All Issue

2026 Vol.35, Issue 3 Preview Page

Research Paper

Willingness-to-Pay for Coastal Marine Plastic Litter Cleanups in Sri Lanka: Evidence from the One-and-One-Half-Bound Contingent Valuation Method

스리랑카 연안해양 플라스틱 쓰레기정화를 위한 지불의사금액: 1.5경계 조건부가치측정법의 적용

하시니*‧표희동**

Thise Appuhamilage Dona Hasini* and Heedong Pyo**

*부경대학교 해양수산경영경제학부 석사졸업생, 제1저자(e-mail: hasinisiriwardana@yahoo.co.uk)
**부경대학교 해양수산경영경제학부 교수, 교신저자(e-mail: pyoh@pknu.ac.kr)
*Master’s Graduate, Division of Marine and Fisheries Business and Economics, Pukyong National University, First author (e-mail: hasinisiriwardana@yahoo.co.uk)
**Professor, Division of Marine and Fisheries Business and Economics, Pukyong National University, Corresponding author (e-mail: pyoh@pknu.ac.kr)
30 September 2026. pp. 395-426
PDF Citation
Abstract
Marine plastic litter poses multiple threats to coastal ecosystems and economic activities in developing countries, yet quantitative estimates of public willingness to pay (WTP) for its reduction remain scarce in South Asian contexts. This study estimates the WTP for a 50% reduction in marine plastic litter on Sri Lankan coastal beaches by employing the One-and-One-Half-Bound (OOHB) dichotomous choice Contingent Valuation Method (CVM). Contingent valuation (CV) data were collected from 600 households residing in the western and southern provinces of Sri Lanka during November 2021, following a pilot survey conducted in early October 2021. A face-to-face interview method was adopted, with interviewers administering two versions of the questionnaire, lower-bound and upper-bound bid variants to randomly assigned respondents. An annual environmental tax over a five-year period served as the payment vehicle. Given the presence of zero-WTP responses among 15.5% of the sample, a spike model was applied alongside a conventional linear logistic model. The truncated mean annual WTP estimated from the spike model was 2,510 LKR (USD 12.6) per household, statistically significant at the 1% level. Extrapolated to the national household population of 5.1 million and discounted over the five-year period at a 15% annual rate, the aggregated present value of benefits reached approximately 42,911 million LKR (USD 214.6 million). Household income, environmental awareness, beach visitation frequency, and age were statistically significant positive determinants of WTP. Attitudinal analysis highlighted respondents’ particularly strong recognition of the linkage between marine litter reduction and coastal tourism development. These findings provide quantitative evidence to support policy financing and priority-setting for marine plastic litter management programs in Sri Lanka and, more broadly, in small island developing states.
Keywords
Marine plastic litter
Willingness to pay
Contingent valuation
OOHB
Spike model
Sri Lanka
Non-market valuation
해양플라스틱 쓰레기는 개발도상국에서 연안생태계와 경제활동에 대한 다양한 위협이 되지만, 이에 대한 감소를 위한 공공 지불의사금액의 계량적 추정은 남아시아에서 극히 드물다. 이 연구는 1.5경계 양자택일형 조건부가치측정법을 적용한 스리랑카 연안 해변에서 연안플라스틱 쓰레기의 50% 감축을 위한 지불의사금액을 추정한다. 이 연구를 위한 자료는 2021년 10월초에 사전조사를 거친 후 2021년 11월 중 스리랑카의 서남부지역의 600명 가계를 통하여 개인면접조사로 5년 동안 환경세를 지불하는 것으로 조사되었다. 스파이크모델에 의한 절단된 평균 연간 지불의사금액은 1%의 통계적 유의수준하에서 가구당 2,510 LKR(USD 12.6)으로 추정되었고, 5년간 전국단위로 확대된 집계액은 대략 42,911 LKR(USD 214.6 million)로 추정되었다. 인구사회학적 분석에 의하면 해양 쓰레기 감소와 연안관광개발과의 관계가 매우 높은 상관관계를 나타내고 있고, 이와 같은 결과는 스리랑카와 같은 소규모 섬나라 개발국가의 해양 플라스틱 쓰레기 관리 프로그램을 설정하는 데 있어서 중요한 계량적 정책을 수행하는 데 기여 할 것이다.
키워드
해양 플라스틱 쓰레기
지불의사금액
조건부가치측정법
1.5경계 양자택일형
스파이크모델
비시장재화평가
References
  1. Abate, T., T. Börger, M. Aanesen, J. Andersson, K. Wyles, and N. Beaumont, “Valuation of Marine Plastic Pollution in the European Arctic: Applying an Integrated Choice and Latent Variable Model to Contingent Valuation,” Ecological Economics, Vol. 169, 2020, pp. 1~10.10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106521
  2. Aizaki, H., T. Nakatani, and K. Sato, Stated Preference Methods using R, CRC Press, 2015.10.1201/b17292
