Economic valuation of a national shipping company using a contingent valuation method (CVM): The case of Korea

被引：1

作者：

Lee, Taylor Tae-Hwee ^{[1
]}

So, Ae-rim ^{[2
]}

机构：

[1] Gyeongsang Natl Univ, Dept Smart Distribut & Logist, 33 Dongjin Ro, Jinju 52725, Gyeongnam, South Korea

[2] Changwon Ind Promot Agcy, Policy Planning Team, Chang Won, South Korea

来源：

MARINE POLICY | 2022年 / 135卷

关键词：

National shipping company; Shipping industry; Hanjin shipping; Economic valuation; CVM; WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY; BENEFITS; MODEL;

D O I：

10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104870

中图分类号：

X [环境科学、安全科学];

学科分类号：

08 ; 0830 ;

摘要：

Due to the bankruptcy of Hanjin Shipping, which was the seventh-largest container liner, Korea's liner shipping network had collapsed. When Hanjin Shipping entered legal management, shipping and port logisticians, mainly located in Busan in Korea, spoke consistently about the risk of its bankruptcy and damage. Their argument was that if Hanjin Shipping entered bankruptcy, consumer prices would move sharply higher due to domestic cargo being transported by foreign shipping companies. However, after the bankruptcy of Hanjin Shipping, there was no news that consumer prices in the Republic of Korea jumped. Regarding this point, most people not related to the shipping industry may think that the impact of the loss of Hanjin Shipping is not very different from the argument by shipping experts. Considering the above discussion, this paper raises the following questions. How much most people consider the shipping industry or shipping company to be important? To answer this research question, this paper estimates the economic value of a national shipping company by employing the contingent valuation method (CVM). As a result of the study, willingness to pay (WTP) for the national shipping liner's bankruptcy was estimated to be 5007.99 Korean Won (KRW) (USD 4.34) per year, and the economic value of a national shipping company is KRW 104.623.66 million (USD 90.9 million) per year.

引用

页数：6

共 33 条

[1] Willingness to pay for road safety and estimates of the risk of death: Evidence from a Swedish contingent valuation study [J].

Andersson, Henrik .

ACCIDENT ANALYSIS AND PREVENTION, 2007, 39 (04) :853-865

[2]

Arrow K., 1993, FED REGISTER, V58, P4601, DOI DOI 10.1002/QJ.49703213905

[3] Valuing non-marketed goods: The case of elk permit lotteries [J].

Buschena, DE ;

Anderson, TL ;

Leonard, JL .

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT, 2001, 41 (01) :33-43

[4]

Carson R.T., 1989, Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: the Contingent Valuation Method

[5]

Carson R.T., 1999, Valuing Environmental Preferences. Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation in the US, EU, P97, DOI DOI 10.1093/0199248915.001.0001

[6] Public perspective on constructing sea forests as a public good: A contingent valuation experiment in South Korea [J].

Choi, Kyung-Ran ;

Kim, Ju-Hee ;

Yoo, Seung-Hoon .

MARINE POLICY, 2020, 120

[7]

Christe NG Schwab, 1995, CONTINGENT VALUATION

[8]

Cicchetti C.J., 1973, Social Science Research, V2, P15, DOI [10.1016/0049-089X(73)90019-7, DOI 10.1016/0049-089X(73)90019-7]

[9] WILDLIFE VALUATION - COLLECTIVE GOOD ASPECT OF HUNTING [J].

COCHEBA, DJ ;

LANGFORD, WA .

LAND ECONOMICS, 1978, 54 (04) :490-504

[10] MEASURING BENEFITS GENERATED BY URBAN WATER PARKS [J].

DARLING, AH .

LAND ECONOMICS, 1973, 49 (01) :22-34

← 1 2 3 4 →