IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i24p10877-d1542065.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing Negative Externalities of Rural Abandoned Houses in South Korea: Insights from Discrete Choice Experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Seongyong Shin

    (Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, North Carolina State University, 2801 Founders Drive, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA)

  • Tae-Hwa Kim

    (Department of Community Development, Kongju National University, Daehak-ro, Yesan-gun 32439, Chungcheongnam-do, Republic of Korea)

Abstract

The proliferation of abandoned houses in rural South Korea poses significant challenges to sustainable rural development, driven by declining birth rates, aging populations, and urban migration. However, effective policy implementation is hindered by the lack of understanding of the negative externalities caused by abandoned houses. This study fills this gap by estimating the negative externalities associated with abandoned rural houses using discrete choice experiments. Surveys targeting individuals planning rural relocations and potential tourists considering rural stays were conducted to quantify the external costs. Our findings reveal that the marginal willingness to pay associated with abandoned houses is negative and decreases with an increasing number of abandoned houses nearby, both in the context of house purchases and rural stays. Extrapolating these results to the national level, we estimate the aggregate negative externalities value to be approximately 4.2 trillion KRW per year, highlighting significant negative externalities in rural areas nationwide. The implications of our analysis underscore the severity of negative externalities from abandoned houses, which may surpass the value of housing services, discourage migration, and prompt residents to leave rural communities, thus exacerbating the issue. Our study emphasizes the necessity for further research and policy interventions to address the negative externalities associated with abandoned rural houses, offering insights into the potential use of discrete choice experiments in similar contexts.

Suggested Citation

  • Seongyong Shin & Tae-Hwa Kim, 2024. "Assessing Negative Externalities of Rural Abandoned Houses in South Korea: Insights from Discrete Choice Experiments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(24), pages 1-26, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:24:p:10877-:d:1542065
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/24/10877/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/24/10877/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, November.
    2. Lloyd-Smith, Patrick & Adamowicz, Wiktor, 2018. "Can stated measures of willingness-to-accept be valid? Evidence from laboratory experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 133-149.
    3. Taisuke Sadayuki & Yuki Kanayama & Toshi H. Arimura, 2020. "The Externality of Vacant Houses: The Case of Toshima Municipality, Tokyo, Japan," The Review of Regional Studies, Southern Regional Science Association, vol. 50(2), pages 260-281.
    4. Carlsson, Fredrik & Lampi, Elina & Yin, Hang, 2017. "Reducing the gap between stated and real behavior in transportation studies: The use of an oath script," Working Papers in Economics 706, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    5. Pollak, Robert A. & Wales, Terence J., 1991. "The likelihood dominance criterion : A new approach to model selection," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 47(2-3), pages 227-242, February.
    6. Scafidi, Benjamin P. & Schill, Michael H. & Wachter, Susan M. & Culhane, Dennis P., 1998. "An Economic Analysis of Housing Abandonment," Journal of Housing Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 287-303, December.
    7. Whitaker, Stephan & Fitzpatrick IV, Thomas J., 2013. "Deconstructing distressed-property spillovers: The effects of vacant, tax-delinquent, and foreclosed properties in housing submarkets," Journal of Housing Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 79-91.
    8. repec:rre:publsh:v:50:y:2020:i:2 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. de-Magistris, Tiziana & Pascucci, Stefano, 2014. "The effect of the solemn oath script in hypothetical choice experiment survey: A pilot study," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 252-255.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    2. Andersen, Steffen & Harrison, Glenn W. & Lau, Morten Igel & Rutström, Elisabet E., 2010. "Behavioral econometrics for psychologists," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 553-576, August.
    3. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    4. Krucien, Nicolas & Heidenreich, Sebastian & Gafni, Amiram & Pelletier-Fleury, Nathalie, 2020. "Measuring public preferences in France for potential consequences stemming from re-allocation of healthcare resources," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    5. Wendong Zhang & Brent Sohngen, 2018. "Do U.S. Anglers Care about Harmful Algal Blooms? A Discrete Choice Experiment of Lake Erie Recreational Anglers," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(3), pages 868-888.
    6. Ndebele, Tom & Johnston, Robert J. & Newburn, David, 2020. "Transaction Costs and Household Adoption of Stormwater Best Management Practices," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304338, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Fenton, Marieke & Goodrich, Brittney K. & Penn, Jerrod, 2025. "Measuring beekeepers' economic value of contract enhancements in almond pollination agreements," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 227(C).
    8. Doll, Claire A. & Burton, Michael P. & Pannell, David J. & Rollins, Curtis L., 2023. "Are greenspaces too green? Landscape preferences and water use in urban parks," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    9. Mike Burton & Dan Rigby, 2009. "Hurdle and Latent Class Approaches to Serial Non-Participation in Choice Models," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 42(2), pages 211-226, February.
    10. John C. Whitehead & Daniel K. Lew, 2020. "Estimating recreation benefits through joint estimation of revealed and stated preference discrete choice data," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 58(4), pages 2009-2029, April.
    11. Canessa, Carolin & Venus, Terese & Wiesmeier, Miriam & Mennig, Philipp & Sauer, Johannes, 2023. "Farmers’ preferences over alternative AECS designs. Do the ecological conditions influence the willingness to accept result-based contracts?," 97th Annual Conference, March 27-29, 2023, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 334508, Agricultural Economics Society - AES.
    12. Thiermann, Insa & Silvius, Brechtje & Splinter, Melody & Dries, Liesbeth, 2023. "Making bird numbers count: Would Dutch farmers accept a result-based meadow bird conservation scheme?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).
    13. Granado-Díaz, Rubén & Villanueva, Anastasio J. & Colombo, Sergio, 2024. "Land manager preferences for outcome-based payments for environmental services in oak savannahs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 220(C).
    14. Robert J. Johnston & Tom Ndebele & David A. Newburn, 2023. "Modeling transaction costs in household adoption of landscape conservation practices," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 105(1), pages 341-367, January.
    15. Kanayama, Yuki & Sadayuki, Taisuke, 2021. "What types of houses remain vacant? Evidence from a municipality in Tokyo, Japan," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    16. Genie, Mesfin G. & Ryan, Mandy & Krucien, Nicolas, 2021. "To pay or not to pay? Cost information processing in the valuation of publicly funded healthcare," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    17. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Macro-scale analysis of literature and effectiveness of bias mitigation methods," Papers 2102.02945, arXiv.org.
    18. Katsuya Tanaka & Nicholas Hanley & Laure Kuhfuss, 2022. "Farmers’ preferences toward an outcome‐based payment for ecosystem service scheme in Japan," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(3), pages 720-738, September.
    19. Liebe, Ulf & Glenk, Klaus & von Meyer-Höfer, Marie & Spiller, Achim, 2019. "A web survey application of real choice experiments," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 33(C).
    20. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2006. "Discrete Choice Survey Experiments: A Comparison Using Flexible Models," RFF Working Paper Series dp-05-60, Resources for the Future.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:24:p:10877-:d:1542065. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.