Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment (환경영향평가)

Korean Society of Environmental Impact Assessment (한국환경영향평가학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Analysis on Socio-cultural Aspect of Willingness to Pay for Air Quality (PM10, PM2.5) Improvement in Seoul

서울지역 미세먼지 문제 개선을 위한 사회문화적 지불의사액 추정

  • Kim, Jaewan (Graduate School of International Studies, Yonsei University) ;
  • Jung, Taeyong (Graduate School of International Studies, Yonsei University) ;
  • Lee, Taedong (Department of Political Science, Yonsei University) ;
  • Lee, Dong Kun (Department of Landscape Architecture and Rural System Engineering, Seoul National University)
  • 김재완 (연세대학교 국제학대학원) ;
  • 정태용 (연세대학교 국제학대학원) ;
  • 이태동 (연세대학교 정치외교학과) ;
  • 이동근 (서울대학교 조경지역시스템공학부)
  • Received : 2018.11.18
  • Accepted : 2019.03.08
  • Published : 2019.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Over the last few years, air pollution ($PM_{10}$, $PM_{2.5}$) in the Seoul metropolitan area (SMA) has emerged as one of the most concerned and threatening environmental issues among the residents. It brings about various harmful effects on human health, as well as ecosystem and industrial activities. Governments and individuals pay various costs to mitigate the level of air pollutants. This study aims to empirically find the willingness to pays (WTP) among the parents from different socio-cultural groups - international and domestic groups to mitigate air pollution ($PM_{10}$, $PM_{2.5}$) in their residential area. Contingent Valuation Methods (CVM) is used with employing single-bounded dichotomous choice technique to elicit the respondent's WTP. Using tobit (censored regression) and probit models, the monthly mean WTP of the pooled sample for green electricity which contributes to improve air quality in the region was estimated as 3,993 KRW (3.58 USD). However, the mean WTP between the international group and domestic group through a sub-sample analysis shows broad distinction as 3,325KRW (2.98 USD) and 4,449 KRW (3.98 USD) respectively. This is because that socio-cultural characteristics of each group such as socio-economic status, personal experience, trust in institutions and worldview are differently associated with the WTP. Based on the results, the society needs to raise awareness of lay people to find a strong linkage between the current PM issue and green electricity. Also, it needs to improve trust in the government's pollution abatement policy to mobilize more assertive participation of the people from different socio-cultural background.

서울 및 수도권 지역의 미세먼지 문제는 지역 주민의 건강, 생태계 및 산업활동에 다양한 영향을 미치며 최근 가장 심각한 환경문제의 하나로 대두되고 있다. 정부와 개인은 미세먼지 문제에 대응하기 위해 다양한 비용을 지불하고 있다. 따라서, 본 연구는 동지역에 거주하고 있는 사회문화적 특성이 다른 두 집단(서울 및 수도권 지역의 외국인학교와 일반학교)의 학부모들을 대상으로 미세먼지 문제 해결을 위한 두 집단 간의 지불의사액이 어떻게 다른지를 추정하고자 한다. 응답자들의 지불의사액을 도출하기 위해 단일양분선택형(single-bounded dichotomous choice) 질문기법을 이용한 조건부가치추정법(contingent valuation model: CVM)을 사용하였다. 토빗과 프로빗모형을 이용한 지불의사액 추정 결과, 서울 및 수도권지역에 거주하는 전체 학부모들은 지역 내 미세먼지 문제 개선을 위한 청정 전기(green electricity) 사용료를 가구당 월평균 3,993원 가량 더 지불할 의사가 있는 것으로 추정되었다. 두 집단 간의 지불의사액 비교 시 비내국인 그룹(international group)은 월 3,325원, 내국인 그룹(domestic group)은 월 4,449원으로 다소 큰 차이를 보였는데, 이는 각 집단이 속한 사회문화적 배경의 차이에 따라 사회경제적 지위, 개인적 경험, 정부정책에 대한 신뢰 및 가치관 등이 개인의 지불의사를 결정하는데 다르게 작용한 것으로 보인다. 본 연구의 결과, 현재 수도권지역의 미세먼지 문제 해결을 위해서는 무엇보다 시민들이 미세먼지 문제를 청정 에너지 사용과 연결 지어 생각할 수 있도록 환경의식을 고취하는 것이 필요하며, 특히 사회문화적 배경이 다른 계층에 대한 정부 오염 저감 정책의 신뢰도 향상에 초점을 맞출 필요가 있다.

Keywords

Table 1. Definition and descriptive statistics of the variables (Reorganized based on Kim, 2018)

HOPHBL_2019_v28n2_101_t0001.png 이미지

Table 2. Tobit and Probit estimation of sub-groups for PM improvement in the SMA (Reorganized based on Kim, 2018)

HOPHBL_2019_v28n2_101_t0004.png 이미지

Table 3. Mean WTP of each group based on tobit model (Kim 2018)

