The Journal of Information Systems (한국정보시스템학회지:정보시스템연구)

Korea Association of Information Systems (한국정보시스템학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Valuation of Public Data Using Stated Preference Method: The Case of Agriculture Soil Database

진술선호방법을 이용한 공공 데이터의 가치 평가: 농업토양정보 데이터베이스 사례

  • 이상호 (영남대학교 식품경제외식학과) ;
  • 하성호 (경북대학교 경영학부) ;
  • 정기호 (경북대학교 경제통상학부)
  • Received : 2018.11.13
  • Accepted : 2018.12.24
  • Published : 2018.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose As Korean economy has been sluggish in recent years, firms' interest in publicly financed projects has increased due to the relatively increasing proportion in the economy. Since 1999, publicly financed projects in Korea need to undergo preliminary feasibility study to evaluate economic efficiency and policy quality if they are larger than a certain scale. The benefits of public projects are one of the most important factors in the preliminary feasibility study but are difficult to estimate due to their nature. Design/methodology/approach This study estimates the benefits of the agricultural soil information database, a public database in Korea. The method used in the study is the stated preference method which is formally used in Korea's preliminary feasibility study. Data are collected through surveys and a logit model is constructed to be estimated by the maximum likelihood estimation method. Findings As the first study evaluating a public database, this study can be used as a baseline in all public database projects developed in the future. In addition, this study can contribute to improving the understanding of both private companies and public organizations who are interested in the cost-benefit analysis and estimation procedure for the publicly financed projects.

