Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 26, Issue 18, pp 18913–18920 | Cite as

How much value do people place on preserving the Seocheon coastal wetland in South Korea?

  • Ga-Eun Kim
  • Ju-Hee Kim
  • Seung-Hoon YooEmail author
Short Research and Discussion Article


The ecosystem of the Seocheon coastal wetland (SCW), one of the wetland protected areas in South Korea, was registered in the Ramsar Wetlands in 2009 as an area rich in biodiversity and inhabited by endangered wild animals and plants. Since then, preserving the ecosystem of the SCW has emerged as an important task. Thus, the South Korean government is carrying out various research and management projects to preserve the ecological integrity of the SCW. This article aims to analyze public willingness to pay for preserving the SCW. For this purpose, 1000 households were surveyed, applying the contingent valuation (CV) method during September 2017. The respondents clearly understood the CV question and gave meaningful answers. The results show that an average value for the preservation was statistically significantly estimated to be KRW 2341 (USD 2.04) for all respondents. The national value expanded from the sample to the population is worth KRW 47.79 billion (USD 42.15 million) per year. Therefore, it can be seen that the public have sufficient acceptance for preserving the SCW.


Seocheon coastal wetland Contingent valuation Preservation value Willingness to pay 


Funding information

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


  1. Arrow K, Solow R, Portney PR, Leamer EE, Radner R, Schuman H (1993) Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Fed Regist 58(10):4601–4614Google Scholar
  2. Bateman IJ, Langford IH, Jones AP, Kerr GN (2001) Bound and path effects in double and triple bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Resour Energy Econ 23(3):191–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennett MT, Gong Y, Scarpa R (2018) Hungry birds and angry farmers: using choice experiments to assess “eco-compensation” for coastal wetlands protection in China. Ecol Econ 154:71–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brent RJ (2006) Applied cost-benefit analysis, 2nd edn. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  5. Cameron TA, James MD (1987) Efficient estimation methods for “closed-ended” contingent valuation surveys. Rev Econ Stat 69:269–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cameron TA, Quiggin J (1994) Estimation using contingent valuation data from a “dichotomous choice with follow-up” questionnaire. J Environ Econ Manag 27(3):218–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carson RT, Hanemann WM (2005) Contingent Valuation. In: Maler KG, Vincent, JR (eds) The Handbook of Environmental Economics: Valuing Environmental ChangesGoogle Scholar
  8. Cooper JC, Hanemann M, Signorello G (2002) One and one-half bound dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Rev Econ Stat 84(4):742–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Costanza R, Farber SC, Maxwell J (1989) Valuation and management of wetland ecosystems. Ecol Econ 1(4):335–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gregg D, Wheeler SA (2018) How can we value an environmental asset that very few have visited or heard of? Lessons learned from applying contingent and inferred valuation in an Australian wetlands case study. J Environ Manag 220:207–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hammitt JK, Liu JT, Liu JL (2001) Contingent valuation of a Taiwanese wetland. Environ Dev Econ 6(2):259–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hanemann WM (1984) Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am J Agric Econ 66(3):332–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hanemann M, Loomis J, Kanninen B (1991) Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Am J Agric Econ 73(4):1255–1263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Huh SY, Shin JW (2018) Economic valuation of noise pollution control policy: does the type of noise matter? Environ Sci Pollut Res 25(30):30647–30658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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 93–128Google Scholar
  16. Jang J, Lee J, Yoo SH (2014) The public’s willingness to pay for securing a reliable natural gas supply in Korea. Energy Policy 69:3–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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(2):319–405Google Scholar
  18. Just RE, Hueth DL, Schmitz A (2004) The welfare economics of public policy: a practical approach to project and policy evaluation. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  19. Kim J, Lim SY, Yoo SH (2017) Public willingness to pay for restoring destroyed tidal flats and utilizing them as ecological resources in Korea. Ocean Coast Manag 142:143–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kim HJ, Jin SJ, Yoo SH (2018a) Public assessment of releasing a captive indo-pacific bottlenose dolphin into the wild in South Korea. Sustainability 10(9):3199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kim HJ, Lim SY, Yoo SH (2018b) Public preferences for district heating system over individual heating system: a view from national energy efficiency. Energy Effic:1–12Google Scholar
  22. Kim JH, Lim KK, Yoo SH (2019a) Evaluating residential consumers’ willingness to pay to avoid power outages in South Korea. Sustainability 11(5):1258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kim K, Shin J, Oh M, Jung JK (2019b) Economic value of traffic noise reduction depending on residents’ annoyance level. Environ Sci Pollut Res:1–13Google Scholar
  24. Korea Ministry of Environment (2009) A guide to wetland protected areas in Korea. Sejong, KoreaGoogle Scholar
  25. Korea Ministry of Environment (2014) Guide book for wetland policy managers. Sejong, KoreaGoogle Scholar
  26. Korea Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (2009) A study on Seocheon tidal flat wetland conservation plan. Sejong, KoreaGoogle Scholar
  27. Korea National Wetlands Center. Accessed 2 Jan 2019
  28. Krinsky I, Robb AL (1986) On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Rev Econ Stat 68:715–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kriström B (1997) Spike models in contingent valuation. Am J Agric Econ 79(3):1013–1023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kwak SJ, Yoo SH, Lee CK (2007) Valuation of the Woopo wetland in Korea: a contingent valuation study. Environ Dev Econ 12(2):323–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kwak SY, Yoo SH, Kim CS (2013) Measuring the willingness to pay for tap water quality improvements: results of a contingent valuation survey in Pusan. Water 5(4):1638–1652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lee JS, Yoo SH (2011) Willingness to pay for GMO labeling policies: the case of Korea. J Food Saf 31(2):160–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McFadden D (1994) Contingent valuation and social choice. Am J Agric Econ 76(4):689–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1989) Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Resources for the future, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  35. Nayga RM, Woodward R, Aiew W (2006) Willingness to pay for reduced risk of food borne illness: a non-hypothetical field experiment. Can J Agric Econ 54(4):461–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ndebele T, Forgie V (2017) Estimating the economic benefits of a wetland restoration programme in New Zealand: a contingent valuation approach. J Econ Anal Policy 55:75–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Park SY, Yoo SH, Kwak SJ (2013) The conservation value of the Shinan tidal flat in Korea: a contingent valuation study. Int J Sust Dev World Ecol 20(1):54–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Park SY, Lim SY, Yoo SH (2016) The economic value of the national meteorological service in the Korean household sector: a contingent valuation study. Sustainability 8(9):834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Perni Á, Martínez-Paz JM (2017) Measuring conflicts in the management of anthropized ecosystems: evidence from a choice experiment in a human-created Mediterranean wetland. J Environ Manag 203:40–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ponce RD, Vásquez F, Stehr A, Debels P, Orihuela C (2011) Estimating the economic value of landscape losses due to flooding by hydropower plants in the Chilean Patagonia. Water Resour Manag 25(10):2449–2466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Senzaki M, Yamaura Y, Shoji Y, Kubo T, Nakamura F (2017) Citizens promote the conservation of flagship species more than ecosystem services in wetland restoration. Biol Conserv 214:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Seocheon County. Wetlands of Seocheon County Accessed 3 Jan 2019
  43. Siew MK, Yacob MR, Radam A, Adamu A, Alias EF (2015) Estimating willingness to pay for wetland conservation: a contingent valuation study of Paya Indah wetland, Selangor Malaysia. Procedia Environ Sci 30:268–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Statistics Korea. Korea Statistical Information Service. Accessed 3 Jan 2019
  45. Stevens TH, Benin S, Larson JS (1995) Public attitudes and economic values for wetland preservation in New England. Wetlands 15(3):226–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sugden R (1999) Valuing environmental preferences: theory and practice of the contingent valuation method in the US, EU, and developing countries. In: Bateman IJ, Willis KG (eds) Public goods and contingent valuation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 131–151Google Scholar
  47. Suziana H (2017) Environmental attitudes and preference for wetland conservation in Malaysia. J Nat Conserv 37:133–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tan Y, Lv D, Cheng J, Wang D, Mo W, Xiang Y (2018) Valuation of environmental improvements in coastal wetland restoration: a choice experiment approach. Glob Ecol Conserv 15(1–8):e00440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. The Ramsar Convention Secretariat (2007) Handbook 12 : Wetland inventory, 3rd edit. SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  50. Trenholm R, Haider W, Lantz V, Knowler D, Haegeli P (2017) Landowner preferences for wetlands conservation programs in two southern Ontario watersheds. J Environ Manag 200:6–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Turner RK, Schaafsma M (2015) Coastal zones ecosystem services: from science to values and decision making. In: Turner RK, Schaafsma M (eds) Valuation of coastal and marine ecosystem. Springer, Cham, pp 103–126Google Scholar
  52. Wattage P, Mardle S (2008) Total economic value of wetland conservation in Sri Lanka identifying use and non-use values. Wetl Ecol Manag 16(5):359–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Whitehead JC (1990) Measuring willingness-to-pay for wetlands preservation with the contingent valuation method. Wetlands 10(2):187–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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. Dordrecht: Springer: 119–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Xiong K, Kong F (2017) The analysis of farmers’ willingness to accept and its influencing factors for ecological compensation of Poyang Lake wetland. Procedia Eng 174:835–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Yang HJ, Cho YS, Yoo SH (2017) Public willingness to pay for hydrogen stations expansion policy in Korea: results of a contingent valuation survey. Int J Hydrog Energy 42(16):10739–10746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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(14):929–932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Yoo SH, Kwak SJ (2009) Willingness to pay for green electricity in Korea: a contingent valuation study. Energy Policy 37(12):5408–5416CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Energy Policy, Graduate School of Energy & EnvironmentSeoul National University of Science & TechnologySeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations