韓國開發硏究제 34 권제 1 호 ( 통권제 114 호 ) 지불거부응답의판별 오형나 ( 한국개발연구원연구위원 ) Detecting Protest Responses OH, Hyungna (Research Fellow, Korea Development Institute) *

韓國開發硏究제 34 권제 1 호 ( 통권제 114 호 ) 지불거부응답의판별 오형나 ( 한국개발연구원연구위원 ) Detecting Protest Responses OH, Hyungna (Research Fellow, Korea Development Institute) * 본논문은김강수 오형나공저, 양분선택형조건부가치측정모형에있어서지불거부응답자료처리에관한연구 ( 정책연구시리즈, 한국개발연구원, 2011) 중필자가분석 집필한부분을수정 보완하여작성된것임을밝힌다. ** 오형나 : (e-mail) h2o@kdi.re.kr, (address) Korea Development Institute, 47 Hoegiro, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, Korea Key Word: (Protest Bids, Protest Responses), (Contingent Valuation Methods), (Selectivity Bias) JEL Code: D01, D81 Received: 2011. 10. 21 Referee Process Started: 2011. 10. 24 Referee Reports Completed: 2011. 12. 15

ABSTRACT This study analyzes ways to detect protest responses (hereafter, PR zero-bid) in the contingent valuation method (CVM). In order to distinguish PR zero-bids from true zero-bids (non-pr zero bids), this study adopts the concept of the implicit willingness to pay employing the Hicksian compensating surplus and the Taylor s 1st order approximation. When a respondent proposes a zero-bid (i.e., WTP=0) and chooses a PR filtering item to indicate that her implicit WTP is not necessary zero, her response is identified as a PR zero bid. PR filtering items falling into the PR zero bids category include the uncertainty of information, distrust in the government and project achievement, disagreement to project plans, discontent with the fairness of public works and their payment method and animosity against the CVM itself. The empirical analysis shows that PR zero bids take place systematically in particular respondent groups: respondents who have never used similar facilities before nor plans to use the facility provided by the public project, the employed, and low income groups. In conclusion, the study suggests that a CVM questionnaire needs to be designed carefully to minimize problems associated with PR zero bids and the potential risks of having sample selection bias should be concerned.

지불거부응답의판별 137 Ⅰ. 서론 (contingent valuation method, CVM),. CVM 1) (bids). [Figure 1],,., 1? zero-bid Kriström(1997) 2). zero-bid 0 (Figure 1 non-pr zero-bid ) (Figure 1 PR zero-bid ). (non-pr zero-bid)., (PR zero-bid) (reservation price) 0 CVM,,. PR zero-bid 1).. (non-excludavility), (non-rivalry). 2) ( ), (one-and-a-half bounded),,.

138 韓國開發硏究 / 2012. Ⅰ [Figure 1] Survey Design with a Kristr m's Question in Dichotomous Choice Models: Identifying Protest Zero-Bids the 1 st bid proposed(b) willing to pay? Yes No the 2 nd bid proposed(2b) willing to pay? the 2 nd bid proposed(0.5b) willing to pay? Yes No the 3 rd bid proposed(\1) willing to pay? Yes No Reasons for offering zero-bids No protest zero-bids choose an item categorized into non-protest zero-bids Non-PR Zero-Bid choose an item categorized into protest(pr) zero-bids PR Zero-Bid (stated preferences). CVM CVM (revealed preferences), (stated preferences). 3) CVM 3) (market methods), (revealed preference methods), (stated preference methods) ( [2003]).,...

지불거부응답의판별 139 (, ), (Cummings, Ganderton, and McGuckin[1994]). CVM (bias).. CVM zero-bid (protest response filtering items, [Figure 1] PRF ) 0. zero-bid zero-bid non-pr zero-bid(s), (PR zero-bids). PRF,, (Jorgensen et al.[2006]). Oh and Hong(2012) WTP, PRF,. 4).., ( [2003]). CVM. CVM.,,,.,,, WTP. (2008) CVM,,,, /,,. 4)., Söderquist (1998) (lexicographic preference relations). WTA(willingness-to-accept). WTP WTA(willingness-to-accept)

140 韓國開發硏究 / 2012. Ⅰ. zero-bids. CVM. 2006 2009 ( KDI) 22 CVM 2. (random),. Ⅱ. 지불거부응답에대한이해 1. 힉스의보상잉여에근거한잠재적지불의사액 (willingness-to-pay) 도출 CVM (stated preferences) (implicit preferences). 0 (state) (Cummings, Ganderton, and McGuckin[1994]; [2009]; Strazzera et al.[2003]). zero-bids. (PR zero-bid) Oh and Hong(2012) (willingness-to-pay, WTP). (1) Z (market good), p Z, E (public good), u(z, E). Z 1 (composite good numeraire). (1) e(p, E, u) p E u. min (1).

