IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i15p9550-d879496.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Payments for Watershed Ecosystem Services in the Eyes of the Public, China

Author

Listed:
  • Chunci Chen

    (State Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China
    University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China)

  • Guizhen He

    (State Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China
    University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China)

  • Yonglong Lu

    (University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
    Key Laboratory of the Ministry of Education for Coastal Wetland Ecosystems, College of the Environment and Ecology, Xiamen University, Xiamen 361102, China)

Abstract

Recent decades have witnessed an increased development of schemes for payment for watershed ecosystem services (PWES). However, the public is usually excluded from PWES systems. Reliable and empirical research on PWES from the public perspective is scarce. Aiming to understand public perceptions, attitudes, participation, and responses to PWES, this paper investigated local residents living in the Yongding River watershed area through a face-to-face questionnaire survey. The results showed that the public had limited knowledge of PWES. The public was keen to be involved in PWES decision-making, but the current level of public participation was very low. Regarding willingness to pay (WTP) and willingness to accept (WTA), nearly 55% of the respondents supported paying the upstream residents for protecting the environment if they were beneficiaries in the downstream areas, while 85% of the respondents agreed to accept compensation if they were contributors to environmental improvement in the upstream areas. Although some of the respondents’ daily lives were affected by the watershed environment, they were reluctant to pay, reflecting a sign of “free-riding”. The regression analysis showed that public concerns, values, knowledge of PWES and the watershed environment, and demographic factors determined the WTP and WTA. The results of the contingent valuation method and opportunity costs method showed that the annual payment for headwater conservation areas (Huailai and Yanqing) ranged from CNY 245 to 718 million (USD 36 to 106 million). This study contributes to our limited knowledge and understanding of public sentiment and makes recommendations for improving public receptivity to PWES.

Suggested Citation

  • Chunci Chen & Guizhen He & Yonglong Lu, 2022. "Payments for Watershed Ecosystem Services in the Eyes of the Public, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-20, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:15:p:9550-:d:879496
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/15/9550/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/15/9550/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Engel, Stefanie & Pagiola, Stefano & Wunder, Sven, 2008. "Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 663-674, May.
    2. Susmita Dasgupta & Kirk Hamilton & Stefano Pagiola & David Wheeler, 2008. "Environmental Economics at the World Bank," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 2(1), pages 4-25, Winter.
    3. Wunder, Sven, 2015. "Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 234-243.
    4. Muradian, Roldan & Corbera, Esteve & Pascual, Unai & Kosoy, Nicolás & May, Peter H., 2010. "Reconciling theory and practice: An alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1202-1208, April.
    5. Retallack, Matthew, 2021. "The intersection of economic demand for ecosystem services and public policy: A watershed case study exploring implications for social-ecological resilience," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    6. Wang, Pu & Poe, Gregory L. & Wolf, Steven A., 2017. "Payments for Ecosystem Services and Wealth Distribution," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 63-68.
    7. Huijie Wang & Zhanfeng Dong & Yuan Xu & Chazhong Ge, 2016. "Eco-compensation for watershed services in China," Water International, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(2), pages 271-289, March.
    8. Farley, Joshua & Costanza, Robert, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services: From local to global," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 2060-2068, September.
    9. Garcia-Cuerva, Laura & Berglund, Emily Z. & Binder, Andrew R., 2016. "Public perceptions of water shortages, conservation behaviors, and support for water reuse in the U.S," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 106-115.
    10. Pagiola, Stefano, 2008. "Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 712-724, May.
    11. Pei, Sha & Zhang, Chunxiao & Liu, Chunlan & Liu, Xiaona & Xie, Gaodi, 2019. "Forest ecological compensation standard based on spatial flowing of water services in the upper reaches of Miyun Reservoir, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    12. Diswandi, Diswandi, 2017. "A hybrid Coasean and Pigouvian approach to Payment for Ecosystem Services Program in West Lombok: Does it contribute to poverty alleviation?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 138-145.
    13. Lo, Alex Y. & Jim, C.Y., 2015. "Protest response and willingness to pay for culturally significant urban trees: Implications for Contingent Valuation Method," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 58-66.
    14. Jeffrey R. Vincent, 2010. "Microeconomic Analysis of Innovative Environmental Programs in Developing Countries," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 4(2), pages 221-233, Summer.
    15. Cheng Chen & Hannes J. König & Bettina Matzdorf & Lin Zhen, 2015. "The Institutional Challenges of Payment for Ecosystem Service Program in China: A Review of the Effectiveness and Implementation of Sloping Land Conversion Program," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(5), pages 1-28, May.
    16. Gu, Qianxin & Chen, Yang & Pody, Robert & Cheng, Rong & Zheng, Xiang & Zhang, Zhenxing, 2015. "Public perception and acceptability toward reclaimed water in Tianjin," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 104(PA), pages 291-299.
    17. Tien Ming Lee & Ezra M. Markowitz & Peter D. Howe & Chia-Ying Ko & Anthony A. Leiserowitz, 2015. "Predictors of public climate change awareness and risk perception around the world," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 5(11), pages 1014-1020, November.
    18. Wunder, Sven & Engel, Stefanie & Pagiola, Stefano, 2008. "Taking stock: A comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 834-852, May.
    19. Chaikumbung, Mayula & Doucouliagos, Hristos & Scarborough, Helen, 2016. "The economic value of wetlands in developing countries: A meta-regression analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 164-174.
    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. Huang, Dayan & Liu, Chengyi & Yan, Zehao & Kou, Aiju, 2023. "Payments for Watershed Services and corporate green innovation," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 541-556.

    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. Driss Ezzine-de-Blas & Sven Wunder & Manuel Ruiz-Pérez & Rocio del Pilar Moreno-Sanchez, 2016. "Global Patterns in the Implementation of Payments for Environmental Services," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-16, March.
    2. Liu, Zhaoyang & Kontoleon, Andreas, 2018. "Meta-Analysis of Livelihood Impacts of Payments for Environmental Services Programmes in Developing Countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 48-61.
    3. Reutemann, Tim & Engel, Stefanie & Pareja, Eliana, 2016. "How (not) to pay — Field experimental evidence on the design of REDD+ payments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 220-229.
    4. Lin, Yongsheng & Dong, Zhanfeng & Zhang, Wei & Zhang, Hongyu, 2020. "Estimating inter-regional payments for ecosystem services: Taking China’s Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region as an example," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    5. Aguilar-Gómez, Carlos R. & Arteaga-Reyes, Tizbe T. & Gómez-Demetrio, William & Ávila-Akerberg, Víctor D. & Pérez-Campuzano, Enrique, 2020. "Differentiated payments for environmental services: A review of the literature," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    6. Börner, Jan & Baylis, Kathy & Corbera, Esteve & Ezzine-de-Blas, Driss & Honey-Rosés, Jordi & Persson, U. Martin & Wunder, Sven, 2017. "The Effectiveness of Payments for Environmental Services," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 359-374.
    7. Campanhão, Ligia Maria Barrios & Ranieri, Victor Eduardo Lima, 2019. "Guideline framework for effective targeting of payments for watershed services," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 93-109.
    8. Fletcher, Robert & Büscher, Bram, 2017. "The PES Conceit: Revisiting the Relationship between Payments for Environmental Services and Neoliberal Conservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 224-231.
    9. Schomers, Sarah & Matzdorf, Bettina, 2013. "Payments for ecosystem services: A review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 16-30.
    10. Ryoko Ishizaki & Shinju Matsuda, 2021. "Message for Solidarity: A Japanese Perspective on the Payment for Forest Ecosystem Services Developed over Centuries of History," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-14, November.
    11. Cook, David C. & Kristensen, Nadiah P. & Liu, Shuang, 2016. "Coordinated service provision in payment for ecosystem service schemes through adaptive governance," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 19(C), pages 103-108.
    12. Kaiser, Josef & Krueger, Tobias & Haase, Dagmar, 2023. "Global patterns of collective payments for ecosystem services and their degrees of commodification," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    13. Hai-Ying Gu & Qing-Mi Hu & Tian-Qiong Wang, 2019. "Payment for Rice Growers to Reduce Using N Fertilizer in the GHG Mitigation Program Driven by the Government: Evidence from Shanghai," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-17, April.
    14. Tran, Thi Thu Huong & Zeller, Manfred & Suhardiman, Diana, 2016. "Payments for ecosystem services in Hoa Binh province, Vietnam: An institutional analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 83-93.
    15. Jespersen, Kristjan & Gallemore, Caleb, 2018. "The Institutional Work of Payments for Ecosystem Services: Why the Mundane Should Matter," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 507-519.
    16. Raes, Leander & Loft, Lasse & Le Coq, Jean François & Van Huylenbroeck, Guido & Van Damme, Patrick, 2016. "Towards market- or command-based governance? The evolution of payments for environmental service schemes in Andean and Mesoamerican countries," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 20-32.
    17. Brownson, Katherine & Guinessey, Elizabeth & Carranza, Marcia & Esquivel, Manrique & Hesselbach, Hilda & Madrid Ramirez, Lucia & Villa, Luis, 2019. "Community-Based Payments for Ecosystem Services (CB-PES): Implications of community involvement for program outcomes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    18. Meyer, Claas & Chen, Cheng & Matzdorf, Bettina, 2018. "Qualitative comparative institutional analysis of environmental governance: Implications from research on payments for ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 169-180.
    19. Bauchet, Jonathan & Asquith, Nigel & Ma, Zhao & Radel, Claudia & Godoy, Ricardo & Zanotti, Laura & Steele, Diana & Gramig, Benjamin M. & Chong, Andrea Estrella, 2020. "The practice of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) in the Tropical Andes: Evidence from program administrators," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    20. Ma, Zhao & Bauchet, Jonathan & Steele, Diana & Godoy, Ricardo & Radel, Claudia & Zanotti, Laura, 2017. "Comparison of Direct Transfers for Human Capital Development and Environmental Conservation," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 498-517.

    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:14:y:2022:i:15:p:9550-:d:879496. 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.