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

Measurement of the Public Value of Conserving Green Turtles

푸른바다거북 보전의 공익적 가치 추정

  • Lim, Seul-Ye (Graduate School of Energy & Environment, Seoul National University of Science & Technology) ;
  • Kim, Min-Seop (National Marine Biodiversity Institute) ;
  • Cho, In-Young (National Marine Biodiversity Institute) ;
  • Lee, Chang-Su (National Marine Biodiversity Institute) ;
  • Kwon, Suk-Jae (Ocean Policy Institute, Korea Institute of Ocean Science & Technology) ;
  • Yoo, Seung-Hoon (Graduate School of Energy & Environment, Seoul National University of Science & Technology)
  • 임슬예 (서울과학기술대학교 에너지환경대학원) ;
  • 김민섭 (국립해양생물자원관) ;
  • 조인영 (국립해양생물자원관) ;
  • 이창수 (국립해양생물자원관) ;
  • 권석재 (한국해양과학기술원 해양정책연구소) ;
  • 유승훈 (서울과학기술대학교 에너지환경대학원)
  • Received : 2017.02.08
  • Accepted : 2017.04.27
  • Published : 2017.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This paper attempts to quantitatively assess the public value that has been assigned to this government plan by employing a contingent valuation technique. Data gathering performed that professional research firm administrated a face-to-face national survey of 1,000 randomly-selected households. A one-and-one-half-bound model was adopted to elicit willingness to pay (WTP) responses, and the payment vehicle used was income tax. The WTP model used in this study is based on a utility difference approach and the spike model. The results showed that the public value of conserving green turtles was estimated to be 2,570 Korean Won per household over the next 10 years as of 2016, statistically significant at the 1% level. Expanding the values considered to include the national population gives a public value of 48.7 billion Korean Won. Thus, the public value of rescuing, rehabilitating, and releasing green turtles that have been caught by fishermen, collided with fishing boats, and died in nets through the government program is not small.

본 논문에서는 푸른바다거북의 구조 치료를 통한 보전의 공익적 가치를 경제학적 방법론에 근거하여 평가하고자 조건부 가치측정법을 적용하였다. 자료의 수집은 여론조사전문기관이 무작위 추출한 전국 1,000 가구를 대상으로 일대일 개별면접조사를 통해 이루어졌다. 지불의사 유도방법으로 1.5경계 모형을 적용하되 지불수단으로는 가구당 소득세를 활용하였다. 지불의사액 분석모형으로는 효용격차모형에 근거한 스파이크 모형을 적용하였다. 분석결과, 응답가구는 중앙정부가 푸른바다거북 구조, 치료, 방류를 시행하기 위해 2016년말 기준 향후 10년 동안 매년 평균적으로 2,570원을 부담하고자 하였으며 이 값은 유의수준 1%에서 통계적으로 유의하였다. 이 값을 전국으로 확장하면 푸른바다거북 보전의 공익적 가치가 연간 487억원임을 알 수 있다. 따라서 중앙정부 차원에서 어업활동 중의 부수어획, 어선과 충돌, 폐그물에 걸려 죽거나, 부상당한 푸른바다거북에 대해 구조, 치료, 방류를 추진하는 것의 공익적 가치는 작지 않다.

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, Washington, DC : National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, pp. 1-66.
  2. Bishop, R. C. and T. A. Heberlein(1979). Measuring Values of Extra-market Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased?, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 61, pp. 926-930. https://doi.org/10.2307/3180348
  3. Boxall, P. C., W. L. Adamowicz, M. Olar, G. E. West and G. Cantin(2012), Analysis of the Economic Benefits Associated with the Recovery of Threatened Marine Mammal Species in the Canadian St. Lawrence Estuary, Marine Policy, Vol. 36, pp. 189-197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2011.05.003
  4. Carson, R. T., T. Groves and M. J. Machina(2007), Incentive and Informational Properties of Preference Questions, Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 181-210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-007-9124-5
  5. Choi, A. S. and K. S. Fielding(2013), Environmental Attitudes as WTP Predictors: A Case Study Involving Endangered Species. Ecological Economics, Vol. 89, pp. 24-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.01.027
  6. Cooper, J. C., W. M. Hanemann and G. Signorello(2002), One and One-Half Bound Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation, Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 84, pp. 742-750. https://doi.org/10.1162/003465302760556549
  7. Duffield, J.(1991), Existence and Non-consumptive Values for Wildlife: Application of Wolf Recovery in Yellowstone National Park W-133/Western Regional Science Association Joint Session, Measuring Non-Market and Non-Use Values, Monterey, CA.
  8. Duffield, J.(1992), An Economic Analysis of Wolf Recovery in Yellowstone: Park Visitor Attitudes and Values. In: Varley, J., Brewster, W. (Eds.), Wolves for Yellowstone? National Park Service, Yellowstone National Park, pp. 2-31.
  9. Duffield, J., D. Patterson and C. Neher(1993), Wolves and People in Yellowstone: A Case Study in the Newresource Economics, Report to Liz Claiborne and Art Ortenberg Foundation. Department of Economics, University of Montana, Missoula, MT.
  10. Gomez, E. and E. F. B. Miclat(2001), Sea Turtles. In: Carpenter KE and Niem VH, editors, The Living Marine Resources of the Western Central Pacific, Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, pp. 3973-3986.
  11. 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
  12. Hanemann, W. M., J. Loomis and B. Kaninnen(1991), Statistical Efficiency of Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 73, No. 4, pp. 1255-1263. https://doi.org/10.2307/1242453
  13. Hanley, N. and C. L. Spash(1993), Cost-Benefits Analysis and the environment, England, Edward Elgar Publishing Company, pp. 47-50.
  14. Jin, J., Z. Wang and X. Liu(2008), Valuing Black-faced Spoonbill Conservation in Macao: A Policy and Contingent Valuation Study, Ecological Economics, Vol. 68, pp. 328-335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.03.014
  15. Jung, M. M., D. H. Moon, S. H. Kim, H. S. Kim and J. W. Kim(2012), Environmental Conditions as Accidental Nesting Place of Seaturtle Located in Jeju Island of Korea, Journal of Fishries and Marine Sciences Education, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 507-515 (in Korean). https://doi.org/10.13000/JFMSE.2012.24.4.507
  16. Korea Marine Environment Management Corporation(2014), Species Increase and Restoration of Marine Endangered Species (in Korean), pp. 6-11.
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. National Marine Biodiversity Institute(2016), Study on the Conservation Plan for Managed Marine Organism (in Korean), pp. 1-37.
  20. Ministry of Oceans and Fishries(2014), A Study on the Conservation of Marine Endangered Species 2013 (in Korean), pp. 88-94.
  21. Ministry of Land, Transportation and Maritime Affairs(2012), A Study on the Designation and Management of the Marine Endangered Species (in Korean), pp. 240-244.
  22. Mitchell, R. C. and R. T. Carson(1989), Using Surveys to Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method, Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, p. 198.
  23. Moon, D. Y., M. M. Jung, Y. R. An, S. G. Choi, B. S. Oh, Z. G. Kim, C. Lee, M. J. Kim and S. Y. Kim(2009), Distribution and Strandings of Endangered Sea Turtles in Korean Waters, Korean Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 42(6), pp. 657-663 (in Korean). https://doi.org/10.5657/kfas.2009.42.6.657
  24. Rasmussen, A. R., J. C. Murphy, M. Ompi, J. W. Gibbons and P. Uetz(2011), Marine Reptiles, PLos ONE, 6:e27373. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0027373
  25. Stithou, M. and R. Scarpa(2012), Collective Versus Voluntary Payment in Contingent Valuation for the Conservation of Marine Biodiversity: An Exploratory Study from Zakynthos, Greece, Ocean & Coastal Management, Vol. 56, pp. 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2011.10.005
  26. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1994), The Reintroduction of Gray Wolves to Yellowstone National Park and Central Idaho, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Helena, MT, pp. 4.21-4.27.
  27. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization(2005), Report of the Technical Consultation on Sea Turtle Conservation and Fisheries. Bangkok, Thailand, 29 November-2 December 2004, FAO Fisheries Report No. 765, Rome, FAO, 31, http://www.fao.org/3/a-y5887e.pdf.
  28. Wallmo, K. and D. K. Lew(2016), A Comparison of Regional and National Values for Recovering Threatened and Endangered Marine Species in the United States. Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 179, pp. 38-46.
  29. Whitehead, J.(1992). Ex ante Willingness to Pay with Supply and Demand Uncertainty: Implications for Valuing a Sea Turtle Protection Programme. Applied Economics, Vol. 24, pp. 981-988. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036849200000075
  30. Wyneken, J.(2001), The Anatomy of Sea Turtles, U. S. Department of Commerce NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-470. Miami, FL, p. 4.
  31. 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
  32. Yoo, S. H., S. J. Kwak and T. Y. Kim(2001a), 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
  33. Yoo, S. H., T. Y. Kim and J. K. Lee(2001b), 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