Investigating Heterogeneous Consumer Preference for Sustainable Sewerage Asset Management: The Case of South Korea
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Consumer-Centric Sewerage Infrastructure Asset Management
2.2. Sewerage Infrastructure Asset Management in South Korea
3. Methodology
4. Empirical Analysis
4.1. Survey Design and Data
4.2. Results
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Chatzisymeon, E. Reducing the energy demands of wastewater treatment through energy recovery. In Sewage Treatment Plants; Stamatelatou, K., Tsagarakis, K.P., Eds.; IWA Publishing: London, UK, 2015; Volume 1, pp. 3–14. ISBN 9781780405025. [Google Scholar]
- De Jong, R.; Nentjes, A.; Wiersma, D. Inefficiencies in public environmental services. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2000, 16, 69–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elnaboulsi, J.C. An Incentive Water Pricing Policy for Sustainable Water Use. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2009, 42, 451–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Molinos-Senante, M.; Maziotis, A.; Sala-Garrido, R. Changes in the total costs of the English and Welsh water and sewerage industry: The decomposed effect of price and quantity inputs on efficiency. Util. Policy. 2020, 66, 101063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, H. Challenges for water infrastructure asset management in South Korea. Water Policy. 2019, 21, 934–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Silva, C.; Alerge, H.; Rosa, M.J. Introduction to energy management in wastewater treatment plants. In Sewage Treatment Plants; Stamatelatou, K., Tsagarakis, K.P., Eds.; IWA Publishing: London, UK, 2015; Volume 3, pp. 33–55. ISBN 9781780405025. [Google Scholar]
- American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). A Comprehensive Assessment of America’s Infrastructure. 2021. Available online: https://www.cdfa.net/cdfa/cdfaweb.nsf/ordredirect.html?open&id=ASCE_2021_Infrastructure-Report-Card.html (accessed on 5 January 2023).
- National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA). Water Sector Comes Together for Water Week 2022, Applauds Federal Infrastructure Investments and Calls for Sustained Support. 2022. Available online: https://www.nacwa.org/news-publications/press-release-details/2022/04/26/water-sector-comes-together-for-water-week-2022-applauds-federal-infrastructure-investments-and-calls-for-sustained-support (accessed on 5 January 2023).
- GCiS China Strategic Research. China’s 13th Five Year Plan and the Wastewater Treatment Industry. Available online: https://www.gcis.com.cn/china-insights-en/industry-articles-en/231-china-s-13th-five-year-plan-the-wastewater-treatment-industry (accessed on 4 September 2022).
- European Commission. Urban Waste Water: 10th Report on Implementation. 2020. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_20_1562 (accessed on 5 January 2023).
- Jones, M.; Williams, W.; Stillman, J. The evolution of asset management in the water industry. J. Am. Water Work Assoc. 2014, 106, 140–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Uddin, W.; Hudson, W.R.; Haas, R. Public Infrastructure Asset Management; McGraw-Hill Education: New York, NY, USA, 2013; ISBN 9780071820110. [Google Scholar]
- Jo, H.; Ryu, J.; Shin, J. Sewerage infrastructure asset management based on a consumer-centric approach. Environ. Sci. Pollut. R. 2022, 29, 53009–53021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moon, F.L.; Aktan, A.E.; Furuta, H.; Dogaki, M. Governing issues and alternate resolutions for a highway transportation agency’s transition to asset management. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2009, 5, 25–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Asset Management for Sewer Collection Systems. 2002. Available online: https://www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/assetmanagement.pdf (accessed on 5 January 2023).
