IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jrpoli/v69y2020ics030142071930741x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public perspective on the environmental impacts of sea sand mining: Evidence from a choice experiment in South Korea

Author

Listed:
  • Kim, Ju-Hee
  • Yoo, Seung-Hoon

Abstract

A project collecting a total of 24.3 million cubic meters of sea sand from the aggregate extraction complex in the exclusive economic zone of the South Sea in South Korea has been under way. The government needs information about the public perspective on the environmental impacts of the sea sand mining project. This paper attempts to examine the public perspective by employing a choice experiment (CE). The attributes chosen to represent the environmental impacts are an increase in coastal erosion, a decrease in benthos, a decrease in fish, and deterioration of the sea water quality, and the price attribute is the additional annual income tax per household. A total of 1000 interviewees were surveyed across the country through person-to-person interviews. A mixed logit model, which has the advantage of being able to reflect preference heterogeneity, was applied to estimating a utility function from the gathered CE data. All the coefficients for the attributes were estimated to be statistically significant. The environmental costs of a 1% increase in coastal erosion, a 1% decrease in benthos, a 1% decrease in fish, and a 1% deterioration in the sea water quality were KRW 100 (USD 0.09), 76 (0.07), 152 (0.14), and 123 (0.11), respectively, per household per year. Combining these results with the environmental impact assessment results for the project allows a quantitative assessment of the environmental costs of the project.

