Journal of the Korean Data and Information Science Society

The Korean Data and Information Science Society (한국데이터정보과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Estimating the benefit of constructing the international horse riding arena at Sangju

상주국제승마경기장 사업의 경제적 편익

  • Jeong, Ki-Ho (School of Economics and Trade, Kyungpook National University)
  • Received : 2012.07.19
  • Accepted : 2012.08.22
  • Published : 2012.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study evaluates the economic benefit of the project constructing the international riding arena having been built at Sangju in Gyeongsangbuk-Do by the willingness to pay (WTP) of residents in the province. As the evaluation method, the dichotomous choice contingent valuation method (CVM) is adopted with the additional questions of whether his/her WTP is zero, to improve the statistical accuracy of evaluation results. Considering the arena's administrative location, the population of the surveys for analysis is confined to residents of Daegu and Gyeongsangbuk-do. The survey is conducted through personal interviews. It turns out that the WTP per household per year is evaluated as 1,847 won and the total yearly benefit of the Sangju international horse riding arena is estimated as 3.56 billion won.

본 연구는 경상북도 상주에 건립된 국제승마경기장 건립사업의 경제적 편익을 지역에 거주하는 가구들의 지불의사액에 의해 평가한다. 평가기법으로는 양분선택형 조건부가치법 (dichotomous choice contingent valuation method; CVM)을 기초로 하되 추정의 정확성 제고를 위해 (1) 응답자가 지불의사에 대해 불확실한 경우 모르겠다고 응답할 수 있는 응답 항목을 추가하였고 (2) 제시된 금액을 지불할 의사가 없다고 응답한 응답자에게는 지불의사액이 전혀 없는지를 추가 질문하였다. 설문조사는 상주 국제승마경기장의 행정상 위치를 고려하여 경상북도와 대구광역시 거주 가구를 모집단으로 하고 일대일 개인면접 설문조사를 통해 수집되었다. 평가결과, 가구당 년 지불의사액은 1,847원으로 평가되었으며, 경상북도와 대구시 가구수를 곱하여 계산된 상주 국제승마경기장의 연간 총 편익은 35.6억원으로 평가되었다.

Keywords

References

  1. Bishop, R. and Heberiein, T. (1979). Measuring values of extra-market goods: Are indirect measures biased?. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 61, 926-930. https://doi.org/10.2307/3180348
  2. Carson, R. (2011). Contingent valuation: A comprehensive bibliography and history, Edward Elgar, Northampton.
  3. Champ, P., Bishop, R., Brown, T. and McCollum, D. (1997). Using donation mechanisms to value nonuse benefits from public goods. Journal of Environmental Economics and Managements, 33, 151-162. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1997.0988
  4. Daegu Gyungbuk Development Institute. (2009), Economic benefit of the project constructing Sangju horse riding arena, research report, Daegu Gyungbuk Development Institute, Daegu.
  5. Freeman, III. A. (2003). The measurement of environmental and resource values: theory and methods, 2nd ed., Resources for the Future, New York.
  6. Greene, W. (2008). Econometric analysis, 6th ed., Prentice Hall, New York.
  7. Groothuis, P., Johnson, B. and Whitehead, J. (2004). Public funding of professional sports stadiums: Public choice or civic pride? Eastern Economic Journal, 30, 515-526
  8. Hanley, N., Mourato, S. and Wright, R. (2001). Choice Modelling Approaches: A superior alternative for environment valuation? Journal of Economic Surveys, 15, 435-462.
  9. Jeong, K. (2011). The benefit analysis of constructing the visual conservation center. Journal of the Korean Data & Information Science Society, 22, 885-893.
  10. Johnson, B. and Whitehead, J. (2000). Value of public goods from sports stadiums: The CVM approach. Contemporary Economic Policy, 18, 48-58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7287.2000.tb00005.x
  11. Jung, B. and Pak, R. (2011). Contingent valuation method implemented by R: Case study - measuring value of information. Journal of the Korean Data & Information Science Society, 22, 1041-1052.
  12. Korea Development Institute. (2004). A study on value estimation for facilities of culture and science, research report, Korea Development Institute, Seoul.
  13. Kwak, S., Lee, J. and Kwak, S. (2008). Estimating benefit of ecological sports park: Using contingent valuation method. 2008 Economics Joint Conference.
  14. Li, C. and Mattsson, L. (1995). Discrete choice under preference uncertainty: An improved structural model for contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 28, 256-269. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1995.1017
  15. Pohang Accelerator Laboratory. (2009). Economic evaluation of the electron accelerator of the 4th generation, research report, Pohang Accelerator Laboratory, Gyungbuk.
  16. Portney, P. (1994). The contingent valuation debate: Why economists should care. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8, 3-17.
  17. Ready, R., Navrud, S. and Dubourg, W. (2001). How do respondents with uncertain willingness to pay answer contingent valuation questions? Land Economics, 77, 315-326. https://doi.org/10.2307/3147126