- Huh, S.Y.; Shin, J.; Ryu, J. Expand, relocate, or underground? Social acceptance of upgrading wastewater treatment plants. Environ. Sci. Pollut. R. 2020, 27, 45618–45628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Molinos-Senante, M.; Hanley, N.; Henández-Sancho, F.; Sala-Garrido, R. The principles of economic evaluation and cost-benefit analysis implemented in sewage treatment plants. In Sewage Treatment Plants; Stamatelatou, K., Tsagarakis, K.P., Eds.; IWA Publishing: London, UK, 2015; Volume 2, pp. 15–32. ISBN 9781780405025. [Google Scholar]
- Tscheikner-Gratl, F.; Caradot, N.; Cherqui, F.; Leitão, J.P.; Ahmadi, M.; Langeveld, J.G.; Le Gat, Y.; Scholten, L.; Roghani, B.; Rodríguez, J.P.; et al. Sewer asset management—State of the art and research needs. Urban Water J. 2019, 16, 662–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cook, A.M.R.; Lucas, R.A.; Knight, S.P. Customer-centric asset management: An approach and applying it in practice. In Proceedings of the IET&IAM Asset Management Conference 2012, London, UK, 27–28 November 2012; pp. 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, S.; Chae, M.J.; Hwang, H.; Choung, Y. Evaluation of customer-driven level of service for water infrastructure asset management. J. Manag. Eng. 2015, 31, 04014067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramanan, S.; Naylor, R.; Francisco, W.; Riesenweber, A.; Hunter, S.; Atkins, N.; Dominish, C. Harnessing Data to Help Water Utilities Become More Customer Centric. GHD Digital. 2021. Available online: https://www.ghd.com/en/perspectives/resources/pdf/GHD-Digital-Harnessing-data-to-help-water-utilities.pdf (accessed on 5 January 2023).
- Chang, T.; Chi, S.; Im, S.B. Understanding User Experience and Satisfaction with Urban Infrastructure through Text Mining of Civil Complaint Data. J. Constr. Eng. M. 2022, 148, 04022061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Almeida, N.; Trindade, M.; Komlijenovic, D.; Finger, M. A conceptual construct on value for infrastructure asset management. Util. Policy. 2022, 75, 101354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mullen, J.D.; Calhoun, K.C.; Colson, G.J. Preferences for policy attributes and willingness to pay for water quality improvements under uncertainty. Water Resour. Res. 2017, 53, 2627–2642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Asset Management for Water and Wastewater Utilities. 2017. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-water-infrastructure/asset-management-water-and-wastewater-utilities (accessed on 5 January 2023).
- Keane, M.; Wasi, N. Comparing alternative models of heterogeneity in consumer choice behavior. J. Appl. Econom. 2013, 28, 1018–1045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kim, D.; Hong, S.; Park, B.J.; Kim, I. Understanding heterogeneous preferences of hotel choice attributes: Do customer segments matter? J. Hosp. Tour. 2020, 45, 330–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hensher, D.; Shore, N.; Train, K. Households’ Willingness to Pay for Water Service Attributes. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2005, 32, 509–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Palanca-Tan, R. Knowledge, attitudes, and willingness to pay for sewerage and sanitation services: A contingent valuation survey in Metro Manila, Philippines. J. Environ. Sci. Manag. 2015, 18, 44–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Veronesi, M.; Chawla, F.; Maurer, M.; Lienert, J. Climate change and the willingness to pay to reduce ecological and health risks from wastewater flooding in urban centers and the environment. Ecol. Econ. 2014, 98, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Willis, K.G.; Scarpa, R.; Acutt, M. Assessing water company customer preferences and willingness to pay for service improvements: A stated choice analysis. Water Resour. Res. 2005, 41, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feick, L.; Higie, R.A. The Effects of Preference Heterogeneity and source Characteristics on Ad Processing and Judgements about Endorsers. J. Advert. 1992, 21, 9–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, T.; Shin, J.; Hyung, J.; Kim, K.; Koo, J.; Cha, Y. Willingness to pay for improved water supply services based on asset management: A contingent valuation study in South Korea. Water 2021, 13, 2040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Korean Ministry of Environment (ME); Korea Environment Corporation. A Study on the Evaluation of Existing Age-Old Public Sewage Treatment Infrastructures and the Feasibility of Its Improvement. 2019. Available online: http://www.me.go.kr/home/web/policy_data/read.do?menuId=10264&seq=7526 (accessed on 5 January 2023).
