Measuring the economic benefits of designating Baegnyeong Island in Korea as a marine protected area

References

• Agardy T. 1994. Advances in marine conservation: the role of marine protected areas. Trends Ecol Evol. 9:267–270.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arin T, Kramer RA. 2002. Divers’ willingness to pay to visit marine sanctuaries: an exploratory study. Ocean Coast Manag. 45:171–183.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arrow K, Solow R, Portney PR, Leamer EE, Radner R, Schuman H. 1993. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Washington (DC): U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
   Google Scholar
• Brown K, Adger N, Tompkins E, Bacon P, Shim D, Young K. 2001. Trade-off analysis for marine protected area management. Ecol Econ. 37:417–434.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cameron TA, James MD. 1987. Efficient estimation methods for ‘closed-ended’ contingent valuation surveys. Rev Econ Stat. 69:269–276.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carson RT, Groves T. 2007. Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environ Resour Econ. 37:181–210.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen WY, Jim CY. 2012. Contingent valuation of ecotourism development in country parks in the urban shadow. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol. 19:44–53.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choi H-Y, Kwak S-J, Yoo S-H. 2016. The preservation value of the Bangudae petroglyphs, the 285th Korean national treasure. J Cult Herit. 18:380–383.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooper JC, Hanemann M, Signorello G. 2002. One-and-one-half-bound dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Rev Econ Stat. 84:742–750.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dong J, Shen F. 1991. Estimates of historical population size for harbor seal in Liaodong Bay. Mar Sci. 3:26–31.
   Google Scholar
• Egan KJ, Corrigan JR, Dwyer DF. 2015. Three reasons to use annual payments in contingent valuation surveys: convergent validity, discount rates, and mental accounting. J Environ Econ Manage. 72:123–136.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall DC, Hall JV, Steven NM. 2002. Contingent valuation of marine protected areas: Southern California rocky intertidal ecosystems. Nat Resour Model. 15:335–368.
   Google Scholar
• Han JB, Wang W, Ma ZQ. 2005. Spotted seals in the estuary of Shuangtaizi River of Liaodong Bay. Mar Environ Sci. 24:51–53.
   Google Scholar
• Hanemann WM. 1984. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. J Am Agric Econ. 66:332–341.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanemann WM, Loomis J, Kanninen BJ. 1991. Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. J Am Agric Econ. 73:1255–1263.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hong S-K, Koh C-H, Harris RR, Kim J-E, Lee J-S, Ihm B-S. 2010. Land use in Korean tidal wetlands: impacts and management strategies. Environ Manag. 45:1014–1026.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jakobsson KM, Dragun AK. 1996. Contingent valuation and endangered species: methodological issues and applications. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Jones P. 2002. Marine protected area strategies; issues, divergences and the search for middle ground. Rev Fish Biol Fish. 11:197–216.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim JY, Mjelde JW, Kim TK, Lee CK, Ahn KM. 2012a. Comparing willingness-to-pay between residents and non-residents when correcting hypothetical bias: case of endangered spotted seal in South Korea. Ecol Econ. 78:123–131.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim GT, Choi YR, Jang JY, Kim WS. 2012b. The Yellow Sea ecoregion conservation project: the present situation and its implication. J Korean Mar Environ Eng. 15:337–348.
   Google Scholar
• Kontogianni A, Tourkolias C, Machleras A, Skourtos M. 2012. Service providing units, existence values and the valuation of endangered species: a methodological test. Ecol Econ. 79:97–104.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Korea Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs. 2011. The national 4th marine environment plan. Kwacheon: Korea Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs. (in Korean).
   Google Scholar
• Korea Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries. 2013. Press release for planning for designation of Baegnyeong Island. Sejong: Korea Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries. (in Korean).
   Google Scholar
• Korea Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries. 2015. Press release for Spotted Seals Management Plan. Sejong: Korea Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries. (in Korean).
   Google Scholar
• Krinsky I, Robb AL. 1986. On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Rev Econ Stat. 68:715–719.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kriström B. 1997. Spike model in contingent valuation. Am J Agric Econ. 79:1013–1023.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kwak SJ, Yoo SH, Chang JI. 2005. Measring the conservation value of lagoons: the case of Songji Lagoon. Ocean Polar Res. 27:161–169. (in Korean).
   Google Scholar
• Kwak SJ, Yoo SH, Han SY. 2003. Estimating the public value for urban forest in the Seoul Metropolitan area of Korea: a contingent valuation study. Urban Stu. 40:2207–2221.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kwak SJ, Yoo SH, Lee CK. 2007. Valuation of the Woopo Wetland in Korea: a contingent valuation study. Environ and Dev Econ. 12:323–328.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kwon YJ, Baek SK, Yoo SH. 2013. Measuring the conservation value of spotted seal in Korea. Korean Ocean Policy Res. 28:41–70. (in Korean).
   Google Scholar
• Lee CK, Mjelde JW. 2007. Valuation of ecotourism resources using a contingent valuation method: the case of the Korean DMZ. Ecol Econ. 63:511–520.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee J-S, Yoo S-H. 2009. Measuring the environmental costs of tidal power plant construction: a choice experiment study. Energy Policy. 37:5069–5074.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee MK, Yoo SH. 2016. Public’s willingness to pay for a marina port in Korea: a contingent valuation study. Ocean Coast Manag. 119:119–127.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McConnell KE. 1990. Models for referendum data: the structure of discrete choice models for contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manage. 18:19–34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park SY, Yoo SH, Kwak SJ. 2013. The conservation value of Shinan Tidal Flat in Korea: a contingent valuation study. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol. 20:54–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perez-Vazquez A, Anderson S, Wiltshire R, Fraser R. 2006. Valuing non-market benefits derived from allotments in southeast England: a contingent valuation study. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol. 13:103–112.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seenprachawong U. 2003. Economic valuation of coral reefs at Phi Phi Islands Thailand. Int J Glob Environ Issues. 3:104–114.
   Google Scholar
• Statistics Korea. [cited 2015 Oct 2]. Available from: http://kosis.kr
   Google Scholar
• Yoo SH. 2007. Using the contingent valuation method based on multi-attribute utility theory to measure the environmental value of the Nakdong-river Estuary. Ocean Polar Res. 29:69–80. (in Korean).
   Google Scholar
• Yoo SH, Kwak SJ. 2002. Using a spike model to deal with zero response data from double bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys. Appl Econ Lett. 9:929–932.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yoo SH, Kwak SJ. 2009. Measuring the economic benefits of protecting the Tong River in Korea: a contingent valuation study. Int J Environ Pollut. 39:142–158. (in Korean).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yoo SH, Lee JS, Chung YK. 2011. Assessment of non-market value of Dokdo. Ocean Polar Res. 33:223–233. (in Korea).
   Google Scholar