Journal of Korean Society of Forest Science (한국산림과학회지)

Korean Society of Forest Science (한국산림과학회)
권호 표지

Measuring Economic Value for Endangered Korean Goral

  • Han, Sang-Yoel (Department of Forestry, College of Agriculture & Life Sciences, Kyungpook National University)
  • Received : 2008.07.29
  • Accepted : 2008.09.19
  • Published : 2008.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to examine willingness to pay (WTP) for endangered species, the Korean goral, of Woraksan National Park in South Korea. The median of the WTP is adopted to estimate the value because it will not be affected by the extreme values. The estimated household median WTP using a logit model for Korean goral conservation in Woraksan National Park was 15,221 won. The estimated value of the WTP in relation to the Korean goral has some policy implications. especially in terms of implementing policy to protect the Korean goral. The result shows that the public conservation program does have a positive WTP for the conservation of the Korean goral. This implies that the Korean goral is an important species that needs to be maintained, the government has been expended a large sum of money in an attempt to protect it.

Keywords

References

  1. Bishop, R. and A. Heberlein. 1979. Measuring values of extramarket goods: are indirect measures biased? American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 61(5): 926-930. https://doi.org/10.2307/3180348
  2. Champ, P., Bishop, R., Brown, T., and D. McCollum. 1997. Using donation mechanisms to value nonuse benefits from public goods. Journal of Environmental Economicsand Management, 33(2): 151-162. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1997.0988
  3. Choi, T.Y. and C.H. Park. 2005. Establishing a Korean Goral reserve in Soraksan National Park, Korea basedon habitat suitability model, habitat capability model, and concept of minimum viable population. Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture, 32(6): 23-35.
  4. Hanemann, W. 1984. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66(3): 332-341. https://doi.org/10.2307/1240800
  5. Hanemann, W. 1994. Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(4): 19-43. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.8.4.19
  6. Hanemann, W., Loomis, J., and B. Kanninen. 1991. Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 73(4): 1255-1263. https://doi.org/10.2307/1242453
  7. KNPS. 2008. Annual Number of Users. KNPS Annual Report in 2007. KNPS, Seoul.
  8. Krutilla, J. 1967. Conservation reconsidered. American Economic Review, 57(4): 777-786.
  9. Lee, C.K. and S.Y. Han. 2002. Estimating the use and preservation values of national parks'tourism resources using a contingent valuation method. Tourism Management, 23(5): 531-540. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(02)00010-9
  10. Lockwood, M. and K. Tracy. 1995. Nonmarket economic valuation of an urban recreation park. Journal of Leisure Research, 27(2): 155-168. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.1995.11949740
  11. Loomis, J.B. and D.S. White. 1996. Economic values of increasingly rare and endangered fish. Ecological Economics 21: 6-10.
  12. Rubin J., G. Helfand, and J. Loomis. 1991. A benefit cost analysis of the northern spotted owl-results from a contingent valuation survey. Journal of Forestry, 89: 25-30.
  13. Stoll J.R. and J.A. Johnson. 1984. Concept of value, nonmarket valuation and the case of the whooping crane, in "Transaction of the 49th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference", pp. 382-392.