Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The influencing factors of the WTP for the risk reduction of chemical industry accidents in China

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To explore the factors that influence respondents’ willingness to pay (WTP) for the risk reduction of chemical industry accidents, a questionnaire survey combined with contingent valuation and psychometric paradigm methods were conducted in the city of Yancheng, Jiangsu Province, China. Both traditional socioeconomic variables and perceived characteristics of the hazards were considered in this study, and a Tobit model was used to find the factors influencing WTP under three risk reduction scenarios. The results showed that three demographic characteristics, age, gender, and income, significantly affected the WTP for chemical risk reduction. In addition, three extracted public risk perception factors, effect, knowledge, and trust, also strongly affected the WTP. The mean WTP value increased as the magnitude of the risk reduction increased. The number of factors influencing the WTP decreased as the reduction level improved, and only the effect factor had a significant influence on the WTP for a higher level (80%) of risk reduction. The cost for chemical safety management of Yancheng was calculated, and the optimized risk reduction level was determined. These findings can assist governments and policy makers to formulate suitable strategies for risk control, to reach target groups of people to develop effective communication, and to provide specific references for the best investment for the security of local residents.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. National Bureau of Statistics of China. China Statistical Yearbook 2010, Beijing: China Statistics Press, 2010

    Google Scholar 

  2. Liu T M, Zhong M H, Xing J J. Industrial accidents: Challenges for China’s economic and social development. Safety Science, 2005, 43(8): 503–522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Zhou S P, Ji Q G. “7.28” explosion incident for security alarm sounded. Environment Protection, 2006, 8A: 1–4 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Zhang Z C, Sun X, Li Y F, Zhu X D. Analysis on the spatial and temporal change of chemical accidents and its suggestions: a case study in coastal areas of Jiangsu Province. China Safety Science Journal, 2010, 20(8): 129–135 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Whittington D. Improving the performance of contingent valuation studies in developing countries. Environmental and Resource Economics, 2002, 22(1/2): 323–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hammitt J K, Zhou Y. The economic value of air-pollution-related health risks in China: a contingent valuation study. Environmental and Resource Economics, 2006, 33(3): 399–423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Wang X J, Zhang W, Li Y, Yang K Z, Bai M. Air quality improvement estimation and assessment using contingent valuation method, a case study in Beijing. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 2006, 120(1–3): 153–168

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Garming H, Waibel H. Pesticides and farmer health in Nicaragua: a willingness-to-pay approach to evaluation. The European Journal of Health Economics, 2009, 10(2): 125–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. McDaniels T L, Kamlet M S, Fischer G W. Risk perception and the value of safety. Risk Analysis, 1992, 12(4): 495–503

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Venkatachalam L. The contingent valuation method: a review. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 2004, 24(1): 89–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cameron T A, Deshazo J R, Stiffler P. Demand for health risk reductions: a cross-national comparison between the U.S. and Canada. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 2010, 41(3): 245–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Wang H, Mullahy J. Willingness to pay for reducing fatal risk by improving air quality: a contingent valuation study in Chongqing, China. Science of the Total Environment, 2006, 367(1): 50–57

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Zhai G F, Sato T, Fukuzono T, Ikeda S, Yoshida K. Willingness to pay for flood risk reduction and its determinants in Japan. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 2006, 42 (4): 927–940

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Angulo A M, Gil J M. Risk perception and consumer willingness to pay for certified beef in Spain. Food Quality and Preference, 2007, 18(8): 1106–1117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Krupnick A, Alberini A, Cropper M, Simon N, O’Brien B, Goeree R, Heintzelman M. Age, health and the willingness to pay for mortality risk reductions: a contingent valuation survey of Ontario residents. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 2002, 24(2): 161–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Vassanadumrongdee S, Matsuoka S. Risk perceptions and value of a statistical life for air pollution and traffic accidents: evidence from Bangkok, Thailand. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 2005, 30(3): 261–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Zhai G F, Suzuki T. Effects of risk representation and scope on willingness to pay for reduced risks: evidence from Tokyo Bay, Japan. Risk Analysis, 2008, 28(2): 513–522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Slovic P, Feischhoff B, Lichtenstein S. Facts and fears: understanding perceived risk. In: Hwing R C, Albers W A, eds. Societal Risk Assessment: How Safe is Safe Enough? New York: Springer Press, 1980, 181–216