지불거부응답의판별 141 ( ). ( ).. (Hicksian compensating surplus). (1) (Z). (good), (, ). CVM ( ) ( ). (2). (2) (2) (Z). 5) (discrete value), (2) 1 (the first order Taylor series). 1, (discrete change).,, 0(non-positive).. (2) 5) WTP (preference relations). Z E, E ( ). WTP.

142 韓國開發硏究 / 2012. Ⅰ. ( ) 0. ( )., (3). (3) (3) (Implicit ) (4) ( ). ( ) 0 zero-bids. ( ) (Implicit ). WTP. (4), ( 0, 1). (4) 2. 지불거부응답의판별 (3) (4) (0) zero-bids. <Table 1>. <Table 1> ~ (Implicit ) (0) zero-bids. <Table 1> ~ PRF <Table 2>.

지불거부응답의판별 143 <Table 1> Criteria for Detecting Protest Responses (or PR Zero-Bids) Reasons for Offering Zero-Bids Eqs. (2) and (3): Implicit Eq. (4): Stated Protest Responses? public bads in Eq.(3) cannot afford to pay = in Eq.(2) zero-marginal utility in Eq.(3) no plan to use in Eq.(3) a negligible change in E in Eq.(3) not enough information is given: uncertainty distrust toward government unknown ( ) don't believe that the project achieves the goal unfair to ask me to pay ill-feeling against the project unknown ( ), <Table 1> ~ zero-bids (3) (4) 0. CVM (0) ~ PRF, PRF 6) <Table 3>. (. zero-bids;. zero-bids). 6) <Table 2> <Table 3> PRF KDI (Jorgensen et al.[2006]; Strazzera et al.[2003]; Bateman et al.[2002]; [2009]; Jakobsson and Dragun[2001]; Griffin and Mjelde[2000]; Aprahamian et al.[2007]; Jorgensen and Syme[2000]; Chien et al.[2005]; DuVair and Loomis[1993]; Mitchell and Carson[1989]; Morrison et al.[2000]).

144 韓國開發硏究 / 2012. Ⅰ <Table 2> Protest-Response Filtering Items Corresponding to Non-PR Zero-Bids Category Disutility Cannot Afford to Pay = 0 No Plan to Use = 0 The Reference Value Protest Response Filtering Items The quality of my life will be worse off due to the project proposed by the government. The market value of my property will fall if the public facility is built and causes noise and traffic congestion. I cannot afford to pay for the project. My household doesn't have enough wealth to fund the project. I cannot afford to make additional payments for the project. The proposed change is worth nothing to me. It is not important at all whether the proposed change happens or not. It is none of my business. I am not interested in the matter what the project is concerning about. I have little thing to do with the project. I will buy goods and services instead of paying for the project. Instead of paying for the project, I will use other facilities. Existing facilities are enough for me. There are so many facilities similar to the proposed facility. There are many alternative facilities. I plan to use other similar facilities. Similar facilities already exist. It is not one of high priorities. Society has more important problems than this. It is not a matter of national interests. I have no plan to use the facility. My family won't enjoy the benefit of the project. The facility is located very far away. It is very inconvenient for me to visit the facility. I plan to immigrate abroad. 1) A change in proposed is negligible. 2) The proposed change is too marginal for me to pay. The reference value proposed in the survey is too high. Note: 1) In Aprahamian et al.(2007), this item was categorized into a PRF item. It is categorized as a non-prf item in this paper since accessibility ( ) becomes zero and, as a consequence, WTP equals to zero when an individual immigrates abroad. 2) Shaded area: = not shown in KDI CVM Surveys but shown in literature. = not shown in literature but shown in KDI CVM Surveys. = neither in KDI CVM Surveys nor in literature.

