SpringerLink
Log in

What do we know about public acceptance of designating marine protected area? The case of Jaran Bay in South Korea

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Environmental Science and Pollution Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The South Korean Government is considering designating Jaran Bay, the habitat of the endangered marine species, Neophocaena asiaeorientalis, as a marine protected area. The Government needs information about public acceptance and the economic benefits of the designation. To unveil the information, this article aims to examine the public willingness to pay (WTP) using a contingent valuation based on a nationwide survey of 1000 households. As a WTP elicitation method, the one-and-one-half-bounded question format of asking an interviewee whether she/he has the intention of paying a presented bid through annual income tax was adopted. The WTP for the designation was statistically significantly estimated to be KRW 2665 (USD 2.27) per year per household. The estimate of the annual national value amounted to KRW 53 billion (USD 45.30 million). This value is by no means small, but it would take a huge amount of effort to elicit public consensus on the designation considering that a significant proportion of respondents (64.4%) revealed zero WTP.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (France)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahmed A, Masud MM, Al-Amin AQ, Yahaya SRB, Rahman M, Akhtar R (2015) Exploring factors influencing farmers’ willingness to pay (WTP) for a planned adaptation programme to address climatic issues in agricultural sectors. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22:9494–9504

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow K, Solow R, Portney PR, Leamer EE, Radner R, Schuman H (1993) Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Fed Regist 58:4601–4614

    Google Scholar 

  • Ausubel JH, Trew C, Waggoner PE (2010) First census of marine life 2010: highlights of a decade of discovery. www.coml.org (accessed: August 16, 2019)

  • Bigerna S, Polinori P (2018) The economic valuation of green electricity, Springer

  • Brent RJ (2006) Applied cost-benefit analysis, 2nd edn. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Castaño-Isaza J, Newball R, Roach B, Lau WW (2015) Valuing beaches to develop payment for ecosystem services schemes in Colombia’s Seaflower marine protected area. Ecosystem services 11:22–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho YC, Lim SY, Yoo SH (2017) The external benefits of expanding the micro photovoltaic power generation in Korea: a contingent valuation study. Sol Energy 158:898–904

    Google Scholar 

  • Convention on Biological Diversity (2010) Strategic plan for biodiversity 2011–2020, including Aichi biodiversity targets. www.cbd.int/sp (accessed: August 16, 2019)

  • Cooper JC, Hanemann WM (1995) Referendum contingent valuation: how many bounds are enough? USDA Economic Research Search Service, Food and Consumer Economics Division; Working paper, May

  • Cooper JC, Hanemann M, Signorello G (2002) One and one-half bound dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Rev Econ Stat 84:742–750

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher AC (1996) The conceptual underpinnings of the contingent valuation method. In: Bjornstad DJ, Kahn JR (eds) The contingent valuation of environmental resources. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 19–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman AM (1993) The measurement of environmental and resource values: theory and methods. Resources for the Future, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrod G, Willis KG (1999) Economic valuation of the environment. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Habb TC, McConnell KE (2002) Valuing environmental and natural resources. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Halpern BS (2003) The impact of marine reserves: do reserves work and does reserve size matter? Ecol Appl 13:117–137

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanemann WM (1984) Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am J Agric Econ 66:332–341

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanemann M, Loomis J, Kanninen B (1991) Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Am J Agric Econ 73:1255–1263

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison HB, Williamson DH, Evans RD, Almany GR, Thorrold SR, Russ GR, Feldheim KA, Herwerden L, Planes S, Srinivasan M, Berumen ML, Jones GP (2012) Larval export from marine reserves and the recruitment benefit for fish and fisheries. Curr Biol 22:1023–1028

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Huh SY, Shin J (2018) Economic valuation of noise pollution control policy: does the type of noise matter? Environ Sci Pollut Res 25:30647–30658

    Google Scholar 

  • Indab AL (2016) Marine and coastal ecosystem valuation, institutions, and policy in Southeast Asia. In: Olewiler N, Francisco HA, Ferrer AJG (eds) Willingness to pay for whale shark conservation in Sorsogon, Philippines. Springer, Singapore, pp 93–128

    Google Scholar 

  • International Union for Conservation of Nature (2017) Unsustainable food systems threaten wild crop and dolphin species—IUCN Red List. iucn.org (accessed: December 28, 2019)

  • ** SJ, Lim SY, Yoo SH (2018) The public value of building large oil spill response vessels in Korea. Mar Policy 88:242–247

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnston J, DiNardo J (1997) Econometric methods, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnston RJ, Boyle KJ, Adamowicz W, Bennett J, Brouwer R, Cameron TA, Hanemann WM, Hanley N, Ryan M, Scarpa R, Tourangeau R, Vossler CA (2017) Contemporary guidance for stated preference studies. J Assoc Environ Resour Econ 4:319–405

    Google Scholar 

  • Jorgensen B, Syme G, Bishop B, Nancarrow B (1999) Protest responses in contingent valuation. Environ Resour Econ 14:131–150