    Google Scholar 

  19. Griffin R C. The fundamental principle of cost-benefit analysis. Water Resources Research, 1998, 34(8): 2063–2071

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Duan W L, Chen G H, Ye Q, Chen Q G. The situation of hazardous chemical accidents in China between 2000 and 2006. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2011, 186(2/3): 1489–1494

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. McCall C H. Sampling and Statistics Handbook for Research. 1st ed. Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1982

    Google Scholar 

  22. Bateman I J, Burgess D, Hutchinson W G, Matthews D I. Learning design contingent valuation (LDCV): NOAA guidelines, preference learning and coherent arbitrariness. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 2008, 55(2): 127–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Slovic P. Perception of risk. Science, 1987, 236(4799): 280–285

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Slovic P. The risk game. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2001, 86 (1/3): 17–24

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Slovic P, Finucane M L, Peters E, MacGregor D G. Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis, 2004, 24(2): 311–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Huang L, Sun K, Ban J, Bi J. Public perception of blue-algae bloom risk in Hongze Lake of China. Environmental Management, 2010, 45(5): 1065–1075

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kunreuther H, Easterling D, Desvousges W, Slovic P. Public attitudes toward siting a high-level nuclear waste repository in Nevada. Risk Analysis, 1990, 10(4): 469–484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Sjöberg L. Factors in risk perception. Risk Analysis, 2000, 20(1): 1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Mcdonald J F, Moffitt R A. The uses of Tobit analysis. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 1980, 62(2): 318–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Browne M W, Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 1992, 21(2): 230–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Andersson H. Perception of own death risk: an assessment of road-traffic mortality risk. Risk Analysis, 2011, 31(7): 1069–1082

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Bhattacharya S, Alberini A, Cropper M L. The value of mortality risk reductions in Delhi, India. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 2007, 34(1): 21–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Huang L, Bi J, Zhang B, Li F Y, Qu C S. Perception of people for the risk of Tianwan nuclear power plant. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering in China, 2010, 4(1): 73–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Shabman L, Stephenson K. Searching for the correct benefit estimate: Empirical evidence for an alternative perspective. Land Economics, 1996, 72(4): 433–449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Desaigues B, Bordeaux U, Rabl A. Reference values for human life: an econometric analysis of a contingent valuation in France. Nathalie Schwab and Nils Soguel, 1995: 1-17

  36. Hammitt J K, Liu J T, Lin W C. Sensitivity of willingness to pay to the magnitude of risk reduction: a Taiwan-United States comparison. Journal of Risk Research, 2000, 3(4): 305–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Lu C J, Luo H, Lv L H, He M M. Public risk perception and willingness to pay towards emergency environmental pollution: a case study in Nanjing chemical industry park. In: Proceedings of 2010 International Conference on Emergency Management and Management Science (ICEMMS), Beijing: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Press, 2010, 242–245

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. State Key Laboratory of Pollution Control & Resource Reuse, School of Environment, Nanjing University, Nanjing, 210093, China

    Lei Huang, Zhijuan Shao, Weiliang Bao, Bailing Duan, Jun Bi & Zengwei Yuan

Authors
  1. Lei Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zhijuan Shao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Weiliang Bao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bailing Duan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jun Bi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Zengwei Yuan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zengwei Yuan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Huang, L., Shao, Z., Bao, W. et al. The influencing factors of the WTP for the risk reduction of chemical industry accidents in China. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 6, 860–868 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-012-0467-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-012-0467-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation