Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety (해양환경안전학회지)

The Korean Society of Marine Environment and safety (해양환경안전학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Economic Feasibility Analysis of Marine Ecosystem Restoration Technology Program

해양생태계 복원기술개발 사업의 경제적 타당성 분석

  • Kwon, Young-Ju (Department of Energy Policy, Graduate School of Energy & Environment, Seoul National University of Science & Technology) ;
  • Paik, Sang-Kyu (Marine Policy Development Office, Korea Institute of Marine Science & Technology Promotion) ;
  • Yoo, Seung-Hoon (Department of Energy Policy, Graduate School of Energy & Environment, Seoul National University of Science & Technology)
  • 권영주 (서울과학기술대학교 에너지환경대학원 에너지정책학과) ;
  • 백상규 (한국해양과학기술진흥원 정책개발실) ;
  • 유승훈 (서울과학기술대학교 에너지환경대학원 에너지정책학과)
  • Received : 2014.03.03
  • Accepted : 2014.04.25
  • Published : 2014.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The Korean government is considering implementation of the marine ecosystem restoration technology program (MERTP) to analyze the current status of the marine ecosystems and causes for the ecosystem deterioration as well as to eventually establish a master strategic plan for restoring ecosystem functions and preventing ecosystem functional loss. In order to determine likelihood of successful implementation, it is essential to perform an analysis of the economic feasibility of the program. The present study assessed economic feasibility of the MERTP. To this end, the dichotomous choice contingent valuation (CV) method is used. In particular, dichotomous choice (DC) format is employed as a method of eliciting willingness-to-pay (WTP) response to incentive-compatible mechanisms. The study also employed the spike model to deal with zero WTP responses from the DC CV survey. This survey of 1,000 randomly selected households in accordance with the guidelines provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (USA) was carried out nationwide in 2013. And, the respondents were asked in person-to-person interviews about their WTP for implementing the MERTP. The results showed that the annual mean WTP was estimated to be 5,414 won per household. Consequently, the annual benefit from the MERTP would be about 98.6 billion won for the next five years. Economic feasibility assessment utilizing the MERTP investment cost and expansion cost of the value provided that net present value, benefit/cost ratio, and internal rate of return are 337.8 billion won, 5.20, and 65.9 %, respectively, which are bigger than 0, 1.0, and 5.5 %, and that the MERTP passes the cost-benefit analysis.

정부는 훼손된 해양생태계의 현황 및 원인을 파악하고 생태계 기능 복원 및 손실 방지 전략을 수립하기 위해 해양생태계 복원기술개발 사업의 시행을 고려하고 있다. 사업 시행 여부에 대한 판단을 위해서는 이 사업에 대한 경제적 타당성 분석이 필수적으로 요구된다. 이에 본 연구에서는 조건부 가치측정법(CVM, contingent valuation method)을 적용하여 사업 수행의 경제적 타당성을 분석하고자 한다. 지불의사 유도방법으로 유인일치적인 양분선택형 모형을 이용하되, 지불의사액 추정모형으로 영(0)의 응답을 명시적으로 다룰 수 있는 스파이크 모형을 적용한다. CVM 적용을 위한 설문조사는 미국 해양대기청의 지침에 따라 전국 1,000가구를 대상으로 일대일 개별면접을 통해 2013년에 시행되었다. 분석결과 연간 가구당 평균 지불의사액은 5,414원으로 추정되었다. 이 값을 전국으로 확장하면 향후 5년 동안 연간 약 986억원에 달한다. 이 값과 해양생태계 복원기술개발 사업의 투자비 정보를 이용하여 경제성을 분석한 결과, 순현재가치, 편익/비용 비율, 내부수익률은 각각 3,378억원, 5.20, 65.9 %로 산정되어 각각 0, 1.0, 5.5 %를 상회하므로 이 사업은 비용-편익 분석을 통과한다.