  3. Alberini, A., and J. R. Kahn, Handbook on Contingent Valuation, Edward Elgar, 2006.10.4337/9781845427917
  4. Alkalay, R., G. Pasternak, and A. Zask, “Clean-Coast Index—A New Approach for Beach Cleanliness Aassessment,” Ocean and Coastal Management, Vol. 49, No. 5, 2006, pp. 352~362.10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2006.10.002
  5. Athawuda, A., J. Bentotage, and W. Weerakoon, Plastic Litter Enumeration and Characterization in Coastal Water, off Colombo, Sri Lanka. ResearchGate, 2018.
  6. Ballerini, T., M. Cole, A. L. Andrady, and F. Galgani, Plastic Pollution in the Ocean: WhatWweKknow and What We Don’t Know About, Technical Report, Plastic and Ocean Platform, 2018.
  7. Bateman, I. J., and K. G. Willis, Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Mmethod in the US, EU, and Developing Countries, Oxford University Press, 2001.10.1093/0199248915.001.0001
  8. Bateman, I. J., B. H. Day, D. P. Dupont, and S. Georgiou, Incentive Compatibility and Procedural Invariance Testing of the One-and-One-Half-Bound Dichotomous Choice Elicitation Method, Lincoln University, Commerce Division., 2006.
  9. Bateman, I. J., R. T. Carson, B. Day, W. M. Hanemann, N. Hanley, and T. Hett, Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual, Edward Elgar, 2002.10.4337/9781781009727
  10. Bateman, I., B. Day, D. P. Dupont, and S. Georgiou, Ooh La La: Testing the One-and-One-Half-Bound Dichotomous Choice Elicitation Method for Robustness to Anomalies, CSERGE Working Paper EDM No. 04-06, 2004.
  11. Börger, T., T. Abate, M. Aanesen, and E. Zawojska, “Payment and Policy Consequentiality in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation: Experimental Design Effects on Self-reported Perceptions,” Land Economics, Vol. 97, No. 2, 2021, pp. 407~424.10.3368/le.97.2.407
  12. Central Bank of Sri Lanka, Economics and Social Statistics of Sri Lanka, 2019. https://www.cbsl.gov.lk
  13. Champ, P. A., K. J. Boyle, and T. C. Brown, A primer on nonmarket valuation (2nd ed.), Springer, 2017.10.1007/978-94-007-7104-8
  14. Choi, E. C., and J. S. Lee, “The Willingness to Pay for Removing the Microplastics in theOocean-The Case of Seoul Metropolitan Area, South Korea,” Marine Policy, Vol. 93, 2018, pp. 93~100.10.1016/j.marpol.2018.03.015
  15. Cooper, J. C., M. Hanemann, and G. Signorello, “One-and-One-Half-Bound Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation,” The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 84, No. 4, 2002, pp. 742~750.10.1162/003465302760556549
  16. Department of Census and Statistics, Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2019: Final Results, http://www.statistics.gov.lk
  17. Department of Census and Statistics, Statistical Abstract, 2021. http://www.statistics.gov.lk
  18. Duffield, J. W., and D. A. Patterson, “Inference and Optimal Design for a Welfare Measure in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation,” Land Economics, Vol. 67, No. 2, 1991, pp. 225~239.10.2307/3146413
  19. English, E., C. Wagner, and J. Holmes, The Effects of Marine Debris on Beach Recreation and Regional Economies in Four Coastal Communities, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Marine Debris Division, 2019.
  20. Faccioli, M., and K. Glenk, “More in Good Condition or Less in Bad Condition? Valence-based Framing Effects in Environmental Valuation,” Land Economics, Vol. 98, No. 2, 2022, pp. 314~336.10.3368/le.98.2.051920-0067R1
  21. Fanshawe, T., and M. Everard, The Impacts of Marine Litter, Marine Pollution Monitoring Management Group, 2002.
  22. Galgani, L., R. Beiras, F. Galgani, C. Panti, and A. Borja, Impacts of marine litter, Frontiers in Marine Science, 2019. 10.3389/978-2-88945-931-5
  23. Grilli, G., B. Andrews, S. Ferrini, and T. Luisetti, “Could a Mix of Short- and Long-term Policies Be the Solution to Tackle Marine Litter? Insights from a Choice Experiment in England and Ireland,” Ecological Economics, Vol. 201, 2022.10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107563
  24. Gunasekara, A., R. Priyadarshana, T. Ranasinghe, “Status of Marine Debris Accumulated in Coastal Areas of Sri Lanka,” Proceedings of the International Forestry and Environment Symposium, 2014, p. 758.
  25. Guruge, K. P. G. K. P., S. M. U. P. Siriwardhana, T. Bandara, W. Suwandhannadi, W. N. D. S. Jayarathna, H. P. T. S. Hewathilake, and P. B. T. P. Kumara, “Assessment of Marine Debris and Plastic Pollution Along the Western Coast of Sri Lanka,” Regional Studies in Marine Science, Vol. 86, No. 5-6, 2025.10.1016/j.rsma.2025.104176
  26. Haab, T. C., and K. E. McConnell, Valuing Environmental and NaturalRresources: The Econometrics of Non-market Valuation, Edward Elgar, 2003.10.4337/9781840647044.00014
  27. Hanemann, W. M., “Discrete/Continuous Models of Consumer Demand,” Econometrica, Vol. 52, No. 3, 1984, pp. 541~561.10.2307/1913464
  28. Harrison, G., and B. Kriström, On the Interpretation of Responses to Contingent Valuation Surveys. In P. Johansson, B. Kriström, & K. Mäler (Eds.), Current Issues in Environmental Economics, Manchester University Press, 1995.
  29. Hassan, S., S. B. Olsen, and B. J. Thorsen, “Appropriate Payment Vehicles in Stated Preference Studies in Developing Economies,” Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 71, 2018, pp. 1053~1075.10.1007/s10640-017-0196-6
  30. Hettige, N., K. Weerasekaraand, and S. Azmy, Assessment of Marine Litter along Selected Beaches in the Western Province of Sri Lanka, ResearchGate, 2015.
  31. Jambeck, J. R., R. Geyer, C. Wilcox, T. R. Siegler, M. Perryman, A. Andrady, R. Narayan, and K. L. Law, “Plastic Waste Inputs from Land into the Ocean,” Science, Vol. 347, 2015, pp. 768~771.10.1126/science.1260352
  32. Jang, Y. C., R. Ranatunga, J. Y. Mok, K. S. Kim, S. Y. Hong, Y. R. Choi, and A. J. M. Gunasekara, “Composition and abundance of marine debris stranded on the beaches of Sri Lanka: Results from the first island-wide survey,” Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 128, 2018, pp. 126~131.10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.01.018
  33. Jin, S. J., Y. J. Kwon, and S. H. Yoo, “Economic Valuation of Reducing Submerged Marine Debris in South Korea,” Applied Sciences, Vol. 10, No. 17, 2020, pp. 1~14.10.3390/app10176086
  34. Johansson, P. O., B. Kriström, and K. G. Mäler, “Welfare Evaluations in Ccontingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Response Data: Comment,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 71, No. 4, 1989, pp. 1054~1056.10.2307/1242684
  35. Johnston, R. J., K. J. Boyle, W. Adamowicz, J. Bennett, R. Brouwer, T. A. Cameron, W. M. Hanemann, N. Hanley, M. Ryan, R. Scarpa, R. Tourangeau, and C. A. Vosssler, “Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies,” Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2017, pp. 319~405.10.1086/691697
  36. Kanninen, B. J., “Bias in Discrete Response Contingent Valuation,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 28, 1995, pp. 114~125.10.1006/jeem.1995.1008
  37. Kanninen, B. J., Valuing Environmental Amenities using Stated Choice Studies: A Common-sense Approach to Theory and Practice, Springer, 2006.10.1007/1-4020-5313-4
  38. Katupotha, J., and U. Gamage, Rivers and river management in Sri Lanka, In Encyclopedia of the World’s Biomes. Elsevier, 2020.
  39. Khedr, S., K. Rehdanz, R. Brouwer, P. van Beukering, H. Dijkstra, S. Duijndam, and I. C. Okoli, “Public Preferences for Marine Plastic Litter Management across Europe,” Ecological Economics, Vol. 204, 2023.10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107609 36742271 PMC9762168
  40. Kim, J. H., M. K. Hyun, and S. H. Yoo, “Households’ Willingness to Pay for Interactive Charging Stations for Vehicle to Grid System in South Korea,” Sustainability, Vol. 15, No. 15, 2023.10.3390/su151511563
  41. Kotchen, M. J., and S. D. Reiling, “Environmental Attitudes, Motivations, and Contingent Valuation of Nonuse Values: A Case Study Involving Endangered Species,” Ecological Economics, Vol. 32, No. 1, 2000, pp. 93~107.10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00069-5
  42. Kristrom, B., “Spike Models in Contingent Valuation,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 79, No. 3, 1997, pp. 1013~1023.10.2307/1244440
  43. Lades, L. K., K. Laffan, and T. O. Weber, “Do Economic Preferences Predict Pro-environmental Behaviour?,” Ecological Economics, Vol. 183, 2021.10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.106977
  44. Lavers, J., and A. Bond, Exceptional and Rapid Accumulation of Anthropogenic Debris on One of the World’s Most Remote and Pristine Islands, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2017, p. 114.10.1073/pnas.1619818114 28507128 PMC5468685
  45. Liu, P., X. Bi, Q. Luo, and J. C. Whitehead, “Effects of Policy Consequentiality and Payment Vehicle on Contingent Valuation: Structural Estimates on Preference Misrepresentation,” SSRN Electronic, 2020.10.2139/ssrn.3577847
  46. Mafaziya, F., T. Atugoda, T. P. Kumara, and M. Vithanage, Status of particulate marine plastics in Sri Lanka, 2020.
  47. Mariel, P., S. Demel, and A. Longo, “Modelling Welfare Estimates in Discrete Choice Experiments for Seaweed-based Renewable Energy,” PLOS ONE, Vol. 16, No. 4, 2021, pp. 1~22.10.1371/journal.pone.0260352 34843549 PMC8629263
  48. Ministry of Mahaweli Development and Environment, Sri Lanka Coastal Zone and Coastal Resource Management Plan (CZMP), The Gazette Extraordinary of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, 2018.
  49. Monserrate, M. A., and M. A. Ruano, “Estimating the Damage Cost of Plastic Waste in Galapagos Islands: A Contingent Valuation Approach,” Marine Policy, Vol. 117, 2020. 10.1016/j.marpol.2020.103933
  50. Monteiro, R., J. Sul, and M. Costa, “Plastic Pollution in Islands of the Atlantic Ocean,” Environmental Pollution, Vol. 238, 2018, pp. 103~110.10.1016/j.envpol.2018.01.096
  51. Mutuku, J. M., M. Yanotti, D. Tinch, and D. H. MacDonald, “Willingness to Pay for Cleaning up Beach Litter: a Meta-Analysis,” Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 185, No. 11, 2022, pp. 114~220.10.1016/j.marpolbul.2022.114220
  52. National Academy of Sciences, Marine litter. In: Assessing potential ocean pollutants. A report of the study panel on commission on natural resources, Natural Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, USA, 1975.
  53. Pham, T. T., Public willingness to pay for marine litter reductions on Phu Quoc Island, Viet Nam, Master’s Thesis, Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Science, Kiel University, 2022.
  54. Smith, V. K., X. Zhang, and R. B. Palmquist, “Marine Debris, Beach Quality, and Non-market Values,” Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 10, 1997, pp. 223~247.10.1023/A:1026465413899
  55. The Morning, Plastics and pollution, The Morning (Sri Lanka), 2023. https://www.themorning.lk
  56. Train, K. E., Discrete choice methods with simulation (2nd ed.), Cambridge University Press, 2009.
  57. Vossler, C. A., M. Doyon, D. Rondeau, “Truth in Consequentiality: Theory and Field Evidence on Discrete Choice Experiments,” American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, Vol. 4, No. 4, 2012, pp. 145~171.10.1257/mic.4.4.145
  58. Whitehead, J., T. Haab, and J. C. Huang, Preference Data for Environmental Valuation: Combining Revealed and Stated Approaches. Routledge, 2011.10.4324/9780203828991
Information
  • Publisher :Environmental and Resource Economics Review
  • Publisher(Ko) :자원 · 환경경제연구
  • Journal Title :자원·환경경제연구
  • Journal Title(Ko) :Environmental and Resource Economics Review
  • Volume : 35
  • No :3
  • Pages :395-426
  • DOI :https://doi.org/10.15266/KEREA.2026.35.3.395
Journal Informaiton 자원·환경경제연구 자원·환경경제연구
E-Book
Manuscript Submission
한국환경경제학회
Manuscript Submission
한국자원경제학회
  • NRF
  • KISTI Current Status
  • KISTI Cited-by
  • crosscheck
  • orcid
  • open access
  • ccl
Journal Informaiton Journal Informaiton - close