Skip to main content

Residential Preferences for River Network Improvement: An Exploration of Choice Experiments in Zhujiajiao, Shanghai, China

Environmental Management volume 54, pages 517–530 (2014)Cite this article

Abstract

River networks have both ecological and social benefits for urban development. However, river networks have suffered extensive destruction as a result of urbanization and industrialization, especially in China. River restoration is a growth business but suffers poor efficiency due to a lack of social understanding. Assessing the benefits of river system restoration and recognizing public preferences are critical for effective river ecosystem restoration and sustainable river management. This study used a choice experiment with a multinomial logit model and a random parameter logit model to assess respondents’ cognitive preferences regarding attributes of river networks, and their possible sources of heterogeneity. Results showed that riverfront condition was the attribute most preferred by respondents, while stream morphology was the least preferred. Results also illustrated that the current status of each of three river network attributes was not desirable, and respondents would prefer a river network with a “branch pattern,” that is “limpid with no odor,” and “accessible with vegetation.” Estimated willingness to pay was mainly affected by household monthly income, residential location, and whether respondents had household members engaged in a water protection career. The assessment results can provide guidance and a reference for managers, sponsors, and researchers.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  • Adamowicz WL (1994) Habit formation and variety seeking in a discrete choice model of recreation demand. J Agric Resour Econ 19(1):19–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Adamowicz W, Louviere J, Williams M (1994) Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. J Environ Econ Manage 26:271–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adamowicz W, Boxall P, Williams M, Louviere J (1998) Stated preferences approaches to measuring passive use values: choice experiments and contingent valuation. Am J Agric Econ 80(1):64–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alayli-Goebbels AF, Dellaert BG, Knox SA, Ament AJ, Lakerveld J, Bot SD, Nijpels G, Severens JL (2013) Consumer preferences for health and nonhealth outcomes of health promotion: results from a discrete choice experiment. Value Health 16:114–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allan JD, Erickson DL, Fay J (1997) The influence of catchment land use on stream integrity across multiple spatial scales. Freshw Biol 37(1):149–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvarez-Farizo B, Hanley N, Barberan R, Lazaro A (2007) Choice modeling at the “market stall”: individual versus collective interest in environmental valuation. Ecol Econ 60(4):743–751

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amigues JP, Boulatoff C, Desaigues B, Gauthier C, Keith JE (2002) The benefits and costs of riparian analysis habitat preservation: a willingness to accept/willingness to pay contingent valuation approach. Ecol Econ 43:17–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo I, Ramos S, Mucha AP, Bordalo AA (2013) Applicability of ecological assessment tools for management decision-making: a case study from the Lima estuary (NW Portugal) Ocean Costal. Manage 72:54–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Bash JS, Ryan CM (2002) Stream restoration and enhancement projects: is anyone monitoring? Environ Manage 29(6):877–885

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bech M, Gyrd-Hansen D (2005) Effects coding in discrete choice experiments. Health Econ 14:1079–1083

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bengochea-Morancho A, Fuertes-Eugenio AM, Saz-Salazar SD (2005) A comparison of empirical models used to infer the willingness to pay in contingent valuation. Empir Econ 30:235–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett J, Blamey R (2001) The choice modeling approach to environmental valuation. Edward Elgar Publishing Inc., Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Berbés-Blázquez M (2012) A participatory assessment of ecosystem services and human wellbeing in rural Costa Rica using photo voice. Environ Manage 49:862–875

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergland O (1997) Valuation of landscape elements using a contingent choice method. Paper presented at the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists Annual Conference. Tilburg, The Netherlands

  • Bhat CR (2003) Simulation estimation of mixed discrete choice models using randomized and scrambled Halton sequences. Transp Res B 37(1):837–855

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birol E, Karousakisb K, Koundouri P (2006) Using economic valuation techniques to inform water resources management: a survey and critical appraisal of available techniques and an application. Sci Total Environ 365(1–3):105–122

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bliem M, Getzner M, Rodiga-Laßnig P (2012) Temporal stability of individual preferences for river restoration in Austria using a choice experiment. J Environ Manage 103(30):65–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blomquist GC, Whitehead JC (1998) Resource quality information and validity of willingness to pay in contingent valuation. Resour Energy Econ 20:179–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brizga S, Finlays BL (2000) River management: the Australian experience. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson F, Frykblom P, Lagerkvist CJ (2005) Using cheap-talk as a test of validity in choice experiments. Econ Lett 89:147–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Che Y, Yang K, Chen T, Xu QX (2012a) Assessing a riverfront rehabilitation project using the comprehensive index of public accessibility. Ecol Eng 40:80–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Che Y, Yang K, Wu EN, Shang ZY, Xiang WN (2012b) Assessing the health of an urban stream: a case study of Suzhou Creek in Shanghai, China. Environ Monit Assess 184:7425–7438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen J (2011) Estimation of non-market value of prime farmland based on choice experiment model. Dissertation, Zhejiang University (in Chinese)

  • Cheng J, Yang K, Zhao J, Yuan W, Wu JP (2007) Variation of river system in center district of Shanghai and its impact factors during the last one hundred years. Scientia Geographica Sinica 27(1):85–91 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke AL, Dalrymple GH (2003) $7.8 billion for Everglades restoration: why do environmentalists look so worried? Popul Environ 24:541–569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins JP (2007) Choice experiments: application to air quality policy options and investigation of method’s incentive compatibility. Dissertation, The University Of Tennessee, Knoxville

  • De Groot IM, Antonides G, Read D, van Raaij WF (2012) The effects of direct experience on consumer product evaluation. J Socio Econ 38(3):509–518

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doherty E, Murphy G, Hynes S, Buckley C (2014) Valuing ecosystem services across water bodies: results from a discrete choice experiment. Ecosyst Serv 7:87–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eden S, Tunstall S (2006) Ecological versus social restoration? How urban river restoration challenges but also fails to challenge the science-policy nexus in the United Kingdom. Environ Plan C 24:661–680

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fan ZG (2011) Study on estimation and distribution of ecological compensation in Liao River Catchment. Dalian University of Technology (in Chinese)

  • Fifer S, Rose J, Greaves S (2012) Hypothetical bias in Stated Choice Experiments: is it a problem? And if so, how do we deal with it? In: 91st annual meeting of the Transportation Research Board 2012. Washington DC, United States

  • Grayson JE, Chapman MG, Underwood AJ (1999) The assessment of restoration of habitat in urban wetlands. Landsc Urban Plan 43:227–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halton JH (1960) On the efficiency of evaluating certain quasi-random sequences of points in evaluating multi-dimensional integrals. Number Math 2(1):84–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han SY, Kwak SJ, Yoo SH (2008) Valuing environmental impacts of large dam construction in Korea: an application of choice experiments. Environ Impact Assess 28(4–5):256–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanemann WM (1984) Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am J Agric Econ 66(3):332–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanley N (1990) The economics of nitrate pollution. Eur Rev Agric Econ 17:129–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanley N, MacMillan D, Wright RE, Bullock C, Simpson I, Parsisson D, Crabtree B (1998) Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: estimating the benefits of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland. J Agric Econ 49(1):1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanley N, Adamowicz W, Wright RE (2005) Price vector effects in choice experiments: an empirical test. Resour Energy Econ 27(3):227–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanley N, Wright RE, Alvarez-Farizo B (2006) Estimating the economic value of improvements in river ecology using choice experiments: an application to the water framework directive. J Environ Manage 78(2):183–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hausman J (2012) Contingent valuation: from dubious to hopeless. J Econ Perspect 26:43–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Havet N, Morelle M, Remonnay R, Carrere MO (2012) Econometric treatment of few protest responses in willingness-to-pay studies: an application in health care. Rech Econ Louvain 2(78):53–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH (2005) Applied choice analysis: a primer. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hong B, