IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v11y2022i9p1463-d904828.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Eliciting Herders’ Willingness to Accept Grassland Conservation: A Choice Experiment Design in Pastoral Regions of China

Author

Listed:
  • Xinxin Lv

    (China Center for Agricultural Policy, School of Advanced Agricultural Sciences, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China)

  • Mingxue Zhang

    (China Center for Agricultural Policy, School of Advanced Agricultural Sciences, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China)

  • Dongqing Li

    (Institute of Agricultural Economics and Development, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100081, China)

Abstract

Top-down grassland conservation policies are widely used to protect grassland ecosystems from degradation in developing counties. However, an inability to meet local herders’ preferences when implementing such ecological policies may weaken their outcomes. Using a choice experiment design, this paper evaluated herders’ willingness to accept (WTA) different possible implementations of a grazing ban policy, which is an ongoing but inflexible grassland protection policy in China. The results showed that herders were more likely to accept a grazing ban policy that targets private benefits rather than public benefits. In particular, herder’s WTA decreased when the policy objective changed from improving private grassland productivity to protecting grassland wildlife (or preventing sandstorms). Additionally, broader coverage and a longer duration also increased herders’ WTA a grazing ban policy; i.e., herders preferred a grazing ban policy with less coverage and a shorter duration. Our heterogeneity analysis showed that herder’s WTA is not only associated with their socioeconomic characteristics, but also with their altruism. Herders with higher altruistic tendencies were more willing to engage in a gazing ban policy targeting public benefits. These findings offer valuable insight into potential methods of redesigning top-down grassland protection policies and incentivizing small herders to adapt to environmentally friendly practices in China or other countries with similar backgrounds.

