DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Comparison of Estimation Methods for Willingness to Pay Amount in Constructed Oceans and Fisheries Resources Market by Contingent Valuation Method

해양수산자원 가상시장의 지불의사금액 추정방법 비교

  • Kang, Seok-Kyu (Department of Business Administration, Jeju National University)
  • Received : 2018.09.05
  • Accepted : 2018.10.02
  • Published : 2018.09.30

Abstract

This study is to compare and evaluate the estimating method of WTP(willingness to pay) for the valuation of oceans and fisheries resources with non-market goods characteristics using contingent valuation method. In general, when estimating parameters of the WTP function, we should take into account the assumption of probability distribution, inclusion of covariates, method of inducement of payment, and the treatment of 0 payment intention and resistance responses. This study utilizes survey data that was used to estimate the value of fisheries resource protection zones, with a total of 1,200 samples. The main results of this study are summarized as follows: First, the final willness to pay amount is estimated at a statistical significance of less than 1 percent, and the distribution of the final willness to pay amount is from \6,926 of the double bounded dichotomous model to \10,721 of the spike model. Second, the willness to pay amount based on assumptions about the normal and logistic probability distributions are estimated to be \9,429 and \9,370 respectively, so there was no significant difference. Third, the willness to pay amount of the single bounded dichotomous model and the double bounded dichotomous model are estimated to be \8,951 and \6,926 respectively, making a relatively large difference. Fourth, the willness to pay amount of the model without covariates and the model with covariates are estimated to be \9,429 and \8,951, respectively, so the willness to pay amount is underestimated when the covariates are included. Fifth, the Spike model that considers zero payment intention and resistance response estimates \10,405 as the highest payment in this study. Finally, the CVM analysis guidelines proposed by the Korea Development Institute (KDI) are estimated to be \9,749 and \10,405 respectively, depending on including no covariates and with covariates. Compared to other models, the final willness to pay amount is not estimated underestimated. Therefore this study suggests the use of KDI's guidance under government public policy projects. In view of these results, the estimating model for willness to pay amount model will be selected by considering the sample size, the suitability of the model, the sign of the estimated coefficient, the statistical significance, the ratio of the zero payment intention and the payment rejection. And, for CVMs on government public policy projects, it is desirable to estimate by the method proposed by the KDI.

Keywords

References

  1. 강석규 (2016), "CVM을 이용한 선상낚시체험 활동의 효용 가치", 수산경영론집, 47 (4), 45-55.
  2. 강석규 (2017), "수산자원보호구역의 보전가치 추정에 관한 연구", 수산경영론집, 48 (2), 33-51.
  3. 국립수산과학원 (2016), 수산자원보호구역의 사회경제적 가치평가, 최종보고서.
  4. 국립수산과학원 (2017), 수산자원보호구역의 사회경제적 가치평가, 최종보고서.
  5. 권영주.백상규.유승훈 (2013), "한국의 점박이물범 보전가치 추정", 해양정책연구, 28 (2), 41-70.
  6. 김태윤.김상봉 (2004), 비용편익분석의 이론과 실제: 공공사업평가와 규제영향분석, 박영사.
  7. 남종오.박철형 (2016), "CVM을 이용한 바다낚시 자원풍도 증가에 대한 지불의사액 추정에 관한 연구", Ocean ad Polar Research, 38 (3), 235-245. https://doi.org/10.4217/OPR.2016.38.3.235
  8. 박선영.유승훈.구세주 (2011), "보성갯벌의 비시장가치 평가", 해양정책연구, 26 (2), 47-73.
  9. 에너지경제연구원 (2014), 신재생에너지에 대한 지불의사액 추정 및 사회적 수용성(PA) 제고방안 연구, 최종보고서.
  10. 유윤희.이희찬.오희균 (2018), "조건부가치측정법을 이용한 해양생태관광지 환경개선사업의 경제적 가치추정: 거문도 바다숲 조성사업을 중심으로", 관광레저연구, 30 (7), 179-194.
  11. 최나리.김재원 (2009), "가상적가치평가법(CVM)을 이용한 비시장 관광자원의 가치추정", 관광연구저널, 23 (4), 19-36.
  12. 한국개발연구원 (2008), 예비타당성조사 수행을 위한 일반지침 수정.보완 연구, 제5판.
  13. 한국개발연구원 (2012), 예비타당성조사를 위한 CVM 분석 지침 개선연구.
  14. 한국개발연구원 (2015), CVM(조건부가치측정법) 분석지침 개선.
  15. Brouwer. R., Brouwer, S., Eleveld, M. A., Verbraak. M., Wagtendonk, A. J., and van der Woerd, H. J. (2016), "Public willingness to pay for alternative management regimes of remote marine protected areas in the North Sea," Marine Policy, 68, 195-204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.03.001
  16. Hanemann, W. M. (1984), "Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66, 332-341. https://doi.org/10.2307/1240800
  17. Hanemann, W. M., Loomis, J. and Kanninen, B. (1991), "Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation," American Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 73 (4), 1255-1263. https://doi.org/10.2307/1242453
  18. Kristrom, B. (1997), "Spike Models in Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 79 (3), 1013-1023. https://doi.org/10.2307/1244440
  19. Lopez-Feldman, A. (2012), "Introduction to contingent valuation using Stata," MPRA Paper No. 41018.
  20. Wang, P. W., Ya, J. Zhong, L. S. and Mei, R., (2016), "Respondent uncertainty and reliability in contingent valuation - A case of the Dalai lake protected area," Limmologica, 58, 59-68.