지불거부응답의판별 145 <Table 3> Protest-response Filtering Items Corresponding to PR Zero-Bids Cateogry Uncertainty Distrust Fairness; Fair-share Ill-feeling Against the Project Protest Response Filtering Items Proposed as Reasons for Zero-Bids Not enough information is given. I need more information to decide if I pay for the project. 1) I cannot understand the question. I have no idea how much my household would be willing to pay for this. I really haven't thought much about this issue before today. I am suspicious of the government's plan for the project. I distrust what the government announced. I am doubtful whether the government completes the project as it announced. If the money was collected, I don't really believe that it would be spent on making what the government announced happen. I have distrust in the authorities to improve the quality of stormwater. We would be able to afford better protection of receiving waters already if the government did not waste so much money. I don't think that the government is carrying out its announced actions. I don't expect that the water supply service quality is significantly improved. I am suspicious of the effectiveness of the proposed policy options. It is unfair to ask me to pay more money for stromwater pollution controls. The part (a firm) which took advantage of this project should finance the project. It is unfair to charge people in order to restrict their activities. The government should complete the project using taxes already paid. I have paid enough taxes and contributions to solve the problem which the survey is concerning about. 2) The government should finance this project by rearranging government expenditure priorities. The facility should be built using taxes already paid. I have already paid enough taxes to fund this type of project. The government has paid too much money for this project. It is my right to have cleaner air and not something I should have to pay extra for. The part who is responsible for this problem should finance the project. I object to the way the question is asked. Note: 1) Uncertainty is not included as a PRF in KDI CVM Surveys until 2009. 2) According to Lee (2011), a response is a protest-bid if his/her answer is yes for a question, would you say that it is desired to cut other expenses and to implement the project in question?. If the answer is no for the same question, the response should be identified as a non-protest zero-bid. * Shaded area: = never shown in KDI CVM Surveys but in literature. = shown neither in KDI CVM Surveys nor in literature.

146 韓國開發硏究 / 2012. Ⅰ 가. 지불거부응답은아닌 zero-bids 1) 가 0보다작은경우 (3).,. (good) (bad).,,, (disutility). >0. >0 >0 (3) 0. 7), 1 zero-bids. zero-bid. 2) 지불여력이없는경우 0. (E) =. (2) 0 CVM 1 zero-bids, PRF (Table 2).. 7) (2011, p.616). Haab and McConnell (1997, 1998). Bohara et al.(2001),.,.,.

지불거부응답의판별 147 3) 공공재의한계효용이 0인경우, 0 (3) WTP 0. <Table 2> 0 PRF.,,,,,. zero-bids. 4) 시간적 공간적제약으로 를이용할수없는경우, 0 (, ), 0. CVM., ( ) (= ), 0 0. (3) zero-bids 8),. PRF (Table 2). 5) 무시할만한공공재의변화 zero-bids. (3), 0 1 zero-bids. PRF., 8) 0 0. zero-bid, 0 0.

148 韓國開發硏究 / 2012. Ⅰ (Table 2 ), zero-bids. 1? PRF., 1?, zero-bids. 9) 나. 지불거부응답에해당하는 zero-bids 6) 정보부족또는불확실성 (a priori), (a posteriori). CVM.., [0,1] K. Jorgensen et al. (2006) CVM ( ) 9) (2002) CVM (anchor effect).,. PRF,.

지불거부응답의판별 149. 10). CVM.,,,,,. CVM zero-bids,,, PRF (Table 3). Blamey(1998), Jorgensen et al.(2006), Brouwer et al.(1999), Schkade and Payne(1994), Schuman(1996), Hoevenagel and van der Linden(1993), Ready et al.(1995), Loomis and Ekstrand(1998), Bergstrom et al.(1989), Brown et al.(1995). Jorgensen et al.(2006) (fairness),. 7) 정부의의지및사업실행능력에대한불신 (>0), 0. 0 (distrust) Oh and Hong(2012), Jorgensen et al.(2006), Blamey (1998), Brouwer et al.(1999), Söderquist(1998). 10) WTP, WTP (Bergstrom et al.[1989]; Brown et al.[1995]). Jorgensen et al.(2006) (0) WTP., (2003), (option value). WTP.

150 韓國開發硏究 / 2012. Ⅰ 8) 사업성과에대한회의 zero-bid. ~,, 0 0 zero-bid.. (3),., zero-bids (implicit WTP) zero-bid. 9) 공정성또는타당성에대한문제제기 CVM. zero-bids (McFadden[1994]). Jorgensen et al.(2006) (Fairness items) (p.111), PRF <Table 3>., ( ),,,,, ( ) PRF., PRF, Johnson(2006) (fair share).,. PRF

지불거부응답의판별 151, DuVair and Loomis(1993) CVM zero-bids 47% PRF. 10) 사업계획에대한반대, 지불수단에대한불만, 설문자체에대한반감 CVM ( [2011]; Strazzera et al.[2003]; McFadden[1994]). 11) WTP 0 CVM.. 0, PRF. CVM. PRF. CVM 0 PRF (McFadden[1994]). <Table 1> ( ),,, CVM 0., (4) zero-bids.. 11) CVM,,,,,. KDI CVM CVM. (2011).

