IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ajecsc/v82y2023i1p61-78.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Preference for rural living environment improvement initiatives in China

Author

Listed:
  • Zhaohui Zhang
  • Krishna P. Paudel
  • Kamal Upadhyaya

Abstract

The Chinese government has launched the Rural Living Environment Improvement Initiative (RLEII) to solve the poor living conditions in rural areas. The initiative enhances rural greenery; provides sanitary toilets; and promotes proper disposal of animal manure, sewage, and household waste in rural areas. We collected data using in‐person interviews with 938 rural residents in Xinjiang, China, to elicit their preference, preference intensity, and preference heterogeneity for RLEII. Results indicated that rural residents prefer to see shortcomings of the RLEII addressed. Rural greening construction is identified with the highest preference intensity. We also find significant heterogeneity in rural residents' preferences for each attribute of RLEII. The preference heterogeneity is rooted in the region's economic condition (poor vs. nonpoor region). It is essential to understand rural residents' choice for rural public goods supply and to respect their preference intensity, sequence, and heterogeneity for RLEII to enhance the implementation performance. We discuss the implications of these findings.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhaohui Zhang & Krishna P. Paudel & Kamal Upadhyaya, 2023. "Preference for rural living environment improvement initiatives in China," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 82(1), pages 61-78, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:ajecsc:v:82:y:2023:i:1:p:61-78
    DOI: 10.1111/ajes.12490
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ajes.12490
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ajes.12490?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley & Jacob LaRiviere, 2016. "Controlling for the Effects of Information in a Public Goods Discrete Choice Model," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(3), pages 523-544, March.
    2. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    3. Andrew Daly & Stephane Hess & Kenneth Train, 2012. "Assuring finite moments for willingness to pay in random coefficient models," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 19-31, January.
    4. Alpizar, Francisco & Carlsson, Fredrik, 2003. "Policy implications and analysis of the determinants of travel mode choice: an application of choice experiments to metropolitan Costa Rica," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(4), pages 603-619, October.
    5. Hongmei Yi & Denise Hare & Linxiu Zhang, 2011. "Does The Provision Of Public Goods Correspond To Local Demand?," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 29(1), pages 115-137, January.
    6. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
    7. Arne Risa Hole, 2007. "Fitting mixed logit models by using maximum simulated likelihood," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 7(3), pages 388-401, September.
    8. Doherty, Edel & Murphy, Geraldine & Hynes, Stephen & Buckley, Cathal, 2014. "Valuing ecosystem services across water bodies: Results from a discrete choice experiment," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 89-97.
    9. Chaikaew, Pasicha & Hodges, Alan W. & Grunwald, Sabine, 2017. "Estimating the value of ecosystem services in a mixed-use watershed: A choice experiment approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 228-237.
    10. Lizin, Sebastien & Van Passel, Steven & Schreurs, Eloi, 2015. "Farmres' Perceived Cost of Land Use restrictions: A Simulated Purchasing Decision Using Dscrete Choice Experiments," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212054, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Permadi, Dwiko B. & Burton, Michael & Pandit, Ram & Race, Digby & Walker, Iain, 2018. "Local community's preferences for accepting a forestry partnership contract to grow pulpwood in Indonesia: A choice experiment study," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 73-83.
    12. Zemo, Kahsay Haile & Termansen, Mette, 2018. "Farmers’ willingness to participate in collective biogas investment: A discrete choice experiment study," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 87-101.
    13. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    14. Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene & Kenneth Train, 2008. "Utility in Willingness to Pay Space: A Tool to Address Confounding Random Scale Effects in Destination Choice to the Alps," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 994-1010.
    15. 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.
    16. Hongtao Hu & Krishna P. Paudel & Ying Tan, 2022. "Income, Policy, and Pollution," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 81(1), pages 131-153, January.
    17. Scarpa, R. & Thiene, M. & Train, K., 2008. "Appendix to Utility in WTP space: a tool to address confounding random scale effects in destination choice to the Alps," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 1-9, January.
    18. Nordén, Anna & Coria, Jessica & Jönsson, Anna Maria & Lagergren, Fredrik & Lehsten, Veiko, 2017. "Divergence in stakeholders' preferences: Evidence from a choice experiment on forest landscapes preferences in Sweden," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 179-195.
    19. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, January.
    20. Gregory L. Poe & Kelly L. Giraud & John B. Loomis, 2005. "Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(2), pages 353-365.
    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. Ying Wei & Anlu Zhang & Yan Ma, 2023. "A Bibliometric Review of Rural Living Environment Improvement Research in China Based on CNKI Database: 1992–2022," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-22, April.

