DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Economic Valuation of Urban Riverine Restoration and A Test of Social Desirability Bias

도심하천복원 경제가치 추정에서 사회규범편의 검정

  • Received : 2019.09.27
  • Accepted : 2019.11.15
  • Published : 2019.12.31

Abstract

The hypothetical nature of stated preferences can lead to a hypothetical bias that might work as a normative pressure, influencing survey responses. This paper aims to test the impact of social desirability bias by comparing economic estimates based on both subjective and objective valuation questions. The case study is about an urban riverine restoration project in Deajeon, South Korea. As valuation methods both contingent valuation and choice experiments were comparatively applied. Based on a nationally representative sample of 1,000 respondents, the test results offered contrasting conclusions between two test approaches. Accroding to the estimation results based on the conventional valuation, the marginal willingness to pay estimates are 10,500 KRW from CV; and 18,600 KRW for improving water quality, 2,200 KRW for the inside view, 8,900 KRW for the outside view, and 5,800 KRW for biodiversity from CE. A segmentation-based approach is a conventionally used method, which showed a limited impact of social desirability on willingness to pay estimates. The alternative parameterization-based approach measures a model-wide impact of social desirability, proving a significant bias. Although the study positioned a cheap-talk statement before the valuation section of the survey questionnaires, which might have pre-screened the bias, the overall implications of the results suggest a caution in reducing and observing hypothetical bias. There might remain a significant and substantial hypothetical bias even after cheap-talk, particularly in situations with strong social desirability, so that the potential role of objective valuation questions is guaranteed.