152 韓國開發硏究 / 2012. Ⅰ Ⅲ. KDI 의 CVM 데이터에대한지불거부응답의판별 1999. (,, ), (, ), (,,, ). KDI CVM ( [2011]). KDI CVM PRF, zero-bids. <Table 4> 22 KDI. zero-bids 3 (B2, F1, F2) 40~50%,. 1. 선행연구와 KDI CVM 설문에서의 PRF 비교 <Table 2> PRF. <Table 2> PRF KDI ( ), ( ), ( ). KDI (bad) (, 0 ), PRF. KDI 0 PRF,..

지불거부응답의판별 153 <Table 4> Protest Responses in KDI CVM Studies Project Type Date/Questionaire Type 1) the Proportion of Zero-Bid the Proportion of PR Zero-Bids SOC Redevelopment A1 2007.06/2 63.1% 36.8% Science Facilities B1(1st) 2008.07/2 50.5% 15.7% B1(2nd) 2008.08/2 53.8% 22.2% B1(3rd) 2008.12/2 58.6% 21.8% B2(1st) 2008.07/2 17.8% 3.2% B2(2nd) 2008.09/2 52.8% 24.0% B2(3rd) 2008.12/2 52.6% 24.3% B3X(region X)* 2006.10/0 42.2% - B3X(region Y)* 2006.10/0 77.1% - B3Y(region Y)* 2006.10/0 45.6% - B3Y(region X)* 2006.10/0 76.5% - Ecological Resources D1 2009.03/1 53.3% 29.2% Sports and Cultural Facilities Improving Water Supply Service D2 2007.08/1 42.2% 28.4% D3 2007.08/2 50.5% 29.8% D4 2009.03/1 49.6% 33.9% C1 2007.08/2 57.8% 34.6% C2 2008.09/2 46.7% 29.4% C3 2007.08/2 51.3% 28.0% C4 2008.02/2 44.3% 28.1% C5 2008.06/2 36.8% 18.4% D1 2008.03/2 46.7% 28.7% D2 2009.02/2 57.0% 30.9% F1** 2008.06/2 93.0% 41.7% F2 2009.02/0 26.3% 20.1% Note: 1) 0 = a non-dichotomous survey 1 = a dichotomous survey without the Kriström question( Will you never be willing to pay $1 for the project? ) 2 = a dichotomous survey with the Kriström question *: not used in emphirical analysis since it does not include PRF items. B3X(region X) is a CVM survey conducted in region X on a project implemented in region X. B3X(region Y) is a CVM survey asked to the same respondents of B3X(region X) on a project implemented in region Y. Both B3Y(region Y) and B3Y(region X) are difined in the same way. The proportion of respondents who live in the project area is 45% for both B3X and B3Y. **: not used in empirical analysis using probit models in this paper since WTP was asked using open-ended question format instead of using reference values.

154 韓國開發硏究 / 2012. Ⅰ ( ) PRF( : ) KDI. 0 PRF, 1? PRF. <Table 3> <Table 2> PRF. PRF KDI,. PRF 2009 CVM..,. 2. 지불의사액이 0 인이유 (PRF) 의분포 22 KDI CVM PRF 20 19,501. zero-bid 50.4% 9,834, zero-bid 4,702. (2,894 ), (1,242 ) zero-bids (Table 5)., 0 zero-bids 52.2% 5,132. 77.8% PRF, 0 (3,972 ). 872, 42, 169. 40,

지불거부응답의판별 155 <Table 5> A Distribution of PRF Items Proposed as the Reason for Offering Zero-Bids Reasons for Offering Zero-Bids PR Zero-Bids? Frequency public bads - cannot afford to pay 1,172 zero-marginal utility 2,870 no plan to use 51 a negligible change in E 1) - not enough information is given: uncertainty 2) 40 distrust toward government 872 don't believe that the project achieves the goal 42 unfair to ask me to pay 3,972 ill-feeling against the project 170 Note: 1) This item has never been included as a PRF item in KDI CVM studies. 2) Only one CVM study (D4 in Table 4) includes this item. PRF 1 CVM (D4). CVM 343 40 0. 3. 국외 CVM 설문과 KDI CVM 설문에서의지불거부응답비율비교 <Table 6> Meyerhoff and Liebe(2010) 38 254 CVM, KDI. KDI, 26.5%, 30.5%. (,,,,, ), (17.6%), (20.2%), (17.3%), (18.4%), (9.5%). Meyerhoff and Liebe(2010)

