IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i6p2440-d1357471.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Willing or Not? Rural Residents’ Willingness to Pay for Ecosystem Conservation in Economically Underdeveloped Regions: A Case Study in China’s Qinling National Park

Author

Listed:
  • Ruikun An

    (School of Economics and Management, Northwest University, Xi’an 710127, China)

  • Feng Wang

    (School of Economics and Management, Northwest University, Xi’an 710127, China)

  • Jiro Sakurai

    (Faculty of Policy Study, Ryukoku University, Kyoto 612-8577, Japan)

  • Hideki Kitagawa

    (Faculty of Policy Study, Ryukoku University, Kyoto 612-8577, Japan)

Abstract

Implementing payments for ecosystem service (PES) programs in national parks has proven effective in balancing the conflicts between ecosystem conservation and economic development, achieving long-term sustainability. Residents’ participation and financial contributions are crucial prerequisites for establishing PES programs in national parks. Hence, it is necessary to investigate residents’ willingness to participate in and pay before its official operation in China’s Qinling National Park. By adopting a contingent valuation method, this study collects 1431 face-to-face, one-to-one questionnaire answers from rural residents in the region. The results show that 76.7% of the sample are willing to participate in the ecosystem conservation of Qinling National Park, although their willingness to pay is relatively low, with the average being RMB 136.5 (USD 20.3) per household per year. Moreover, informal institutions maintained by social trust continue to play an essential role in this rural area. Residents’ willingness to participate is positively influenced by their social trust, which includes both institutional and interpersonal trust. Additionally, their willingness to pay is positively affected by their household income and cultural preferences. Finally, residents’ occupation as farmers exhibits a negative moderating effect on the direct influence of their household income on their willingness to pay, while their education level positively moderates the impact of their cultural preferences on their willingness to pay.

