Environmental Management

, Volume 45, Issue 5, pp 1052–1064 | Cite as

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

  • Wendy Y. Chen
  • C. Y. JimEmail author


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.


Biodiversity conservation Conservation motivation Contingent valuation Urban natural area Urban nature conservation China 



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


  1. Ahmed SU, Gotoh K (2006) Cost-benefit analysis of environmental goods by applying contingent valuation method: some Japanese case studies. Springer, Tokyo, p 159Google Scholar
  2. 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 11–39Google Scholar
  3. 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 30:43–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Akter S, Brouwer R, Brander L, van Beukering P (2009) Respondent uncertainty in a contingent market for carbon offsets. Ecological Economics 68:1858–1863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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 219–247Google Scholar
  6. 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 66Google Scholar
  7. 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 329:3–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Backhaus N (2005) Tourism and nature conservation in Malaysian national parks. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ, p 277Google Scholar
  9. Baiyun Mountain Administrative Bureau (2007) Annual report of the national Baiyun Mountain Scenic Area. Internal document (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  10. 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 297:950–953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Barr S (2004) Are we all environmentalists now? Rhetoric and reality in environmental action. Geoforum 35:231–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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 668Google Scholar
  13. Bateman IJ, Langford IH, Turner RK, Willis KG, Garrod GD (1995) Elicitation and truncation effects in contingent valuation studies. Ecological Economics 12:161–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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 458Google Scholar
  15. Breuste JH (2004) Decision making, planning and design for the conservation of indigenous vegetation within urban development. Landscape and Urban Planning 68:439–452Google Scholar
  16. Brookshire DS, Crocker TD (1981) The advantage of contingent valuation methods for benefit-cost analysis. Public Policy 36:235–252Google Scholar
  17. Buckland ST, Macmillan DC, Duff EI, Hanley N (1999) Estimating mean willingness to pay from dichotomous choice contingent valuation studies. The Statistician 48:109–124Google Scholar
  18. Carson RT, Flores NE, Meade NF (2001) Contingent valuation controversies and evidence. Environmental & Resource Economics 19:173–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chen S (2000) Urbanization in China. Urban Problems 93:3–5 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  20. 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 59–75Google Scholar
  21. 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
  22. China Environmental Awareness Program (2008) 2007 national environmental public awareness survey. World Environment 2:72–77 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  23. Christie M, Hanley N, Warren J, Murphy K, Wright R, Hyde T (2006) Valuing the diversity of biodiversity. Ecological Economics 58:304–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cooper P, Poe GL, Bateman IJ (2004) The structure of motivation for contingent values: a case study of lake water quality improvement. Ecological Economics 50:69–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Crompton JL (2001) Parks and economic development. America Planning Association. Planning Advisory Service, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  26. Cummings RG, Brookshire DS, Schulze WD (1986) Valuing environmental goods: an assessment of the contingent valuation method. Rowman and Allanheld, Totawa, NJ, p 270Google Scholar
  27. Davison A, Ridder B (2006) Turbulent times for urban nature: conserving and re-inventing nature in Australian cities. Australian Zoologist 33:306–314Google Scholar
  28. Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (2002) Survey of public attitudes to quality of life and to the environment-2001. LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. Dunn RR, Gavin MC, Sanchez MC, Solomon JN (2006) The pigeon paradox: dependence of global conservation on urban nature. Conservation Biology 20:1814–1816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Edmonds RL (1999) The environment in the People’s Republic of China 50 years on. China Quarterly 159:640–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Edwards PJ, Abivardi C (1998) The value of biodiversity: where ecology and economy blend. Biological Conservation 83:239–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Evans J (2004) What is local about local environmental governance? Observations from the local biodiversity action planning process. Area 36:270–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. FAO Information Division (2000) Applications of the contingent valuation method in developing countries: a survey. FAO Economic and Social Development Paper, 146Google Scholar
  34. Faul AK (2008) Increasing interactions with nature: a survey of expectations on a university campus. Urban Habitats 5:58–82Google Scholar
  35. Garrod G, Willis KG (1999) Economic valuation of the environment: methods and case studies. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, p 384Google Scholar
  36. 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, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  37. Goode DA (1989) Urban nature conservation in Britain. Journal of Applied Ecology 26:859–873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Guangdong Census Office (2002) Tabulation on the 2000 population census of Guangdong province (Guangzhou). Guangdong Economic Press, Guangzhou (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  39. Guangzhou Municipal Statistics Bureau (2007) Guangzhou Statistical Yearbook. China Statistics Press, Beijing (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  40. Hanemann WM (1985) Some issues in continuous- and discrete-response contingent valuation studies. Northeastern Journal of Agricultural Economics 14:5–13Google Scholar
  41. Hanemann WM (1989) Welfare evaluation in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses data: reply. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 71:1057–1061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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 58–77Google Scholar
  43. Hanemann WM, Loomis J, Kanninen B (1991) Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 73:1255–1263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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 36:23–44Google Scholar
  45. Jakobsson KM, Dragun AK (1996) Contingent valuation and endangered species: methodological issues and applications. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, p 269Google Scholar
  46. Jim CY, Chen WY (2006) Recreation-amenity use and contingent valuation of urban green spaces in Guangzhou, China. Landscape and Urban Planning 75:81–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Jorgensen BS, Syme GJ (2000) Protest responses and willingness to pay: attitude toward paying for stormwater pollution abatement. Ecological Economics 33:251–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Jorgensen BS, Syme GJ, Bishop BJ, Nancarrow BE (1999) Protest responses in contingent valuation. Environmental & Resource Economics 14:131–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kendle T, Forbes S (1997) Urban nature conservation. E and FN Spon, London, p 352Google Scholar
  50. 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 42:459–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Liang XF, Chen GZ, Chen XL, Yue PQ (2008) Threatened fishes in the world: Tanichthys albonubes Lin 1932 (Cyprinidae). Environmental Biology of Fishes 82:177–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lin SY (1932) New cyprinid fishes from White Cloud Mountain. Lingnan Science Journal 11:379–383Google Scholar
  53. Liu J, Diamond J (2005) China’s environment in a globalizing world. Nature 435:1179–1186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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 27:29–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Luo Y, Deng J (2008) The new environmental paradigm and nature-based tourism motivation. Journal of Travel Research 46:392–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Macmillan D, Hanley N, Buckland S (1996) A contingent valuation study of uncertain environmental gains. Scottish Journal of Political Economy 43:519–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Martine G (2007) The state of the world population 2007. United Nations Population Fund, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  58. Menzel S, Scarpa R (2005) Protection motivation theory and contingent valuation: perceived realism, threat and WTP estimates for biodiversity protection. FEEM Working Paper No. 26.05Google Scholar
  59. Miller JR, Hobbs RJ (2002) Conservation where people live and work. Conservation Biology 16:330–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1989) Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, p 463Google Scholar
  61. Morrison MD, Blamey RK, Bennett JW (2000) Minimising payment vehicle bias in contingent valuation studies. Environmental & Resource Economics 16:407–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Murphy DD (1988) Challenges to biological diversity in urban areas. In: Wilson EO, Peter FM (eds) Biodiversity. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp 71–76Google Scholar
  63. National Bureau of Statistics of China (2008) Communiqué on national economy and social development in 2007. Accessed on line August 15, 2008: (in Chinese)
  64. Paradiso M, Trisorio A (2001) The effect of knowledge on the disparity between hypothetical and real willingness to pay. Applied Economics 33:1359–1364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Pearce DW (1999) Economics and biodiversity conservation in the developing world. Environment and Development Economics 4:203–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Pearce DW (2007) Do we really care about biodiversity? Environmental & Resource Economics 37:313–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Pouta E, Rekola M, Kuuluvainen J, Tahvonen O, Li C-Z (2000) Contingent valuation of the Natura 2000 nature conservation programme in Finland. Forestry 73:119–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Qu G (2000) Dream and expectation: past and future of China’s environment. China Environmental Science Press, Beijing, p 287Google Scholar
  69. Rudzitis G, Johansen H (1991) How important is wilderness? Results from a United States survey. Environmental Management 15:227–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Shyamsundar P (1997) Benefit–cost analysis as a mechanism for evaluating conservation policies in developing countries. Environment and Development Economics 2:195–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Spash CL (2000) Ethical motives and charitable contributions in contingent valuation: empirical evidence from social psychology and economics. Environmental Values 9:453–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 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 68:955–964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Thompson CW (2002) Urban open space in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning 60:59–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Turner WR, Nakamura T, Dinetti M (2004) Global urbanization and the separation of humans from nature. BioScience 54:585–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 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 19:274–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. UN-HABITAT (2006) The state of the world’s cities report. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  77. Uysal MC, Jurowski F, McDonald C (1994) Environmental attitude by trip and visitor characteristics. Tourism Management 15:284–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Veisten K (2007) Contingent valuation controversies: philosophic debates about economic theory. Journal of Socio-Economics 36:204–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 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 34:730–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Walpole MJ, Goodwin HJ (2001) Local attitudes towards conservation and tourism around Komodo National Park, Indonesia. Environmental Conservation 28:160–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Wang X (1996) The effects of urbanization on biodiversity. Rural Eco-environment 12:32–36 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  82. Wang G, Xiong B (2005) The sustainable development of Guangzhou Baiyun Mountain Scenic Spot. Guangdong Landscape Architecture 27:38–40 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  83. 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 21:1735–1749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 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, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  85. Wilson EO (1984) Biophilia: The human bond with other species. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, p 180Google Scholar
  86. 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, WAGoogle Scholar
  87. World Bank (2001) China: air, land, and water. World Bank, Washington, DC, p 149Google Scholar
  88. 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
  89. Yoo SH, Yang HJ (2001) Application of sample selection model to double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation studies. Environmental & Resource Economics 20:1147–1163Google Scholar
  90. Zhou Z (1996) Report of national environmental awareness survey. Environmental Education 2:6–8 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  91. Zhou K, Ye Y, Liu Q, Liu A, Peng S (2007) Evaluation of ambient air quality in Guangzhou, China. Journal of Environmental Sciences 19:432–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Zhu J (1989) Nature conservation in China. Journal of Applied Ecology 26:825–833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 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 31:226–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GeographyThe University of Hong KongHong KongChina

Personalised recommendations