- Korean Ministry of Environment (ME); Korea Environmental Industry and Technology Institute (KEITI). A Report on Water and Wastewater System R&D Technology Trends in 2020. 2021. Available online: https://www.keiti.re.kr/site/keiti/ex/board/View.do?cbIdx=318&bcIdx=32870 (accessed on 5 January 2023).
- Korean Ministry of Environment (ME). 2017 Statistics of Sewerage. 2018. Available online: http://www.me.go.kr/home/web/policy_data/read.do?pagerOffset=0&maxPageItems=10&maxIndexPages=10&searchKey=&searchValue=&menuId=10259&orgCd=&condition.orderSeqId=7141&condition.rnSeq=270&condition.deleteYn=N&seq=7146 (accessed on 5 January 2023).
- Korean Ministry of Environment (ME). 2020 Statistics of Sewerage. 2021. Available online: https://me.go.kr/home/web/policy_data/read.do?pagerOffset=0&maxPageItems=10&maxIndexPages=10&searchKey=&searchValue=&menuId=10264&orgCd=&condition.toInpYmd=null&condition.code=A5&condition.fromInpYmd=null&condition.orderSeqId=6430&condition.rnSeq=110&condition.deleteYn=N&condition.deptNm=null&seq=7809 (accessed on 5 January 2023).
- Ahn, J.; Moon, H.; Shin, J.; Ryu, J. Social benefits of improving water infrastructure in South Korea: Upgrading sewage treatment plants. Environ. Sci. Pollut. R. 2020, 27, 11202–11212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bravo-Moncayo, L.; Naranjo, J.L.; García, I.P.; Mosquera, R. Neural based contingent valuation of road traffic noise. Trasport. Res. D-TR E. 2017, 50, 26–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mogas, J.; Riera, P.; Bennett, J. A Comparison of Contingent Valuation and Choice Modelling: Estimating the Environmental values of Catalonian Forests. 2002. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10440/1177 (accessed on 5 January 2023).
- van den Broek-Altenburg, E.; Atherly, A. Using discrete choice experiments to measure preferences for hard to observe choice attributes to inform health policy decisions. Health Econ. Rev. 2020, 10, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Train, K.E. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Scarpa, R.; Thiene, M.; Hensher, D.A. Preferences for tap water attributes within couples: An exploration of alternative mixed logit parameterizations. Water Resour. Res. 2012, 48, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Syuhada, C.I.N.; Mahirah, K.; Roseliza, M.A. Dealing with attributes in a discrete choice experiment on valuation of water services in East Peninsula Malaysia. Util. Policy 2020, 64, 101037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Unterberger, C.; Olschewski, R. Determining the insurance value of ecosystems: A discrete choice study on natural hazard protection by forests. Ecol. Econ. 2021, 180, 106866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rambonilaza, M.; Point, P.; Dachary-Bernard, J. Stability of the WTP measurements with successive use of choice experiments method and multiple programmes method. Rev. Econ. Polit. 2007, 117, 719–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Byun, H.; Shin, J.; Lee, C.Y. Using a discrete choice experiment to predict the penetration possibility of environmentally friendly vehicles. Energy 2018, 144, 312–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Korea Environment Corporation. Recent Status of Public Wastewater Treatment Systems. 2021. Available online: https://www.data.go.kr/data/3073222/fileData.do (accessed on 5 January 2023).
- Korea Meteorological Administration (KMA). Domestic Climate Characteristics. Available online: https://www.weather.go.kr/w/obs-climate/climate/korea-climate/korea-char.do (accessed on 8 December 2022).
- Open MET Data Portal. Korea Meteorological Administration. Statistics about Rainy Seasons. Available online: https://data.kma.go.kr/climate/rainySeason/selectRainySeasonList.do (accessed on 8 December 2022).
- Korea Meteorological Administration (KMA). 2020 Climate Crisis in Point of Social and Economic Damage. 2021. Available online: http://www.climate.go.kr/home/bbs/view.php?code=58&bname=newsreport&vcode=6497&skind=&sword=&category1=&category2= (accessed on 5 January 2023).
- Korean Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MOLIT). Daegu Metropolitan City Government Establishes the Smart Sewerage Management System Based on ICT. 2021. Available online: https://smartcity.go.kr/2022/03/16/%EB%8C%80%EA%B5%AC%EC%8B%9C-ict%EA%B8%B0%EB%B0%98-%EC%8A%A4%EB%A7%88%ED%8A%B8%ED%95%98%EC%88%98%EB%8F%84-%EA%B4%80%EB%A6%AC%EC%B2%B4%EA%B3%84-%EA%B5%AC%EC%B6%95 (accessed on 5 January 2023).
- Water Environment Information System (WEIS). Real Time Water Quality Index. Available online: https://water.nier.go.kr/web/contents/contentView/;jsessionid=A623E5155FB7BDBCF1B214E094B6A06A?pMENU_NO=68 (accessed on 5 September 2022).
- National Environmental Dispute Resolution Commission in Korean Ministry of Environment (ECC). A Study on the Odor Damage Investigation and Its Compensation Estimation Method Based on Emission Sources. 2008. Available online: http://e-learning.nhi.go.kr/oer/view/oerCntnsView.do?id=112290&cid=NB000120061207100091168&oid=0000000006&mid=view (accessed on 5 July 2023).
- Korean Ministry of Economy and Finance (MOEF). The Results of the 2021 Public Institutions’ Management Performance Evaluation. 2022. Available online: https://www.korea.kr/news/pressReleaseView.do?newsId=156512436 (accessed on 5 January 2023).
- Government Performance Evaluation Committee (South Korea). Comprehensive Evaluation of Complaint Service (Ministry of the Interior and Safety). Government Performance Evaluation System. Available online: https://www.evaluation.go.kr/web/page.do?menu_id=28 (accessed on 5 September 2022).
- Korean Statistical Information Service (KOSIS). Households and Household Members by Type of Household. 2021. Available online: https://kosis.kr/statHtml/statHtml.do?orgId=101&tblId=DT_1JC1501&conn_path=I2&language=en (accessed on 5 January 2023).
- Korean Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MOLIT). Special Act on the Safety Control and Maintenance of Establishments. 2022. Available online: https://elaw.klri.re.kr/kor_mobile/viewer.do?hseq=56563&type=sogan&key=4 (accessed on 5 January 2023).
Physical Service | Social Service |
---|---|
The amount of unnecessary water ingress into the pipe (not only sewerage) | Odor intensity reduction |
The amount of discharged unpurified wastewater in the confluent drainage during rainfall | Flood reduction |
Outfall pollution reduction | |
Reduction in sinkholes in road | The amount of public information related to sewerage systems |
Upgrading the aging sewerage systems/pipes | The quality of complaints’ response and its time |
Improvement of sewage treatment capacity | Sewerage bills |
Category | Characteristic | Respondents (n) | Percentage (%) |
---|---|---|---|
Total | 1155 | 100.0 | |
Gender | Male | 609 | 52.7 |
Female | 546 | 47.3 | |
Age | 20–29 | 218 | 18.9 |
30–39 | 259 | 22.4 | |
40–49 | 268 | 23.2 | |
50–59 | 253 | 21.9 | |
60–69 | 157 | 13.6 | |
Income | Below KRW 3 million | 275 | 23.8 |
KRW 3–4 million | 371 | 32.1 | |
KRW 4–5 million | 273 | 23.6 | |
Above KRW 5 million | 236 | 20.4 |
Attribute | Levels | Details |
---|---|---|
Inland flooding treatment capacity (per year) | Once a year Four times a year Eight times a year | Sewerage system capacity limitations holding the inland flooding problems over the durations |
Efficiency of sewage treatment (%) | Very good (above 90%), Good (70–90%), Normal (50–70%), Poor (under 50%) | The level at which sewerage is appropriately transported to treatment systems |
Water activities | Good, normal, and poor | The level of water activities related to sewerage service |
Intensity of odor | Levels 1, 2, and 2.5 | The intensity of odor from sewerage services |
Response time to complaints (for each complaint) | Very good (less than 2 h), Good (more than 2 h, less than 5 h), Normal (more than 5 h, less than 30 h), Poor (more than 30 h) | Response time to sewerage service complaints, which means the time for responding to each complaint |
Sewerage bills (KRW, monthly) | KRW 10,000, KRW 20,000, KRW 30,000, KRW 40,000 | Average monthly sewerage bill |
Attribute | Type A | Type B | Type C | Type D |
---|---|---|---|---|
Inland flooding treatment capacity (per year) | Once a year | Four times a year | Once a year | Eight times a year |
Efficiency of sewage treatment (%) | Poor (below 50%) | Very good (above 90%) | Good (70–90%) | Good (70–90%) |
Water activities | Good | Normal | Poor | Normal |
Intensity of odor | Level 2 | Level 1 | Level 2.5 | Level 2.5 |
Response time to complaints (for each complaint) | Good (more than 2 h, less than 5 h) | Good (more than 2 h, less than 5 h) | Good (more than 5 h, less than 30 h) | Poor (more than 30 h) |
Sewerage bills (KRW, monthly) | KRW 40,000 | KRW 10,000 | KRW 30,000 | KRW 10,000 |
Model 1 | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Attribute | Assumed Distribution | Mean of β | SD of β | MWTP (KRW) | RI (%) | ||
Inland flooding treatment capacity (per year) | Normal | −0.0636 | *** | 0.0026 | 1656.3 | 11.68 | |
Efficiency of sewage treatment (%) | Normal | −0.1388 | *** | 0.0030 | 3613.6 | 10.92 | |
Water activities | Normal | −0.3009 | *** | 0.1755 | ** | 7832.9 | 15.79 |
Intensity of odor | Normal | −0.4958 | *** | 0.6563 | *** | 12,907.4 | 19.51 |
Response time to complaints (for each complaint) | Normal | −0.1508 | *** | 0.2404 | *** | 3926.6 | 11.87 |
Sewerage bills (KRW, monthly) | Normal | −0.0384 | *** | 0.0547 | *** | - | 10.92 |
No. of observations | 18,480 | ||||||
Log likelihood | −5651.4 |
Model 2-1 | Model 2-2 | Model 2-3 | Model 2-4 | Model 2-5 | Model 2-6 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Important 1 | Old Facilities | Efficiency of Sewage Treatment | Sinkholes in Road | Odor Intensity Reduction | Flood Reduction | Outfall Pollution | |||||||
Attribute | |||||||||||||
Mean of β | Inland flooding treatment capacity | −0.0634 | *** | −0.0578 | *** | −0.0618 | *** | −0.0639 | *** | −0.0650 | *** | −0.0634 | *** |
Treatment efficiency | −0.1273 | *** | −0.1011 | *** | −0.1544 | *** | −0.1124 | *** | −0.1555 | *** | −0.1358 | *** | |
Water activity | −0.2799 | *** | −0.2654 | *** | −0.3107 | *** | −0.2354 | *** | −0.3321 | *** | −0.2968 | *** | |
Odor intensity | −0.4983 | *** | −0.3956 | *** | −0.5185 | *** | −0.3560 | *** | −0.5342 | *** | −0.4811 | *** | |