156 韓國開發硏究 / 2012. Ⅰ <Table 6> An International Comparison on the Proportion of Protest Responses in CVM Studies Related to Environmental Projects # of CVM studies mean median minimum maximum Australia 8 22.91 24.71 12.12 31.21 Austria 2 5.73 5.73 2.00 9.47 Belgium 3 10.65 7.00 5.00 19.96 Brazil 1 39.34 39.34 39.34 39.34 Canada 3 19.91 16.72 15.97 27.02 China 4 18.40 19.13 2.84 35.20 Croatia 2 6.86 6.86 5.63 8.09 Czech Republic 2 9.23 9.23 6.46 12.00 Denmark 15 9.25 5.01 0.00 31.79 Finland 15 15.72 15.80 5.50 22.50 France 4 21.06 16.57 10.1 40.94 Germany 17 20.15 19.00 3.16 56.52 Greece 15 18.02 15.00 3.50 59.29 Hungary 1 10.85 10.85 10.85 10.85 India 1 36.44 36.44 36.44 36.44 Ireland 1 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 Israel 2 10.33 10.33 9.33 11.33 Italy 2 7.90 7.90 0.80 15.00 Japan 2 17.30 17.30 15.32 19.29 Lithuania 2 16.70 16.70 8.00 25.39 Malaysia 3 21.25 20.83 16.26 26.67 Mexico 1 12.59 12.59 12.59 12.59 Netherland 11 13.83 11.00 2.39 32.23 New Zealand 5 21.16 26.00 12.00 28.00 Norway 5 14.07 13.60 10.82 17.33 Philippines 3 14.43 14.43 14.36 14.49 Poland 7 30.05 24.20 14.82 51.00 Portugal 10 18.04 18.96 5.97 30.21 Puerto Rico 1 36.11 36.11 36.11 36.11 Slovenia 1 41.03 41.03 41.03 41.03 Spain 19 18.89 21.29 0.00 47.70 Sweden 2 6.77 6.77 6.40 7.13 Switzerland 7 22.13 15.19 10.29 47.00 Taiwan 2 9.52 9.52 6.55 12.50 UK 33 18.62 20.86 1.26 46.86 USA 41 17.64 17.14 0.00 45.25 Vietnam 1 29.20 29.20 29.20 29.20 Total(Except Korea) 254 17.73 16.13 0 59.29 Korea 20 26.46 28.24 3.20 41.70 Environmental valuation 6 30.52 29.50 20.11 41.70 dichotomous choice format 19 25.66 28.07 3.20 36.80 ** (3) (30.50) (29.20) (28.40) (33.90) open-ended question format 1 41.70 41.70 41.70 41.70 Source: Meyerhoff and Liebe(2010) except for Korean statistics which were computed using CVM studies at KDI. ** indicates that the survey was designed as a dichotomous choice format but the Kriström's question asking if a No-No respondent is willing to pay $1.

지불거부응답의판별 157., CVM, CVM. KDI CVM 20 1 19 Meyerhoff and Liebe(2010)., KDI 1 (Table 4 F1), Meyerhoff and Liebe(2010) (26.5%) (41.7%). 19 KDI 3 Kriström (1997) 3 ( 1? ), (30.5%) (Table 4 Table 6 ). Ⅳ. 지불거부응답의특징 CVM., 0 WTP. CVM (Johnson[2006]; Morrison et al.[2000]; Chien et al.[2005]; del Saz Salazar and Menendez, [2007]; Meyerhoff and Liebe[2010]; Boyle and Bishop[1988]). Calia and Strazzera(2001) (2009), (random) (selectivity bias)., (selection model), (double hurdle model), (spike model) (Strazzera et al. [2003]).,.

158 韓國開發硏究 / 2012. Ⅰ 19 CVM 1 8,. Probit. KDI CVM ( [2009]). (2009),. (2009) Jorgensen and Syme(2000),,.,. CVM. (2011), Probit., (Jorgensen et al.[2006]; Kahneman[1986]; Diamond and Hausman[1993]; Schkade and Payne[1994]),. (2009). (2009) ( ),., <Table 7> KDI CVM.,,,,,,,,.

