Comparing willingness-to-pay between residents and non-residents when correcting hypothetical bias: Case of endangered spotted seal in South Korea

Ecological Economics

Volumn 78, Issue , 2012, Pages 123-131

  Kim, Ju Yeon ^a   Mjelde, James W ^b   Kim, Tae Kyun ^c   Lee, Choong Ki ^a   Ahn, Kyung Mo ^a  

^a Kyung Hee University   (South Korea)

^b TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c Kyungpook National University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation method; Hypothetical bias; Sample selection; Spotted seal; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

CONTINGENT VALUATION; ENDANGERED SPECIES; PINNIPED; SAMPLING BIAS; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

SOUTH KOREA;

PHOCA LARGHA;

EID: 84861462068     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.04.008     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Arrow K., Solow R., Portney P., Leamer E., Radner R., Schuman H. Report of the NOAA Panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register 1993, 58:4602-4614.
2. Blaine T.W., Lichtkoppler R.R. Willingness to pay for green space preservation: a comparison of soil and water conservation district clientele and the general public using the contingent valuation method. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 2004, 59(5):203-208.
3. Boveng P.L., Bengtson J.L., Buckley T.W., Cameron M.F., Dahle S.P., Kelly B.P., Megrey B.A., Overland J.E., Williamson N.J. Status review of the spotted seal (Phocalargha). U.S. Department of Commerce.NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-200 Available at, (accessed on September 20, 2011). http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/Publications/AFSC-TM/NOAA-TM-AFSC-200.pdf.
4. Champ P., Bishop R., Brown T., McCollum D. Using donation mechanisms to value nonuse benefits from public goods. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1997, 33(2):151-163.
5. Choi S.K. Research on habitat condition of spotted seals and plan for habitat management. International Symposium on the Conservation and Management of Spotted seal. Korean Assembly Library, June 20, 2006 2006.
6. Ciriacy-Wantrup S.V. Capital returns from soil conservation practices. Journal of Farm Economics 1947, 29:1181-1196.
7. Duffield J.W., Neher C.J., Brown T.C. Recreation benefits of instream flow: application to Montana's Big Hole and Bitterroot rivers. Water Resources Research 1992, 28(9):2169-2181.
8. Dunlap R.E., Van Liere K.D. The new environmental paradigm: a proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results. The Journal of Environmental Education 1978, 9(4):10-19.
9. González-Sepúlveda J.M., Loomis J.B. Do CVM welfare estimates suffer from on-site sampling bias? A comparison of on-site and household visitor surveys. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 2010, 39(3):561-570.
10. Haab T.C., McConnell K.E. Valuing environmental and natural resources. The Econometrics of Non-market Valuation 2003, Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA. Paperback Edition.
11. Hageman R. Valuing marine mammal populations: benefit valuations in a multi-species ecosystem. Administrative Report LJ-85-22 1985, Southwest Fisheries Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, La Jolla, CA.
12. Han S.Y., Lee C.K. Estimating the value of preserving the Manchurian Black Bear using the contingent valuation method. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 2008, 23(5):458-465.
13. Hanemann W.M. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1984, 66(3):332-341.
14. Hanemann W.M. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete response data: reply. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1989, 71(4):332-341.
15. Hankyoreh Habitat of spotted seals on Baengnyeong Island as marine reservation area Available at, (assessed on October 5, 2011). http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/society/environment/200425.html.
16. Hanley N.D. Valuing non-market goods using contingent valuation. Journal of Economic Surveys 1989, 3(3):235-252.
17. Hanley N., Mourato S., Wright R.E. Choice modeling approaches: a superior alternative for environmental valuation?. Journal of Economic Surveys 2001, 15(3):435-462.
18. Hong J.K. Report on conservation and management of spotted seals. Symposium on the Conservation and Management of Spotted Seal, Korean Assembly Library, June 20, 2006 2006.
19. Hotelling H. Letter to the director of the National Park Service. the Economics of Public Recreation. The Prewitt Report 1947, Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. R.A. Prewitt (Ed.).
20. Johnston R.J., Rosenberger R.S. Methods, trends and controversies in contemporary benefit transfer. Journal of Economic Surveys 2010, 24(3):479-510.
21. KBS Marine king in west sea in Korea, spotted seal. Environment Special, May 5, 2004 2004.
22. Kim J.N. Proposal for conservation of endangered spotted seals. International Symposium on the Conservation and Management of Spotted Seal. Korean Assembly Library, June 20, 2006 2006.