HOPHBL_2019_v28n2_101_t0005.png 이미지

References

  1. Cameron TA, James MD. 1987. Efficient Estimation Methods for “Closed-Ended” Contingent Valuation Surveys. The Review of Economics and Statistics. 69(2): 269-276. https://doi.org/10.2307/1927234
  2. Carlsson F, Johansson-Stenman O. 2000. Willingness to Pay for Improved Air Quality in Sweden. Applied Economics. 32(6): 661-669. https://doi.org/10.1080/000368400322273
  3. Cummings RG, Brookshire DS, Schulze WD. (ed.) 1986. Valuing environmental goods: a state of the arts assessment of the contingent valuation method. Totowa, NJ: Roweman and Allanheld.
  4. Diez T, Stern PC, Guagnano GA. 1998. Social structural and social psychological basis of environmental concern. Environment and Behavior. 30(4): 450-471. https://doi.org/10.1177/001391659803000402
  5. Dupont PD. 2004. Do children matter? An examination of gender differences in environmental valuation. Ecological Economics. 49: 273-286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.01.013
  6. Francisco ER, Aranha F, Zambaldi F, Goldszmidt R. 2006. Electricity Consumption as a Predictor of Household Income: a Spatial Statistics Approach. Davis CA, Monteiro AMV.(ed.) Advanced Geoinformatics. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. pp. 267-282.
  7. Franzen A, Meyer R. 2010. Environmental attitudes in cross-national perspective: a multilevel analysis of the ISSP 1993 and 2000. European Sociological Review. 26: 219-234. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcp018
  8. Greene WH. 2000. Econometric Analysis, 4th ed. Prentice Hall International, Inc., New Jersey.
  9. Hong JH, Eom YS. 2010. Estimating demand for public goods using a survey technique: major issues and application of valuating environmental satellite project. Korean Economic Analysis. 17(1): 1-72. [Korean Literature].
  10. Hoyos D, Mariel P, Fernandez-Macho J. 2009. The influence of cultural identity on the WTP to protect natural resources: Some empirical evidence. 68(8-9): 2372-2381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.03.015
  11. Jones N, Evangelinos K, Halvadakis CP, Losifides T, Sophoulis CM. 2010. Social factors influencing perceptions and willingness to pay for market-based policy aiming on solid waste management, Resources. Conservation and Recycling. 54: 533-540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2009.10.010
  12. Jones N, Malesio C, Botetzagias I. 2009. The influence of social capital on willingness to pay for the environment among European citizens. European Societies. 11(4): 511-530. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616690802624168
  13. Kim JW. 2018. Analysis on risk perception and willingness to pay for air quality ($PM_{10},\;PM_{2.5}$) improvement in the Seoul metropolitan area. MA dissertation. Graduate School of International Studies, Yonsei University, Seoul.
  14. KORUS-AQ. 2017. KORUS-AQ Rapid Science Synthesis Report. [Cited 2018 Jan 25]. Available from https://espo.nasa.gov/korus-aq
  15. Loewenstein GF, Weber EU, Hsee CK, Welch E. 2001. Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin. 127(2): 267-286. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.267
  16. McCright AM. 2010. The effect of gender on climate change knowledge and concern in the American public. Population and Environment. 32: 66-87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11111-010-0113-1
  17. Mitchell RC, Carson RT. 1989. Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
  18. Morita T, Managi S. 2015. Consumers' willingness to pay for electricity after the Great East Japan Earthquake. Economic Analysis and Policy. 48: 82-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2015.09.004
  19. Parry IWH, Heine D, Lis E, Li S. 2014. Getting Energy Prices Right: From Principle to Practice: Washington DC: International Monetary Fund.
  20. Polyzou E, Jones N, Evangelinos KI, Halvadakis CP. 2011. Willingness to pay for drinking water quality improvement and the influence of social capital. Journal of Socio-Economic. 40: 74-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2010.06.010
  21. Putnam R. 2000. Bowling Alone, New York: Simon and Schuster.
  22. Ressurreicao A, Gibbons J, Kaiser M, Dentinho TP, Zarzycki T, Bentley C, Austen M, Burdon D, Atkins J, Santos RS, Edwards-Jones G. 2012. Different cultures, different values: The role of cultural variation in public's WTP for marine species conservation. Biological Conservation. 145(1): 148-159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.10.026
  23. Stern PC. 2000. New environmental theories: Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues. 56(3): 407-424. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00175
  24. Stern PC, Dietz T, Kalof L. 1993. Value orientations, gender and environmental concern, Environment and Behavior. 23(5): 322-348. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916593255002
  25. The Seoul Institute. 2016. Research on inventory building for the source of $PM_{2.5}$ and detailed monitoring, Seoul: City of Seoul. [Cited 2018 Feb 3]. Available from http://opengov.seoul.go.kr/research/11895404 [Korean Literature].
  26. Tobin J. 1958. Liquidity preference as behavior towards risk. The Review of Economic Studies. 25(2):65-86. https://doi.org/10.2307/2296205
  27. United Nations. 2015. Paris Agreement. [Cited 2018 Jan 25]. Available from http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf.
  28. Wei W, Wu Y. 2017. Willingness to pay to control $PM_{2.5}$ pollution in Jing-Jin-Ji Region, China. Applied Economics Letters. 24(11): 753-761. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2016.1226482
  29. Whitmarsh L. 2008. Are flood victims more concerned about climate change than other people? The role of direct experience in risk perception and behavioural response. Journal of Risk Research. 11(3): 351-374. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669870701552235
  30. Yoo SH, Kwak SY. 2009. Willingness to pay for green electricity in Korea: A contingent valuation study. Energy Policy. 37(12): 5408-5416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.07.062
  31. Zoric J, Hrovatin N. 2012. Household willingness to pay for green electricity in Slovenia. Energy Policy. 47: 180-187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.04.055