Suggested Citation

  • Ruikun An & Feng Wang & Jiro Sakurai & Hideki Kitagawa, 2024. "Willing or Not? Rural Residents’ Willingness to Pay for Ecosystem Conservation in Economically Underdeveloped Regions: A Case Study in China’s Qinling National Park," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(6), pages 1-17, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:6:p:2440-:d:1357471
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/6/2440/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/6/2440/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. José De Gregorio & Jong–Wha Lee, 2002. "Education and Income Inequality: New Evidence From Cross‐Country Data," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 48(3), pages 395-416, September.
    2. Jan Tinbergen, 1972. "The Impact Of Education On Income Distribution," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 18(3), pages 255-265, September.
    3. Torgler, Benno & Garcia-Valinas, Maria A., 2007. "The determinants of individuals' attitudes towards preventing environmental damage," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 536-552, August.
    4. Cameron, Trudy Ann & Poe, Gregory L. & Ethier, Robert G. & Schulze, William D., 2002. "Alternative Non-market Value-Elicitation Methods: Are the Underlying Preferences the Same?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 391-425, November.
    5. Niklitschek+, Mario & Leon+, Javier, 1996. "Combining Intended Demand and Yes/No Responses in the Estimation of Contingent Valuation Models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 387-402, November.
    6. Langford, Ian H. & Bateman, Ian J., 1996. "Elicitation and truncation effects in contingent valuation studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 265-267, December.
    7. Heckman, James, 2013. "Sample selection bias as a specification error," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 31(3), pages 129-137.
    8. Brown, Gardner, Jr & Hammack, Judd, 1973. "Dynamic Economic Management of Migratory Waterfowl," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 55(1), pages 73-82, February.
    9. Laura O. Taylor & Ronald G. Cummings, 1999. "Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 649-665, June.
    10. Cragg, John G, 1971. "Some Statistical Models for Limited Dependent Variables with Application to the Demand for Durable Goods," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 39(5), pages 829-844, September.
    11. Dardanoni, Valentino & Guerriero, Carla, 2021. "Young people' s willingness to pay for environmental protection," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    12. Spash, Clive L. & Urama, Kevin & Burton, Rob & Kenyon, Wendy & Shannon, Peter & Hill, Gary, 2009. "Motives behind willingness to pay for improving biodiversity in a water ecosystem: Economics, ethics and social psychology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(4), pages 955-964, February.
    13. Jelena Vapa-Tankosić & Svetlana Ignjatijević & Jelena Kiurski & Jovana Milenković & Irena Milojević, 2020. "Analysis of Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Organic and Local Honey in Serbia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-23, June.
    14. Thomas C. Brown & Patricia A. Champ & Richard C. Bishop & Daniel W. McCollum, 1996. "Which Response Format Reveals the Truth about Donations to a Public Good?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(2), pages 152-166.
    15. Wan-Jiun Chen & Jihn-Fa Jan & Chih-Hsin Chung & Shyue-Cherng Liaw, 2022. "Resident Willingness to Pay for Ecosystem Services in Hillside Forests," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(10), pages 1-17, May.
    16. Qi Chen & Yun Zhang, 2023. "Assessing Tourists’ Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Artificial Beach Park Development and Management: A Choice Experiment Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-17, January.
    17. Qi Ni & Minjuan Zhao & Chaoqiong Li & Yuxing Shi & Tao Xu & Imran Khan, 2021. "Multidimensional trust and its impact on the willingness to pay for ecological compensation in China’s transboundary watersheds—taking the largest tributary of the Yellow River as an example," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 64(12), pages 2257-2275, July.
    18. Wildavsky, Aaron, 1987. "Choosing Preferences by Constructing Institutions: A Cultural Theory of Preference Formation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 81(1), pages 3-21, 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. James Murphy & P. Allen & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 313-325, March.
    2. Blackman, Allen & Qin, Ping & Yang, Jun, 2020. "How costly are driving restrictions? Contingent valuation evidence from Beijing," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    3. Bigerna, Simona & Choudhary, Piyush & Kumar Jain, Nikunj & Micheli, Silvia & Polinori, Paolo, 2022. "Avoiding unanticipated power outages: households’ willingness to pay in India," MPRA Paper 114160, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Halkos, George, 2012. "The use of contingent valuation in assessing marine and coastal ecosystems’ water quality: A review," MPRA Paper 42183, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Ngouhouo Poufoun, Jonas & Abildtrup, Jens & Sonwa, Dénis Jean & Delacote, Philippe, 2016. "The value of endangered forest elephants to local communities in a transboundary conservation landscape," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 70-86.
    6. Carlberg, Jared G. & Froehlich, Eve J., 2011. "Effects of Elicitation Method on Willingness-to-Pay: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 42(2), pages 1-10, July.
    7. Pablo Castellanos & Jaume García & José Manuel Sánchez, 2011. "The Willingness to Pay to Keep a Football Club in a City: How Important are the Methodological Issues?," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 12(4), pages 464-486, August.
    8. Brouhle, Keith & Khanna, Madhu, 2012. "Determinants of participation versus consumption in the Nordic Swan eco-labeled market," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 142-151.
    9. Moore, Christopher C. & Holmes, Thomas P. & Bell, Kathleen P., 2011. "An attribute-based approach to contingent valuation of forest protection programs," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 35-52, January.
    10. Martinez-Espineira, Roberto, 2006. "A Box-Cox Double-Hurdle model of wildlife valuation: The citizen's perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 192-208, June.
    11. Ryan, Anthony M. & Spash, Clive L., 2011. "Is WTP an attitudinal measure? Empirical analysis of the psychological explanation for contingent values," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 674-687.
    12. Lyssenko, Nikita & Martinez-Espineira, Roberto, 2009. "`Been there done that': Disentangling option value effects from user heterogeneity when valuing natural resources with a use component," MPRA Paper 21976, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 08 Apr 2010.
    13. 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.
    14. Jensen, Kimberly L., 1995. "Fluid Milk Purchase Patterns In The South: Effects Of Use Of Nutrition Information And Household Characteristics," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 27(2), pages 1-14, December.
    15. Ghosh, sudeshna, 2017. "Education Attainment Forecasting and Economic Inequality United States," MPRA Paper 89712, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Salmon, Claire & Tanguy, Jeremy, 2016. "Rural Electrification and Household Labor Supply: Evidence from Nigeria," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 48-68.
    17. Peter Howley & Emma Dillon & Thia Hennessy, 2014. "It’s not all about the money: understanding farmers’ labor allocation choices," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 31(2), pages 261-271, June.
    18. Wongnaa, Camillus Abawiera & Kyei, Afrane Baffour & Apike, Isaac Akurugu & Awunyo-Vitor, Dadson & Dziwornu, Raymond K., 2021. "Perception and Adoption of Artificial Pollination Technology in Cocoa Production: Evidence from Ghana," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 314939, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. Beltran, Jesusa C. & Pannell, David J. & Doole, Graeme J. & White, Benedict, 2011. "Factors that affect the use of herbicides in Philippine rice farming systems," Working Papers 108769, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    20. Gert-Jan M. Linders & Henri L.F. de Groot, 2006. "Estimation of the Gravity Equation in the Presence of Zero Flows," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 06-072/3, Tinbergen Institute.

    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:6:p:2440-:d:1357471. 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.