Response time | −0.1450 | *** | −0.1496 | *** | −0.1572 | *** | −0.1413 | *** | −0.1499 | *** | −0.1577 | *** | |
Sewerage bills | −0.0339 | *** | −0.0353 | *** | −0.0406 | *** | −0.0352 | *** | −0.0399 | *** | −0.0374 | *** | |
Inland flooding treatment capacity × important | 0.0005 | −0.0227 | −0.0131 | −0.0002 | 0.0099 | −0.0041 | |||||||
Treatment efficiency × important | −0.0460 | −0.1595 | *** | 0.1224 | ** | −0.0509 | 0.1009 | ** | −0.0343 | ||||
Water activity × important | −0.0826 | −0.1463 | *** | 0.0847 | −0.1204 | *** | 0.1863 | *** | −0.0111 | ||||
Odor intensity × important | 0.0111 | −0.4065 | *** | 0.1908 | * | −0.2672 | *** | 0.2217 | ** | −0.1751 | |||
Response time × important | −0.0114 | 0.0172 | 0.0696 | −0.0140 | 0.0278 | 0.1378 | * | ||||||
Sewerage bills × important | −0.0167 | *** | −0.0119 | ** | 0.0196 | *** | −0.0046 | 0.0104 | * | −0.0092 | |||
SD of β | Inland flooding treatment capacity | 0.0027 | 0.0009 | 0.0021 | 0.0059 | 0.0001 | 0.0009 | ||||||
Treatment efficiency | 0.0113 | 0.0069 | 0.0010 | 0.0007 | 0.0071 | 0.0016 | |||||||
Water activity | 0.0310 | 0.1674 | ** | 0.1488 | * | 0.1152 | 0.1330 | 0.1277 | |||||
Odor intensity | 0.6416 | *** | 0.6186 | *** | 0.6542 | *** | 0.5864 | *** | 0.6310 | *** | 0.6536 | *** | |
Response time | 0.2294 | *** | 0.2470 | *** | 0.2380 | *** | 0.2221 | *** | 0.2237 | *** | 0.2333 | *** | |
Sewerage bills | 0.0518 | *** | 0.0535 | *** | 0.0543 | *** | 0.0488 | *** | 0.0547 | *** | 0.0541 | *** | |
Inland flooding treatment capacity × important | 0.0177 | 0.0207 | 0.0005 | 0.0256 | 0.0030 | 0.0034 | |||||||
Treatment efficiency × important | 0.0803 | 0.0859 | 0.0361 | 0.0013 | 0.0314 | 0.1004 | |||||||
Water activity × important | 0.3341 | *** | 0.1053 | 0.1554 | 0.0927 | 0.0499 | 0.2867 | ||||||
Odor intensity × important | 0.2767 | 0.4028 | ** | 0.0015 | 0.3635 | ** | 0.3453 | 0.0189 | |||||
Response time × important | 0.1522 | 0.0006 | 0.0198 | 0.1585 | ** | 0.1669 | 0.2036 | ||||||
Sewerage bills × important | 0.0341 | ** | 0.0253 | * | 0.0010 | 0.0358 | *** | 0.0058 | 0.0316 | ||||
No. of observations | 18,480 | ||||||||||||
Log likelihood | −5644.5 | −5624.5 | −5638.3 | −5638.6 | −5634.5 | −5647.1 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Jo, H.; Park, S.; Shin, J. Investigating Heterogeneous Consumer Preference for Sustainable Sewerage Asset Management: The Case of South Korea. Water 2023, 15, 2520. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15142520
Jo H, Park S, Shin J. Investigating Heterogeneous Consumer Preference for Sustainable Sewerage Asset Management: The Case of South Korea. Water. 2023; 15(14):2520. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15142520
Chicago/Turabian StyleJo, Hanseul, Soyeong Park, and Jungwoo Shin. 2023. "Investigating Heterogeneous Consumer Preference for Sustainable Sewerage Asset Management: The Case of South Korea" Water 15, no. 14: 2520. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15142520
APA StyleJo, H., Park, S., & Shin, J. (2023). Investigating Heterogeneous Consumer Preference for Sustainable Sewerage Asset Management: The Case of South Korea. Water, 15(14), 2520. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15142520