Keywords

<표 1> 응답자들의 연령별 분포

JBSTB0_2018_v27n4_149_t0001.png 이미지

<표 2> 응답자들의 성별 분포

JBSTB0_2018_v27n4_149_t0002.png 이미지

<표 3> 응답자의 학력 수준

JBSTB0_2018_v27n4_149_t0003.png 이미지

<표 4> ‘흙토람’의 중요성

JBSTB0_2018_v27n4_149_t0004.png 이미지

<표 5> 최우추정법 1차 추정 결과

JBSTB0_2018_v27n4_149_t0005.png 이미지

<표 6> 최우추정법 2차 추정 결과

JBSTB0_2018_v27n4_149_t0006.png 이미지

<표 7> 최종 추정 결과

JBSTB0_2018_v27n4_149_t0007.png 이미지

<표 8> 흙토람의 편익 추정

JBSTB0_2018_v27n4_149_t0008.png 이미지

<표 9> 흙토람 편익에 대한 구간 추정

JBSTB0_2018_v27n4_149_t0009.png 이미지

References

  1. 이영범, 고태호, 홍근석, 지현정, "공공서비스의 경제적 가치 측정에 관한 연구: 특허청의 청구항별 심사제도를 중심으로," 정책분석평가학회보, 제18권 제3호, 2008, pp. 171-193.
  2. 장상수, "조건부가치측정법(CVM)을 이용한 정보보호 관리체계(ISMS) 인증의 경제적 가치 추정 연구," 한국산학기술학회논문지, 제15권 제9호, 2014, pp. 5783-5789. https://doi.org/10.5762/KAIS.2014.15.9.5783
  3. 정기호, 조진삼, 김지영, 김준연, "양성자가속기사업의 편익분석," 자원환경경제연구, 제15권 제4호, 2006, pp. 741-760.
  4. 정기호, "한국 중소형 일체형 원자로 (SMAERT)의 사회적 가치 평가: 비사용가치를 중심으로," 에너지경제연구, 제10권 제2호, 2011, pp. 55-75.
  5. 정기호, "영상자료센터 건립사업의 경제적 편익," 한국데이터정보과학회지, 제22권 제5호, 2011, pp. 885-893.
  6. 포항가속기연구소, "포항 방사광가속기 경제적 가치평가," 2008.
  7. 포항가속기연구소, "4세대 방사광가속기 경제적 가치 평가," 2009.
  8. 한국개발연구원, "예비타당성조사 수행을 위한 일반지침 수정․보완 연구 (제5판)", 2008.
  9. 한국과학기술기획평가원, "대형 광학망원경 개발사업 사전타당성 조사 보고서", 2006.
  10. 한국과학기술기획평가원, "국가연구개발사업 예비타당성조사 수행 세부지침", 2018.
  11. Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P., Leamer, E. E., Radner, R., and Schuman, H., "Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation," Federal Register, Vol. 58, 1993, pp. 4601-4614.
  12. Bateman, I. J., and Willis, K. G., Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing Countries, Oxford University Press, 1999.
  13. Bateman, I. J., Carson, R. T., Day, B. H., Hanemann, W. M., Hanley, N., Hett, T., Jones-Lee, M., Loomes, G., Mourato, S., Ozdemiroglu, E., and Pearce, D. W., Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual, Edward Elgar, 2002.
  14. Ben-Akiva, M., McFadden, D., and Train, K., "Foundations of stated preference elicitation consumer behavior and choice-based conjoint analysis,", 2015, https://eml.berkeley.edu/-train/foundations.pdf
  15. Bennett, J., and Blamey, R., The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation, Edward Elgar, 2001.
  16. Bishop, R. C., and Heberlein, T. A., "Measuring values of extra-market goods: Are indirect measures biased?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 61, 1979, pp. 926-930. https://doi.org/10.2307/3180348
  17. Boxall, P. C., Adamowicz, W. L., Swait, J., Williams, M., and Louviere, J., "A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Vol. 18, 1996, pp. 243-253. https://doi.org/10.1016/0921-8009(96)00039-0
  18. Brookshire, D. S., Eubanks, D. S., and Randall, A., "Estimating option price and existence values for wildlife resources," Land Economics, Vol. 59, 1983, pp. 1-15. https://doi.org/10.2307/3145871
  19. Champ, P. A., Boyle, K, C., and Brown, T. C., A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation, Springer, 2003.
  20. Carson, R. T., "Contingent valuation: A user's guide," Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 34, 2000, pp. 1413-1418. https://doi.org/10.1021/es990728j
  21. Carson, R. T., Contingent Valuation: A Comprehensive Bibliography and History, Edward Elgar, 2011.
  22. Choe, K. A., Whittington, D., and Lauria, D. T., "The economic benefits of surface water quality improvements in developing countries: a case study of Davao, Philippines," Land Economics, Vol. 72, 1996, pp. 107-126.
  23. Ciriacy-Wantrup, S. V., "Capital returns from soil-conservation practices," Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. 29, No. 4, 1947, pp. 1181-1196. https://doi.org/10.2307/1232747
  24. Desvousges, W. H., Johnson, F. R., Dunford, R. W., Hudson, S. P., Wilson, K. N., and Boyle, K. J., "Measuring natural resource damages with contingent valuation: Tests of validity and reliability," in Hausman, J. A., Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment, Amsterdam, Elsevier, 1993, pp. 91-164.
  25. Green, P., and Rao, V., "Conjoint measurement for quantifying judgmental data," Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1971, pp. 355-363. https://doi.org/10.2307/3149575
  26. Green, P., and Srinivasan, V., "Conjoint analysis in consumer research: Issues and outlook," Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1978, pp. 103-123. https://doi.org/10.1086/208721
  27. Greene, W., Econometric analysis (6th ed.), Prentice Hall, 2008.
  28. Hanley, N., Mourato, S., and Wright, R. E., "Choice modelling approaches: A superior alternative for environmental valuation?" Journal of Economic Surveys, Vol. 15, 2001, pp. 435-462.