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim J, Lim SY, Yoo SH (2017) Measuring the economic benefits of designating Baegnyeong Island in Korea as a marine protected area. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 24:205–213

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim GE, Kim JH, Yoo SH (2019a) How much value do people place on preserving the Seocheon coastal wetland in South Korea? Environ Sci Pollut Res 26:18913–18920

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim HJ, Lim SY, Yoo SH (2019b) Public preferences for district heating system over individual heating system: a view of national energy efficiency. Energy Efficiency 12:723–734

    Google Scholar 

  • Korea Development Institute (2012) Guidelines for preliminary feasibility study using contingent valuation method. Sejong, in Korean

  • Krinsky I, Robb AL (1986) On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Rev Econ Stat 68:715–719

    Google Scholar 

  • Kriström B (1997) Spike models in contingent valuation. Am J Agric Econ 79:1013–1023

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee MK, Kim JH, Yoo SH (2018) Public willingness to pay for increasing photovoltaic power generation in Korea. Sustainability 10

  • Lester SE, Halpern BS, Grorud-Colvert K, Lubchenco J, Ruttenberg BI, Gaines SD, Airamé S, Warner RR (2009) Biological effects within no-take marine reserves: a global synthesis. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 384:33–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Lim SY, Kim HJ, Yoo SH (2018) Household willingness to pay for expanding fuel cell power generation in Korea: a view from CO2 emissions reduction. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 81:242–249

    Google Scholar 

  • Lopes PF, Villasante S (2018) Paying the price to solve fisheries conflicts in Brazil's marine protected areas. Mar Policy 93:1–8

    Google Scholar 

  • McFadden D (1994) Contingent valuation and social choice. Am J Agric Econ 76:689–708

    Google Scholar 

  • McLellan R, Iyengar L, Jeffries B, Oerlemans N (2014) Living planet report 2014: species and spaces, people and places. World Wildlife Fund International

  • Min SH, Lim SY, Yoo SH (2017) The environmental benefits of reducing thermal discharge from nuclear power generation. Energy & Environment 28:885–894

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1989) Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Resources for the future. Washington DC

  • Park T, Loomis J, Creel M (1991) Confidence intervals for evaluating benefits estimates from dichotomous choice contingent valuation studies. Land Econ 67:64–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Park SY, Lim SY, Yoo SH (2018) Public willingness to pay a premium for uni-material beverage container in Korea: a contingent valuation study. Water and Environment Journal 32:229–234

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennington M, Gomes M, Donaldson C (2017) Handling protest responses in contingent valuation surveys. Med Decis Mak 37:623–634

    Google Scholar 

  • Russ GR, Alcala AC (2010) Enhanced biodiversity beyond marine reserve boundaries: the cup spillith-over. Ecol Appl 21:241–250

    Google Scholar 

  • Statistics Korea. Korea Statistical Information Service. http://kosis.kr (accessed: August 16, 2019)

  • Strazzera E, Scarpa R, Calia P, Garrod GD, Willis KG (2003) Modelling zero values and protest responses in contingent valuation surveys. Appl Econ 35:133–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Sugden R (1999) Valuing environmental preferences: theory and practice of the contingent valuation method in the US, EU, and develo** countries. In: Bateman IJ, Willis KG (eds) Public goods and contingent valuation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 131–151

    Google Scholar 

  • Tonin S (2018) Citizens’ perspectives on marine protected areas as a governance strategy to effectively preserve marine ecosystem services and biodiversity. Ecosystem Services 34:189–200

    Google Scholar 

  • Varian HR (2014) Intermediate microeconomics: a modern approach, 9th edn. Norton & Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Werner M (1999) Allowing for zeros in dichotomous-choice contingent-valuation models. J Bus Econ Stat 17:179–486

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitehead JC, Morgan OA, Huth WL (2015) Benefit transfer of environmental and resource values: a guide for researchers and practitioners. In: Johnston RJ, Rolfe J, Rosenberger RS, Brouwer R (eds) Benefit Transfers with the Contingent Valuation Method. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 119–140

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoo SH, Kwak SJ (2002) Using a spike model to deal with zero response data from double bounded dichotomous contingent valuation survey. Appl Econ Lett 9:929–932

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was a part of the project titled “Marine ecosystem-based analysis and decision-making support system development for marine spatial planning,” funded by the Korea Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries (grant number 20170325).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Energy Policy, Graduate School of Energy & Environment, Seoul National University of Science & Technology, 232 Gongreung-Ro, Nowon-Gu, Seoul, 01811, Republic of Korea

    Ju-Hee Kim & Seung-Hoon Yoo

Authors
  1. Ju-Hee Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Seung-Hoon Yoo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Seung-Hoon Yoo.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: Bao**g Gu

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kim, JH., Yoo, SH. What do we know about public acceptance of designating marine protected area? The case of Jaran Bay in South Korea. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27, 31715–31725 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09363-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09363-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation