Comparative Study on Monetary Estimates of Natural Environment and Cultural Relics in Gyeongju National Park

경주국립공원의 문화유적과 자연환경의 가치추정 비교연구

  • Kang, Kee-Rae (Institute of Agricultural Science and Technology, Kyungpook Nat'l Univ.) ;
  • Kim, Dong-Pil (Dept. of Landscape Architecture, Pusan National University) ;
  • Baek, Jae-Bong (Dept. of Landscape Architecture, Pusan National University)
  • 강기래 (경북대학교 농업과학기술연구소) ;
  • 김동필 (부산대학교 조경학과) ;
  • 백재봉 (부산대학교 조경학과)
  • Received : 2012.01.30
  • Accepted : 2012.03.31
  • Published : 2012.04.30

Abstract

This study has estimated Gyeongju National Park's natural environment and cultural relic value in the same way and then been performed to compare the size of the value. Representative method to measure environmental property is contingent valuation methods, CVM. The variables and estimated models adopted for the calculation were same and the respondents were asked by distinguishing between the amount which they would pay to preserve the natural environment and that which they were willing to pay to preserve the cultural relics. As the result, WTP(Willing to pay), the amount that they were willing to pay to preserve the natural environment of Gyeongju National Park was 17,838 won per person and that to preserve the cultural relics appeared to be 316,248 won per person. Based on this, it was estimated that the value of the natural environment with which Gyeongju National Park provided annual visitors was 47 billion won and that the annual value of the cultural relics was 845.7 billion. If the natural environment and the cultural relics value elements are united, it can be estimated that the natural environment and cultural relic value got at the time of people's first visit to Gyeongju National Park is 334,086 won and that the annual value is 893.4 billion won. In this study, the value of the cultural relics has been estimated 18 times higher than that of the natural environment. This reason was that visitors judged that a total of 66 cultural properties including 11 national treasures, 23 treasures, 13 historic places, one historic sites and scenic spot and 18 local cultural properties, etc. which were distributed in Gyeongju National Park were worth far more than the natural environment. Based on the result of this study, the operating management plan of Gyeongju National Park should include a differentiated operation strategy through consultation with relevant experts by taking into account characteristics of the physical components.

본 연구는 사적지형 경주국립공원의 자연환경 가치와 문화유적의 가치를 동일한 방식으로 추정하여 그 크기를 비교해 보고자 수행 되었다. 각각의 가치 추정방식은 환경재의 가치추정방법으로 널리 알려진 CVM 기법을 이용하였다. 투입된 변수와 추정모형은 동일하며 응답자에게 자연환경을 보존하는데 지불할 금액과 문화유적을 보존하는데 지불할 의사액을 구분하여 질문하였다. 그 결과 경주국립공원의 자연환경을 보전하는데 지불할 의사액 WTP는 1인당 17,838원으로 추정되었으며 문화유적을 보전하는데 지불할 의사액 WTP는 1인당 316,248원으로 나타났다. 이를 바탕으로 경주국립공원이 연간 방문객에게 제공하는 자연환경의 가치는 470억원, 문화유적의 연간 가치는 8,457억 원으로 추정되었다. 두 가지 가치요소를 합하면 경주국립공원 1회 방문 시 얻는 자연환경과 문화유적의 가치는 334,086원, 연간 가치는 8,934억 원으로 추산 할 수 있으며 문화유적의 가치가 자연환경의 가치보다 18배가량 높게 추정되었다. 이러한 이유는 경주국립공원에 분포하고 있는 국보 11점, 보물 23점, 사적 13개소, 사적 및 명승 1개소, 지방문화재 18개소 등 총 66건으로 보유한 문화재가 자연환경의 가치보다 월등히 높다고 응답자들은 판단하였기 때문이다. 본 연구의 결과를 바탕으로 한 경주국립공원의 운영관리계획은 물리적 구성요소의 특성을 감안하여 관련전문가들과의 협의를 통하여 차별화된 운영전략을 마련해야할 것으로 판단한다.

