IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i20p9346-d1776292.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Estimating the Non-Use Value of Laojun Mountain National Park: A Contingent Valuation Study with Cultural Identity Mediation in Yunnan, China

Author

Listed:
  • Chengyu Yang

    (Yunnan Institute of Forest Inventory and Planning, Kunming 650000, China)

  • Ruifeng Wu

    (Yunnan Institute of Forest Inventory and Planning, Kunming 650000, China)

  • Jing Tao

    (Yunnan Institute of Forest Inventory and Planning, Kunming 650000, China)

  • Qi Jiang

    (Yunnan Institute of Forest Inventory and Planning, Kunming 650000, China)

  • Jihui Zhao

    (Yunnan Institute of Forest Inventory and Planning, Kunming 650000, China)

  • Jihong Xu

    (Yunnan Institute of Forest Inventory and Planning, Kunming 650000, China)

  • Qian Liu

    (Yunnan Institute of Forest Inventory and Planning, Kunming 650000, China)

Abstract

This study applies the Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) to estimate the non-use value of Laojun Mountain National Park, a culturally and ecologically significant site within the Three Parallel Rivers World Heritage region of northwestern Yunnan, China. Based on 219 valid survey responses, the analysis identifies education, income, occupation, cultural identity, and recognition of legacy values as significant determinants of willingness to pay (WTP) for conservation. Interaction effect logistic regression shows that the influence of cultural identity on WTP is moderated by income level and ecological awareness. Valuation results indicate that the park’s annual non-use value ranges from 79.697 to 260.841 billion yuan, based on median and mean estimates. Motivational analysis highlights aesthetic appreciation, cultural meaning, and intergenerational ethics as key drivers of conservation support, while refusal to pay is primarily attributed to expectations of governmental responsibility, especially among low-income and less-educated respondents. These findings advance theoretical understanding of bio-cultural valuation, offer practical guidance for the design of Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes, and underscore the importance of integrating socio-cultural dimensions into sustainable conservation finance and policy strategies.

Suggested Citation

  • Chengyu Yang & Ruifeng Wu & Jing Tao & Qi Jiang & Jihui Zhao & Jihong Xu & Qian Liu, 2025. "Estimating the Non-Use Value of Laojun Mountain National Park: A Contingent Valuation Study with Cultural Identity Mediation in Yunnan, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(20), pages 1-24, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:20:p:9346-:d:1776292
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/20/9346/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/20/9346/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Oglethorpe & Despina Miliadou, 2000. "Economic Valuation of the Non-use Attributes of a Wetland: A Case-study for Lake Kerkini," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(6), pages 755-767.
    2. Ian Bateman & Ian Langford, 1997. "Non-users' Willingness to Pay for a National Park: An Application and Critique of the Contingent Valuation Method," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(6), pages 571-582.
    3. Kahneman, Daniel & Ritov, Ilana, 1994. "Determinants of Stated Willingness to Pay for Public Goods: A Study in the Headline Method," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 5-38, July.
    4. Daniel McFadden, 1994. "Contingent Valuation and Social Choice," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(4), pages 689-708.
    5. Farber, Stephen C. & Costanza, Robert & Wilson, Matthew A., 2002. "Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 375-392, June.
    6. S. V. Ciriacy-Wantrup, 1947. "Capital Returns from Soil-Conservation Practices," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 29(4_Part_II), pages 1181-1196.
    7. Nunes, Paulo A. L. D. & van den Bergh, Jeroen C. J. M., 2001. "Economic valuation of biodiversity: sense or nonsense?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 203-222, November.
    8. Aryal, Kishor & Ojha, Bhuwan Raj & Maraseni, Tek, 2021. "Perceived importance and economic valuation of ecosystem services in Ghodaghodi wetland of Nepal," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. repec:cdl:ucsdec:qt75k752s7 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Ojea, Elena & Loureiro, Maria L., 2011. "Identifying the scope effect on a meta-analysis of biodiversity valuation studies," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 706-724, September.
    3. Ndebele, Tom & Forgie, Vicky, 2017. "Estimating the economic benefits of a wetland restoration programme in New Zealand: A contingent valuation approach," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 75-89.
    4. Kenter, Jasper O. & Bryce, Rosalind & Christie, Michael & Cooper, Nigel & Hockley, Neal & Irvine, Katherine N. & Fazey, Ioan & O’Brien, Liz & Orchard-Webb, Johanne & Ravenscroft, Neil & Raymond, Chris, 2016. "Shared values and deliberative valuation: Future directions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 358-371.
    5. Admiraal, Jeroen F. & Wossink, Ada & de Groot, Wouter T. & de Snoo, Geert R., 2013. "More than total economic value: How to combine economic valuation of biodiversity with ecological resilience," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 115-122.
    6. Kenter, Jasper O., 2016. "Integrating deliberative monetary valuation, systems modelling and participatory mapping to assess shared values of ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 291-307.
    7. 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.
    8. Häyhä, Tiina & Franzese, Pier Paolo & Paletto, Alessandro & Fath, Brian D., 2015. "Assessing, valuing, and mapping ecosystem services in Alpine forests," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 12-23.
    9. Kniebes, Carola & Rehdanz, Katrin & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2014. "Validity of WTP measures under preference uncertainty," Kiel Working Papers 1972, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    10. Useche, Pilar & Blare, Trent, 2014. "The Sustainable Choice: How Gendered Difference in the Importance of Ecological Benefits Affect Production Decisions of Smallholder Cacao Producing Households in Ecuador," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 174285, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    11. Yang, Wu & Chang, Jie & Xu, Bin & Peng, Changhui & Ge, Ying, 2008. "Ecosystem service value assessment for constructed wetlands: A case study in Hangzhou, China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 116-125, December.
    12. 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.
    13. Gaaff, Aris & Reinhard, Stijn, 2012. "Incorporating the value of ecological networks into cost–benefit analysis to improve spatially explicit land-use planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 66-74.
    14. Bateman, Ian J. & Langford, Ian H. & Jones, Andrew P. & Kerr, Geoffrey N., 2001. "Bound and path effects in double and triple bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 191-213, July.
    15. Bandara, Ranjith & Tisdell, Clement A., 2003. "Use and non-use values of wild Asian elephants: A total economic valuation approach," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 48961, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
    16. Bateman, Ian J. & Day, Brett H. & Dupont, Diane P. & Georgiou, Stavros, 2006. "Incentive compatibility and procedural invariance testing of the one-and-one-half-bound dichotomous choice elicitation method: distinguishing strategic behaviour from the anchoring heuristic," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21104, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    17. Barkmann, J. & Glenk, K. & Keil, A. & Leemhuis, C. & Dietrich, N. & Gerold, G. & Marggraf, R., 2008. "Confronting unfamiliarity with ecosystem functions: The case for an ecosystem service approach to environmental valuation with stated preference methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 48-62, March.
    18. repec:cdl:ucsbec:qt1pf1369j is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Fabio Pranovi & Gianluca Sarà & Piero Franzoi, 2013. "Valuing the Unmarketable: An Ecological Approach to the Externalities Estimate in Fishing Activities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(2), pages 1-11, February.
    20. Martin, Jean-Christophe & Mongruel, Rémi & Levrel, Harold, 2018. "Integrating Cultural Ecosystem Services in an Ecosystem Satellite Account: A Case Study in the Gulf of Saint-Malo (France)," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 141-152.
    21. Massimo Florio & Francesco Giffoni, 2020. "A contingent valuation experiment about future particle accelerators at CERN," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-24, March.
    22. Jones, Nikoleta & Sophoulis, Costas M. & Malesios, Chrisovaladis, 2008. "Economic valuation of coastal water quality and protest responses: A case study in Mitilini, Greece," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 2478-2491, December.

    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:17:y:2025:i:20:p:9346-:d:1776292. 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.