JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Measuring benefits of providing water for environmental improvement in Daechi-stream and Ji-stream
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
Measuring benefits of providing water for environmental improvement in Daechi-stream and Ji-stream
Hong, Seungjee;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
This study attempts to estimate the benefits of using water ensuing from the Chilgap multipurpose reservoir for environmental improvement. The contingent valuation method (CVM) was used to elicit the willingness to pay (WTP) for providing environmental improvement water from the Chilgap reservoir to Daechi-stream and Ji-stream. The DCDB (double-bound dichotomous choice) survey method was used to collect data for the analysis. Due to the usually high cost of increasing the sample size, the use of follow-up questions was implemented as an inexpensive method of improving the efficiency of the estimation. A spike model was used in this study because a number of respondents showed zero WTP. The spike model can be estimated as easily as the conventional model. Results show that the average annual household`s WTP is 4,516 won using the conventional model and 8,644 won using the spike model. Applying the estimated average annual household`s WTP to the Chungnam and Daejeon regional levels, the benefits of environmental improvement water from the Chilgap reservoir is estimated at 11.9 billion won per year. The temporal benefits of providing water for environmental improvement, for a 50-year period at a 6.0% discount rate, is estimated at about 190 billion won in the Chungnam and Daejeon areas. These results could be useful especially when the government tries to determine an appropriate level of investment and to make a policy related to providing environmental improvement water.
 Keywords
contingent valuation;environmental improvement water;spike model;
 Language
Korean
 Cited by
 References
1.
Cameron TA, James MD. 1987. Efficient estimation methods for closed ended contingent valuation surveys. Review of Economics and Statistics 69:269-276. crossref(new window)

2.
Cameron TA, Quiggin J. 1994. Estimation using contingent valuation data from a "dichotomous choice with follow-up" questionnaire. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 27:218-234. crossref(new window)

3.
Cheongyang-gun Office. 2016. 2014 Statistical Yearbook. [in Korean]

4.
Cooper JC, Hanemann WM. 1994. Referendum contingent valuation: How many bounds are enough? Paper presented at 1994 American Agricultural Economic Association Convention in San Diego, CA, USA. Washington, D.C.: Economic Research Service, USDA.

5.
Eom YS. 2015. Measuring benefits of providing water for environmental improvement in Yeongdok Ohsip river: Considering protest bids and distance-decay function in the application of CVM. Environmental and Resource Economics Review 24:435-461. [in Korean] crossref(new window)

6.
Gim US, Ryu MH, Lee JI. 2013. Australian water reform for allocating environmental water. Environmental Policy 21:21-43. [in Korean]

7.
Hanemann WM. 1984. Welfare evaluation in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66:332-341. crossref(new window)

8.
Hansen LT, Hallam A. 1991. National estimates of recreational value of streamflow. Water Resource Research 27:167-175. crossref(new window)

9.
Johnson NS, Adams RM. 1988. Benefits of increased streamflow: The case of the John Day river steelhead fishery. Water Resource Research 24:1839-1846. crossref(new window)

10.
KDI (Korea Development Institute). 2008. Modified and supplemented study for feasibility analysis standard guidelines of water resources projects (4th). [in Korean]

11.
KOSIS (Korean Statistical Information Service). 2016. Population and Household. Assessed in http://kosis.kr/statisticsList on 5 January 2016.

12.
Krinsky I, Robb AL. 1986. On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. The Review of Economics and Statistics 68:715-719. crossref(new window)

13.
Kristrom. B. 1997. Spike models in contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 79:1013-1023. crossref(new window)

14.
Kwon OS. 2007. Environmental economics. Pakyoungsa, Seoul, Korea. [in Korean]

15.
Lee JS, Ryu MH, Yoo SH. 2013. Assessment of economic value of Sangkwan multi-purpose reservoir(I): Benefits of environmentally-enhancing water. J. Korea Water Resources Association 46:989-995. [in Korean] crossref(new window)

16.
McFadden D. 1994. Contingent valuation and social choice. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76:689-708. crossref(new window)

17.
MOCT (Ministry of Construction and Transportation). 2007. Estimation of instream flow of improve natural & social environment. [in Korean]

18.
MOLIT (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport). 2015. Post-construction assessment. [in Korean]

19.
Shin YK, Kim HJ, Kim SB, Yoo SH. 2012. An economic evaluation of agricultural heritage. Korean Journal of Agricultural Management and Policy 39:710-725. [in Korean]

20.
Werner M. 1999. Allowing for zero in dichotomous-choice contingent-valuation models. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics 17:479-486.

21.
Yoo SH. 2004. South Koreans' willingness to pay for Korean unification. Applied Economics Letters 11:15-19. crossref(new window)

22.
Yoo SH, Kwak SJ. 2002. Using a spike model to deal with zero response data from double bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys. Applied Economics Letters 9:929-932. crossref(new window)