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, Open Access Journal, 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. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    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. 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, Open Access Journal, vol. 10(5), pages 1-16, May.
    2. 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, Open Access Journal, vol. 9(8), pages 1-15, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    grassland; ecosystem services; contingent valuation method; China;

    JEL classification:

    • Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics
    • Q0 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - General
    • Q2 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation
    • Q3 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Nonrenewable Resources and Conservation
    • Q5 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics
    • Q56 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environment and Development; Environment and Trade; Sustainability; Environmental Accounts and Accounting; Environmental Equity; Population Growth
    • O13 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Agriculture; Natural Resources; Environment; Other Primary Products

    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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (XML Conversion Team). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com/ .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.