Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Resident Motivations and Willingness-to-Pay for Urban Biodiversity Conservation in Guangzhou (China)

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The monetary assessment of biodiversity measures the welfare damages brought by biodiversity losses and the cost-benefit analysis of conservation projects in a socio-economic context. The contingent valuation method could include motivational factors to strengthen economic analysis of nature conservation. This study analyzed Guangzhou residents’ motivations and willingness-to-pay (WTP) for an urban biodiversity conservation program in the National Baiyun Mountain Scenic Area (BMSA). The peri-urban natural site, offering refuge to some endemic species, is under increasing development pressures for recreational and residential use. A questionnaire survey was conducted in the Guangzhou metropolitan area during June to October 2007. We interviewed face-to-face 720 stratified sampled households to probe residents’ attitudes towards the city’s environmental issues, motivations for urban nature conservation, and WTP for biodiversity conservation. Principal component analysis identified five motivational factors, including environmental benefit, ecological diversity, nature-culture interaction, landscape-recreation function, and intergenerational sustainability, which illustrated the general economic values of urban nature. Logistic regression was applied to predict the probability of people being willing to pay for the urban biodiversity conservation in BMSA. The significant predictors of WTP included household income and the factor nature-culture interaction. The median WTP estimated RMB149/household (about US$19.5/household) per year and an aggregate of RMB291 million (approximately US$38.2 million) annually to support the urban conservation project. Including public motivations into contingent valuation presents a promising approach to conduct cost-benefit analysis of public projects in China.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahmed SU, Gotoh K (2006) Cost-benefit analysis of environmental goods by applying contingent valuation method: some Japanese case studies. Springer, Tokyo, p 159

    Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen I (1985) From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behaviour. In: Kuhl J, Beckmann J (eds) Action control: from cognition to behaviour. Springer, Berlin, pp 11–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen I, Brown TC, Rosenthal LH (1996) Information bias in contingent valuation: effects of personal relevance, quality of information, and motivational orientation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30:43–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akter S, Brouwer R, Brander L, van Beukering P (2009) Respondent uncertainty in a contingent market for carbon offsets. Ecological Economics 68:1858–1863

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alberini A, Rosato P, Longo A, Zanatta V (2005) The effects of information on willingness to pay: a contingent valuation study of S. Erasmo in the lagoon of Venice. In: Krarup S, Russell CS (eds) Environment, information and consumer behaviour. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 219–247

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow K, Solow R, Portney PR, Leamer EE, Radner R, Schuman H (1993) Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US Department of Commerce, Washington, DC, p 66

    Google Scholar 

  • Aunan K, Pan X-C (2004) Exposure-response functions for health effects of ambient air pollution applicable for China—a meta-analysis. Science of Total Environment 329:3–16

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Backhaus N (2005) Tourism and nature conservation in Malaysian national parks. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ, p 277

    Google Scholar 

  • Baiyun Mountain Administrative Bureau (2007) Annual report of the national Baiyun Mountain Scenic Area. Internal document (in Chinese)

  • Balmford A, Bruner A, Cooper P, Costanza R, Farber S, Green RE, Jenkins M, Jefferiss P, Jessamy V, Madden J, Munro J, Myers N, Naeem S, Paavola J, Rayment M, Rosendo S, Roughgraden J, Trumper K, Turner RK (2002) Economic reasons for conserving wild nature. Science 297:950–953

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Barr S (2004) Are we all environmentalists now? Rhetoric and reality in environmental action. Geoforum 35:231–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman IJ, Willis KG (1999) Valuing environmental preferences: the theory and practice of the contingent valuation method in the US, EU and developing countries. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 668

    Google Scholar 

  • Bateman IJ, Langford IH, Turner RK, Willis KG, Garrod GD (1995) Elicitation and truncation effects in contingent valuation studies. Ecological Economics 12:161–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman IJ, Carson RT, Day B, Hanemann M, Hanley N, Hett T, Jones-Lee M, Loomis G, Mourato S, Őzdemiroğlu E, Pearce DW, Sugden R, Swanson J (2002) Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: a manual. Edwaed Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, p 458

