IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i24p7117-d297032.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Valuation of Grassland Ecosystem Services in Inner Mongolia of China and Its Spatial Differences

Author

Listed:
  • Jing Ning

    (State Key Laboratory of Earth Surface Processes and Resource Ecology (ESPRE), Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China)

  • Jianjun Jin

    (State Key Laboratory of Earth Surface Processes and Resource Ecology (ESPRE), Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China)

  • Foyuan Kuang

    (School of Natural Resources, Faculty of Geographical Science, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China)

  • Xinyu Wan

    (School of Natural Resources, Faculty of Geographical Science, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China)

  • Chenyang Zhang

    (School of Natural Resources, Faculty of Geographical Science, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China)

  • Tong Guan

    (School of Natural Resources, Faculty of Geographical Science, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China)

Abstract

Economic valuation of grassland ecosystem services is important for protecting and restoring grassland ecosystems. This study aims to investigate Chinese netizens’ willingness-to-pay (WTP) for protecting grassland ecosystem services in Inner Mongolia by using the contingent valuation method. The results indicate that 61.55% of respondents expressed a positive WTP. The mean WTP was estimated to be CNY 170.76 (USD 25.11) per person per year. We found that there is a significant spatial difference in respondent’s WTP. Factors such as respondent age, education, household income and concern about grassland protection significantly affected their WTP. Younger, more educated and wealthier respondents have a higher probability of willingness to pay, and those who are concerned about grassland protection present a higher WTP. The regression results also show that distance from the grassland negatively affects the probability and values of people’s WTP. Findings of this research provide useful policy implications for decision-makers involved in grassland protection and management.

Suggested Citation

  • Jing Ning & Jianjun Jin & Foyuan Kuang & Xinyu Wan & Chenyang Zhang & Tong Guan, 2019. "The Valuation of Grassland Ecosystem Services in Inner Mongolia of China and Its Spatial Differences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-14, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:24:p:7117-:d:297032
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/24/7117/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/24/7117/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bateman, Ian J. & Day, Brett H. & Georgiou, Stavros & Lake, Iain, 2006. "The aggregation of environmental benefit values: Welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 450-460, December.
    2. Kangethe, Anne & Franic, Duska M. & Corso, Phaedra S., 2016. "Comparing the validity of the payment card and structured haggling willingness to pay methods: The case of a diabetes prevention program in rural Kenya," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 86-96.
    3. Fleischer, Aliza & Sternberg, Marcelo, 2006. "The economic impact of global climate change on Mediterranean rangeland ecosystems: A Space-for-Time approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 287-295, September.
    4. Timothy C. Haab & Kenneth E. McConnell, 2002. "Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2427, June.
    5. Zheng, Xinyi & Zhang, Junze & Cao, Shixiong, 2018. "Net value of grassland ecosystem services in mainland China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 94-101.
    6. Ndambiri, Hilary & Brouwer, Roy & Mungatana, Eric, 2016. "Comparing welfare estimates across stated preference and uncertainty elicitation formats for air quality improvements in Nairobi, Kenya," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 21(5), pages 649-668, October.
    7. Henrik Lindhjem & Kristine Grimsrud & Ståle Navrud & Stein Olav Kolle, 2015. "The social benefits and costs of preserving forest biodiversity and ecosystem services," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(2), pages 202-222, July.
    8. Ian J. Bateman & Richard T. Carson & Brett Day & Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Tannis Hett & Michael Jones-Lee & Graham Loomes, 2002. "Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2639, June.
    9. Weixian Wei & Yan Wu, 2017. "Willingness to pay to control PM2.5 pollution in Jing-Jin-Ji Region, China," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(11), pages 753-761, June.
    10. 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.
    11. Divinsky, Itai & Becker, Nir & Bar (Kutiel), Pua, 2017. "Ecosystem service tradeoff between grazing intensity and other services - A case study in Karei-Deshe experimental cattle range in northern Israel," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 16-27.
    12. Joseph C. Cooper & Michael Hanemann & Giovanni Signorello, 2002. "One-and-One-Half-Bound Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 84(4), pages 742-750, November.
    13. Elliott Campbell & Mark Brown, 2012. "Environmental accounting of natural capital and ecosystem services for the US National Forest System," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 14(5), pages 691-724, October.
    14. Mwebaze, Paul & Marris, Gay C. & Brown, Mike & MacLeod, Alan & Jones, Glyn & Budge, Giles E., 2018. "Measuring public perception and preferences for ecosystem services: A case study of bee pollination in the UK," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 355-362.
    15. Ronald J. Sutherland & Richard G. Walsh, 1985. "Effect of Distance on the Preservation Value of Water Quality," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 64(3), pages 281-291.
    16. Yoo, Seung-Hoon & Kwak, So-Yoon, 2009. "Willingness to pay for green electricity in Korea: A contingent valuation study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(12), pages 5408-5416, December.
    17. Sutton, Paul C. & Anderson, Sharolyn J. & Costanza, Robert & Kubiszewski, Ida, 2016. "The ecological economics of land degradation: Impacts on ecosystem service values," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 182-192.
    18. Ingraham, Molly W. & Foster, Shonda Gilliland, 2008. "The value of ecosystem services provided by the U.S. National Wildlife Refuge System in the contiguous U.S," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(4), pages 608-618, November.
    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. Shrestha, Kripa & Shakya, Bandana & Adhikari, Biraj & Nepal, Mani & Shaoliang, Yi, 2023. "Ecosystem services valuation for conservation and development decisions: A review of valuation studies and tools in the Far Eastern Himalaya," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    2. Caixia Hou & Mengmeng Zhang & Mengmeng Wang & Hanliang Fu & Mengjie Zhang, 2021. "Factors Influencing Grazing Behavior by Using the Consciousness-Context-Behavior Theory—A Case Study from Yanchi County, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-16, October.
    3. Mustafa Hakkı Aydoğdu & Mehmet Reşit Sevinç & Mehmet Cançelik & Hatice Parlakçı Doğan & Zeliha Şahin, 2020. "Determination of Farmers’ Willingness to Pay for Sustainable Agricultural Land Use in the GAP-Harran Plain of Turkey," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-15, August.
    4. Hatice Parlakçı Doğan & Mustafa Hakkı Aydoğdu & Mehmet Reşit Sevinç & Mehmet Cançelik, 2020. "Farmers’ Willingness to Pay for Services to Ensure Sustainable Agricultural Income in the GAP-Harran Plain, Şanlıurfa, Turkey," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-16, May.
    5. Moritz A. Drupp & Zachary M. Turk & Ben Groom & Jonas Heckenhahn, 2024. "Limited Substitutability, Relative Price Changes and the Uplifting of Public Natural Capital Values," CESifo Working Paper Series 11156, CESifo.
    6. Maria Pergola & Enrica De Falco & Michele Cerrato, 2024. "Grassland Ecosystem Services: Their Economic Evaluation through a Systematic Review," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-21, July.