23. Kniivilä M. Users and non-users of conservation areas: are there differences in WTP, motives and the validly of responses in CVM surveys. Ecological Economics 2006, 59(3):530-539.
24. Korea Statistics Available at, (accessed on August 30, 2011). http://www.index.go.kr/egams/stts/jsp/potal/stts/PO_STTS_IdxMain.jsp?idx_cd=1007&bbs=INDX_001.
25. Lee C.K., Han S.Y. Estimating the use and preservation values of national parks' tourism resources using a contingent valuation method. Tourism Management 2002, 23(5):531-540.
26. Lee C.K., Mjelde J.W. Valuation of ecotourism resources using a contingent valuation method: the case of the Korean DMZ. Ecological Economics 2007, 63(2/3):511-520.
27. Lockwood M., Loomis J., DeLacy T. A contingent valuation survey and benefit-cost analysis of forest preservation in East Gippsland, Australia. Journal of Environmental Management 1993, 38(3):233-243.
28. Loomis J. What's to know about hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation studies. Journal of Economic Surveys 2011, 25(2):363-370.
29. Loomis J., Gonzalez-Caban A. The importance of the market area determination for estimating aggregate benefits of public goods: testing differences in resident and nonresident willingness to pay. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 1996, 25(2):161-170.
30. Loomis J., Santiago L.E. Testing differences in estimation of river recreation benefits for international and domestic tourists as a function of single-versus multiple-destination day trips. Journal of Hospitality Marketing &Management 2011, 20(2):143-165.
31. Maharana I., Rai S.C., Sharma E. Valuing ecotourism in a sacred lake of the Sikkim Himalaya, India. Environmental Conservation 2000, 27(3):269-277.
32. Mjelde J.W., Jin Y.H., Lee C.K., Kim T.K., Han S.Y. Development of a bias ratio to examine factors influencing differences in people's actions. Journal of Environmental Management 2012, 95(1):39-48.
33. National Geographic Information Institute Map of Korea Available at, (accessed on March 19, 2012). http://www.ngii.go.kr/kor/popup/map_korea.do?rbsIdx=1.
34. Navrud S., Mungatana E.D. Environmental valuation in developing countries: the recreation value of wildlife viewing. Ecological Economics 1994, 11(2):135-151.
35. Nielsen J.S. Use of the internet for willingness-to-pay surveys. A comparison of face-to-face and web-based interviews. Resource and Energy Economics 2011, 33(1):119-129.
36. NOAA Fisheries, Office of Protected Species Spotted seal (Phocalargha) Available at, (accessedon September 20, 2011). http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/pinnipeds/spottedseal.htm#distribution.
37. Nunnally J., Bernstein I. Psychometric Theory 1994, McGraw-Hill, New York. 3rd ed.
38. Oh C.O., Draper J., Dixon A.W. Comparison of resident and tourist preferences for public beach access. Paper Presented at The Coastal Society's 22 International Conference. Shifting Shorelines: Adapting to the Future. The 22nd International Conference of the Coastal Society, June 13-16, 2010 2010, Wilmingon, NC. Available at, http://aquaticcommons.org/3943 (accessed on October 15, 2011).
39. Pindyck R.S., Rubinfeld D. Econometric Models and Economic Forecasts 1981, McGraw-Hill, New York. 2nd ed.
40. Poe G.L., Severance-Lossin E.K., Welsh M.P. Measuring the difference (X-Y) of simulated distributions: a convolutions approach. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1994, 76(4):904-915.
41. Richardson L., Loomis J. The total economic value of threatened, endangered and rare species: an updated meta-analysis. Ecological Economics 2009, 68(5):1535-1548.
42. Salaries World International average salary income database (accessed on October 31, 2011). http://www.worldsalaries.org.
43. Samnaliev M., Stevens T.H., More T. A comparison of alternative certainty calibration techniques in contingent valuation. Ecological Economics 2006, 57(3):507-519.
44. Samples K., Hollyer J. Contingent valuation of wildlife resources in the presence of substitutes and complements. Economic Valuation of Natural Resources: Issues, Theory and Application 1989, West view Press, Boulder, CO. R. Johnson, G. Johnson (Eds.).
45. Smith V.K. Nonmarket valuation of environmental resources: an interpretive appraisal. Land Economics 1993, 69(1):1-26.
46. Sutherland R.J., Walsh R.G. Effect of distance on the preservation value of water quality. Land Economics 1985, 61(3):281-291.
47. Venkatachalam L. The contingent valuation method: a review. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2004, 24(1):89-124.
48. Welsch H., Kühling J. Using happiness data for environmental valuation: issues and applications. Journal of Economic Surveys 2009, 23(2):385-406.
49. Whitehead J.C., Cherry T.L. Willingness to pay for a green energy program: a comparison of ex-ante and ex-post hypothetical bias mitigation approaches. Resource and Energy Economics 2007, 29(4):247-261.
50. Yao R., Kaval P. Non market valuation in New Zealand: 1974 through 2005. Department of Economics Working Paper Series 2007, Number 17/07. University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand, Available at http://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/handle/10289/1608. (accessedon October 15, 2011).