Suggested Citation

  • Xinxin Lv & Mingxue Zhang & Dongqing Li, 2022. "Eliciting Herders’ Willingness to Accept Grassland Conservation: A Choice Experiment Design in Pastoral Regions of China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-16, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:9:p:1463-:d:904828
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/9/1463/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/9/1463/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carpenter, Jeffrey & Myers, Caitlin Knowles, 2010. "Why volunteer? Evidence on the role of altruism, image, and incentives," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(11-12), pages 911-920, December.
    2. J. W. Bolderdijk & L. Steg & E. S. Geller & P. K. Lehman & T. Postmes, 2013. "Comparing the effectiveness of monetary versus moral motives in environmental campaigning," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 3(4), pages 413-416, April.
    3. Li, Dongqing & Hou, Lingling & Zuo, Alec, 2021. "Informal institutions and grassland protection: Empirical evidence from pastoral regions in China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    4. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
    5. Hu, Yuanning & Huang, Jikun & Hou, Lingling, 2019. "Impacts of the Grassland Ecological Compensation Policy on Household Livestock Production in China: An Empirical Study in Inner Mongolia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 248-256.
    6. Nguyen, Huy Quynh & Warr, Peter, 2020. "Land consolidation as technical change: Economic impacts in rural Vietnam," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    7. Tyrväinen, Liisa & Mäntymaa, Erkki & Juutinen, Artti & Kurttila, Mikko & Ovaskainen, Ville, 2021. "Private landowners’ preferences for trading forest landscape and recreational values: A choice experiment application in Kuusamo, Finland," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    8. Tadesse, Tewodros & Berhane, Tsegay & Mulatu, Dawit W. & Rannestad, Meley Mekonen, 2021. "Willingness to accept compensation for afromontane forest ecosystems conservation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    9. Lise, Wietze & Hess, Sebastiaan & Purev, Byamba, 2006. "Pastureland degradation and poverty among herders in Mongolia: Data analysis and game estimation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 350-364, June.
    10. Zandersen, Marianne & Oddershede, Jakob Stoktoft & Pedersen, Anders Branth & Nielsen, Helle Ørsted & Termansen, Mette, 2021. "Nature Based Solutions for Climate Adaptation - Paying Farmers for Flood Control," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    11. Eckel, Catherine C. & Grossman, Philip J., 1996. "Altruism in Anonymous Dictator Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 181-191, October.
    12. Jordan J. Louviere & Towhidul Islam & Nada Wasi & Deborah Street & Leonie Burgess, 2008. "Designing Discrete Choice Experiments: Do Optimal Designs Come at a Price?," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 35(2), pages 360-375, March.
    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. Matteo M. Galizzi & Daniel Navarro-Martinez, 2019. "On the External Validity of Social Preference Games: A Systematic Lab-Field Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(3), pages 976-1002, March.
    2. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J., 2013. "Dynamic hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments: Evidence from measuring the impact of corporate social responsibility on consumers demand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 53-61.
    3. Carpenter, Jeffrey & Myers, Caitlin Knowles, 2010. "Why volunteer? Evidence on the role of altruism, image, and incentives," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(11-12), pages 911-920, December.
    4. Lijia Wang & Zeng Tang & Qisheng Feng & Xin Wang, 2022. "Informal Institutions and Herders’ Grazing Intensity Reduction Behavior: Evidence from Pastoral Areas in China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-15, August.
    5. Dang Nguyen, Godefroy & Dejean, Sylvain & Jullien, Nicolas, 2018. "Do open online projects create social norms?," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(1), pages 45-70, February.
    6. Zhipeng Huang & Yan Zhang & Yi Huang & Gang Xu & Shengping Shang, 2022. "Sales Scale, Non-Pastoral Employment and Herders’ Technology Adoption: Evidence from Pastoral China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-13, July.
    7. Salmon, Timothy C. & Serra, Danila, 2017. "Corruption, social judgment and culture: An experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 64-78.
    8. Sheheryar Banuri & Philip Keefer & Damien de Walque, 2017. "Love the job... or the patient? Task vs. mission-based motiviations in healthcare," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) 17-09, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    9. Angela C. M. de Oliveira & Catherine Eckel & Rachel T. A. Croson, 2012. "The Stability of Social Preferences in a Low‐Income Neighborhood," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 79(1), pages 15-45, July.
    10. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    11. Banuri, Sheheryar & Keefer, Philip, 2016. "Pro-social motivation, effort and the call to public service," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 139-164.
    12. Do, Manh Hung & Nguyen, Trung Thanh & Grote, Ulrike, 2023. "Land consolidation, rice production, and agricultural transformation: Evidence from household panel data for Vietnam," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 157-173.
    13. Corneo, Giacomo & Fong, Christina M., 2008. "What's the monetary value of distributive justice," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(1-2), pages 289-308, February.
    14. Bodo Herzog, 2018. "Valuation of Digital Platforms: Experimental Evidence for Google and Facebook," IJFS, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-13, October.
    15. Frings, Oliver & Abildtrup, Jens & Montagné-Huck, Claire & Gorel, Salomé & Stenger, Anne, 2023. "Do individual PES buyers care about additionality and free-riding? A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    16. Burks, Stephen V. & Carpenter, Jeffrey P. & Verhoogen, Eric, 2003. "Playing both roles in the trust game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 195-216, June.
    17. Boyce, Christopher & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Hanley, Nick, 2019. "Personality and economic choices," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 82-100.
    18. Palma, Marco A. & Ness, Meghan L. & Anderson, David P., 2015. "Buying More than Taste? A Latent Class Analysis of Health and Prestige Determinants of Healthy Food," 2015 Conference (59th), February 10-13, 2015, Rotorua, New Zealand 202566, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    19. Emin Karagözoğlu & Elif Tosun, 2022. "Endogenous Game Choice and Giving Behavior in Distribution Games," Games, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-32, November.
    20. David Macro & Jeroen Weesie, 2016. "Inequalities between Others Do Matter: Evidence from Multiplayer Dictator Games," Games, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-23, April.

    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:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:9:p:1463-:d:904828. 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.