Keywords

References

  1. Arrow, K., R. Solow, P. R. Portney, E. E. Leamer, R. Rander and H. Schuman(1993) Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
  2. Byon, L.Y., and S.B. Kim(2007) Evaluation on Economic Value and Use Characteristics of Historical Culture Resources in Ulsan. Journal of the Korean Urban Geographical Society 10(3): 69-78. (in Korean With English abstract)
  3. Chae, S.B. and K.R. Kang(2011) The Estimation of the Economic Value of Avoiding Cutting off the Water Using Contingent Valuation Method. Seoul Studies. 12(2): 141-152. (in Korean With English abstract)
  4. Cameron, T. A. and D. James(1987) Efficient estimation methods for closed-ended contingent valuation surveys. Review of Economics and Statistics 69: 269-276. https://doi.org/10.2307/1927234
  5. Ciraicy-Wantrup, S.V.(1947) Capital returns from soil-conservation practicies. Journal of Farm Economics. 29: 1181-1196. https://doi.org/10.2307/1232747
  6. Davis, R.K.(1963) The Value of Outdoor Recreation: An Economic Study of the Maine Woods, PH. D. dissertation. Harvard University.
  7. Hanemann, W.M.(1984) Welfare Evaluation in contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 6(3): 332-341.
  8. Jung, M.S., H.S. Han and S.H. Park(2008) A Study on the Value evaluation of Modern Cultural Heritage by Contingent Valuation Method; Focusing on the Case Study of Korean Early History Museum, Incheon. Journal of Korean Academic Society of Hospitality Administration 17(3): 175-195. (in Korean With English abstract)
  9. Kang, K.R.( 2010) Comparative Study on Monetary Estimates of the Preservation value of Recreational Forests through Contingent Valuation Methods. Journal of Korean institute of landscape architecture 38(2): 25-36. (in Korean With English abstract)
  10. Kang, K.R.(2009) Study on Measuring the Value of Recreational Forests Using Contingent Valuation Method. Journal of Korean institute of landscape architecture 37(5): 42-52. (in Korean With English abstract)
  11. Kang, K.R., S.K. Ha and K.C. Lee(2011) A Study on Measuring the Environmental value of Gyeongnam Arboretum Using the CVM. Journal of Korean institute of landscape architecture 39(1): 46-55. (in Korean With English abstract)
  12. Kim, H.Y., and S.S. Kim(2003) Estimating the Use Value of Hwaseong Castle: A Contingent Valuation Approach. Journal of Tourism 27(3): 157-172. (in Korean With English abstract)
  13. Kwak, S.Y., J.S. Lee and S.H. Yoo(2008) Measuring the Economic Benefits of Establishing the Ecological Sports Park: A Contingent Valuation Study. Journal of The Korean Association of Policy. 10(1): 257-276. (in Korean With English abstract)
  14. McConnellm, K.E.(1990) Models for Referendum Data : The Structure of Discrete Choice Models for Contingent Valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 18: 19-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/0095-0696(90)90049-5
  15. Navrud, S, and R.C. Ready(2002) Valuing Cultural Heritage, Northampton, Edward Elgar.
  16. Pyo, H.D. and D.R. Chae(2005) Estimating the Economic Value of Ecotourism in Anmyeondo Tidal Wetlands Using the Contingent Valuation Method. Ocean and Polar Research 26(1): 77-86. (in Korean With English abstract)
  17. Santagata, W.(2000) Contingent Valuation of a Cultural public Good and Policy Design: The Case of Napoli Musei Aperti. Journal of Cultural Economics 24(3): 181-204. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007642231963
  18. Sanz, J., C.H. Luis and M.B. Ana(2003) Contingent Valuation and Semiparametric Methods: A case study of the National Museum of Sculpture in Valladolid, Spain. Journal of Cultural Economics 27(3): 241-257. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026353218280