, 40 12 (2006 6) : 1) ** ** (CVM, Contingent Valuation Method). 1980. 2, 3. 4. I... (, 2000;, 2006). * (), e-mail: solim@sangji.ac.kr **, e-mail: shin@kmi.re.kr
252, 40 12. (, 2000). 1).. (Contingent Valuation Mehtod; CVM).. CVM. 30,. (, 2003).. 2) 2 3 1) (,,,, ) (2006), pp.21-28. 2) CVM Navrud and Ready(2002), Noonan (2003), (2006).
253. 4. II. CVM. CVM,.,. CVM (Hicksian welfare) (Hanemann, 1984; Hanemann, 1989; Hanemann et al., 1991). CVM,. CVM CVM (Loomis, 1990; Arrow et al., 1993). CVM (Habb and McConnell, 2002). CVM. (marginal benefit). CVM,,, (strategic behavior) (dichotomous). (payment vehicle) (hypothetical bias). (Water Resource Council), (Environmental Protection Agency, EPA). 3)
254, 40 12,, (Mitchell and Carson, 1989; O'Doherty, 1996; Yoo, 2002; Navrud and Ready, 2002). CVM [ 1]. Hanemann(1984, 1989) CVM (Willingness-to-pay; WTP). 4), ( )(1)., (1) (1),,,,, 3) CVM. WRC(Water Resources Council) 1979 CVM, ACE(U.S Army Corps of Engineers) CVM 20., EPA CVM. 4) (WTP) (CVM). CVM [ 1],. WTP CVM.
255 (),, (deterministic)(stochastic).,. (1),?. (2)
256, 40 12 (+).. Δ η η Δ (3) η, η Δ, Δ η (cumulative distribution function). WTP (4). (4) (3) (4) (5). η Δ (5) (5). WTP. WTP( ). (6) III. CVM,
257,,. 1 (pretest)..,,,,,. [ 2],..... CVM.....
258, 40 12,..,..,,.. -..,,.,,,,,.,.
259. CVM. CVM (open-ended question), (bidding game), (payment card), (dichotomous choice question).. NOAA CVM., 1,000, 1,000.. 1, /.,. 5).,..,, 5) (pretest).
260, 40 12., (statistical efficiency) 2, 1/2. 10,000, 20,000, 30,000, 40,000 20,000, 40,000, 60,000, 80,000, 5,000, 10,000, 15,000, 20,000. CVM. 20 (pretest), 5,000 35,000 10. 6) () () (%) (%) 5,000 25 10.0 10.0 6,000 25 10.0 20.0 8,000 25 10.0 30.0 10,000 25 10.0 40.0 15,000 25 10.0 50.0 18,000 25 10.0 60.0 20,000 25 10.0 70.0 25,000 25 10.0 80.0 30,000 25 10.0 90.0 35,000 25 10.0 100.0 250 100-6) 2006 2.
261 2006 3,..,..,. (random sampling), 250. () (%) (%) 25 10.0 10.0 20 8.0 18.0 20 8.0 26.0 20 8.0 34.0 15 6.0 40.0 15 6.0 46.0 15 6.0 52.0 15 6.0 58.0 15 6.0 64.0 15 6.0 70.0 15 6.0 76.0 13 5.2 81.2 13 5.2 86.4 11 4.4 90.8 10 4.0 94.8 7 2.8 97.6 6 2.4 100.0 250 100 -
262, 40 12 () (%) (%) 125 50 50 125 50 100 250 100 - () (%) (%) 5 1.6 1.6 57 32.8 34.4 40 37.6 72.0 104 25.6 97.6 2 0.8 98.4 4 1.6 100.0 250 100.0 - () (%) (%) 6 2.4 2.4 9 3.6 6.0 128 51.2 57.2 100 40.0 97.2 7 2.8 100.0 250 100.0 -,,. 2006 3
263.. CVM. 7) 귀하께서는박경리선생께서원주에거주를하면서문화활동을하도록하기위하여향후 년간매년가구총지방세로 제시금액 원을추가적으로지불할의사가있으십니까 있다 로가십시오 없다 으로가십시오 그렇다면귀하께서는박경리선생께서원주에거주를하면서문화활동을하도록하기위하여향후 년간매년가구총지방세로 의 배가격 원을추가적으로지불할의사가있으십니까 있다 로가십시오 없다 로가십시오 그렇다면귀하께서는박경리선생께서원주에거주를하면서문화활동을하도록하기위하여향후 년간매년가구총지방세를통해 의 배가격 원을추가적으로지불할의사가있으십니까 있다 로가십시오 없다 로가십시오 그렇다면귀하의가구는단 원도지불할의사가없으십니까 낼의사가없다 로가십시오 조금은낼의사가있다 로가십시오 7) (2006).
264, 40 12 IV. WTP (Maximum Likelihood Estimation) < 6>. Wald 1% 5%. Log-likelihood Wald (p-value) WTP t-value 95% 99% 0.344 (2.351)* 250-315.35 113.74 (0.000)** 12551 10.86** 10828-14757 10519-15221 : t-. ** 1%. Wald 0, p-. 1,000. 95% 99% Krinsky and Robb(1986) (Monte-Carlo simulation) 5,000. WTP 12,551, t-value 10.86 0 1% WTP
265. WTP Krinsky and Robb(1986) (Monte Carlo simulation). <6> 95% 99%.. WTP CVM. : / WTP 85,400 10.71 WTP.. 2000 85,400 10.71. 5.
266, 40 12 V.,. 13,000., 11 (, ). 8),.,.,.,,... 8), 10,000. 5 50., 10, 5. (2006).
267 () ()., 1995,,., 2003,,, 153, pp. 209-235., 1994. :,., 2004,,, 10 1, pp. 299-317., 2000,,, 13 1, pp. 27-48., 2003,,, 7 1, pp. 49-57., 2002, Applying the Contingent Valuation Method to Measuring Inconvenience Cost of Spam Mail, 2002, pp. 247-279., 2000, (),,, 2, pp. 279-297., 2004,,,, 7 1, pp. 51-75., 2006,,. (), 2005,,.
268, 40 12 Arrow, K., R. Solow, P.R. Portney, E.E. Leamer, R. Radner and H. Schuman (1993), Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. Baumol, William J. and Bowen, William G. (1966), Performing Arts: The Economic Dilemma, the MIT Press. Bille Hansen, Trine (1995), The Willingness-to-Pay for the Royal Theatre in Copenhagen as a Public Good, Journal of Behavioral Economics, 21: 1-28. Frey, Bruno S. and Pommerehne, Werner W. (1989), Muses and Markets: Explorations in the Economics of the Arts. Blackwell, Oxford. Frey, Bruno S. (2000), Arts & Economics: Analysis & Cultural Policy, Springer, Berlin. Habb, T.C. and K.E. McConnell (2002), Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources, Edward Elgar. Hanemann, W. M. (1984), Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete responses, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 66, pp. 332-341. Hanemann, W. M. (1989), Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses; Reply, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 71, pp. 1057-1061. Hanemann, W.M., J.B. Loomis and B.J. Kaninnen (1991), Statistical Efficiency of Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 73, pp. 1255-1263. Krinsky, I. and A.L. Robb (1986), On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities, Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 68, pp. 715-719. Loomis, J (1990), Comparative Reliability of the Dichotomous Choice and Open-Ended Contingent Valuation Techniques, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 18, pp.78-85. Mitchell, R.C., and R.T. Carson (1989), Using Surveys to Public Goods: the Contingent Valuation Method, Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C.
269 Morrison, William G. and West, Edwin G. (1986), Subsidies for the Performing Arts: Evidence on Voter Preference, Journal of Behavioral Economics, 15: 57-22. Navrud, Stale and Ready, Richard C. (2002) (eds.), Valuing Cultural Heritage: Appling Environmental Valuation Techniques to Historic Buildings, Monuments and Artifacts, Edward Elgar, Chelteham, UK and Norhtampton, MA, USA Noonan, Douglas S. (2003), Contingent Valuation and Cultural Resources: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Literature, Journal of Cultural Economics, 27: 159-176. O'Doherty, R. (1996), Planning, People and Preferences: A Role for Contingent Valuation, Avebury, Aldershot. Park, T., J. B., Loomis, and M. Creel (1991), Confidence Intervals for Evaluating Benefits Estimates from Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Studies, Land Economics, Vol. 67, pp. 64-73. Throsby, David and Withers, Glenn (1983), Measuring the Demand for the Arts as a Public Good: Theory and Empirical Results, in W.S. Hendon and J.L. Shanahan (eds.), Economics of Cultural Decisions, Abt Books, Cambrideg, Mass. Throsby, David (2001), Economics and Culture, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (,,, 2004) Yoo, S.-H. (2002), Extending Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Methods to Pre-test-market Evaluation: the Case of a Cable Television Service, Applied Economics Letters, Vol. 9, pp. 315-318.