  29. Johnson, R., "Trade-off analysis of consumer values," Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 11, No. 2, 1974, pp. 121-127. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224377401100201
  30. Kanninen, B. J., Valuing Environmental Amenities Using Stated Choice Studies: A Common Sense Approach to Theory and Practice, Springer, 2006.
  31. Loomis, J. B., and duVair, P. H., "Evaluating the effects of alternative risk communication devices on willingness to pay: results from a dichotomous choice contingent valuation experiment," Land Economics, Vol. 69, 1993, pp. 287-298. https://doi.org/10.2307/3146594
  32. Louviere, J., Analyzing Decision Making: Metric Conjoint Analysis, Sage, 1988.
  33. Louviere, J. J., Hensher, D. A., and Swait, J. D., Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications, ambridge University Press, 2000.
  34. Luce, D., and Suppes, P., "Preferences, utility and subjective probability," in Luce, R., Bush, R., and Galanter, E., Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, John Wiley & Sons, 1965, pp. 249-410.
  35. Luce, D., and Tukey, J., "Simultaneous conjoint measurement: A new type of fundamental measurement," Journal of Mathematical Psychology, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1964, pp. 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(64)90015-X
  36. McFadden, D., "Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior," in Zarembka, P., Frontiers of Econometrics, Academic Press, 1974, pp. 105-142.
  37. McFadden, D., Ben-Akiva, M., Goett, A., and Bolduc, D., "The choice theory approach to analyze the preferences and choices of electric utility consumers," EPRI Final Report RP2671-1, 1986.
  38. Merrett, S., "Deconstructing households' willingness-to-pay for water in low-income countries," Water Policy, Vol. 4, 2002, pp. 157-172. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1366-7017(02)00002-8
  39. Oehlert, G. W., "A note on the delta method," The American Statistician, Vol. 46, No. 1, 1992, pp. 27-29.
  40. Ready, R. C., Champ, P. A., and Lawton, J. L., "Using respondent uncertainty to mitigate hypothetical bias in a stated choice experiment," Land Economics, Vol. 86, 2010, pp. 363-381. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.86.2.363
  41. Ryan, M., "Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: An application to in vitro fertilisation," Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 48, 1999, pp. 535-546. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(98)00374-8
  42. Ryan, M., "A comparison of stated preference methods for estimating monetary values," Health Economics, Vol. 13, 2004, pp. 291-296. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.818
  43. Ryan, M., and Bate, A., "Testing the assumptions of rationality, continuity and symmetry when applying discrete choice experiments in health care," Applied Economics Letters, Vol. 8, 2001, pp. 59-63. https://doi.org/10.1080/135048501750041312
  44. Ryan, M., and Gerard, K., "Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: Current practice and future research reflections," Applied Health Economics and Policy Analysis, Vol. 2, 2003, pp. 55-64.
  45. Ryan, M., Gerard, K., and Amaya-Amaya, M., Using Discrete Choice Experiments to Value Health and Health Care, Springer, 2008.
  46. Scarpa, R., Campbell, D., and Hutchinson, W. G., "Benefit estimates for landscape improvements: Sequential Bayesian design and respondents' rationality in a choice experiment study," Land Economics, Vol. 83, 2007, pp. 617-634. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.83.4.617
  47. Scarpa, R., Gilbride, T. J., Campbell, D., and Hensher, D. A., "Modelling attribute non-attendance in choice experiments for rural landscape valuation," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 36, 2009, pp. 151-174. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbp012
  48. Scott, A., "The valuation of game resources: Some theoretical aspects," Canadian Fisheries Report, Vol. 4, 1965, pp. 27-47.
  49. Srinivasan, V., "A conjunctive-compensatory approach to the self-explication of multiattributed preferences," Decision Sciences, Vol. 19, No. 2, 1988, pp. 295-305. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1988.tb00268.x
  50. Thurstone, L. L., "The indifference function," Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 2, No. 2, 1931, pp. 139-167. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1931.9918964
  51. Walsh, R. G,, Loomis, J. B., and Gillman, R. A., "Valuing option, existence and bequest demands for wilderness," Land Economics, Vol. 60, 1984, pp. 14-29. https://doi.org/10.2307/3146089