Public willingness to pay for eradicating a harmful marine organism: the case of Aurelia aurita in South Korea

被引:0
作者
Ju-Hee Kim
Se-Jun Jin
Seung-Hoon Yoo
机构
[1] Seoul National University of Science & Technology,Department of Future Energy Convergence, College of Creativity and Convergence Studies
[2] Ocean Science and Technology Policy Research Section,undefined
[3] Korea Institute of Ocean Science and Technology,undefined
来源
Environmental Science and Pollution Research | 2022年 / 29卷
关键词
Harmful marine organism; Eradication; Willingness to pay; Contingent valuation; Zero observations;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Aurelia aurita (AA), a legally registered harmful marine organism in South Korea, is damaging marine human leisure activities, local residents’ tourism income, fisheries, and cooling water intake at power plants. The government is therefore seeking to eradicate AA by removing AA-attached larvae (polyps). This article looks into the public willingness to pay (WTP) for the eradication, utilizing a contingent valuation. For the sake of eliciting the WTP response, the one-and-one-half-bounded (OB) model was adopted. For comparison, the single-bounded (SB) model, which uses only the response to the first question in the OB model, was also applied. A spike model with a considerable plausibility that could explicitly deal with zero WTP responses was employed. Consequently, the estimation results of the SB model were used for further policy analysis. The household average WTP was estimated as KRW 3,911 (USD 3.49) per year, securing statistical significance. The national value was KRW 80.46 billion (USD 71.71 million) per annum. This figure can be interpreted as public value of the AA eradication project and used as essential basic data to evaluate the economic feasibility of implementing the project. Some factors such as income and education level significantly positively affected the intention of paying a suggested bid.
引用
收藏
页码:88839 / 88851
页数:12
相关论文
共 178 条
  • [11] Leamer EE(1997)Temporal reliability of estimates from contingent valuation Land Econ 73 151-163
  • [12] Radner R(2012)Questioning the rise of gelatinous zooplankton in the world’s oceans Bioscience 62 160-169
  • [13] Schuman H(2002)One-and-one-half bound dichotomous choice contingent valuation Rev Econ Stat 84 742-750
  • [14] Bateman IJ(2005)Prospective study of Chironex fleckeri and other box jellyfish stings in the “Top End” of Australia’s Northern Territory Med J Australia 183 631-636
  • [15] Langford IH(2014)Impact of stinging jellyfish proliferations along south Italian coasts: human health hazards, treatment and social costs Int J Environ Res Public Health 11 2488-2503
  • [16] Jones AP(2015)Jellyfish outbreak impacts on recreation in the Mediterranean Sea: welfare estimates from a socioeconomic pilot survey in Israel Ecosyst Serv 11 140-147
  • [17] Kerr GN(2020)Impact of jellyfish and other gelatinous organisms on the Andalusian Coast. Implications for sun and beach tourism Estudios Geográficos 81 e038-e038
  • [18] Bateman IJ(1984)Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses Am J Agric Econ 66 332-341
  • [19] Day BH(1985)Some issues in continuous- and discrete-response contingent valuation studies Agric Resour Econ Rev 14 5-13
  • [20] Dupont DP(1991)Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation Am J Agr Econ 73 1255-1263