IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v8y2016i4p310-d66652.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Valuation of Haze Management and Prevention Using the Contingent Valuation Method with the Sure Independence Screening Algorithm

Author

Listed:
  • Guizhi Wang

    (School of Mathematics and Statistics, Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology, Nanjing 210044, China
    School of Computer and Software, Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology, Nanjing 210044, China)

  • Yingxi Song

    (School of Mathematics and Statistics, Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology, Nanjing 210044, China)

  • Jibo Chen

    (School of Mathematics and Statistics, Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology, Nanjing 210044, China)

  • Jun Yu

    (Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05401, USA)

Abstract

Haze has caused the deterioration of air quality and has ultimately affected the ecological environment. The contingent valuation method (CVM) is an important assessment method that is widely used in ecological economics. The public’s willingness to pay (WTP) for haze management and prevention can be analyzed using dichotomous choices. Here, the method is applied to study the valuation of haze management and prevention. Taking Jiangsu Province as an example, the non-market value is calculated by constructing the binary logistic model from questionnaire data, combined with a data-processing method: the sure independence screening (SIS) algorithm. The conclusions are as follows: (1) The public’s WTP for haze management and prevention is closely related to the monthly income of families and transport modality; (2) According to the CVM, the non-market value for haze management and prevention in Jiangsu is 7.645 billion yuan; (3) By the average estimate method (AEM), this value is 12.529 billion yuan, about 1.64 times the estimate from the CVM. This is because the AEM ignores the correlation among the influence factors and, therefore, overestimates the valuation of the services; (4) The CVM, combined with the SIS algorithm, does a better job in estimating the valuation of the services.

Suggested Citation

  • Guizhi Wang & Yingxi Song & Jibo Chen & Jun Yu, 2016. "Valuation of Haze Management and Prevention Using the Contingent Valuation Method with the Sure Independence Screening Algorithm," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-11, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:8:y:2016:i:4:p:310-:d:66652
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/4/310/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/4/310/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Davis, M.E., 2012. "Recessions and health: The impact of economic trends on air pollution in California," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 102(10), pages 1951-1956.
    2. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    3. Aiping Zhang & Linsheng Zhong & Yong Xu & Hui Wang & Lijuan Dang, 2015. "Tourists’ Perception of Haze Pollution and the Potential Impacts on Travel: Reshaping the Features of Tourism Seasonality in Beijing, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-18, February.
    4. Chuanwang Sun & Nan Lyu & Xiaoling Ouyang, 2014. "Chinese Public Willingness to Pay to Avoid Having Nuclear Power Plants in the Neighborhood," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(10), pages 1-27, October.
    5. Chia-Nung Li & Chien-Wen Lo & Wei-Chiang Su & Tsung-Yu Lai, 2015. "A Study on Soil and Groundwater Pollution Remediation of the Surrounding Real Estate Prices and Tax Revenue Impact," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(11), pages 1-13, November.
    6. Chin-Huang Huang & Chiung-Hsia Wang, 2015. "Estimating the Total Economic Value of Cultivated Flower Land in Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-19, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yifeng Wang & Ken Sun & Li Li & Yalin Lei & Sanmang Wu & Yong Jiang & Yanling Xi & Fang Wang & Yanfang Cui, 2022. "Assessing the Public Health Economic Loss from PM 2.5 Pollution in ‘2 + 26’ Cities," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(17), pages 1-16, August.
    2. Fan Yang & Ling Ding & Cai Liu & Lizheng Xu & Stephen Nicholas & Jian Wang, 2018. "Haze Attitudes and the Willingness to Pay for Haze Improvement: Evidence from Four Cities in Shandong Province, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-15, October.
    3. So-Yeon Park & Seul-Ye Lim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2016. "The Economic Value of the National Meteorological Service in the Korean Household Sector: A Contingent Valuation Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-13, August.

    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. Mikhail Miklyaev & Glenn P. Jenkins & Precious P. Adeshina, 2022. "Ex-Post Evaluation of The Algerian SWRO Desalination PPP Program," Development Discussion Papers 2022-14, JDI Executive Programs.
    2. Yamada, Katsunori & Sato, Masayuki, 2013. "Another avenue for anatomy of income comparisons: Evidence from hypothetical choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 35-57.
    3. Pamela Wicker & John C. Whitehead & Bruce K. Johnson & Daniel S. Mason, 2016. "Willingness-To-Pay For Sporting Success Of Football Bundesliga Teams," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 34(3), pages 446-462, July.
    4. Franz Hackl & Gerald J. Pruckner, 2005. "Warm glow, free‐riding and vehicle neutrality in a health‐related contingent valuation study," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(3), pages 293-306, March.
    5. Marieka M. Klawitter & C. Leigh Anderson & Mary Kay Gugerty, 2013. "Savings And Personal Discount Rates In A Matched Savings Program For Low-Income Families," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 31(3), pages 468-485, July.
    6. Rodríguez, Elsa Mirta M. & Lacaze, María Victoria & Lupín, Beatriz, 2007. "Willingness to pay for organic food in Argentina: evidence from a consumer survey," Nülan. Deposited Documents 1300, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, Centro de Documentación.
    7. Van Houtven, George L. & Pattanayak, Subhrendu K. & Usmani, Faraz & Yang, Jui-Chen, 2017. "What are Households Willing to Pay for Improved Water Access? Results from a Meta-Analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 126-135.
    8. Jean-Daniel Rinaudo & Stéphanie Aulong, 2014. "Defining Groundwater Remediation Objectives with Cost-benefit Analysis: Does It Work?," Post-Print hal-00934930, HAL.
    9. Ali DOUAI, 2007. "Wealth, Well-being and Value(s): A Proposition of Structuring Concepts for a (real) Transdisciplinary Dialogue within Ecological Economics," Cahiers du GREThA (2007-2019) 2007-18, Groupe de Recherche en Economie Théorique et Appliquée (GREThA).
    10. Turpie, Jane K., 2003. "The existence value of biodiversity in South Africa: how interest, experience, knowledge, income and perceived level of threat influence local willingness to pay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 199-216, September.
    11. Dienes, Christian, 2015. "Actions and intentions to pay for climate change mitigation: Environmental concern and the role of economic factors," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 122-129.
    12. Nikodinoska, Natasha & Paletto, Alessandro & Pastorella, Fabio & Granvik, Madeleine & Franzese, Pier Paolo, 2018. "Assessing, valuing and mapping ecosystem services at city level: The case of Uppsala (Sweden)," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 368(C), pages 411-424.
    13. Stenger, Anne & Harou, Patrice & Navrud, Ståle, 2009. "Valuing environmental goods and services derived from the forests," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1-2), pages 1-14, January.
    14. Ju-Hee Kim & Young-Kuk Kim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2023. "Does Proximity to a Power Plant Affect Housing Property Values of a City in South Korea? An Empirical Investigation," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-14, February.
    15. Kiprop, Jonah Kipsaat, 2015. "An Evaluation Of Farmers Willingness To Pay For Irrigation Water In Kerio Valley Basin Kenya," Research Theses 265580, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    16. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    17. Hermann Donfouet & Ephias Makaudze & Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Eric Malin, 2011. "The determinants of the willingness-to-pay for community-based prepayment scheme in rural Cameroon," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 209-220, September.
    18. Drichoutis, Andreas C. & Vassilopoulos, Achilleas & Lusk, Jayson L. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. Jr., 2015. "Reference dependence, consequentiality and social desirability in value elicitation: A study of fair labor labeling," 143rd Joint EAAE/AAEA Seminar, March 25-27, 2015, Naples, Italy 202705, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. Arne Hole & Julie Kolstad, 2012. "Mixed logit estimation of willingness to pay distributions: a comparison of models in preference and WTP space using data from a health-related choice experiment," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 445-469, April.
    20. Yongrok Choi & Ning Zhang, 2015. "Introduction to the Special Issue on “the Sustainable Asia Conference 2014”," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-8, February.

    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:8:y:2016:i:4:p:310-:d:66652. 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.