Abstract
This study analyzes the effects of the project investments on the river water quality improvement and also provides contingent valuation estimates of household’s willingness to pay (WTP) to continue public investment to the river water quality improvement and maintenance. The estimation results using the OLS regression models with correction of autocorrelation show that the household soil pipe connection project with investment of 26.7 billion KRW has reduced 1.68 ppm in BOD and that the project dredging sediments at the river bottom with investment of 16 billion KRW has resulted in the decrease of 1.12 ppm in BOD at the downstream of the River Taehwa. Using a contingent valuation method with multiple choices in consideration of respondent’s uncertainty, the estimation results of four logit models show that truncated mean household’s WTP is estimated from 1224.7 KRW to 2747 KRW for the respective four models. The present values of total social benefits in the Ulsan Metropolitan City are estimated from 196 billion KRW to 441 billion KRW for the respective four models, when applying the 3 % discount rate.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Alberini, A., K. Boyle, and M. Welsh. 2003. Analysis of contingent valuation data with multiple bids and response options allowing respondents to express uncertainty. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 45: 40–62.
Arrow, R.J., E. Solow, E. Leamer, P. Portney, R. Radner, and H. Schuman. 1993. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register 58: 4601–4614.
Berrens, R.P., H.K. Smith, A.K. Bohara, and C.L. Silva. 2002. Further investigation of voluntary contribution contingent valuation: Fair share, time contribution, and response uncertainty. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 44: 144–168.
Cameron, T.A. 1988. A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: Maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 15: 355–379.
Carson, R.T., W.M. Hanemann, R.J. Kopp, J.A. Krosnick, R.C. Mitchell, S. Presser, P.A. Ruud, and V.R. Smith. 1994. Prospect interim lost use value due to DDT and PCB contamination in the Southern California bight. A Report of National Resource Damage Assessment, Inc. and Industrial Economics, Inc. to US NOAA.
Chang, J.I., S.H. Yoo, and S.J. Kwak. 2005. An empirical investigation of contingent valuation method with preference uncertainty. Environmental and Resource Economics Review 14(1): 75–245.
Chang, J.-I., S.-H. Yoo, and S.-J. Kwak. 2007. An investigation of preference uncertainty in the contingent valuation study. Applied Economics Letters 14: 691–695.
Greene, W. 2003. Econometric Analysis. 5th Edition, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
Hanemann, W.M. 1984. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete response. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66: 332–341.
Kim, J.H. 2007. Social benefits of improved water quality at the Taehwa river based on citizen’s willingness-to pay. Journal of Environmental Policy 6(1): 83–110.
Kim, J.H. 2009. The effects of the project investment for water quality improvement in the river Taehwa. Korea Spatial Planning Review 62: 263–279.
Krinsky, I., and A.I. Robb. 1986. On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Review of Economics and Statistics 68: 713–719.
Krinsky, I., and A.I. Robb. 1990. On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities: Correction. Review of Economics and Statistics 72: 189–190.
Li, C.-Z., and L. Mattsson. 1995. Discrete choice under preference uncertainty: An improved structural model for contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 28: 256–269.
Loomis, J., and E. Ekstrand. 1998. Alternative approaches for incorporating respondent uncertainty when estimating willingness to pay: The case of Mexican Spotted Owl. Ecological Economics 27: 29–42.
McConell, K.E. 1990. Models for referendum data: The structure of discrete choice models for contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 18: 19–34.
Ready, R.C., J.C. Whitehead, and G.C. Bloomquist. 1995. Contingent valuation when respondents are ambivalent. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 29: 181–196.
Wang, H. 1997. Treatment of “don’t-know” responses in contingent valuation surveys: A random valuation model. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 32: 219–232.
Welsh, M.P., and G.L. Poe. 1998. Elicitation effects in contingent valuation: Comparisons to a multiple bounded discrete choice approach. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 38: 170–185.
Whitehead, J., G. Blomquist, R. Ready, and J. Huang. 1998. Construct validity of dichotomous choice contingent valuation questions. Environmental and Resource Economics 11: 107–116.
Whittington, D., G. Cassidy, D. Amaral, E. McClelland, H. Wang, and C. Poulos. 1994. The economic value of improving the environmental quality of Galveston Bay. The Calveston Bay national estuary program.
Yoo, S.H. 2007. Using one and one-half bounded dichotomous choice model to measure the economic benefit.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kim, J.H. (2016). Effects of the Project Investments and Valuation of the Water Quality Improvement of the River Taehwa in Ulsan, Korea. In: Kim, E., Kim, B. (eds) Quantitative Regional Economic and Environmental Analysis for Sustainability in Korea. New Frontiers in Regional Science: Asian Perspectives, vol 25. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0300-4_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0300-4_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-0298-4
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-0300-4
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)