IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/sustdv/v32y2024i3p2600-2622.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public willingness to pay for farmland non‐point source pollution governance toward sustainable development: A choice experiment in Gansu, China

Author

Listed:
  • Yuxing Shi
  • Chaoqiong Li
  • Minjuan Zhao
  • Guoqing Qin

Abstract

Clarifying public willingness to pay (WTP) for farmland non‐point source pollution (FNSP) governance helps to establish an ecological compensation mechanism with public participation. This will reduce China's agricultural pollution and its environmental and food safety consequences while promoting sustainable development. Nevertheless, research has yet to reveal the public WTP within China's FNSP governance policy framework. To this end, a “2030‐oriented FNSP governance program” choice experiment with specific FNSP governance measures (fertilizer reduction, pesticide reduction, straw resource utilization, and mulch film recycling) was conducted in Gansu Province to reveal the public WTP for FNSP governance and its key influencing factors. Results from mixed logit models show that urban residents' marginal WTP (MWTP) for improving the FNSP status quo and different measures for fertilizer reduction, pesticide reduction, straw resource utilization, and mulch film recycling is ¥151.62, ¥1.33, ¥7.3, ¥4.85, and ¥3.16 annually, respectively, indicating the highest preference for reducing pesticides because of food safety problems. Meanwhile, the average individual WTP for optimal FNSP governance schemes is ¥513.02 annually, accounting for only 3.86‰ of annual household income; the regional aggregate social welfare of optimal FNSP governance is as high as ¥2038.23 million, accounting for 2.81% of GDP in 2020. This means that FNSP governance can bring substantial social welfare with a low household economic burden. In addition, the perception that food safety has improved in the past 5 years or an awareness of food safety incidents can enhance the willingness of urban residents to change the status quo of FNSP: the more serious the respondents perceive food safety problems to be, the stronger the above effects, indicating the critical impact of food safety factors on the public's WTP for FNSP governance. The study's findings highlight the potential to find socially acceptable ways to promote FNSP governance as well as provide insight into the relevant policymaking process from the standpoint of public participation and food safety.

Suggested Citation

  • Yuxing Shi & Chaoqiong Li & Minjuan Zhao & Guoqing Qin, 2024. "Public willingness to pay for farmland non‐point source pollution governance toward sustainable development: A choice experiment in Gansu, China," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(3), pages 2600-2622, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:sustdv:v:32:y:2024:i:3:p:2600-2622
    DOI: 10.1002/sd.2799
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2799
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sd.2799?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. Hess, Stephane & Train, Kenneth, 2017. "Correlation and scale in mixed logit models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 1-8.
    2. Pagiola, Stefano & Arcenas, Agustin & Platais, Gunars, 2005. "Can Payments for Environmental Services Help Reduce Poverty? An Exploration of the Issues and the Evidence to Date from Latin America," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 237-253, February.
    3. Rosenzweig, Mark R. & Pitt, Mark M., 1984. "Agricultural Prices, Food Consumption and the Health and Productivity of Farmers," Bulletins 7471, University of Minnesota, Economic Development Center.
    4. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Budziński, Wiktor, 2019. "Simulation error in maximum likelihood estimation of discrete choice models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 73-85.
    5. Robert J. Johnston & Joshua M. Duke, 2007. "Willingness to Pay for Agricultural Land Preservation and Policy Process Attributes: Does the Method Matter?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(4), pages 1098-1115.
    6. Guo, Zhangdong & Chen, Xiaoqi & Zhang, Yongwang, 2022. "Impact of environmental regulation perception on farmers' agricultural green production technology adoption: A new perspective of social capital," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    7. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    8. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    9. 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.
    10. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
    11. 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.
    12. Ke He & Junbiao Zhang & Junhui Feng & Ting Hu & Lu Zhang, 2016. "The Impact of Social Capital on farmers' Willingness to Reuse Agricultural Waste for Sustainable Development," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(2), pages 101-108, March.
    13. Bateman, Ian J. & Day, Brett H. & Jones, Andrew P. & Jude, Simon, 2009. "Reducing gain-loss asymmetry: A virtual reality choice experiment valuing land use change," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 106-118, July.
    14. He, Ke & Zhang, Junbiao & Zeng, Yangmei, 2020. "Households’ willingness to pay for energy utilization of crop straw in rural China：Based on an improved UTAUT model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    15. Liu, Beibei & Wu, Qiaoran & Wang, Feng & Zhang, Bing, 2019. "Is straw return-to-field always beneficial? Evidence from an integrated cost-benefit analysis," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 393-402.
    16. 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.
    17. Train, Kenneth, 2016. "Mixed logit with a flexible mixing distribution," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 19(C), pages 40-53.
    18. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2006. "Deleting ‘irrational’ responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(8), pages 797-811, August.
    19. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    20. Shiqi Guo, 2021. "How Does Straw Burning Affect Urban Air Quality in China?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(3), pages 1122-1140, May.
    21. Yao, Liuyang & Sui, Bo, 2020. "Heterogeneous preferences for shale water management: Evidence from a choice experiment in Fuling shale gas field, southwest China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    22. Mao, Hui & Zhou, Li & Ying, RuiYao & Pan, Dan, 2021. "Time Preferences and green agricultural technology adoption: Field evidence from rice farmers in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    23. John A. List & Michael K. Price, 2016. "Editor's Choice The Use of Field Experiments in Environmental and Resource Economics," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(2), pages 206-225.
    24. He, Ke & Zhang, Junbiao & Zeng, Yangmei, 2018. "Rural households' willingness to accept compensation for energy utilization of crop straw in China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 165(PA), pages 562-571.
    25. Kosenius, Anna-Kaisa, 2010. "Heterogeneous preferences for water quality attributes: The Case of eutrophication in the Gulf of Finland, the Baltic Sea," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 528-538, January.
    26. Penn, Jerrod & Hu, Wuyang, 2019. "Cheap talk efficacy under potential and actual Hypothetical Bias: A meta-analysis," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 22-35.
    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. 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. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Zagórska, Katarzyna & Letki, Natalia & Tryjanowski, Piotr & Wąs, Adam, 2021. "Drivers of farmers’ willingness to adopt extensive farming practices in a globally important bird area," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    3. Meressa, Abrha Megos & Navrud, Stale, 2020. "Not my cup of coffee: Farmers’ preferences for coffee variety traits – Lessons for crop breeding in the age of climate change," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 9(3), December.
    4. West, Grant H. & Snell, Heather & Kovacs, Kent & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2020. "Estimation of the preferences for the intertemporal services from groundwater," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304220, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. 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).
    6. Benoit Chèze & Charles Collet & Anthony Paris, 2021. "Estimating discrete choice experiments : theoretical fundamentals," CIRED Working Papers hal-03262187, HAL.
    7. Immerzeel, Bart & Vermaat, Jan E. & Juutinen, Artti & Pouta, Eija & Artell, Janne, 2022. "Appreciation of Nordic landscapes and how the bioeconomy might change that: Results from a discrete choice experiment," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    8. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Tomasz Gajderowicz & Marek Giergiczny & Gabriela Grotkowska & Urszula Sztandar-Sztanderska, 2020. "Choosing the Future: Economic Preferences for Higher Education Using Discrete Choice Experiment Method," Research in Higher Education, Springer;Association for Institutional Research, vol. 61(4), pages 510-539, June.
    9. Rid, Wolfgang & Haider, Wolfgang & Ryffel, Andrea & Beardmore, Ben, 2018. "Visualisations in Choice Experiments: Comparing 3D Film-sequences and Still-images to Analyse Housing Development Alternatives," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 203-217.
    10. Xiong, Hang & Hu, Wuyang & Xu, Meng & Zhan, Jintao, 2024. "Revisiting heterogenous social desirability bias in consumer willingness to pay for food carbon label: Social norms and environmental concerns," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    11. Linnerud, K. & Dugstad, A. & Rygg, B.J., 2022. "Do people prefer offshore to onshore wind energy? The role of ownership and intended use," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    12. 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.
    13. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    14. Mamine, Fateh & Fares, M'hand & Minviel, Jean Joseph, 2020. "Contract Design for Adoption of Agrienvironmental Practices: A Meta-analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    15. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2014. "Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 39-63.
    16. Haile, Kaleab K. & Tirivayi, Nyasha & Tesfaye, Wondimagegn, 2019. "Farmers’ willingness to accept payments for ecosystem services on agricultural land: The case of climate-smart agroforestry in Ethiopia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    17. Contu, Davide & Strazzera, Elisabetta & Mourato, Susana, 2016. "Modeling individual preferences for energy sources: The case of IV generation nuclear energy in Italy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 37-58.
    18. Ahtiainen, Heini & Tienhaara, Annika & Pouta, Eija & Czajkowski, Mikolaj, 2017. "Role of information in the valuation of unfamiliar goods – the case of genetic resources in agriculture," 2017 International Congress, August 28-September 1, 2017, Parma, Italy 261423, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    20. repec:ehu:biltok:8011 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Ryffel, Andrea Nathalie & Rid, Wolfgang & Grêt-Regamey, Adrienne, 2014. "Land use trade-offs for flood protection: A choice experiment with visualizations," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 111-123.

    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:sustdv:v:32:y:2024:i:3:p:2600-2622. 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: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1719 .

    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.