지불거부응답의판별 159 <Table 7> Social, Demographic or Economic Characteristics by Response Types PR Zero-Bids (Nobs = 4,715) Zero-Bids (Nobs = 8,904) Non-PR Zero-Bids (Nobs = 4,189) Non-Zero Bids (Nobs = 9,597) Mean 3) Standard Deviation Mean 3) Standard Deviation Mean 3) Standard Deviation Female(D) 0.49 0.50 0.52 0.50 0.50 0.50 Residency in the Project Area 1) (D) 0.36 0.48 0.27 0.44 0.36 0.48 Plan to Use(D) 0.46 0.50 0.33 0.47 0.76 0.42 Unemployment(D) 0.006 0.08 0.01 0.136 0.009 0.10 Experiences of Using Similar Facilities(D) 0.49 0.50 0.45 0.50 0.59 0.49 Age(C) 43.71 9.30 44.71 9.76 42.73 9.25 Schooling Years(C) 12.60 4.51 11.84 4.20 12.92 4.22 The Number of Family Members Younger than 18 Years Old(C) 1.37 0.89 1.20 0.93 1.36 0.89 The Number of Family Members(C) 3.56 1.01 3.49 1.01 3.59 0.99 Monthly Household Income(C) 272.84 119.05 251.80 127.57 264.77 145.63 Initial Reference Values Asked in the Survey(C) 4,689.93 5,312.68 6427.20 14034.41 7773.99 21114.43 Distance to the Facility 2) (C) 2.61 1.51 2.84 1.55 2.77 1.58 Personal Interest on the Project in Question(C) 0.86 0.85 0.89 0.83 1.16 0.90 Note: 1) The value is 1 if a respondent lives in either the exact or neighboring areas where the project is placed. Otherwise, 0. 2) Only ten KDI CVM studies enclosed this item. Thus, this variable is not used in estimating probit models. 3) D = a dummy variable, C = a continous variable, Mean = mean for a C variable; the proportion of cases with a dummy variable = 1 for a D variable.,,, zero-bids, zero-bids. zero-

160 韓國開發硏究 / 2012. Ⅰ bids, zero-bids. KDI. 20 KDI. <Table 7> 10., Probit 20. <Table 4> 22 zero-bids B3X B3Y, Probit F1 19 CVM 18,501. <Table 8> 18,501. Probit., (parameters),,. 18. 19 CVM. 12) P r Pr Pr Probit (ML) <Table 9>. 0,.,,,,. 13) CVM, 12) <Table 9>. 13) CVM (2009)..

지불거부응답의판별 161 <Table 8> Summary Statistics (N of Obs. = 18,501) Variables Variable Type* Mean* Standard Error Protest Response D 4,740 - Female D 9,241 - Residency in the Project Area D 6,283 - Plan to Use D 9,027 - Unemployment D 196 - Experiences of Using Similar Facilities D 53.15 - Age C 43.43 9.41 Schooling Years C 12.59 4.32 The Number of Family Members Younger than 18 Years Old C 1.33 0.90 The Number of Family Members C 3.56 1.00 Monthly Household Income(unit: 10,000 Korean Won) C 263.8 135.5 Initial Reference Values Asked in the Survey(unit: Korean Won) C 6,683 16,872 Note: * D = a dummy variable, C = a continous variable, Mean = mean for a C variable; the proportion of cases with a dummy variable = 1 for a D variable. <Table 9> Estimation Outcomes of the Probit Model for Protest Responses and Zero-bids Variables Protest Responses Model 1) Zero-Bid Model 2) Estimate SE Estimate SE Constant Term -0.7476 (0.1170)*** 0.8001 (0.1129)*** Female -0.0304 (0.0245) 0.0338 (0.0235) Residency in the Project Area 0.2342 (0.0288)*** 0.1452 (0.0278)*** Plan to Use -0.4054 (0.0258)*** -1.0512 (0.0256)*** Unemployment -0.4263 (0.1359)*** -0.1284 (0.1180) Experiences of Using Similar Facilities -0.0673 (0.0302)** -0.1815 (0.0282)*** Age -0.0001 (0.0016) 0.0024 (0.0015) Schooling Years -0.0034 (0.3687) -0.0142 (0.0039)*** The Number of Family Members Younger than 18 Years Old 0.0006 (0.0205) -0.0271 (0.0194) The Number of Family Members 0.0017 (0.0190) 0.0007 (0.0181) Monthly Household Income -0.0003 (0.0001)** -0.0008 (0.0001)*** Initial Reference Values Asked in the Survey 2.3e-6 (1.4e-6)*** 3.3e-6 (8.6e-7)*** Project dummies 18 dummies are used 18 dummies are used LR-Chi2 value 956.42*** 2745.00*** Note: 1) The value of dependent variable equals to 1 in case of a protest response, 0 otherwise. 2) The value of dependent variable equals to 1 in case of a zero-bid, 0 otherwise. *, **, *** represent that the null hypothesis ( =0) is reject at 10%, 5%, and 1% significance levels respectively.

162 韓國開發硏究 / 2012. Ⅰ. 14) (parameter estimates) 0,. (selectivity bias)., <Table 9> zero-bids Probit. Probit,., <Table 7>, zero-bids. zero-bids. (2006) zero-bid PRF, PR PRF non-pr zero-bid PRF. zero-bids. 15) WTP zero-bid zero-bids (2011). <Table 10> (,, 18,,, ) 1%, ( 0 1 )., 14), zero-bid. WTP., (2011) WTP WTP,. 15), KDI CVM PRF.