References

  1. 구윤모.강형식.이미숙, "홍천강 생태하천 복원사업의 경제적 가치", 한국환경생태학회지, 제28권 제1호, 2014, pp. 71-79. https://doi.org/10.13047/KJEE.2014.28.1.71
  2. 국토연구원, "하천복원사업의 사회.경제적 평가", 국토연구원, 2011.
  3. 김용주.유영성, "새로운 분류체계를 이용한 수질변화의 경제적 가치 추정", 자원.환경경제연구, 제17권 제4호, 2008, pp. 875-903.
  4. 대전광역시, "갑천 생태복원조성 기본설계 보고서", 대전광역시, 2006.
  5. 대전광역시, "테마가 있는 3대 하천 관리 종합계획", 대전발전연구원, 2014.
  6. 대한민국 정부, "100대 국정과제", 대한민국 정부, 2017.
  7. 서울시정개발연구원, "청계천복원 타당성 조사 및 기본계획: 사회적 비용.편익 부문", 서울시정개발연구원, 2003.
  8. 신영철, "조건부가치측정법에 의한 한강수질개선 편익 추정에 관한 연구", Dissertation, 서울대학교 대학원, 1997.
  9. 엄영숙, "만경강 수질개선 편익측정을 위한 조건부가치평가에 있어서 범위효과 분석", 자원.환경경제연구, 제10권 제3호, 2001, pp. 387-413.
  10. 엄영숙, "영덕오십천 환경개선용수 공급의 경제적 편익측정: CVM 적용에 있어 저항응답의 처리와 거리소멸함수", 자원.환경경제연구, 제23권 제2호, 2015, pp. 435-461.
  11. 이상범.채은주, "환경영향평가 제도에서의 생태계보전협력금 활용 개선방안", 한국환경정책.평가연구원, 2015.
  12. 이영성.박년배.김태한, "선택모형을 이용한 생태복원의 환경가치추정에 관한 연구", 國土計劃, 제39권 제3호, 2004, pp. 165-177.
  13. 이희찬, "선택실험법을 이용한 경안천 하천공간 복원의 가치 평가", 관광학연구, 제39권 제9호, 2015, pp. 47-60.
  14. 임윤택.이재영, "도시 생태하천공원의 가치 추정", 韓國地域開發學會誌, 제17권 제3호, 2005, pp. 95-110.
  15. 정은성.공기서.이길성.유진채, "실험선택법과 대안 평가지수를 이용한 대안의 편익산정", 한국수자원학회논문집, 제41권 제1호, 2008, pp. 101-113. https://doi.org/10.3741/JKWRA.2008.41.1.101
  16. 최성록.엄영숙, "선택실험을 이용한 서울 도시녹지 어메니티의 경제가치 평가", 자원.환경경제연구, 제27권 제1호, 2018, pp. 105-138.
  17. 통계청, 인구총조사, http://kosis.kr/statHtml/statHtml.do?orgId=101&tblId=DT_1IN1603&conn_path=I3, 2017.
  18. 한국개발연구원, 공공투자관리센터, http://pimac.kdi.re.kr/study/study_list.jsp?classcd=F1, 2018.
  19. 한국개발연구원, "수자원부문사업의 예비타당성조사 표준지침 수정.보완연구[제4판]", 한국개발연구원, 2008.
  20. 한국환경공단, "생태하천 복원 기술지침서", 2011.
  21. 한국환경공단, "생태하천 복원사업 사업효과 분석 연구", 환경부, 2014.
  22. 한국환경정책.평가연구원, 환경가치종합정보시스템 EVIS, http://evis.kei.re.kr/, 2018.
  23. 환경부, "생태하천복원사업 완공후 수질 및 수생태계 개선효과 분석", 환경부, 2015.
  24. Ajzen, I., "The Theory of Planned Behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 50, 1991, pp. 179-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
  25. Arrow, K., R. Solow, P. R. Portney, E. E. Leamer, R. Radner, and H. Schuman, "Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation," Federal Register, Vol. 58, No. 10, 1993, pp. 4601-4614.
  26. Bateman, I. J., R. T. Carson, B. Day, M. Hanemann, N. Hanley, T. Hett, M. Jones-Lee, G. Loomes, S. Mourato, E. Ozemiroglu, D. W. Pearce, R. Sugden, and J. Swanson, "Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual. Edward Elgar," Northampton, MA, 2002.
  27. Carlsson, F., "Do you do what you say or do you do what you say others do?," Journal of Choice Modelling, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2010, pp. 113-133. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1755-5345(13)70038-1
  28. Carlsson, F., P. Frykblom, and C. Johan Lagerkvist, "Using Cheap Talk as a Test of Validity in Choice Experiments," Economics Letters, Vol. 89, No. 2, 2005, pp. 147-152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2005.03.010
  29. Choi, A. S., "Implicit Prices for Longer Temporary Exhibitions in a Heritage Site and a Test of Preference Heterogeneity: A Segmentation-Based Approach," Tourism Management, Vol. 32, 2011, pp. 511-519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2010.04.002
  30. Choi, A. S., "Nonmarket Values of Major Resources in the Korean DMZ Areas: A test of Distance Decay," Ecological Economics, Vol. 88, 2013, pp. 97-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.01.014
  31. Choi, A. S., "The Impact of Arbitrary Constraints Over the Payment Parameter on WTP: a Case of a Normally Distributed Random Parameter," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 2019, pp. 1-15.
  32. Choi, A. S., C.-K. Lee, K. Tanaka, and H. Xu, "Value Spillovers from the Korean DMZ Areas and Social Desirability," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, Vol. 75, 2018, pp. 95-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2018.04.010
  33. Cummings, R. G., and L. O. Taylor, "Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method," The American Economic Review, Vol. 89, No. 3, 1999, pp. 649-665. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.89.3.649
  34. Daly, A., S. Hess, and K. Train, "Assuring Finite Moments for Willingness to Pay in Random Coefficient Models," Transportation, Vol. 39, No. 1, 2012, pp. 19-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-011-9331-3
  35. Dunlap, R. E., K. D. Van Liere, A. G. Mertig, and R. E. Jones, "Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale," Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 56, No. 3, 2000, pp. 425-442. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00176
