IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/sustdv/v33y2025i2p2469-2485.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic assessment of ecosystem services with a novel concept of elevation: An application of the discrete choice experiment method

Author

Listed:
  • Aftab Khan
  • Minjuan Zhao
  • Sufyan Ullah Khan
  • Liuyang Yao
  • Chao Wang

Abstract

This research was conducted in the Hei River Basin of China to understand respondents' willingness to pay (WTP) for ecological services towards sustainable river system management. A discrete choice experiment is used to gauge respondents' preferences. In addition, elevation was introduced as a novel spatial attribute to account for heterogeneity. Primary data from 1680 respondents were collected across the Hei River Basin. The elevation of the river was categorized into five ad hoc elevation ranges to analyze the potential effects of elevation on environmental attributes. These samples were stratified as 1000–1600 m, 1601–2200 m, 2201–2800 m, 2801–3400 m, and 3401–4000 m. Pooled data results showed that the maximum WTP was for water quality, that is, 142.05 RMB, without considering the effect of elevation. However, when the interaction with elevation was included, the amount decreased to 133.52 RMB. Likewise, elevation‐based group estimates showed a varied pattern of spatial preference, with different preferences for each distinguishing attribute. Group A prioritized water quality (92.81 RMB) and the East Juyan area (4.12 RMB). In contrast, Group B preferred the guaranteed rate of irrigation of farmland (3.50 RMB) and reduced sandstorm frequency (17.90 RMB). Leisure and entertainment conditions had the lowest WTP across all groups (0.09–0.50 RMB). These findings highlight the importance of incorporating respondents' preferences in restoring and maintaining river systems. Additionally, it emphasized the need to consider respondents' socioeconomic characteristics when developing sustainable management policies.

Suggested Citation

  • Aftab Khan & Minjuan Zhao & Sufyan Ullah Khan & Liuyang Yao & Chao Wang, 2025. "Economic assessment of ecosystem services with a novel concept of elevation: An application of the discrete choice experiment method," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(2), pages 2469-2485, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:sustdv:v:33:y:2025:i:2:p:2469-2485
    DOI: 10.1002/sd.3235
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.3235
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sd.3235?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. Ando, Amy W. & Cadavid, Catalina Londoño & Netusil, Noelwah R. & Parthum, Bryan, 2020. "Willingness-to-volunteer and stability of preferences between cities: Estimating the benefits of stormwater management," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    2. Xie, Bai-Chen & Zhao, Wei, 2018. "Willingness to pay for green electricity in Tianjin, China: Based on the contingent valuation method," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 98-107.
    3. Sheremet, Oleg & Ruokamo, Enni & Juutinen, Artti & Svento, Rauli & Hanley, Nick, 2018. "Incentivising Participation and Spatial Coordination in Payment for Ecosystem Service Schemes: Forest Disease Control Programs in Finland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 260-272.
    4. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2008. "Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(8), pages 661-677, August.
    5. Hynes, Stephen & Tinch, Dugald & Hanley, Nick, 2013. "Valuing improvements to coastal waters using choice experiments: An application to revisions of the EU Bathing Waters Directive," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 137-144.
    6. Baskaran, Ramesh & Cullen, Ross & Colombo, Sergio, 2010. "Testing different types of benefit transfer in valuation of ecosystem services: New Zealand winegrowing case studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1010-1022, March.
    7. Farley, Joshua & Costanza, Robert, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services: From local to global," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 2060-2068, September.
    8. Termansen, Mette & McClean, Colin J. & Jensen, Frank Søndergaard, 2013. "Modelling and mapping spatial heterogeneity in forest recreation services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 48-57.
    9. Pogliani, Laura & Ronchi, Silvia & Arcidiacono, Andrea & di Martino, Viviana & Mazza, Francesca, 2023. "Regeneration in an ecological perspective. Urban and territorial equalisation for the provision of ecosystem services in the Metropolitan City of Milan," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    10. Kunwar, Samrat B. & Bohara, Alok K. & Thacher, Jennifer, 2020. "Public preference for river restoration in the Danda Basin, Nepal: A choice experiment study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    11. Danley, Brian & Sandorf, Erlend Dancke & Campbell, Danny, 2021. "Putting your best fish forward: Investigating distance decay and relative preferences for fish conservation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    12. Faccioli, Michela & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Glenk, Klaus & Martin-Ortega, Julia, 2020. "Environmental attitudes and place identity as determinants of preferences for ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    13. Gabriela Mundaca, 2024. "Economic valuation of environmental and health impacts from mining: the case of Peru," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 2415-2441, January.
    14. Börger, Tobias & Hattam, Caroline, 2017. "Motivations matter: Behavioural determinants of preferences for remote and unfamiliar environmental goods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 64-74.
    15. 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.
    16. Yésica Gomez‐Jaramillo & Lina Berrouet & Clara Villegas‐Palacio & Linda Berrio‐Giraldo, 2024. "Conceptual framework for analyzing the sustainability of socio‐ecological systems with a focus on ecosystem services that support water security," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(3), pages 2298-2313, June.
    17. Blanco, Esther & Haller, Tobias & Walker, James M., 2018. "Provision of environmental public goods: Unconditional and conditional donations from outsiders," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 815-831.
    18. van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M., 2008. "Environmental regulation of households: An empirical review of economic and psychological factors," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(4), pages 559-574, July.
    19. Li, Yuxin & Yao, Zili & Guo, Zhanfeng, 2023. "Willingness to pay and preferences for rural tourism attributes among urban residents: A discrete choice experiment in China," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 460-471.
    20. Arne Risa Hole, 2007. "Fitting mixed logit models by using maximum simulated likelihood," Stata Journal, StataCorp LLC, vol. 7(3), pages 388-401, September.
    21. Lasse Alajärvi & Aku-Ville Lehtimäki & Johanna Timonen & Janne Martikainen, 2022. "Willingness to Pay for Implementation of an Environmentally Friendly Pharmaceutical Policy in Finland—A Discrete Choice Experiment Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-13, May.
    22. Uttam Paudel & Shiva Raj Adhikari & Krishna Prasad Pant, 2023. "Willingness to Pay for Environmental Quality Improvement Programs and Its Determinants: Empirical Analysis in Western Nepal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-20, January.
    23. Kaczan, David & Pfaff, Alexander & Rodriguez, Luz & Shapiro-Garza, Elizabeth, 2017. "Increasing the impact of collective incentives in payments for ecosystem services," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 48-67.
    24. Roy Brouwer, 2008. "The potential role of stated preference methods in the Water Framework Directive to assess disproportionate costs," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(5), pages 597-614.
    25. Ureta, J. Carl & Motallebi, Marzieh & Vassalos, Michael & Seagle, Steven & Baldwin, Robert, 2022. "Estimating residents' WTP for ecosystem services improvement in a payments for ecosystem services (PES) program: A choice experiment approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    26. Badole, Sachin B. & Bird, Stephen & Heintzelman, Martin D. & Legault, Lisa, 2024. "Willingness to pay for solar adoption: Economic, ideological, motivational, and demographic factors," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    27. Paudyal, Kiran & Baral, Himlal & Keenan, Rodney John, 2018. "Assessing social values of ecosystem services in the Phewa Lake Watershed, Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 67-81.
    28. Kosenius, Anna-Kaisa & Markku, Ollikainen, 2015. "Ecosystem benefits from coastal habitats—A three-country choice experiment," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 15-27.
    29. Lewis, David J. & Kling, David M. & Dundas, Steven J. & Lew, Daniel K., 2022. "Estimating the value of threatened species abundance dynamics," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    30. Schirpke, Uta & Meisch, Claude & Marsoner, Thomas & Tappeiner, Ulrike, 2018. "Revealing spatial and temporal patterns of outdoor recreation in the European Alps and their surroundings," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 336-350.
    31. Unterberger, Christian & Olschewski, Roland, 2021. "Determining the insurance value of ecosystems: A discrete choice study on natural hazard protection by forests," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(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. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    2. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Ahtiainen, Heini & Artell, Janne & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2017. "Choosing a Functional Form for an International Benefit Transfer: Evidence from a Nine-country Valuation Experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 104-113.
    3. Hagedoorn, Liselotte C. & Koetse, Mark J. & van Beukering, Pieter J.H. & Brander, Luke M., 2021. "Reducing the finance gap for nature-based solutions with time contributions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    4. Tavárez, Héctor & Elbakidze, Levan, 2019. "Valuing recreational enhancements in the San Patricio Urban Forest of Puerto Rico: A choice experiment approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    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. Weng, Weizhe & Morrison, Mark D. & Boyle, Kevin J. & Boxall, Peter C. & Rose, John, 2021. "Effects of the number of alternatives in public good discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    7. Grilli, Gaetano & Andrews, Barnaby & Ferrini, Silvia & Luisetti, Tiziana, 2022. "Could a mix of short- and long-term policies be the solution to tackle marine litter? Insights from a choice experiment in England and Ireland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    8. Susana Oliveira & Lígia M. Costa Pinto, 2021. "Choice experiments to elicit the users’ preferences for coastal erosion management: the case of Praia da Amorosa," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(7), pages 9749-9765, July.
    9. Walsh, Sharon & O'Shea, Eamon & Pierse, Tom & Kennelly, Brendan & Keogh, Fiona & Doherty, Edel, 2020. "Public preferences for home care services for people with dementia: A discrete choice experiment on personhood," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 245(C).
    10. 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).
    11. Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Andersson, Henrik & Beaumais, Olivier & Crastes dit Sourd, Romain & Hess, François-Charles & Wolff, François-Charles, 2017. "Stated preferences: a unique database composed of 1657 recent published articles in journals related to agriculture, environment, or health," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 98(3), November.
    12. Chen, Gang & Ratcliffe, Julie & Milte, Rachel & Khadka, Jyoti & Kaambwa, Billingsley, 2021. "Quality of care experience in aged care: An Australia-Wide discrete choice experiment to elicit preference weights," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 289(C).
    13. Meles, Tensay Hadush & Ryan, Lisa & Mukherjee, Sanghamitra C., 2022. "Heterogeneity in preferences for renewable home heating systems among Irish households," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 307(C).
    14. Cranford, Matthew & Mourato, Susana, 2014. "Credit-Based Payments for Ecosystem Services: Evidence from a Choice Experiment in Ecuador," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 503-520.
    15. Svenningsen, Lea S. & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2018. "Testing the effect of changes in elicitation format, payment vehicle and bid range on the hypothetical bias for moral goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 17-32.
    16. Dongnyok Shim & Hyunhong Choi & Seung Wan Kim, 2024. "Heterogeneous public attitudes toward high-voltage power transmission lines and willingness to pay for undergrounding projects," Energy & Environment, , vol. 35(7), pages 3736-3758, November.
    17. Kim, Do-hun & Sjølie, Hanne K. & Aguilar, Francisco X., 2024. "Psychological distances to climate change and public preferences for biodiversity-augmenting attributes in family-owned production forests," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    18. Carlsen, Benedicte & Hole, Arne Risa & Kolstad, Julie Riise & Norheim, Ole Frithjof, 2012. "When you can’t have the cake and eat it too," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(11), pages 1964-1973.
    19. Su, Jie & Gasparatos, Alexandros, 2024. "Assessing the heterogeneity of public acceptability for mangrove restoration through a choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 218(C).
    20. Brouwer, Roy, 2023. "Reconciling Theory and Practice in Higher Education Water Economics Courses," Applied Economics Teaching Resources (AETR), Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 5(2), February.

    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:33:y:2025:i:2:p:2469-2485. 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.