which is formally used in Korea's preliminary feasibility study. Data are collected through surveys and a logit model is constructed to be estimated by the maximum likelihood estimation method. Findings As the first study evaluating a public database, this study can be used as a baseline in all public database projects developed in the future. In addition, this study can contribute to improving the understanding of both private companies and public organizations who are interested in the cost-benefit analysis and estimation procedure for the publicly financed projects.
Keywords
Public Data; Database Valuation; Public Database; Benefit Evaluation; Stated Preference Method; Logit Model;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Merrett, S., "Deconstructing households' willingness-to-pay for water in low-income countries," Water Policy, Vol. 4, 2002, pp. 157-172.   DOI
2 Oehlert, G. W., "A note on the delta method," The American Statistician, Vol. 46, No. 1, 1992, pp. 27-29.
3 Ready, R. C., Champ, P. A., and Lawton, J. L., "Using respondent uncertainty to mitigate hypothetical bias in a stated choice experiment," Land Economics, Vol. 86, 2010, pp. 363-381.   DOI
4 Ryan, M., "Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: An application to in vitro fertilisation," Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 48, 1999, pp. 535-546.   DOI
5 Ryan, M., "A comparison of stated preference methods for estimating monetary values," Health Economics, Vol. 13, 2004, pp. 291-296.   DOI
6 Ryan, M., and Bate, A., "Testing the assumptions of rationality, continuity and symmetry when applying discrete choice experiments in health care," Applied Economics Letters, Vol. 8, 2001, pp. 59-63.   DOI
7 Ryan, M., and Gerard, K., "Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: Current practice and future research reflections," Applied Health Economics and Policy Analysis, Vol. 2, 2003, pp. 55-64.
8 이영범, 고태호, 홍근석, 지현정, "공공서비스의 경제적 가치 측정에 관한 연구: 특허청의 청구항별 심사제도를 중심으로," 정책분석평가학회보, 제18권 제3호, 2008, pp. 171-193.
9 장상수, "조건부가치측정법(CVM)을 이용한 정보보호 관리체계(ISMS) 인증의 경제적 가치 추정 연구," 한국산학기술학회논문지, 제15권 제9호, 2014, pp. 5783-5789.   DOI
10 정기호, 조진삼, 김지영, 김준연, "양성자가속기사업의 편익분석," 자원환경경제연구, 제15권 제4호, 2006, pp. 741-760.
11 정기호, "한국 중소형 일체형 원자로 (SMAERT)의 사회적 가치 평가: 비사용가치를 중심으로," 에너지경제연구, 제10권 제2호, 2011, pp. 55-75.
12 한국과학기술기획평가원, "대형 광학망원경 개발사업 사전타당성 조사 보고서", 2006.
13 Ryan, M., Gerard, K., and Amaya-Amaya, M., Using Discrete Choice Experiments to Value Health and Health Care, Springer, 2008.
14 정기호, "영상자료센터 건립사업의 경제적 편익," 한국데이터정보과학회지, 제22권 제5호, 2011, pp. 885-893.
15 포항가속기연구소, "포항 방사광가속기 경제적 가치평가," 2008.
16 포항가속기연구소, "4세대 방사광가속기 경제적 가치 평가," 2009.
17 한국개발연구원, "예비타당성조사 수행을 위한 일반지침 수정․보완 연구 (제5판)", 2008.
18 한국과학기술기획평가원, "국가연구개발사업 예비타당성조사 수행 세부지침", 2018.
19 Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P., Leamer, E. E., Radner, R., and Schuman, H., "Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation," Federal Register, Vol. 58, 1993, pp. 4601-4614.
20 Bateman, I. J., and Willis, K. G., Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing Countries, Oxford University Press, 1999.
21 Srinivasan, V., "A conjunctive-compensatory approach to the self-explication of multiattributed preferences," Decision Sciences, Vol. 19, No. 2, 1988, pp. 295-305.   DOI
22 Scarpa, R., Campbell, D., and Hutchinson, W. G., "Benefit estimates for landscape improvements: Sequential Bayesian design and respondents' rationality in a choice experiment study," Land Economics, Vol. 83, 2007, pp. 617-634.   DOI
23 Scarpa, R., Gilbride, T. J., Campbell, D., and Hensher, D. A., "Modelling attribute non-attendance in choice experiments for rural landscape valuation," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 36, 2009, pp. 151-174.   DOI
24 Scott, A., "The valuation of game resources: Some theoretical aspects," Canadian Fisheries Report, Vol. 4, 1965, pp. 27-47.
25 Thurstone, L. L., "The indifference function," Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 2, No. 2, 1931, pp. 139-167.   DOI
26 Walsh, R. G,, Loomis, J. B., and Gillman, R. A., "Valuing option, existence and bequest demands for wilderness," Land Economics, Vol. 60, 1984, pp. 14-29.   DOI
27 Bishop, R. C., and Heberlein, T. A., "Measuring values of extra-market goods: Are indirect measures biased?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 61, 1979, pp. 926-930.   DOI
28 Bateman, I. J., Carson, R. T., Day, B. H., Hanemann, W. M., Hanley, N., Hett, T., Jones-Lee, M., Loomes, G., Mourato, S., Ozdemiroglu, E., and Pearce, D. W., Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual, Edward Elgar, 2002.
29 Ben-Akiva, M., McFadden, D., and Train, K., "Foundations of stated preference elicitation consumer behavior and choice-based conjoint analysis,", 2015, https://eml.berkeley.edu/-train/foundations.pdf
30 Bennett, J., and Blamey, R., The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation, Edward Elgar, 2001.
31 Boxall, P. C., Adamowicz, W. L., Swait, J., Williams, M., and Louviere, J., "A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Vol. 18, 1996, pp. 243-253.   DOI
32 Brookshire, D. S., Eubanks, D. S., and Randall, A., "Estimating option price and existence values for wildlife resources," Land Economics, Vol. 59, 1983, pp. 1-15.   DOI
33 Choe, K. A., Whittington, D., and Lauria, D. T., "The economic benefits of surface water quality improvements in developing countries: a case study of Davao, Philippines," Land Economics, Vol. 72, 1996, pp. 107-126.
34 Champ, P. A., Boyle, K, C., and Brown, T. C., A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation, Springer, 2003.
35 Carson, R. T., "Contingent valuation: A user's guide," Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 34, 2000, pp. 1413-1418.   DOI
36 Carson, R. T., Contingent Valuation: A Comprehensive Bibliography and History, Edward Elgar, 2011.
37 Ciriacy-Wantrup, S. V., "Capital returns from soil-conservation practices," Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. 29, No. 4, 1947, pp. 1181-1196.   DOI
38 Green, P., and Srinivasan, V., "Conjoint analysis in consumer research: Issues and outlook," Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1978, pp. 103-123.   DOI
39 Desvousges, W. H., Johnson, F. R., Dunford, R. W., Hudson, S. P., Wilson, K. N., and Boyle, K. J., "Measuring natural resource damages with contingent valuation: Tests of validity and reliability," in Hausman, J. A., Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment, Amsterdam, Elsevier, 1993, pp. 91-164.
40 Green, P., and Rao, V., "Conjoint measurement for quantifying judgmental data," Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1971, pp. 355-363.   DOI
41 Greene, W., Econometric analysis (6th ed.), Prentice Hall, 2008.
42 Loomis, J. B., and duVair, P. H., "Evaluating the effects of alternative risk communication devices on willingness to pay: results from a dichotomous choice contingent valuation experiment," Land Economics, Vol. 69, 1993, pp. 287-298.   DOI
43 Hanley, N., Mourato, S., and Wright, R. E., "Choice modelling approaches: A superior alternative for environmental valuation?" Journal of Economic Surveys, Vol. 15, 2001, pp. 435-462.
44 Johnson, R., "Trade-off analysis of consumer values," Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 11, No. 2, 1974, pp. 121-127.   DOI
45 Kanninen, B. J., Valuing Environmental Amenities Using Stated Choice Studies: A Common Sense Approach to Theory and Practice, Springer, 2006.
46 Louviere, J., Analyzing Decision Making: Metric Conjoint Analysis, Sage, 1988.
47 Louviere, J. J., Hensher, D. A., and Swait, J. D., Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications, ambridge University Press, 2000.
48 Luce, D., and Suppes, P., "Preferences, utility and subjective probability," in Luce, R., Bush, R., and Galanter, E., Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, John Wiley & Sons, 1965, pp. 249-410.
49 McFadden, D., "Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior," in Zarembka, P., Frontiers of Econometrics, Academic Press, 1974, pp. 105-142.
50 Luce, D., and Tukey, J., "Simultaneous conjoint measurement: A new type of fundamental measurement," Journal of Mathematical Psychology, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1964, pp. 1-27.   DOI
51 McFadden, D., Ben-Akiva, M., Goett, A., and Bolduc, D., "The choice theory approach to analyze the preferences and choices of electric utility consumers," EPRI Final Report RP2671-1, 1986.