IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jnddns/v2016y2016i1n6253915.html

Residential Environment Induced Preference Heterogeneity for River Ecosystem Service Improvements: A Comparison between Urban and Rural Households in the Wei River Basin, China

Author

Listed:
  • Hengtong Shi
  • Minjuan Zhao
  • Fanus Asefaw Aregay
  • Kai Zhao
  • Zhide Jiang

Abstract

This paper assesses residential environment induced preference heterogeneity regarding ecosystem services improvements of a river basin by comparing urban and rural residents’ welfare estimates. In a choice experiment, the ecological improvements are described in terms of several observable ecological indicators set in an experimental design. Given the fact that economic and environmental conditions differ for urban and rural residents in China, the utility they derive from ecological restoration is hypothesized to differ. The urban and rural residents’ survey data were modeled separately using mixed logit models. The results reveal that water quality and water quantity, measured by unit of level improvement and percentage improvement, respectively, hold the highest marginal utility values in all respondents’ models. Urban and rural residents have the same preference regarding expanding soil erosion control areas and landscape improvement. However, they have statistically significant different utility for water quality, water quantity, forest coverage, ecotourism improvements, and reducing soil erosion intensity. Generally, urban residents express a higher implicit price for most of the ecological indicators. The findings imply that policy makers should take existing preference heterogeneity into account in designing ecosystem payment schemes and allocating resources.

Suggested Citation

  • Hengtong Shi & Minjuan Zhao & Fanus Asefaw Aregay & Kai Zhao & Zhide Jiang, 2016. "Residential Environment Induced Preference Heterogeneity for River Ecosystem Service Improvements: A Comparison between Urban and Rural Households in the Wei River Basin, China," Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2016(1).
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jnddns:v:2016:y:2016:i:1:n:6253915
    DOI: 10.1155/2016/6253915
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/6253915
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1155/2016/6253915?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. Zhifeng Gao & Lisa O. House & Xiaohua Yu, 2010. "Using choice experiments to estimate consumer valuation: the role of experimental design and attribute information loads," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 41(6), pages 555-565, November.
    2. Roy Brouwer & Julia Martin-Ortega & RJulio Berbel, 2010. "Spatial Preference Heterogeneity: A Choice Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(3).
    3. Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley & Jordan Louviere, 2009. "Modeling preference heterogeneity in stated choice data: an analysis for public goods generated by agriculture," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 307-322, May.
    4. McFadden, Daniel, 1974. "The measurement of urban travel demand," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 303-328, November.
    5. Abildtrup, Jens & Garcia, Serge & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Stenger, Anne, 2013. "Spatial preference heterogeneity in forest recreation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 67-77.
    6. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    7. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    8. Justin Lin & Binkai Chen, 2011. "Urbanization and urban-rural inequality in china: a new perspective from the government’s development strategy," Frontiers of Economics in China, Springer;Higher Education Press, vol. 6(1), pages 1-21, March.
    9. Poe, Gregory L. & Giraud, Kelly L. & Loomis, John B., 2001. "Simple Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions: Application to Internal and External Scope Tests in Contingent Valuation," Staff Papers 121130, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    10. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    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. Bakhtiari, Fatemeh & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark & Lundhede, Thomas Hedemark & Strange, Niels & Boman, Mattias, 2018. "Disentangling Distance and Country Effects on the Value of Conservation across National Borders," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 11-20.
    2. Frick, Bernd & Barros, Carlos Pestana & Prinz, Joachim, 2010. "Analysing head coach dismissals in the German "Bundesliga" with a mixed logit approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 200(1), pages 151-159, January.
    3. Deka, Devajyoti & Carnegie, Jon, 2021. "Predicting transit mode choice of New Jersey workers commuting to New York City from a stated preference survey," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    4. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Bartczak, Anna & Giergiczny, Marek & Navrud, Stale & Żylicz, Tomasz, 2014. "Providing preference-based support for forest ecosystem service management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 1-12.
    5. Tagliafierro, C. & Boeri, M. & Longo, A. & Hutchinson, W.G., 2016. "Stated preference methods and landscape ecology indicators: An example of transdisciplinarity in landscape economic valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 11-22.
    6. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    7. Fanus Asefaw Aregay & Liuyang Yao & Minjuan Zhao, 2016. "Spatial Preference Heterogeneity for Integrated River Basin Management: The Case of the Shiyang River Basin, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-17, September.
    8. Rombach, Meike & Widmar, Nicole Olynk & Byrd, Elizabeth & Bitsch, Vera, 2018. "Do all roses smell equally sweet? Willingness to pay for flower attributes in specialized retail settings by German consumers," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 91-99.
    9. Weller, Priska & Elsasser, Peter, 2018. "Preferences for forest structural attributes in Germany – Evidence from a choice experiment," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 1-9.
    10. Rajo, Lindelly A. & Michelle S, Segovia & Arias, Fredi & Marco A., Palma, . "Willingness-to-Pay for an Educational Label: The Zamorano University Brand," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 19(01), pages 1-14.
    11. Holland, Benedict M. & Johnston, Robert J., 2014. "Spatially-Referenced Choice Experiments: Tests of Individualized Geocoding in Stated Preference Questionnaires," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170191, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Abildtrup, Jens & Garcia, Serge & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Stenger, Anne, 2013. "Spatial preference heterogeneity in forest recreation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 67-77.
    13. Wendler, Cordula & Liebe, Ulf & Ihle, Rico & von Cramon-Taubadel, Stephan, "undated". "The Willingness to Pay of European Consumers for Jointly Produced Israeli – Palestinian Products," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126727, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    14. Holland, Benedict M. & Johnston, Robert J., 2015. "Capturing More Relevant Measures of Spatial Heterogeneity in Stated Preference Willingness to Pay: Using an Iterative Grid Search Algorithm to Quantify Proximate Environmental Impacts," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205450, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Lyu, Seong Ok, 2017. "Which accessible travel products are people with disabilities willing to pay more? A choice experiment," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 404-412.
    16. Holland, Benedict M. & Johnston, Robert J., 2017. "Optimized quantity-within-distance models of spatial welfare heterogeneity," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 110-129.
    17. Basu, Debasis & Hunt, John Douglas, 2012. "Valuing of attributes influencing the attractiveness of suburban train service in Mumbai city: A stated preference approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(9), pages 1465-1476.
    18. Ju-Hee Kim & Younggew Kim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2021. "Using a choice experiment to explore the public willingness to pay for the impacts of improving energy efficiency of an apartment," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 55(5), pages 1775-1793, October.
    19. Batarce, Marco & Muñoz, Juan Carlos & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios, 2016. "Valuing crowding in public transport: Implications for cost-benefit analysis," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 358-378.
    20. Wolff, François-Charles & Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Trouillet, Brice & Pigeault, Alexia & Rollo, Nicolas, 2026. "Participatory democracy in question: The case of “the sea in debate”," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 243(C).

    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:wly:jnddns:v:2016:y:2016:i:1:n:6253915. 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: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/3059 .

    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.