Effects of the Project Investments and Valuation of the Water Quality Improvement of the River Taehwa in Ulsan, Korea

  • Jae Hong KimEmail author
Part of the New Frontiers in Regional Science: Asian Perspectives book series (NFRSASIPER, volume 25)


This study analyzes the effects of the project investments on the river water quality improvement and also provides contingent valuation estimates of household’s willingness to pay (WTP) to continue public investment to the river water quality improvement and maintenance. The estimation results using the OLS regression models with correction of autocorrelation show that the household soil pipe connection project with investment of 26.7 billion KRW has reduced 1.68 ppm in BOD and that the project dredging sediments at the river bottom with investment of 16 billion KRW has resulted in the decrease of 1.12 ppm in BOD at the downstream of the River Taehwa. Using a contingent valuation method with multiple choices in consideration of respondent’s uncertainty, the estimation results of four logit models show that truncated mean household’s WTP is estimated from 1224.7 KRW to 2747 KRW for the respective four models. The present values of total social benefits in the Ulsan Metropolitan City are estimated from 196 billion KRW to 441 billion KRW for the respective four models, when applying the 3 % discount rate.


Water quality improvement Soil pipe connection Dredging sediment Contingent valuation Preference uncertainty Correction of autocorrelation 


  1. Alberini, A., K. Boyle, and M. Welsh. 2003. Analysis of contingent valuation data with multiple bids and response options allowing respondents to express uncertainty. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 45: 40–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arrow, R.J., E. Solow, E. Leamer, P. Portney, R. Radner, and H. Schuman. 1993. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register 58: 4601–4614.Google Scholar
  3. Berrens, R.P., H.K. Smith, A.K. Bohara, and C.L. Silva. 2002. Further investigation of voluntary contribution contingent valuation: Fair share, time contribution, and response uncertainty. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 44: 144–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cameron, T.A. 1988. A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: Maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 15: 355–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carson, R.T., W.M. Hanemann, R.J. Kopp, J.A. Krosnick, R.C. Mitchell, S. Presser, P.A. Ruud, and V.R. Smith. 1994. Prospect interim lost use value due to DDT and PCB contamination in the Southern California bight. A Report of National Resource Damage Assessment, Inc. and Industrial Economics, Inc. to US NOAA.Google Scholar
  6. Chang, J.I., S.H. Yoo, and S.J. Kwak. 2005. An empirical investigation of contingent valuation method with preference uncertainty. Environmental and Resource Economics Review 14(1): 75–245.Google Scholar
  7. Chang, J.-I., S.-H. Yoo, and S.-J. Kwak. 2007. An investigation of preference uncertainty in the contingent valuation study. Applied Economics Letters 14: 691–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Greene, W. 2003. Econometric Analysis. 5th Edition, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.Google Scholar
  9. Hanemann, W.M. 1984. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete response. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66: 332–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kim, J.H. 2007. Social benefits of improved water quality at the Taehwa river based on citizen’s willingness-to pay. Journal of Environmental Policy 6(1): 83–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kim, J.H. 2009. The effects of the project investment for water quality improvement in the river Taehwa. Korea Spatial Planning Review 62: 263–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Krinsky, I., and A.I. Robb. 1986. On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Review of Economics and Statistics 68: 713–719.Google Scholar
  13. Krinsky, I., and A.I. Robb. 1990. On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities: Correction. Review of Economics and Statistics 72: 189–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Li, C.-Z., and L. Mattsson. 1995. Discrete choice under preference uncertainty: An improved structural model for contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 28: 256–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Loomis, J., and E. Ekstrand. 1998. Alternative approaches for incorporating respondent uncertainty when estimating willingness to pay: The case of Mexican Spotted Owl. Ecological Economics 27: 29–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McConell, K.E. 1990. Models for referendum data: The structure of discrete choice models for contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 18: 19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ready, R.C., J.C. Whitehead, and G.C. Bloomquist. 1995. Contingent valuation when respondents are ambivalent. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 29: 181–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wang, H. 1997. Treatment of “don’t-know” responses in contingent valuation surveys: A random valuation model. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 32: 219–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Welsh, M.P., and G.L. Poe. 1998. Elicitation effects in contingent valuation: Comparisons to a multiple bounded discrete choice approach. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 38: 170–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Whitehead, J., G. Blomquist, R. Ready, and J. Huang. 1998. Construct validity of dichotomous choice contingent valuation questions. Environmental and Resource Economics 11: 107–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Whittington, D., G. Cassidy, D. Amaral, E. McClelland, H. Wang, and C. Poulos. 1994. The economic value of improving the environmental quality of Galveston Bay. The Calveston Bay national estuary program.Google Scholar
  22. Yoo, S.H. 2007. Using one and one-half bounded dichotomous choice model to measure the economic benefit.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Public Administration, School of Social SciencesUniversity of UlsanUlsanKorea

Personalised recommendations