Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay

Ecological Economics

Volumn 88, Issue , 2013, Pages 97-107

  Choi, Andy S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

Author keywords

Choice modelling; Contingent valuation; Distance decay; Distance enhancement; Korea DMZ; Segmentation

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; BUFFER ZONE; CONSERVATION STATUS; CONTINGENT VALUATION; DATA SET; DEMILITARIZATION; ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS; GEOPOLITICS; REFUGE; SEGMENTATION;

NORTH KOREA; SOUTH KOREA;

EID: 84874404247     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.01.014     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Adamowicz W., Boxall P., Williams M., Louviere J. Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: choice experiments and contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1998, 80:64-75.
2. Ajzen I., Rosenthal L.H., Brown T.C. Effects of perceived fairness on willingness to pay. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2000, 30:2439-2450.
3. Bader G.E., Rossi C.A. Focus Groups: A Step-by-step Guide 2002, The Bader Group. 3 ed.
4. Bateman I.J., Carson R.T., Day B., Hanemann M., Hanley N., Hett T., Jones-Lee M., Loomes G., Mourato S., Ozemiroglu E., Pearce D.W., Sugden R., Swanson J. Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual 2002, Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA.
5. Bateman I., Cooper P., Georgiou S., Navrud S., Poe G., Ready R., Riera P., Ryan M., Vossler C. Economic valuation of policies for managing acidity in remote mountain lakes: examining validity through scope sensitivity testing. Aquatic Sciences-Research Across Boundaries 2005, 67:274-291.
6. Bateman I.J., Day B.H., Georgiou S., Lake I. The aggregation of environmental benefit values: welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP. Ecological Economics 2006, 60:450-460.
7. Bateman I.J., Day B.H., Jones A.P., Jude S. Reducing gain-loss asymmetry: a virtual reality choice experiment valuing land use change. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2009, 58:106-118.
8. Bennett J., Blamey R. The strengths and weakness of environmental choice modelling. The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation 2001, 1-12. E. Elgar, Northampton, MA, USA. J. Bennett, R. Blamey (Eds.).
9. Brady L. Korea's green ribbon of hope: history, ecology, and activism in the DMZ 2012, Aljazeera, Retrieved at http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/02/2012213144630285786.html.
10. Campbell D., Hutchinson W.G., Scarpa R. Using choice experiments to explore the spatial distribution of willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements. Environment and Planning A 2009, 41:97-111.
11. Choi A.S. Implicit prices for longer temporary exhibitions in a heritage site and a test of preference heterogeneity: a segmentation-based approach. Tourism Management 2011, 32:511-519.
12. Christie M., Azevedo C. Testing the consistency in benefit estimates across contingent valuation and choice experiments: a multiple policy option application. the Second World Congress of Environmental and Resource Economists, Monterrey, CA 2002.
13. Concu G.B. Investigating distance effects on environmental values: a choice modelling approach. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 2007, 51:175-194.
14. Cooper P., Poe G.L., Bateman I.J. The structure of motivation for contingent values: a case study of lake water quality improvement. Ecological Economics 2004, 50:69-82.
15. Cultural Heritage Administration of Korea Survey Report of Natural Heritage and Resources in the Bordering Areas (the Central Region) 2005, Cultural Heritage Administration of Korea.
16. Cultural Heritage Administration of Korea Survey Report of Natural Heritage and Resources in the Bordering Areas (the Western Region) 2006, Cultural Heritage Administration of Korea.
17. Cultural Heritage Administration of Korea Survey Report of Natural Heritage and Resources in the Bordering Areas (the Eastern Region) 2007, Cultural Heritage Administration of Korea.
18. Ferrini S., Scarpa R. Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: a Monte Carlo study. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2007, 53:342-363.
19. Foster V., Mourato S. Elicitation format and sensitivity to scope-do contingent valuation and choice experiments give the same results?. Environmental and Resource Economics 2003, 24:141-160.
20. Hanley N., MacMillan D., Wright R., Bullock C., Simpson I., Parsisson D., Crabtree B. Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: estimating the benefits of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland. Journal of Agricultural Economics 1998, 49:1-15.
21. Hanley N., Schlapfer F., Spurgeon J. Aggregating the benefits of environmental improvements: distance-decay functions for use and non-use values. Journal of Environmental Management 2003, 68:297-304.
22. Hensher D.A., Johnson L. Applied Discrete Choice Modeling 1981, Wiley, New York.
23. Hensher D.A., Rose J.M., Greene W.H. Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer 2005, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
24. Jin J., Wang Z., Ran S. Comparison of contingent valuation and choice experiment in solid waste management programs in Macao. Ecological Economics 2006, 57:430-441.
25. John K.H., Youn Y.C., Shin J.H. Resolving conflicting ecological and economic interests in the Korean DMZ: a valuation based approach. Ecological Economics 2003, 46:173-179.
26. Kim C.-H. Space scope and feature of DMZ. DMZ 2007, 1:1-8.
27. Korea Forest Service Comprehensive Survey Report on the Forest Ecology of the DMZ and its Bordering Areas 2000, Korea Forest Service.
28. Korean Statistical Information Service National and International Statistics 2008.
29. Krinsky I., Robb A.L. On approximating the statistical properties of elastistics. The Review of Economics and Statistics 1986, 68:715-719.
30. Lancaster K.J. A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy 1966, 74:132-157.
31. Lee C.-K., Mjelde J.W. Valuation of ecotourism resources using a contingent valuation method: the case of the Korean DMZ. Ecological Economics 2007, 63:511-520.
32. Loomis J.B. How large is the extent of the market for public goods: evidence from a nationwide contingent valuation survey. Applied Economics 1996, 28:779-782.
33. Loomis J.B. Vertically summing public good demand curves: an empirical comparison of economic versus political jurisdictions. Land Economics 2000, 76:312-321.
34. Louviere J.J., Hensher D.A., Swait J.D. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications 2000, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
35. Mahieu P.-A., Riera P., Giergiczny M. The influence of cheap talk on willingness-to-pay ranges: some empirical evidence from a contingent valuation study. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 2012, 55:753-763.
36. McFadden D. Economic choices. The American Economic Review 2001, 91:351-378.
37. McFadden D., Train K. Mixed MNL models for discrete response. Journal of Applied Econometrics 2000, 15:447-470.
38. Culture Ministry looks to establish DMZ tour in near future 2009, Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism.
39. Ministry of Environment Comprehensive Ecological Survey Report of the DMZ and Its Vicinity 2003, Ministry of Environment, Korea.
40. Ministry of Public Administration and Security Green Government 2012, Ministry of Public Administration and Security.
41. Mogas J., Riera P., Bennett J. A comparison of contingent valuation and choice modelling with second-order interactions. Journal of Forest Economics 2006, 12:5-30.
42. Morrison M.D., Bennett J.W., Blamey R.K. Designing choice modelling surveys using focus groups: results from the Macquarie Marshes and Gwydir wetlands case studies 1997, School of Economics and Management, University College, University of New South Wales, Canberra.
43. Pate J., Loomis J. The effect of distance on willingness to pay values: a case study of wetlands and salmon in California. Ecological Economics 1997, 20:199-207.
44. Poe G.L., Giraud K.L., Loomis J.B. Computational methods for measuring the difference of empirical distributions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2005, 87:353-365.
45. Rolfe J., Windle J. Distance decay functions for iconic assets: assessing national values to protect the health of the Great Barrier Reef in Australia. Environmental and Resource Economics 2012, 1-19.
46. Smith V.K. Nonmarket valuation of environmental resources: an interpretive appraisal. Land Economics 1993, 69:1-26.
47. Son J.H. Lee administration proposes multi-billion dollar construction project along DMZ 2010, Hankyoreh Daily, Retrieved at http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_northkorea/442675.html.
48. Sutherland R.J., Walsh R.G. Effect of distance on the preservation value of water quality. Land Economics 1985, 61:281-291.
49. Tait P., Baskaran R., Cullen R., Bicknell K. Nonmarket valuation of water quality: addressing spatially heterogeneous preferences using GIS and a random parameter logit model. Ecological Economics 2012, 75:15-21.
50. The Economist Conflict conservation: biodiversity down the barrel of a gun 2010, The Economist, Retrieved at http://www.economist.com/node/15488793.
51. Train K. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation 2003, Cambridge University Press.
52. Wiser R.H. Using contingent valuation to explore willingness to pay for renewable energy: a comparison of collective and voluntary payment vehicles. Ecological Economics 2007, 62:419-432.