지불거부응답의판별 163 <Table 10> Elasticities of the Probability to Protest Explanatory Variables PR Zero-Bids Zero-Bids Female(D) -0.0205 0.0139 Residency in the Project Area(D) 0.0898*** 0.0341*** Plan to Use(D) -0.3092*** -0.4910*** Unemployment(D) -0.0058*** -0.0011 Experiences of Using Similar Facilities(D) -0.0423** -0.0699*** Age(C) -0.0061 0.0831 Schooling Years(C) -0.0549-0.1421*** The Number of Family Members Younger than 18 Years Old(C) 0.0010-0.0280 The Number of Family Members(C) 0.0083 0.0021 Monthly Household Income(C) -0.0868** -0.1588*** Initial Reference Values Asked in the Survey(C) 0.0223* 0.0200*** Note: *,**,*** represent that the null hypothesis (β=0) is reject at 10%, 5%, and 1% significance levels, respectively. For a continous explanatory x variable, elasticity informs us a change in the probability of being a protest response (or a zero-bid) in response to 1% change in x. For a dummy variable (D), elasticity informs us a change in the probability of being a protest response (or a zero-bid) in response to a change of D from 0 to 1.., zero-bids, ( ).

164 韓國開發硏究 / 2012. Ⅰ Ⅴ. 결론 (protest response PR zero-bids) CVM. zero-bids. zero-bids zero-bids.,. 1 WTP.,, (0),, PRF zero-bids, PRF(,,,,, CVM ) zero-bids. KDI 20 CVM 2, 25%. Probit. WTP. CVM., ( 25%). Probit,,,, CVM

지불거부응답의판별 165.,.,., Kriström(1997). ( ). PR zero-bid, (experiments) PR zero-bid.,,,.

166 韓國開發硏究 / 2012. Ⅰ 참고문헌, CVM (KDI ): WTP, 2011.,,, 3 2,, 2002, pp.1 23., CVM (KDI ): WTP, 2011., CVM,, 20 3, 2011, pp.595~628.,,, 2 4, 2009, pp.89~117., :,, 17 1, 2011., CVM (KDI ):, 2011., :,, 17 1, 2011.,,, 17, 2006., ( 5 ), 2008., /,, 2003. Aprahamian, F., O. Chanel, and S. Luchini, Modeling Starting Point Bias as Unobserved Heterogeneity in Contingent Valuation Surveys: An Application to Air Pollution, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 89, No. 2, 2007, pp.533~547. Bateman I. J., R. T. Carson, B. Day, W. M. Hanemann, N. Hanleys, T. Hett, M. Jones-Lee, G. Loomes, S. Mourato, E. Ozdemiroglu, D. Pearce, R. Sugden, and J. Swanson, Economic Valuation with State Preference Techniques. a Manual Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2002. Bergstrom, J. C., J. R. Stoll, and A. Randall, Information Effects in Continent Markets, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 71, 1989, pp.685~691. Blamey, R., Contingent Valuation and the Activation of Environmental Norms, Ecological Economics, Vol. 24, No. 1, 1998, pp.47~72. Bohara, A. K., J. Jerkvliet, and R. P. Berrens, Addressing Negative Willingness to Pay in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation: A Monte Carlo Simulation, Environmental and