    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. 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.
    2. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489, June.
    3. Riera, Pere & Signorello, Giovanni & Thiene, Mara & Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Navrud, Ståle & Kaval, Pamela & Rulleau, Benedicte & Mavsar, Robert & Madureira, Lívia & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Elsasser, Pe, 2012. "Non-market valuation of forest goods and services: Good practice guidelines," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 259-270.
    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. Aravena, Claudia & Hutchinson, W. George & Longo, Alberto, 2012. "Environmental pricing of externalities from different sources of electricity generation in Chile," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 1214-1225.
    6. Dahal, Ram P. & Grala, Robert K. & Gordon, Jason S. & Petrolia, Daniel R. & Munn, Ian A., 2018. "Estimating the willingness to pay to preserve waterfront open spaces using contingent valuation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 614-626.
    7. Helen Scarborough & Jeff Bennett, 2012. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and Distributional Preferences," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14376, June.
    8. Jae Kim & Seung-Nam Kim & Soogwan Doh, 2015. "The distance decay of willingness to pay and the spatial distribution of benefits and costs for the ecological restoration of an urban branch stream in Ulsan, South Korea," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 54(3), pages 835-853, May.
    9. Sung-Min Kim & Ju-Hee Kim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2020. "Households’ Willingness to Pay for Substituting Natural Gas with Renewable Methane: A Contingent Valuation Experiment in South Korea," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-13, June.
    10. I. Bateman & R. Brouwer & S. Ferrini & M. Schaafsma & D. Barton & A. Dubgaard & B. Hasler & S. Hime & I. Liekens & S. Navrud & L. De Nocker & R. Ščeponavičiūtė & D. Semėnienė, 2011. "Making Benefit Transfers Work: Deriving and Testing Principles for Value Transfers for Similar and Dissimilar Sites Using a Case Study of the Non-Market Benefits of Water Quality Improvements Across E," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(3), pages 365-387, November.
    11. Hyo-Jin Kim & Seul-Ye Lim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2017. "Are Korean Households Willing to Pay a Premium for Induction Cooktops over Gas Stoves?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-10, August.
    12. Chengjin He & Huaiyong Shao & Wei Xian, 2022. "Spatiotemporal Variation and Driving Forces Analysis of Eco-System Service Values: A Case Study of Sichuan Province, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(14), pages 1-22, July.
    13. Catherine L. Kling & Daniel J. Phaneuf & Jinhua Zhao, 2012. "From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better Than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 3-26, Fall.
    14. Yao, Richard T. & Scarpa, Riccardo & Turner, James A. & Barnard, Tim D. & Rose, John M. & Palma, João H.N. & Harrison, Duncan R., 2014. "Valuing biodiversity enhancement in New Zealand's planted forests: Socioeconomic and spatial determinants of willingness-to-pay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 90-101.
    15. JongRoul Woo & Sesil Lim & Yong-Gil Lee & Sung-Yoon Huh, 2018. "Financial Feasibility and Social Acceptance for Reducing Nuclear Power Plants: A Contingent Valuation Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-16, October.
    16. Sardana, Kavita, 2019. "Tourists' Willingness to Pay for Restoration of Traditional Agro-forest Ecosystems Providing Biodiversity: Evidence from India," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 362-372.
    17. Klaus Glenk & Robert J. Johnston & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Julian Sagebiel, 2020. "Spatial Dimensions of Stated Preference Valuation in Environmental and Resource Economics: Methods, Trends and Challenges," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(2), pages 215-242, February.
    18. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    19. Giles Atkinson & Sian Morse-Jones & Susana Mourato & Allan Provins, 2012. "‘When to Take “No” for an Answer’? Using Entreaties to Reduce Protests in Contingent Valuation Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 497-523, April.
    20. Tuan, Tran Huu & Navrud, Stale, 2009. "Applying the dissonance-minimising format to value cultural heritage in developing countries," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(3), pages 1-17.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:24:p:7117-:d:297032. 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.