JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Measuring the Scientific Benefits from the Deep-sea Human-operated Vehicle Project: A Choice Experiment Study
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
  • Journal title : Ocean and Polar Research
  • Volume 36, Issue 3,  2014, pp.277-288
  • Publisher : Korea Institute of Ocean Science & Technology
  • DOI : 10.4217/OPR.2014.36.3.277
 Title & Authors
Measuring the Scientific Benefits from the Deep-sea Human-operated Vehicle Project: A Choice Experiment Study
Jin, Se-Jun; Lim, Seul-Ye; Park, Se-Hun; Yoo, Seung-Hoon;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
The Korean government is considering the implementation of a project to develop a deep-sea human-operated vehicle (HOV) to improve the level of deep-sea research. Information on the scientific benefits from the project is urgently needed in order to come to a decision about whether to implement the project. This paper measures the conservation value of developing nine attributes associated with HOV by using the choice experiment (CE). A survey of about 356 experts was undertaken and 132 experts completely responded to the survey. To deal with the CE data from the survey, we employed a multinomial logit model. All the coefficient estimates are statistically significant and consistent with prior expectations. Therefore, we can judge that the respondents` works required in the CE survey were within their cognitive abilities and they reported responsible and significant values. Each marginal willingness to pay for each attribute associated with the HOV is statistically significant and provides good information on the scientific values with regard to developing the HOV. The results can be utilized in evaluating and planning several alternatives related to developing the HOV.
 Keywords
deep-sea human-operated vehicle;choice experiment;willingness to pay;multinominal logit model;
 Language
Korean
 Cited by
1.
심해 유인 잠수정 구형 내압 선체의 구조 해석,이한민;박성환;이재경;

한국CDE학회논문집, 2015. vol.20. 4, pp.412-419 crossref(new window)
1.
Structural Analysis for Spherical Pressure Hull of Deep Manned Submersible, Transactions of the Society of CAD/CAM Engineers, 2015, 20, 4, 412  crossref(new windwow)
2.
Deep-sea floor exploration in the East Sea using ROV HEMIRE, Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society, 2016, 17, 4, 222  crossref(new windwow)
 References
1.
곽승준, 유승훈, 장정인 (2006) 컨조인트 분석을 이용한 한강하구의 가치추정. 경제학연구 54(4):141-161 (Kwak SJ, Yoo SH, Chang JI (2006) Valuing the han-river estray: using conjoint analysis. The Korean Econ Rev 54(4):141-161 (in Korean))

2.
김웅서 (2007) 베일에 싸인 해저신비 벗기는 끝없는 과학탐사. 과학과 기술 7:69-73 (Kim WS (2007) Endless scientific exploration of a mysterious deep-sea. Sci Technol 7:69-73 (in Korean))

3.
유승훈, 곽승준, 이주석 (2003) 컨조인트 분석을 이용한 서울시 대기오염영향의 환경비용 추정. 지역연구 19(3):1-17 (Yoo SH, Kwak SJ, Lee JS (2003) A conjoint analysis: measuring the environmental costs of air pollution impacts in Seoul. Korean Reg Sci Assoc 19(3):1-17 (in Korean))

4.
유승훈, 정동원, 박세헌 (2010) 태평양 심해저 망간단괴 개발사업의 경제적 파급효과. Ocean and Polar Res 32(4):489-499 (Yoo SH, Jung DW, Park SH (2010) The economic impacts of pacific ocean deep-sea manganese nodule development project. Ocean and Polar Res 32(4):489-499 (in Korean)) crossref(new window)

5.
최현택, 전봉환, 이판묵, 정봉출, 구법모, 박철수, 한상철 (2006) 심해 무인잠수정, 해미래와 해누비의 전원, 전기 및 통신 시스템 설계. 전기의 세계 55(3):25-31 (Choi HT, Jeon BH, Lee PM, Jung BC, Ku BM, Park CS, Han SC (2006) Deep-sea HOV, the power of Haemira and haenubi, electrical and communication system design. World Electricity 55(3):25-31 (in Korean))