지불거부응답의판별 167 Resource Economics, Vol. 20, 2001, pp.173~195. Boyle, K. J. and R. C. Bishop, Welfare Measurements Using Contingent Valuation: A Comparison of Techniques, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 70, No. 1, 1988, pp.20~28. Brouwer, R., N. Powe, T. R. Kerry, I. J. Bateman, and I. H. Langford, Public Attitudes to Contingent Valuation and Public Consultation, Environmental Values, Vol. 8, 1999, pp.325~347. Brown, T. C., S. C. Barro, M. J. Manfredo, and G. L. Peterson, Does Better Information about the Good Avoid the Embedding Effect? Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 44, 1995, pp.1~10. Calia, P. and E. Strazzera, A Sample Selection Model for Protest Responses in Contingent Valuation Analyses, Statistica, Vol. 61, No. 3, 2001, pp.473~485. Chien, Y. L., C. J. Huang, and D. Shaw, A General Model of Starting Point Bias in Double-bounded Dichotomous Contingent Valuation Surveys, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 50, 2005, pp.362~377. Cummings, R. G., P. T. Ganderton, and T. McGuckin, Substitution Effects in CVM Values, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 76, 1994, pp.205~214. del Saz Salazar, S. and L. G. Menendez, Estimating the Non-market Benefits of an Urban Park: Does Proximity Matter? Land Use Policy, Vol. 24, 2007, pp.296~305. Diamond, P. A. and J. A. Hausman, On Contingent Valuation Measurement of Nonuse Values, in J. A. Hausman (ed.), Contingent Valuation: Critical Assessment, Elsevier, Amsetdam, 1993. DuVair, P. and J. Loomis, Household s Valuation of Alternative Levels of Hazardous Waste Risk Reductions: an Application of the Referendum Format Contingent Valuation Method, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 39, 1993, pp.143~155. Griffin, R. C. and J. W. Mjelde, Valuing Water Supply Reliability, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 82, 2000, pp.414~426. Haab, T. and K. E. McConnell, Referendum Models and Negative Willingness to Pay: Alternative Solutions, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 43, No. 2, 1997, pp.251~270. Haab, T. and K. E. McConnell, Referendum Models and Economic Values: Theoretical, Intuitive, and Practical Bounds on Willingness to Pay, Land Economics, Vol. 74, No. 2, 1998, pp.216~229. Hoevenagel, R. and J. W. van der Linden, Effects of Different Descriptions of the Ecological Good on Willingness to Pay Values, Ecological Economics, Vol. 7, 1993, pp.223~238. Jakobsson, K. M. and A. K. Dragun, The Worth of a Possum: Valuing Species with the Contingent Valuation Method, Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 19, No. 3, 2001, pp.211~227. Johnson, L. T., Distributional Preferences in Contingent Valuation Surveys, Ecological Economics, Vol. 56, 2006, pp.475~487. Jorgensen, B. S. and G. J. Syme, Protest Responses and Willingness to Pay: Attitude Toward Paying For Stormwater Pollution Abatement, Ecological Economics, Vol. 33, 2000, pp.251~265.

168 韓國開發硏究 / 2012. Ⅰ Jorgensen, B. S., G. J. Syme, and B. E. Nancarrow, The Role of Uncertainty in the Relationship Between Fairness Evaluations and Willingnes to Pay, Ecological Economics, Vol. 56, 2006, pp.104~124. Kahneman, D., Comments, in R. G. Cummings, D. S. Brookshire, and W. D. Schulze, Valuing Environmental Goods: A State of the Arts Assessment of the Contingent Method, erowman and Allanheld, N. J., 1986. Kriström, B., Spike Models in Contingent Valuation, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 79, 1997, pp.1013~1023. Loomis, J. and E. Ekstrand, Alternative Approaches for Incorporating Respondent Uncertainty When Estimating Willingness to Pay: the Case of the Mexican Spotted Owl, Ecological Economics, Vol. 27, 1998, pp.29~42. McFadden, D., Contingent Valuation and Social Choice, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 76, 1994, pp.689~708. Meyerhoff, J. and U. Liebe, Do Protest Responses to a Contingent Valuation Question and a Choice Experiment Differ? Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 39, 2008, pp.433~446. Meyerhoff, J. and U. Liebe, Determinants of Protest Responses in Environmental Valuation, Ecological Economics, Vol. 70, 2010, pp.366~374. Mitchell, R. C. and R. T. Carson, Using Survey to Value Public Goods: the Contingent Valuation Method, Resources for the Future, Washington D.C., 1989. Morrison, M. D., R. K. Blamey, and J. W. Bennett, Minimizing Payment Vehicle Bias in Contingent Valuation Studies, Environmental and Resorce Economics, Vol. 16, No. 4, 2000, pp.407~422. Oh, H. and J. H. Hong, Citizens Trust in Government and Their Willingness-To-Pay, Economics Letters, Vol. 115, 2012, pp.345~347. Ready, R. C., J. C. Whitehead, and G. C. Blomquist, Contingent Valuation When Respondents Are Ambivalent, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 29, 1995, pp.181~196. Schkade, D. A. and J. W. Payne, How People Respond to Contingent Valuation Questions: a Verbal Protocol Analysis of Willingness to Pay for an Environmental Regulation, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 26, 1994, pp.88~109. Schuman, H., The Sensitivity of CV Outcomes to CV Survey Methods, in D. J. Bjornstad and J. R. Kahn (eds.), The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resources: Methodological Issues and Research Needs, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 1996. Söderquist, T., Why Give Up Money for the Baltic Sea? Movies for People s Willingness (or Reluctance) to Pay, Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 12, 1998, pp.249~254. Strazzera, E., R. Scarpa, P. Calia, G. D. Garrod., and K. G. Willis, Modelling Zero Values and Protest Responses in Contingent Valuation Surveys, Applied Economics, Vol. 35, 2003, pp.133~138.