  36. Ferrini, S., and R. Scarpa, "Designs with a Priori Information for Nonmarket Valuation with Choice Experiments: A Monte Carlo Study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 53, No. 3, 2007, pp. 342-363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2006.10.007
  37. Fisher, R. J., "Social Desirability Bias and the Validity of Indirect Questioning," Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20, No. 2, 1993, pp. 303-315. https://doi.org/10.1086/209351
  38. Hensher, D. A., J. M. Rose, and W. H. Greene, "Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer. Cambridge University Press," Cambridge, 2005.
  39. Johansson-Stenman, O., and P. Martinsson, "Honestly, Why are you Driving a BMW?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Vol. 60, No. 2, 2006, pp. 129-146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2004.08.006
  40. Levitt, S. D., and J. A. List, "What Do Laboratory Experiments Measuring Social Preferences Reveal About the Real World?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 21, No. 2, 2007, pp. 153-174. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.21.2.153
  41. Louviere, J. J., D. A. Hensher, and J. D. Swait, "Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications." Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000.
  42. Lusk, J. L., and F. B. Norwood, "An Inferred Valuation Method," Land Economics, Vol. 85, No. 3, 2009b, pp. 500-514. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.85.3.500
  43. Lusk, J. L., and F. B. Norwood, "Bridging the Gap Between Laboratory Experiments and Naturally Occurring Markets: An Inferred Valuation Method," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 58, No. 2, 2009a, pp. 236-250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2008.12.003
  44. McFadden, D., "Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior," in: P. Z (ed) Frontiers in Econometrics, Academic Press, New York, 1974.
  45. McFadden, D., and K. Train, "Mixed MNL Models for Discrete Response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, Vol. 15, 2000, pp. 447-470. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-1255(200009/10)15:5<447::AID-JAE570>3.0.CO;2-1
  46. Olynk, N. J., G. T. Tonsor, and C. A. Wolf, "Consumer Willingness to Pay for Livestock Credence Attribute Claim Verification," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Vol. 35, No. 2, 2010, pp. 261-280.
  47. Poe, G. L., E. K. Severance-Lossin, and M. P. Welsh, "Measuring the Difference (X-Y) of Simulated Distributions: A Convolutions Approach," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 76, No. 4, 1994, pp. 904-915. https://doi.org/10.2307/1243750
  48. Sherwood, G. G., "Self-serving Biases in Person Perception: A Reexamination of Projection as a Mechanism of Defense," Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 90, No. 3, 1981, pp. 445-459. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.90.3.445
  49. Sillano, M., and J. de Dios Ortuzar, "Willingness-to-Pay Estimation with Mixed Logit Models: Some New Evidence," Environment and Planning A, Vol. 37, No. 3, 2005, pp. 525-550. https://doi.org/10.1068/a36137
  50. Stachtiaris, S., A. C. Drichoutis, and S. Klonaris, "Preference Reversals in Contingent and Inferred Valuation Methods," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 40, No. 2, 2013, pp. 379-404. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbs030
  51. Thurstone, L. L., "A Law of Comparative Judgement," Psychological Review, Vol. 34, 1927, pp. 273-286. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0070288
  52. Train, K., "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation". Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2003.
  53. Venkatachalam, L., "The Contingent Valuation Method: A Review," Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Vol. 24, No. 1, 2004, pp. 89-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(03)00138-0
  54. Westfall, R. L., H. W. Boyd, Jr., and D. T. Campbell, "The Use of Structured Techniques in Motivation Research," Journal of Marketing, Vol. 22, No. 2, 1957, pp. 134-139. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224295702200202
  55. Yadav, L., T. M. van Rensburg, and H. Kelley, "A Comparison Between the Conventional Stated Preference Technique and an Inferred Valuation Approach," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 64, No. 2, 2013, pp. 405-422. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2012.00375.x