The distance decay of willingness to pay and the spatial distribution of benefits and costs for the ecological restoration of an urban branch stream in Ulsan, South Korea

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Jae Hong Kim ; Seung-Nam Kim ; Soogwan Doh
• 关键词：Q51 ; Q56 ; Q57 ; Q58
• 刊名：The Annals of Regional Science
• 出版年：2015
• 出版时间：May 2015
• 年：2015
• 卷：54
• 期：3
• 页码：835-853
• 全文大小：772 KB
• 参考文献：Alberini A, Cropper M, Fu T, Krupnick A, Liu J-T, Shaw D, Harrington W (1997) Valuing health effects of air pollution in developing countries: the case of Taiwan. J Environ Econ Manag 34:107-26
  Barreiro J, Sanchez M, Viladrich-Grau M (2005) How much are people willing to pay for silence? A contingent valuation study. Appl Econ 37:1233-246CrossRef
  Bateman IJ, Langford IH, Jones AP, Kerr GN (2001) Bound and path effects in double and triple bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Resour Energy Econ 23:191-13CrossRef
  Bateman IJ, Cooper P, Georgiou S, Navrud S, Poe GL, Ready RC, Reira P, Ryan M, Vossler CA (2005) Economic valuation of policies for managing acidity in remote mountain lakes: examining validity through scope sensitivity testing. Aquat Sci 67(3):274-91CrossRef
  Bateman IJ, Day BH, Georgiou S, Lake I (2006) The aggregation of environmental benefit values: welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP. Ecol Econ 60:450-60CrossRef
  Bohara AK, Kerkvliet J, Berrens RP (2001) Addressing negative willingness to pay in dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Environ Resour Econ 20(3):173-95CrossRef
  Boyle K, Welsh M, Bishop R (1993) The role of question order and respondent experience in contingent-valuation studies. J Environ Econ Manag 25:580-99CrossRef
  Burton A, Carson K, Chilton S, Hutchinson W (2003) An experimental investigation of explanations for inconsistencies in response to second offers in double referenda. J Environ Econ Manag 46:472-89CrossRef
  Cameron TA (1988) A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression. J Environ Econ Manag 15:355-79CrossRef
  Campbell D, Hutchinson WG, Scarpa R (2009) Using choice experiments to explore the spatial distribution of willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements. Environ Plan A 41:97-11CrossRef
  Carson RT, Groves T (2007) Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environ Resour Econ 37:181-10CrossRef
  Carson RT, Hanemann WM (2005) Contingent valuation. In: M?ler KG, Vincent JR (eds) Handbook of environmental economics: valuing environmental changes, vol 2. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 821-36CrossRef
  Carson RT, Flores N, Meade N (2001) Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence. Environ Resour Econ 19:173-10CrossRef
  Chien Y-L, Huanf CJ, Shaw D (2005) A general model of starting point bias in double-bounded dichotomous contingent valuation survey. J Environ Econ Manag 50:362-77CrossRef
  Choi A (2013) Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: a test of distance decay. Ecol Econ 88:97-07CrossRef
  Coneu GB (2007) Investigating distance effects on environmental values: a choice modeling approach. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 51:175-94CrossRef
  Cooper JC, Signorello G (2002) One and one-half bound dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Rev Econ Stat 84:742-50CrossRef
  Cooper JC, Hanemann WM (1994) Referendum contingent valuation: how many bounds are enough? USDA economic research search service. Food and consumer economics division. In: Working Paper
  Eusepi G (2000) Contractual fiscal equivalence versus geographical fiscal equivalence. Public Choice 104:309-17CrossRef
  Haab TC, McConnell KE (1997) Referendum models and negative willingness to pay: alternative solution. J Environ Econ Manag 32:251-70CrossRef
  Hanemann WM (1984) Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete response. Am J Agric Econ 66:332-41CrossRef
  Hanemann WM (2012) Issues in the design and analysis of valuation data. In: International symposium on CVM guideline for PFS. 2012. 5. 17. KDI main conference hall
  Hanley N, Schl?pfer F, Spurgeon J (2003) Aggregating the benefits of environmental improvements: distance-decay functions for use and non-use values. J Environ Manag 68:297-04CrossRef
  Hwang J, Yoo SH (2012) Measuring the economic benefits of establishing Bukhansan Dullegil. J Korean Reg Sci Assoc 28(3):141-60
  Johnston RJ, Duke JM (2009) Willingness to pay for land preservation across states and jurisdictional scale: implications for benefit transfer. Land Econ 85(2):217-37CrossRef
  Kim J, Park J, Kim H, Heo E (2012) Assessment of Korean customers-willingness to pay with RPS. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 16:695-03CrossRef
  KOSIS (the Korean Statistical Information Service). www.?kosis.?kr
  Krinsky I, Robb AI (1986) On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Rev Econ Stat 72:189-90CrossRef
  Krinsky I, Robb AI (1990) On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities: correction. Rev Econ Stat 68:713-19
  Kristr?m B (1997) Spike models in contingent valuation. Am J Agric Econ 79(3):1013-023CrossRef
  Kwon O, Shin Y, Yoo SH (2012) KDI PFS guidelines and estimation of WTP with CV survey data. In: International symposium on CVM guideline for PFS. 2012. 5. 17. KDI Main conference hall
  Lee JS,
• 作者单位：Jae Hong Kim (1)
  Seung-Nam Kim (2)
  Soogwan Doh (3)
  
  1. College of Social Sciences, University of Ulsan, P.O. Box 18, Ulsan, 680-749, South Korea
  2. Architecture and Urban Research Institute, B-301, Acrotower Office, 230 Simin-daero, Dongan-gu, Anyang-si, Gyeonggi-do, 431-908, South Korea
  3. Department of Public Administration, Catholic University of Daegu, 330 Geumrak-ri, Hayang-eup, Gyeongsan-si, Gyeongbuk, 712-702, South Korea
  
• 刊物类别：Business and Economics
• 刊物主题：Economics
  Regional Science
  Landscape, Regional and Urban Planning
  Microeconomics
  Environmental Economics
  Geography
  
• 出版者：Springer Berlin / Heidelberg
• ISSN：1432-0592

文摘

This study investigates the spatial distribution of economic benefits and costs of an ecological restoration project for an urban branch stream, namely Yeocheon-Cheon in Nam-Gu, Ulsan metropolitan city, South Korea. A contingent valuation method with the one and one-half bounded dichotomous choice model was applied, and a spike model was employed to address zero-WTP responses. First, benefits of the project were not limited to the project site jurisdiction (Nam-Gu) but extended to the whole metropolitan city. Second, the significant negative coefficient of the distance variable indicates the distance decay of WTP for the project. Third, respondents who visited the site showed a significantly higher willingness to pay for the project. Finally, the project was economically profitable and socially desirable from the benefit–cost perspective. However, the cost allocation between jurisdictions was fiscally nonequivalent in terms of the spatial benefit distribution. JEL Classification Q51 Q56 Q57 Q58