    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. Tensay Meles & L. (Lisa B.) Ryan & Sanghamitra Mukherjee, 2019. "Preferences for Renewable Home Heating: A Choice Experiment Study of Heat Pump System in Ireland," Open Access publications 10197/11467, School of Economics, University College Dublin.
    2. Riccardo Scarpa & Cristiano Franceschinis & Mara Thiene, 2017. "A Monte Carlo Evaluation of the Logit-Mixed Logit under Asymmetry and Multimodality," Working Papers in Economics 17/23, University of Waikato.
    3. West, Grant H. & Snell, Heather & Kovacs, Kent & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2020. "Estimation of the preferences for the intertemporal services from groundwater," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304220, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Daniele Moro & Mario Veneziani & Paolo Sckokai & Elena Castellari, 2015. "Consumer Willingness to Pay for Catechin‐enriched Yogurt: Evidence from a Stated Choice Experiment," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(2), pages 243-258, April.
    5. Sckokai, Paolo & Veneziani, Mario & Moro, Daniele & Castellari, Elena, 2014. "Consumer willingness to pay for food safety: the case of mycotoxins in milk," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 3(1), pages 1-19, April.
    6. Ajayi, V. & Reiner, D., 2020. "Consumer Willingness to Pay for Reducing the Environmental Footprint of Green Plastics," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 20110, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    7. Dissanayake,Sahan T. M. & Beyene,Abebe Damte & Bluffstone,Randall & Gebreegziabher, Zenebe & Martinsson,Peter & Mekonnen,Alemu & Toman,Michael A. & Vieider,Ferdinand M., 2015. "Preferences for REDD+ contract attributes in low-income countries : a choice experiment in Ethiopia," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7296, The World Bank.
    8. Penn, Jerrod & Hu, Wuyang, 2016. "Making the Most of Cheap Talk in an Online Survey," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 236171, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Teferi, Ermias Tesfaye & Kassie, Girma T. & Pe, Mario Enrico & Fadda, Carlo, 2020. "Are farmers willing to pay for climate related traits of wheat? Evidence from rural parts of Ethiopia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    10. Michela Faccioli & Laure Kuhfuss & Mikołaj Czajkowski, 2019. "Stated Preferences for Conservation Policies Under Uncertainty: Insights on the Effect of Individuals’ Risk Attitudes in the Environmental Domain," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(2), pages 627-659, June.
    11. Broberg, Thomas & Daniel, Aemiro Melkamu & Persson, Lars, 2021. "Household preferences for load restrictions: Is there an effect of pro-environmental framing?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    12. 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.
    13. Dan Pan, 2016. "The Design of Policy Instruments towards Sustainable Livestock Production in China: An Application of the Choice Experiment Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-18, July.
    14. Elisa Borowski & Amanda Stathopoulos, 2022. "Protection or Peril of Following the Crowd in a Pandemic-Concurrent Flood Evacuation," Papers 2202.00229, arXiv.org.
    15. Yang, Yang & Hobbs, Jill E. & Natcher, David C., 2020. "Assessing consumer willingness to pay for Arctic food products," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    16. Hynes, Stephen & Armstrong, Claire W. & Xuan, Bui Bich & Ankamah-Yeboah, Isaac & Simpson, Katherine & Tinch, Robert & Ressurreição, Adriana, 2021. "Have environmental preferences and willingness to pay remained stable before and during the global Covid-19 shock?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    17. Groh, Elke D., 2022. "Exposure to wind turbines, regional identity and the willingness to pay for regionally produced electricity," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    18. Mohammed Hussen Alemu & Søren Bøye Olsen, 2020. "An analysis of the impacts of tasting experience and peer effects on consumers’ willingness to pay for novel foods," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(4), pages 653-674, October.
    19. Gillespie, Rob & Kragt, Marit E., 2012. "Accounting for Nonmarket Impacts in a Benefit-Cost Analysis of Underground Coal Mining in New South Wales, Australia," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(2), pages 1-29, May.
    20. Juutinen, Artti & Kosenius, Anna-Kaisa & Ovaskainen, Ville, 2014. "Estimating the benefits of recreation-oriented management in state-owned commercial forests in Finland: A choice experiment," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 396-412.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:bla:ajecsc:v:82:y:2023:i:1:p:61-78. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0002-9246 .

    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.