Suggested Citation

  • Kim, Ju-Hee & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2020. "Public perspective on the environmental impacts of sea sand mining: Evidence from a choice experiment in South Korea," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jrpoli:v:69:y:2020:i:c:s030142071930741x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101811
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142071930741X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101811?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Windle, Jill & Rolfe, John, 2013. "Using discrete choice experiments to assess the preferences of new mining workforce to commute or relocate to the Surat Basin in Australia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 169-180.
    2. Jobstvogt, Niels & Hanley, Nick & Hynes, Stephen & Kenter, Jasper & Witte, Ursula, 2014. "Twenty thousand sterling under the sea: Estimating the value of protecting deep-sea biodiversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 10-19.
    3. John Mackenzie, 1993. "A Comparison of Contingent Preference Models," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 75(3), pages 593-603.
    4. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, September.
    5. Kwak, Seung-Jun & Yoo, Seung-Hoon & Kim, Tai-Yoo, 2001. "A constructive approach to air-quality valuation in Korea," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 327-344, September.
    6. Alvarez-Farizo, Begona & Hanley, Nick, 2002. "Using conjoint analysis to quantify public preferences over the environmental impacts of wind farms. An example from Spain," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 107-116, January.
    7. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    8. Knowler, D. & Philcox, N. & Nathan, S. & Delamare, W. & Haider, W. & Gupta, K., 2009. "Assessing prospects for shrimp culture in the Indian Sundarbans: A combined simulation modelling and choice experiment approach," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 613-623, July.
    9. Burton, Michael & Jasmine Zahedi, Shegufa & White, Ben, 2012. "Public preferences for timeliness and quality of mine site rehabilitation. The case of bauxite mining in Western Australia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 1-9.
    10. Brown, Teresa & McEvoy, Fiona & Ward, John, 2011. "Aggregates in England—Economic contribution and environmental cost of indigenous supply," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 295-303.
    11. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-719, November.
    12. Philippe Le Goffe, 1995. "The benefits of improvements in coastal water quality : a contingent approach," Post-Print hal-02364342, HAL.
    13. Durán, Roi & Farizo, Begoña A. & Vázquez, María Xosé, 2015. "Conservation of maritime cultural heritage: A discrete choice experiment in a European Atlantic Region," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 356-365.
    14. Ivanova, Galina & Rolfe, John, 2011. "Assessing development options in mining communities using stated preference techniques," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 255-264, September.
    15. Woo, JongRoul & Choi, Jae Young & Shin, Jungwoo & Lee, Jongsu, 2014. "The effect of new media on consumer media usage: An empirical study in South Korea," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 3-11.
    16. Joo-Suk Lee & Seung-Hoon Yoo & Seung-Jun Kwak, 2006. "Consumers' preferences for the attributes of post-PC: results of a contingent ranking study," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(19), pages 2327-2334.
    17. Birdir, Sevda & Ünal, Özlem & Birdir, Kemal & Williams, Allan T., 2013. "Willingness to pay as an economic instrument for coastal tourism management: Cases from Mersin, Turkey," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 279-283.
    18. Lim, Seul-Ye & Min, Seo-Hyeon & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2016. "The public value of contaminated soil remediation in Janghang copper smelter of Korea," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 66-74.
    19. McFadden, Daniel, 1974. "The measurement of urban travel demand," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 303-328, November.
    20. Hensher,David A. & Rose,John M. & Greene,William H., 2015. "Applied Choice Analysis," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107465923, October.
    21. Lee, Joo-Suk & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2009. "Measuring the environmental costs of tidal power plant construction: A choice experiment study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(12), pages 5069-5074, December.
    22. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    23. Hee-Jong Yang & Seul-Ye Lim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2017. "The Environmental Costs of Photovoltaic Power Plants in South Korea: A Choice Experiment Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-13, September.
    24. Estrella, Arturo, 1998. "A New Measure of Fit for Equations with Dichotomous Dependent Variables," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 16(2), pages 198-205, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kim, Ju-Hee & Kim, Kyung-Hag & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2022. "Evaluating and ranking the mining damage prevention programs in South Korea: An application of the fuzzy set theory," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    2. Erick Arellanos & Wagner Guzman & Ligia García, 2022. "How to Prioritize the Attributes of Water Ecosystem Service for Water Security Management: Choice Experiments versus Analytic Hierarchy Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-19, November.
    3. Walter Leal Filho & Julian Hunt & Alexandros Lingos & Johannes Platje & Lara Werncke Vieira & Markus Will & Marius Dan Gavriletea, 2021. "The Unsustainable Use of Sand: Reporting on a Global Problem," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-16, March.
    4. Alena Oulehlova & Irena Tušer & David Rehak, 2021. "Environmental Risk Assessment of a Diesel Fuel Tank: A Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-21, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ju-Hee Kim & Younggew Kim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2021. "Using a choice experiment to explore the public willingness to pay for the impacts of improving energy efficiency of an apartment," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 55(5), pages 1775-1793, October.
    2. Kim, Hyo-Jin & Kim, Ju-Hee & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2019. "Social acceptance of offshore wind energy development in South Korea: Results from a choice experiment survey," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 1-1.
    3. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    4. Rombach, Meike & Widmar, Nicole Olynk & Byrd, Elizabeth & Bitsch, Vera, 2018. "Do all roses smell equally sweet? Willingness to pay for flower attributes in specialized retail settings by German consumers," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 91-99.
    5. Cordera, Rubén & Luigi dell’Olio, & Sipone, Silvia & Moura, José Luis, 2024. "Modeling airport choice for a multi-airport area using a random parameter logit model," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    6. Hynes, Stephen & Chen, Wenting & Vondolia, Kofi & Armstrong, Claire & O'Connor, Eamonn, 2021. "Valuing the ecosystem service benefits from kelp forest restoration: A choice experiment from Norway," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    7. Kota Mameno & Takahiro Kubo & Hiroyuki Oguma & Yukihiro Amagai & Yasushi Shoji, 2022. "Decline in the alpine landscape aesthetic value in a national park under climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 170(3), pages 1-18, February.
    8. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    9. Frick, Bernd & Barros, Carlos Pestana & Prinz, Joachim, 2010. "Analysing head coach dismissals in the German "Bundesliga" with a mixed logit approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 200(1), pages 151-159, January.
    10. Deka, Devajyoti & Carnegie, Jon, 2021. "Predicting transit mode choice of New Jersey workers commuting to New York City from a stated preference survey," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    11. Manhique, Henrique & Wätzold, Frank, 2023. "Effects of Institutional Setting on Value Estimates of Stated Preference Surveys in Developing Economies: A Discrete Choice Experiment on Conserving Biodiversity in The Cape Floristic Region," MPRA Paper 118750, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Norton, Daniel & Hynes, Stephen, 2014. "Valuing the non-market benefits arising from the implementation of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 84-96.
    13. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Bartczak, Anna & Giergiczny, Marek & Navrud, Stale & Żylicz, Tomasz, 2014. "Providing preference-based support for forest ecosystem service management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 1-12.
    14. Carson, Richard T. & Czajkowski, Mikołaj, 2019. "A new baseline model for estimating willingness to pay from discrete choice models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 57-61.
    15. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    16. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Olynk, Nicole & Wolf, Christopher, 2009. "Consumer Preferences for Animal Welfare Attributes: The Case of Gestation Crates," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(3), pages 713-730, December.
    17. Sarfo, Yaw & Musshoff, Oliver & Weber, Ron & Danne, Michael, 2021. "Farmers’ Willingness to Pay for Digital Credit: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment in Madagascar," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315029, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. Oviedo, José L. & Caparrós, Alejandro & Ruiz-Gauna, Itziar & Campos, Pablo, 2016. "Testing convergent validity in choice experiments: Application to public recreation in Spanish stone pine and cork oak forests," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 130-148.
    19. Robert Gillespie & Jeff Bennett, 2011. "Willingness to pay for kerbside recycling the Brisbane Region," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 1097, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    20. Ahtiainen, Heini & Tienhaara, Annika & Pouta, Eija & Czajkowski, Mikolaj, 2017. "Role of information in the valuation of unfamiliar goods – the case of genetic resources in agriculture," 2017 International Congress, August 28-September 1, 2017, Parma, Italy 261423, European Association of Agricultural Economists.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jrpoli:v:69:y:2020:i:c:s030142071930741x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/30467 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.