Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 25, Issue 31, pp 31474–31485 | Cite as

Ecological degradation of an inland river basin and an evaluation of the spatial and distance effect on willingness to pay for its improvement

  • Imran Khan
  • Minjuan Zhao
  • Sufyan Ullah Khan
Research Article
  • 24 Downloads

Abstract

Improvements in the ecological attributes of inland rivers have been projected to provide considerable non-market benefits, and the monetary valuation of these attributes has steadily increased over the past several decades. The present study addresses the spatial heterogeneity of the public’s preference for ecological attributes and the distance-decay effect of willingness to pay (WTP) to improve various attributes of the river basin. The results revealed that spatial heterogeneity exists among the individuals; for example, the respondents of Liangzhou County prefer a large improvement in the natural landscape, forest coverage, and eco-tourism and are willing to pay 491.89, 369.32, and 338.37 yuan per year, respectively, for one unit improvement in these ecological attributes. Similarly, the respondents of Jinchang County value and are willing to pay 447.60, 431.81, and 318.18 yuan for one unit improvement in tourism, forest coverage, and natural landscape, respectively. Furthermore, the results from the random parameter logit model show a significant distance-decay effect of the household WTP for ecological attributes. For example, the respondents living within 5 km of the river are willing to pay more money, that is, 832.61, 365.62, and 353.05 yuan per year for improving the natural landscape, water quantity, and grass cover, respectively. As the distance from the river increases, the corresponding WTP decreases, meaning that the respondents (users) living near the Shiyang River Basin are willing to pay more for ecological attribute improvement than those living far away from the river.

Keywords

Willingness to pay (WTP) River ecosystems Mixed logit model Distance decay Spatial heterogeneity 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors extend their sincere thanks to the editors of this journal and the anonymous referees for their valuable comments and suggestions that have significantly improved the manuscript. The survey was sponsored by a major project supported by the National Social Science major Foundation of China (no. 15ZDA052).

References

  1. Allan D, Erickson D, Fay J (1997) The influence of catchment land use on stream integrity across multiple spatial scales. Freshw Biol 37:149–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Almasri MN, Kaluarachchi JJ (2004) Assessment and management of long-term nitrate pollution of ground water in agriculture-dominated watersheds. J Hydrol 295:225–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anselin L (2010) Thirty years of spatial econometrics. Pap Reg Sci 89:3–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bateman IJ, Day BH, Georgiou S, Lake I (2006) The aggregation of environmental benefit values: welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP. Ecol Econ 60:450–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bateman IJ, Jones AP, Lovett AA, Lake IR, Day B (2002) Applying geographical information systems (GIS) to environmental and resource economics. Environ Resour Econ 22:219–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beckmann MJ (1999) Location of an economic activity. In: Lectures on location theory. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 61–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bennett J, Blamey R (2001) The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation. Edward Elgar Publishing, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  8. Bhattarai K (2015) Households’ willingness to pay for improved solid waste management in Banepa municipality, Nepal. Environ Nat Resour J 13:14–25Google Scholar
  9. Blamey RK, Bennett JW, Louviere JJ, Morrison MD, Rolfe JC (2002) Attribute causality in environmental choice modelling. Environ Resour Econ 23:167–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brazell JD, Diener CG, Karniouchina E, Moore WL, Séverin V, Uldry PF (2006) The no-choice option and dual response choice designs. Mark Lett 17:255–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brouwer R, Spaninks FA (1999) The validity of environmental benefits transfer: further empirical testing. Environ Resour Econ 14:95–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carson RT, Louviere JJ, Wei E (2010) Alternative Australian climate change plans: the public’s views. Energy Policy 38:902–911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clawson M, Knetsch J (1966) Economics of outdoor recreation. Johns Hopkins Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  14. Espey M, Owusu-Edusei K (2001) Neighborhood parks and residential property values in Greenville, South Carolina. J Agric Appl Econ 33:487–492Google Scholar
  15. Groot RSD, Wilson MA, Boumans RMJ (2002) Boumans. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystems functions, goods and services. Ecol Econ 41:393–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hanemann WM (1984) Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am J Agric Econ 66:332–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hanley N (2010) Testing choice experiment for benefit transfer with preference heterogeneity. Am J Agric Econ 89:135–151Google Scholar
  18. Hanley N, Bell D, Alvarez-Farizo B (2003) Valuing the benefits of coastal water quality improvements using contingent and real behaviour. Environ Resour Econ 24:273–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hanley N, Mourato S, Wright RE (2001) Choice modelling approaches: a superior alternative for environmental valuation? J Econ Surv 15:435–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hanley N, Schläpfer F, Spurgeon J (2003) Aggregating the benefits of environmental improvements: distance-decay functions for use and non-use values. J Environ Manag 68:297–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hong BG, Limburg KE, Erickson JD, Gowdy JM, Nowosielski AA, Polimeni JM, Stainbrook KM (2009) Connecting the ecological-economic dots in human-dominated watersheds: models to link socio-economic activities on the landscape to stream ecosystem health. Landsc Urban Plan 91:78–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Imber D, Stevenson G, Wilks L (1991) A contingent valuation survey of the Kakadu conservation zone. RAC Research Paper No. 3: Resource Assessment Commission, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  23. Jadhav A, Anderson S, Dyer MJB, Sutton PC (2017) Revisiting ecosystem services: assessment and valuation as starting points for environmental politics. Sustainability 9:1755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnston RJ, Jarvis D, Wallmo K, Lew DK (2015) Multiscale spatial pattern in nonuse willingness to pay: applications to threatened and endangered marine species. Land Econ 91:739–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Johnston RJ, Opaluch JJ, Grigalunas TA, Mazzotta MJ (2001) Estimating amenity benefits of coastal farmland. Growth Change 32:305–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Johnston RJ, Swallow SK, Bauer DM (2002) Spatial factors and stated preference values for public goods: considerations for rural land use. Land Econ 78:481–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Karr JR (1991) Biologic integrity: a long-neglected aspect of water resource management. Ecol Appl 1:66–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Khan I, Zhao M (2018) Water resource management and public preferences for water ecosystem services: a choice experiment approach for inland river basin management. Sci Total Environ 646:821–831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Khan I, Zhao M, Khan SU, Yao L, Ullah A, Xu T (2018) Spatial heterogeneity of preferences for improvements in river basin ecosystem services and its validity for benefit transfer. Ecol Indic 93:627–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Knüppe K, Knieper C (2016) The governance of ecosystem services in river basins: an approach for structured data representation and analysis. Environ Sci Pol 66:31–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kosenius A-K, Markku O (2015) Ecosystem benefits from coastal habitats—a three-country choice experiment. Mar Policy 58:15–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Krinsky I, Robb AL (1990) On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities: a correction. Rev Econ Stat 72:189–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lancaster KJ (1966) A new approach to consumer theory. J Polit Econ 74:132–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Li FM, Zhu GQ, Guo CX (2013) Shiyang River ecosystem problems and countermeasures. Agric Sci 04:72–78Google Scholar
  35. Liu Y, Huang Y (2017) An analysis on spatial heterogeneity of ecosystem service function in agricultural mechanization. J Agric Mech Res 9:259–263Google Scholar
  36. Liu C, Xia J (2004) Water problems and hydrological research in the Yellow River and the Huai and Hai River basins of China. Hydrol Process 18:2197–2210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Louviere JJ (2001) Choice experiments: an overview of concepts and issues. In: Bennett J, Blamey R (eds) The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 13–36Google Scholar
  38. Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD (2000) Stated choice methods: analysis and applications. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  39. Ma J, Ding Z, Wei G, Zhao H, Huang T (2009) Sources of water pollution and evolution of water quality in the Wuwei basin of Shiyang river, Northwest China. J Environ Manag 90:1168–1177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mauerhofer V, Ichinose T, Blackwell BD, Willig MR, Flint CG, Krause MS, Penker M (2018) Underuse of social-ecological systems: a research agenda for addressing challenges to biocultural diversity. Land Use Policy 72:57–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Morrison M (2000) Aggregation biases in stated preference studies. Aust Econ Pap 39:215–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Paterson RW, Boyle KJ (2002) Out of sight, out of mind? Using GIS to incorporate visibility in hedonic property value models. Land Econ 78:417–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Revelt D, Train K (1998) Mixed logit with repeated choices: households’ choices of appliance efficiency level. Rev Econ Stat 80:647–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Revelt D, Train K (2000) Customer-specific taste parameters and mixed logit: households’ choice of electricity supplier. University of California at Berkeley, Economics Working Paper E00-274Google Scholar
  45. Rolfe J, Bennett J, Louviere J (2000) Choice modelling and its potential application to tropical rainforest preservation. Ecol Econ 35:289–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rouquette JR, Posthumus H, Morris J, Hess TM, Dawson QL, Gowing DJG (2011) Synergies and trade-offs in the management of lowland rural floodplains: an ecosystem services approach. Hydrol Sci J 56:1566–1581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ruud P (1996) Approximation and simulation of the multinomial probit model: an analysis of covariance matrix estimation. Department of Economics, Berkeley, pp 1–17Google Scholar
  48. Sarukhan J, Whyte A, Hassan R, Scholes R, Ash N, Carpenter ST, Leemans, R (2005) Millenium ecosystem assessment: ecosystems and human well-being. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  49. Schaafsma M (2015) Spatial and geographical aspects of benefit transfer. In: Benefit transfer of environmental and resource values. The economic of non-market goods and resources. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 421–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schaafsma M, Brouwer R, Gilbert A, Van Den Bergh J, Wagtendonk A (2013) Estimation of distance-decay functions to account for substitution and spatial heterogeneity in stated preference research. Land Econ 89:514–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Seth S (2003) Human impacts and management issues in arid and semi-arid regions. Int Contrib Hydrogeol 23:289–341Google Scholar
  52. Train KE (2009) Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  53. Turner RK (2004) Economic valuation of water resources in agriculture. From the sectoral to a functional perspective of natural resource management. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  54. Wang ZJ, Zheng H, Wang XF, Sun XT, Speed R, Shen DJ (2009) A harmonious water rights allocation model for Shiyang River basin, Gansu Province, China. Int J Water Resour Dev 25:355–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Yao RT, Scarpa R, Turner JA, Barnard TD, Rose JM, Palma JH, Harrison DR (2014) Valuing biodiversity enhancement in New Zealand’s planted forests: socioeconomic and spatial determinants of willingness-to-pay. Ecol Econ 98:90–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Yu H, Edmunds M, Lorawainwright A, Thomas D (2014) From principles to localized implementation: villagers’ experiences of IWRM in the Shiyang River basin, Northwest China. Int J Water Resour Dev 30:588–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Yuan W, Yang K, Tang M (2005) Stream structure characteristics and their impact on storage and flood control capacity in the urbanized plain river network. Geogr Res 24:717–724Google Scholar
  58. Yue C, Wen L, Shang Z, Chen L, Kai Y (2014) Residential preferences for river network improvement: an exploration of choice experiments in Zhujiajiao, Shanghai, China. Environ Manag 54:517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zhou Z, Huang Y, Zhao L, Jia A (2015) An analysis of the spatial heterogeneity of the functioning of ecosystem services related to land-and-water resources. Nat Environ Pollut Technol 14:291–298Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Economics and ManagementNorthwest A & F UniversityYanglingChina

Personalised recommendations