JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Measuring the Conservation Value of Lagoons: The Case of Songji Lagoon
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
  • Journal title : Ocean and Polar Research
  • Volume 27, Issue 2,  2005, pp.161-169
  • Publisher : Korea Institute of Ocean Science & Technology
  • DOI : 10.4217/OPR.2005.27.2.161
 Title & Authors
Measuring the Conservation Value of Lagoons: The Case of Songji Lagoon
Kwak, Seung-Jun; Yoo, Seung-Hoon; Chang, Jeong-In;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
In recent days, most of the lagoons in Korea have been lost on account of indiscreet development and pollution. Thus, this study measures the conservation value of the Songji lagoon, a representative lagoon in Korea by using the contingent valuation (CV) method and specifies the non-use value of Songji lagoon. The survey was carefully desigrled and implemented to meet a number of recommendation rules suggested in the literature. The overall results show that the respondents well accepted the contingent market and would be willing to pay a significant amount for the proposed program to conserve Songii lagoon. Total Conservation value of Songji lagoon amounted to approximately 21.2 billion Korean won per year. Moreover, the non-use value of Songji lagoon amounted 15.7 billion Korean won per yew. The results of measuring the conservation value provide decision-makers with data indispensable to devising a conservation and management policy.
 Keywords
Songji lagoon;conservation value;contingent valuation method;willingness to pay;
 Language
Korean
 Cited by
1.
독도의 비시장적 가치 평가,유승훈;이주석;정영근;

Ocean and Polar Research, 2011. vol.33. 3, pp.223-233 crossref(new window)
2.
동해안 송지호 코어 SJ99 내에 발달한 홀로세 엽리층의 퇴적환경 연구,이승현;유강민;

지질학회지, 2011. vol.47. 2, pp.123-137
1.
Assessment of Non-market Value of Dokdo, Ocean and Polar Research, 2011, 33, 3, 223  crossref(new windwow)
2.
Measuring the economic benefits of designating Baegnyeong Island in Korea as a marine protected area, International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 2016, 1  crossref(new windwow)
 References
1.
곽승준, 유승훈, 이충기. 2002. 조건부 가치측정법을 이용한 우포늪의 보존가치 추정. 국제경제연구, 8(3), 203-225.

2.
곽승준, 유승훈, 장정인. 2003. 해양환경 종합지수의 개발. 자원.환경경제연구, 12(3), 487-513.

3.
곽승준, 조승국, 유승훈. 2002. 한려해상국립공원 보존의 경제적 가치: 조건부 가치측정법(CVM)을 이용하여. 경제학연구, 50(2), 85-104.

4.
유병국. 1998. 강화도 남단 갯벌의 경제적 가치 평가. 한국환경경제학회 98년도 정기 학술대회 논문집, 325-356.

5.
이창희, 강대석, 남정호, 이병국, 유혜진. 2001. 하구.석호 육해전이수역 통합 환경관리방안 연구. 한국해양수산개발원.

6.
통계청. 2001. 한국통계연감.

7.
해양수산부. 2004. 해양수산백서(2002-2003).

8.
Arrow, K., R.P. Solow, R. Portney, E.E. Leamer, R. Radner, and H. Schuman. 1993. Report of the NOAA Panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register, 58, 4601-4614.

9.
Brent, R.J. 1998. Cost-benefit Analysis for Developing Countries. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.

10.
Cameron, T.A. 1988. A new paradigm for valuing nonmarket goods using referendum data: maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression. J. Environ. Econ. Manage., 15, 355-379. crossref(new window)

11.
Cameron, T.A. and M.D. James. 1987. Efficient estimation methods for closed-ended contingent valuation surveys. Rev. Econ. Stat., 69, 269-276. crossref(new window)

12.
Fisher, A. 1996. The conceptual underpinnings of the contingent valuation method. p. 19-37. In: The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resource. ed. by D.J. Bjornstad and J.R. Kahn. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.

13.
Hanemann, W.M. 1984. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am. J. Agric. Econ., 66, 332-341. crossref(new window)

14.
Hanemann, W.M. 1989. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses: Reply. Am. J. Agric. Econ., 71, 1057-1061. crossref(new window)

15.
Hanemann, W.M. 1994. Contingent valuation and economics. Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics Working Paper 697, University of California, Berkeley.

16.
Hanley, N. and C.L. Spash. 1993. Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.

17.
Krinsky, I. and A.L. Robb. 1986. On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Rev. Econ. Stat., 68, 715-719. crossref(new window)

18.
Kwak, S.J., S.H. Yoo, and C.O. Shin. 2002. A Multi-attribute Index for Assessing Environmental Impacts of Regional Development Projects : The Case Study of Korea. Environ. Manage., 29(2), 301-309. crossref(new window)

19.
Loomis, J. 1996. Measuring the economic benefits of removing dams and restoring the Elwha River: results of a contingent valuation survey. Water Resour. Res., 32, 411-447.

20.
Mitchell, R.C. and R.T. Carson. 1989. Using Survey to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.

21.
McConnell, K.E. 1990. Models for referendum data: the structure of discrete choice models for contingent valuation. J. Environ. Econ. Manage., 18, 19-34. crossref(new window)

22.
Park, T., J. Loomis, and M. Creel. 1991. Confidence intervals for evaluating benefit estimates from dichotomous choice contingent valuation studies. Land Econ., 67, 64-73. crossref(new window)

23.
Rowe, R.D. and L.G. Chestnut. 1983. Valuing environmental commodities revisited. Land Econ., 59, 404-410. crossref(new window)

24.
Yoo, S.H. and K.S. Chae. 2001. Measuring the economic benefits of the ozone pollution control policy in Seoul: results of a contingent valuation survey. Urban Stud., 38, 49-60. crossref(new window)