Keywords

References

  1. Arrow, K., R. Solow, P. R. Portney, E. E. Leamer, R. Radner and H. Schuman(1993), Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation, Federal Register, Vol. 58, No. 10, pp. 4601-4614.
  2. Bjornstad, D. J. and J. R. Kahn(1996), The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resources Methodological Issues and Research Needs, Edward Elgar, pp. 1-305.
  3. Brent, R. J.(2007), Applied Cost-Benefit Analysis(second edition), Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 70-75.
  4. Carls, M. G., P. M. Harris and S. D. Rice(2004), Restoration of oiled mussel beds in Prince William Sound, Alska, Marine Environmental Research, Vol. 57, pp. 359-376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2003.11.002
  5. Diez, I., A. Santolaria, N. Muguerza and J. M. Gorostiage(2013), Measuring Restoration in Intertidal Macrophyte Assemblages Following Sewage Treatment Upgrade, Marine Environmental Research, Vol. 84, pp. 31-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2012.11.006
  6. Eertman, E. H. M., B. A. Kornman, E. Stikvoort and H. Verbeek(2002), Restoration of the Sieperda Tidal Marsh in the Scheldt Estuary, The Netherlands, Society for Ecological Restoration, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 438-449. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1526-100X.2002.01034.x
  7. Hanemann, W. M.(1984), Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 66, No. 3, pp. 332-341. https://doi.org/10.2307/1240800
  8. Johansson, J. O. R., W. M. Avery, K. B. Hennenfent and J. J. Pacowta(2009), Restoration of Seagrass Habitat in Tampa Bay using Large Manatee Grass (Syringodium filiforme) Sod Units and a Discussion of Planting Site Sediment Elevation Dynamics, Tampa Bay Area Study Group Project Reports, pp. 1-36.
  9. KDI(2008), Korea Development Institute, A Study on General Guidelines for Pre-feasibility Study (5th Edition), pp. 303-312.
  10. KISTEP(2011), Korea Institute of S&T Evaluation and Planning, Development of Knowledge-based Analysis System for R&D Feasibility Analysis, pp. 154-158.
  11. Kokub, H. and H. Yamada(2011), Evaluation of Tidal Flat Restoration Effect in the Coastal Unused Reclaimed Area by Promoting Tidal Exchange with Public Involvement in Ago Bay, Mie Prefecture, Japan, 9th International Conference on the Environmental Management of Enclosed Coastal Seas, pp. 1-37.
  12. Krinsky, I. and A. L. Robb(1986), On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities, Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 68, pp. 715-719. https://doi.org/10.2307/1924536
  13. Kristrom, B.(1997), Spike Models in Contingent Valuation, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 79, No. 3, pp. 1013-1023. https://doi.org/10.2307/1244440
  14. Loomis, J.(1990), Comparative Reliability of the Dichotomous Choice and Open-ended Contingent Valuation Techniques, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 18, pp. 78-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/0095-0696(90)90053-2
  15. Miller, D. L., M. Thetford and L. Yager(2001), Evaluation of Sand Fence and Vegetation for Dune Building Following Overwash by Hurricane Opal on Santa Rosa Island, Florida, Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 936-948.
  16. MLTM(2009), Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, The 1st Marine Ecosystem Conservation and Management Master Plan(2009-2018), pp. 1-97.
  17. MOF(2013), Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, A Planning Study on the Research and Development of the Marine Ecosystem Restoration, pp. 1-263.
  18. Monson, D. H., D. F. Doak, B. E. Ballachey, A. Johnson and J. L. Bodkin(2000), Long-Term Impacts of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill on Sea Otters, Assessed through Age-dependent Mortality Patterns, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 97, No. 12, pp. 6562-6567. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.120163397
  19. Orth, R. J., M. L. Luckenbach, S. R. Marion, K. A. Moore and D. J. Wilcox(2006), Seagrass Recovery in the Delmarva Coastal Bays, USA, Aquatic Botany, Vol. 84, pp. 26-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquabot.2005.07.007
  20. Reading, C. J., A. Garbutt, C. W. Watts, P. Rothery, A. Turk, M. Yates, C. Boffey, J. Saunders and M. Wolters(2008), Managed realignment at Tollesbury, London, Defra, pp. 1-115.
  21. Ren, H., S. Jian, H. Lu, Q. Zhang, W. Shen, W. Han, Z. Yin and Q. Guo(2008), Restoration of Mangrove Plantations and Colonisation by Native Species in Leizhou Bay, South China, Ecological Research, Vol. 23, pp. 401-407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11284-007-0393-9
  22. Skalski, J. R., D. A. Costs and A. K. Fukuyama(2001), Criteria for Oil Spill Recovery: A Case Study of the Intertidal Community of Prince William Sound, Alaska, Following the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill, Environmental Management, Vol. 28, pp. 9-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002670010202
  23. STATISTICS KOREA(2013), Korean Statistical Information Service, Available at www.kosis.kr
  24. THE BANK OF KOREA(2013), Economic Statistics System Principal Indicators, Available at www.bok.or.kr
  25. Terawaki, T., K. Yoshikawa, G. Yoshida, M. Uchimura and K. Iseki(2003), Ecology and Restoration Techniques for Sargassum Beds in the Seto Inland Sea, Japan, Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 47, pp. 198-201. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0025-326X(03)00054-7
  26. Werner, M.(1999), Allowing for Zero in Dichotomous-Choice Contingent-Valuation Models, Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, Vol. 17, pp. 479-486.
  27. Yoo, S. H., H. J. Yang and E. S. Shin(2001a), Analyzing Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Data with Zero Observations: A Mixture Model, The Korean Economic Review, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 311-327.
  28. Yoo, S. H., S. J. Kwak and T. Y. Kim(2001b), Modeling Willingness to Pay Responses from Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys with Zero Observations, Applied Economics, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 523-529. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036840122117
  29. Yoo, S. H., T. Y. Kim and J. K. Lee(2001c), Modeling Zero Response Data from Willingness to Pay Surveys: A Semi-parametric Estimation, Economics Letters, Vol. 71, No. 2, pp. 191-196. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-1765(01)00363-9
  30. Yoo, S. H. and S. J. Kwak(2002), Using a Spike Model to deal with Zero Response Data from Double Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys, Applied Economics Letters, Vol. 9, No. 14, pp. 929-932. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504850210139378
  31. Yoo, S. H.(2004), South Koreans' Willingness to pay for Korean unification, Applied Economics Letters, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 15-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350485042000187408
  32. Zhang, J. and Y. Sun(2008), Eco-environmental Quality and Ecological Restoration: A Case Study in Wetland of the Loushan River Estuary, Jiaozhou Bay, Qingdao, 2008 International Workshop on Education Technology and Training & 2008 International Workshop on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, Vol. 1, pp. 186-189.

Cited by

  1. An Economic Valuation Analysis of Building the Second Ice-Breaking Research Ship in Korea with Using Bayesian Approach vol.24, pp.5, 2018, https://doi.org/10.7837/kosomes.2018.24.5.569