6.
한국개발연구원 (2004) 문화시설의 가치추정 연구 보고서. 한국개발연구원, 연구보고서 2004-15, 263 p (Korea Development Institute (2004) Reports Estimate the Value of Culture Facilities. KDI, Research Report 2004-15, 263 p (in Korean))

7.
한국개발연구원 (2008) 예비타당성조사 수행을 위한 일반지침 수정.보완 연구(제5판) 보고서. 한국개발연구원, 438 p (Korea Development Institute (2008) General Guidelines for Conducting Pre-feasibility Studies, Complementary Modification Research (5th ed.) Report. KDI, Research Report, 438 p (in Korean))

8.
한국개발연구원 (2009) 대형 해양과학연구선 사업 예비타당성조사 보고서. 한국개발연구원 (Korea Development Institute (2009) Large Oceanographic Research Ship Project Feasibility Study Report. KDI, Research Report (in Korean))

9.
한국과학기술기획평가원 (2011) 연구개발부문 사업의 예비타당성조사 표준지침 연구(제1판) 연구보고서. 한국과학기술기획평가원, 283 p (Korea Institute of S&T Evaluation and Planning (2011) Feasibility Study of the Research and Development Sector Business Standard Guideline (first edition). KISTEP, Research Report, 283 p (in Korean))

10.
Adamowicz W, Louviere J, Williams M (1994) Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. J Environ Econ Manag 26: 271-292 crossref(new window)

11.
Carson RT, Groves T (2007) Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environ Resour Econ 37:181-210 crossref(new window)

12.
Elrod T, Louviere JJ, Davey KS (1992) An empirical comparison of ratings-based and choice-based conjoint Models. J Marketing Res 29(3):368-377 crossref(new window)

13.
Greene WH (2000) Econometric Analysis (4th edition). Prentice Hall International, London, 1040 p

14.
Hanley N, Wright RE, Adamowicz W (1998) Using choice experiments to value the environment. Environ Resour Econ 11:413-428 crossref(new window)

15.
Krinsky I, Robb AL (1986) On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Rev Econ Stat 68:715-719 crossref(new window)

16.
Ku SJ, Yoo SH (2010) Willingness to pay for renewable energy investment in Korea: A choice experiment study. Renew Sust Energ Rev 14:2196-2201 crossref(new window)

17.
Kwak SY, Yoo SH (2012) Consumers' willingness to pay for the 4th generation mobile communications service. Technol Forecast Soc 79:1312-1318 crossref(new window)

18.
Kwak SY, Yoo SH, Kwak SJ (2010) Valuing energy-saving measures in residential buildings: a choice experiment study. Energ Policy 38:673-677 crossref(new window)

19.
Lim SY, Lim KM, Yoo SH (2014) External benefits of waste-to-energy in Korea: A choice experiment study. Renew Sust Energ Rev 34:588-595 crossref(new window)

20.
Louviere JJ (1988) Conjoint analysis modeling of stated preferences: a review of theory, methods, recent developments and external validity. J Transp Econ Policy 10:93-119

21.
Mackenzie J (1993) A comparison of contingent preference models. Am J Agr Econ 75:593-603 crossref(new window)

22.
McFadden D (1994) Contingent valuation and social choice. Am J Agr Econ 76:689-708 crossref(new window)

23.
Morrison M, Bennett JW, Blamey RK, Louviere JJ (2002) Choice modeling and tests of benefit transfer. Am J Agr Econ 84:161-170 crossref(new window)

24.
Stern S (1997) Simulation-based estimation. J Econ Lit 35:2006-2039

25.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (2008) Circum-Arctic Resource Appraisal : Estimates of Undiscovered Oil and Gas North of the Arctic Circle. USGS Fast Sheet 2008-3049, Washington, EC, p.4

26.
Yoo SH, Lee JS, Kwak SJ (2008) Using a choice experiment to measure the environmental costs of the air pollution impacts in Seoul. J Environ Manage 86(1):308-318 crossref(new window)

27.
Yoo SH, Yoo TH (2009) The role of the nuclear power generation in the Korean national economy: an inputoutput analysis. Prog Nucl Energ 51:86-92 crossref(new window)