    Google Scholar 

  • Breuste JH (2004) Decision making, planning and design for the conservation of indigenous vegetation within urban development. Landscape and Urban Planning 68:439–452

    Google Scholar 

  • Brookshire DS, Crocker TD (1981) The advantage of contingent valuation methods for benefit-cost analysis. Public Policy 36:235–252

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckland ST, Macmillan DC, Duff EI, Hanley N (1999) Estimating mean willingness to pay from dichotomous choice contingent valuation studies. The Statistician 48:109–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Carson RT, Flores NE, Meade NF (2001) Contingent valuation controversies and evidence. Environmental & Resource Economics 19:173–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen S (2000) Urbanization in China. Urban Problems 93:3–5 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen WY, Jim CY (2006) Valuation of nature: economic contribution of periurban protected areas in Guangzhou Baiyun Mountain Scenic Area. In: Jim CY, Corlett RT (eds) Sustainable management of protected areas for future generations. World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland, pp 59–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen C, Chen X, Zhen J (2008) Impact of real estate development on landscape ecology of north Guangzhou. Tropical Geography 28:161–165 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • China Environmental Awareness Program (2008) 2007 national environmental public awareness survey. World Environment 2:72–77 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Christie M, Hanley N, Warren J, Murphy K, Wright R, Hyde T (2006) Valuing the diversity of biodiversity. Ecological Economics 58:304–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper P, Poe GL, Bateman IJ (2004) The structure of motivation for contingent values: a case study of lake water quality improvement. Ecological Economics 50:69–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crompton JL (2001) Parks and economic development. America Planning Association. Planning Advisory Service, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummings RG, Brookshire DS, Schulze WD (1986) Valuing environmental goods: an assessment of the contingent valuation method. Rowman and Allanheld, Totawa, NJ, p 270

    Google Scholar 

  • Davison A, Ridder B (2006) Turbulent times for urban nature: conserving and re-inventing nature in Australian cities. Australian Zoologist 33:306–314

    Google Scholar 

  • Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (2002) Survey of public attitudes to quality of life and to the environment-2001. London

  • Dunn RR, Gavin MC, Sanchez MC, Solomon JN (2006) The pigeon paradox: dependence of global conservation on urban nature. Conservation Biology 20:1814–1816

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edmonds RL (1999) The environment in the People’s Republic of China 50 years on. China Quarterly 159:640–649

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards PJ, Abivardi C (1998) The value of biodiversity: where ecology and economy blend. Biological Conservation 83:239–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans J (2004) What is local about local environmental governance? Observations from the local biodiversity action planning process. Area 36:270–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FAO Information Division (2000) Applications of the contingent valuation method in developing countries: a survey. FAO Economic and Social Development Paper, 146

  • Faul AK (2008) Increasing interactions with nature: a survey of expectations on a university campus. Urban Habitats 5:58–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrod G, Willis KG (1999) Economic valuation of the environment: methods and case studies. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, p 384

    Google Scholar 

  • Gong Y (2004) Distribution of benefits and costs among stakeholders of a protected area: an empirical study from China. Research report no. 2004-RR3, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia, Singapore

  • Goode DA (1989) Urban nature conservation in Britain. Journal of Applied Ecology 26:859–873

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guangdong Census Office (2002) Tabulation on the 2000 population census of Guangdong province (Guangzhou). Guangdong Economic Press, Guangzhou (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Guangzhou Municipal Statistics Bureau (2007) Guangzhou Statistical Yearbook. China Statistics Press, Beijing (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanemann WM (1985) Some issues in continuous- and discrete-response contingent valuation studies. Northeastern Journal of Agricultural Economics 14:5–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanemann WM (1989) Welfare evaluation in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses data: reply. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 71:1057–1061

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanemann WM, Kriström B (1995) Preference uncertainty, optimal designs and spikes. In: Johansson P-O, Kriström B, Mäler K-G (eds) Current issues in environmental economics. Manchester University Press, Manchester, pp 58–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanemann WM, Loomis J, Kanninen B (1991) Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 73:1255–1263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huhtala A (2004) What price recreation in Finland? A contingent valuation study of non-market benefits of public outdoor recreation areas. Journal of Leisure Research 36:23–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakobsson KM, Dragun AK (1996) Contingent valuation and endangered species: methodological issues and applications. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, p 269

    Google Scholar 

  • Jim CY, Chen WY (2006) Recreation-amenity use and contingent valuation of urban green spaces in Guangzhou, China. Landscape and Urban Planning 75:81–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jorgensen BS, Syme GJ (2000) Protest responses and willingness to pay: attitude toward paying for stormwater pollution abatement. Ecological Economics 33:251–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jorgensen BS, Syme GJ, Bishop BJ, Nancarrow BE (1999) Protest responses in contingent valuation. Environmental & Resource Economics 14:131–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kendle T, Forbes S (1997) Urban nature conservation. E and FN Spon, London, p 352

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewan L, Söderqvist T (2002) Knowledge and recognition of ecosystem services among the general public in a drainage basin in Scania, Southern Sweden. Ecological Economics 42:459–467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liang XF, Chen GZ, Chen XL, Yue PQ (2008) Threatened fishes in the world: Tanichthys albonubes Lin 1932 (Cyprinidae). Environmental Biology of Fishes 82:177–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin SY (1932) New cyprinid fishes from White Cloud Mountain. Lingnan Science Journal 11:379–383

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu J, Diamond J (2005) China’s environment in a globalizing world. Nature 435:1179–1186

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Loomis J, Ekstrand E (1998) Alternative approaches for incorporating respondent uncertainty when estimating willingness to pay: the case of the Mexican Spotted Owl. Ecological Economics 27:29–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo Y, Deng J (2008) The new environmental paradigm and nature-based tourism motivation. Journal of Travel Research 46:392–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macmillan D, Hanley N, Buckland S (1996) A contingent valuation study of uncertain environmental gains. Scottish Journal of Political Economy 43:519–533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martine G (2007) The state of the world population 2007. United Nations Population Fund, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Menzel S, Scarpa R (2005) Protection motivation theory and contingent valuation: perceived realism, threat and WTP estimates for biodiversity protection. FEEM Working Paper No. 26.05

  • Miller JR, Hobbs RJ (2002) Conservation where people live and work. Conservation Biology 16:330–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1989) Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, p 463

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrison MD, Blamey RK, Bennett JW (2000) Minimising payment vehicle bias in contingent valuation studies. Environmental & Resource Economics 16:407–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy DD (1988) Challenges to biological diversity in urban areas. In: Wilson EO, Peter FM (eds) Biodiversity. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp 71–76

    Google Scholar 

  • National Bureau of Statistics of China (2008) Communiqué on national economy and social development in 2007. Accessed on line August 15, 2008: http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjgb/ndtjgb/qgndtjgb/t20080228_402464933.htm (in Chinese)

  • Paradiso M, Trisorio A (2001) The effect of knowledge on the disparity between hypothetical and real willingness to pay. Applied Economics 33:1359–1364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearce DW (1999) Economics and biodiversity conservation in the developing world. Environment and Development Economics 4:203–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearce DW (2007) Do we really care about biodiversity? Environmental & Resource Economics 37:313–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pouta E, Rekola M, Kuuluvainen J, Tahvonen O, Li C-Z (2000) Contingent valuation of the Natura 2000 nature conservation programme in Finland. Forestry 73:119–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qu G (2000) Dream and expectation: past and future of China’s environment. China Environmental Science Press, Beijing, p 287

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudzitis G, Johansen H (1991) How important is wilderness? Results from a United States survey. Environmental Management 15:227–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shyamsundar P (1997) Benefit–cost analysis as a mechanism for evaluating conservation policies in developing countries. Environment and Development Economics 2:195–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spash CL (2000) Ethical motives and charitable contributions in contingent valuation: empirical evidence from social psychology and economics. Environmental Values 9:453–479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spash CL, Urama K, Burton R, Kenyon W, Shannon P, Hill G (2009) Motives behind willingness to pay for improving biodiversity in a water ecosystem: economics, ethics and social psychology. Ecological Economics 68:955–964

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson CW (2002) Urban open space in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning 60:59–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner WR, Nakamura T, Dinetti M (2004) Global urbanization and the separation of humans from nature. BioScience 54:585–590

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uliczka H, Angelstam P, Jansson G, Bro A (2004) Non-industrial private forest owners’ knowledge of and attitudes towards nature conservation. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 19:274–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UN-HABITAT (2006) The state of the world’s cities report. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Uysal MC, Jurowski F, McDonald C (1994) Environmental attitude by trip and visitor characteristics. Tourism Management 15:284–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veisten K (2007) Contingent valuation controversies: philosophic debates about economic theory. Journal of Socio-Economics 36:204–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wainger LA, King DM, Cantrell JA, Bird SL (2004) Development of indicators to assess economic vulnerabilities to changes in ecosystem services: case study of counties in Maryland, USA. Environmental Management 34:730–747

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walpole MJ, Goodwin HJ (2001) Local attitudes towards conservation and tourism around Komodo National Park, Indonesia. Environmental Conservation 28:160–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang X (1996) The effects of urbanization on biodiversity. Rural Eco-environment 12:32–36 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang G, Xiong B (2005) The sustainable development of Guangzhou Baiyun Mountain Scenic Spot. Guangdong Landscape Architecture 27:38–40 (in Chinese)

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wei Y, Davidson B, Chen D, White R, Li B, Zhang J (2007) Can contingent valuation be used to measure the in situ value of groundwater on the north China plain? Water Resources Management 21:1735–1749

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willis K, Garrod G, Scarpa R, Powe N, Lovett A, Bateman I, Hanley N, Macmillan D (2003) The social and environmental benefits of forests in Great Britain. Forestry Commission, Edinburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson EO (1984) Biophilia: The human bond with other species. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, p 180

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf K (2005) Civic nature valuation: assessments of human functioning and well-being in cities. In: Forging solutions: applying ecological economics to current problems, Proceedings of the 3rd biennial conference of the U.S. Society for Ecological Economics. Earth Economics, Tacoma, WA

  • World Bank (2001) China: air, land, and water. World Bank, Washington, DC, p 149

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang Q, Chen Z, Shen H (2002) A study on the indirect valuation of the forest ecosystem in Baiyun Mountain. Ecological Science 21:72–75 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoo SH, Yang HJ (2001) Application of sample selection model to double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation studies. Environmental & Resource Economics 20:1147–1163

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou Z (1996) Report of national environmental awareness survey. Environmental Education 2:6–8 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou K, Ye Y, Liu Q, Liu A, Peng S (2007) Evaluation of ambient air quality in Guangzhou, China. Journal of Environmental Sciences 19:432–437

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu J (1989) Nature conservation in China. Journal of Applied Ecology 26:825–833

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu Z, Deng Q, Zhou H, Ouyang T, Kuang Y, Huang N, Qiao Y (2002) Water pollution and degradation in Pearl river Delta, South China. Ambio 31:226–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The seed funding research grant support kindly provided by our university is gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geography, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong, China

    Wendy Y. Chen & C. Y. Jim

Authors
  1. Wendy Y. Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C. Y. Jim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. Y. Jim.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chen, W.Y., Jim, C.Y. Resident Motivations and Willingness-to-Pay for Urban Biodiversity Conservation in Guangzhou (China). Environmental Management 45, 1052–1064 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-010-9478-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-010-9478-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation