Environmental Analysis Health and Toxicology

The Korean Society of Environmental Health and Toxicology (환경독성보건학회)
권호 표지

Estimation of Willingness to Pay for Reduction of Environmental Mortality Risk

환경오염으로 인한 위해도 감소에 대한 지불의사금액 추정에 관한 연구

  • 김예신 (연세대학교 환경공해연구소) ;
  • 이용진 (연세대학교 환경공해연구소) ;
  • 박화성 (연세대학교 환경공해연구소) ;
  • 남정모 (연세대학교 의과대학 예방의학교실) ;
  • 김진흠 (수원대학교 통계정보학과) ;
  • 신동천 (연세대학교 의과대학 예방의학교실)
  • Published : 2003.03.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

To estimate the annual WTP for risk reduction of environmental problems such as outdoor and indoor air pollution, and drinking water contamination, a questionnaire survey was conducted by dichotomous contingent valuation method in Seoul. Several covariate models based on Turnbull, Weibull and Spike models were developed and applied to WTP estimation with uncertainty analysis. WTP estimates for risk reduction of air pollution were 13,000 won, 12,000 won, and 10,000 won per month in low-bounded Turnbull, Weibull and Spike models, respectively. The estimates for indoor air pollution were 17,000 won,20,000 won and 21,000 won and these for drinking water contamination were 10,000 won, 13,000 won and 14,000 won in each model, respectively. Goodness of fit for Weibull model was better than those for other models. WTP estimates for indoor air pollution were higher than those for other pollution problems.

Keywords

References

  1. 권오상. 환경경제학, 박영사, 1999
  2. 김예신. 환경 문제의 우선순위 도출을 위한 비교 위해도 시스템 개발에 관한 연구， 연세대학교 대학원 보건학 박사학위 논문， 2002
  3. 신영철. 이중 양분선택형 질문 CVM을 이용한 한강 수질개선 편익 측정, 환경경제연구 1997; 6(1): 171-192
  4. 신효중, 이민아. CVM을 통한 생태자원의 WTP 도출 비교, 산업과 경제학회지 1999; 9(2): 39-58
  5. 엄미정, 환경재 가치측정에 관한 연구, 서울대학교대학원 협동과정 기술정책전공 경제학박사학위논문, 1999
  6. 엄영숙, 만경강 수질개선 편익측정을 위한 조건부가치평가에 있어서 범위효과 분석, 자원 환경경제연구 2001; 10(3): 387-412
  7. 유승훈, 김태유, 조건부 가치측정법을 이용한 서울시 오존오염 저감정책의 편익 분석, 한국정책학회보 1999; 8(3): 191-211
  8. 이충선, CVM을 이용한 수질오염의 경제적 가치평가-강릉 남대천을 대상으로, 강원대학교 경제무역학과 경제학 석사학위 논문, 2001
  9. 최광식, 가상가치평가법에 의한 방사선 피폭 선량 금전 환산계수 산전; 자동차 사고 및 방사선 피폭 리스크 저감을 위한 지불 용의액 비교분석, 원자력 산업 2001; 3:20-29
  10. 황영순, 엄미정, 김태유, 수돗물 공급 신뢰도 개선의 가치 측정-조건부 가치측정법을 이용하여, 자원 환경경제연구 1999; 8(1): 109-126
  11. Alberini A. Optimal designs for discrete choice contingent valuation surveys: single-bound, double-bound and bivariate models, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1995; 28: 287-306 https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1995.1019
  12. Arrow K, Solow R, Portney PR, Leamer EE, Radner R and Schuman H. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington DC, 1993
  13. Carson RT, Hanemann WM and Kopp RJ. Referendum design and contingent valuation: the NOAA-panel's novote recommendation, Resource for the Future, 1996
  14. Covello VT. Risk perception and communication, Canadian Journal of Public Health 1995; 86: 78-79
  15. Hanemann WM. Welfare evaluation in contingent valuation experiments with discrete response, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1984; 66: 332-341 https://doi.org/10.2307/1240800
  16. Kristrom B. Spike models in contingent valuation, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1997; 79: 1013-1023 https://doi.org/10.2307/1244440
  17. Krupnick A, Alberini A, Cropper M, Simon N, O'Brien B, Goeree R and Heintzelman M. Age, health, and the willingness to pay for mortality risk reduction: A contingent valuation survey of Ontario residents, Resource For the Future, 2000
  18. Mitchell RC and Carson RT. Using surveys to public goods: the contingent valuation method, Resource for the Future, Washinton DC, 1989
  19. Pearce DW and Howarth A. Technical report on methodology: cost benefit analysis and policy responses, RIVM, 2000
  20. Tietenberg T. Environmental and natural resource economics, Addison-Wesley Longman, 2000
  21. US EPA. Guideline for preparing economic analysis, Office of the Administrator, September, EPA- 240-R-00-003. 2000
  22. US EPA. Regional and state planning branch, A guidebook to comparing risks and setting environmental priorities, Washington DC, 1993
  23. Ware JE Jr, Kosinski M and Keller S. SF-36 physical and mental health summary scales, A User's Manual, Lincoln, RI: Quality Metric, 1997
  24. WHOQOL Group. The World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment, Development and General Psychometric Properties, Soc. Sci. Med. 1998; 46(12): 1569-1585 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(98)00009-4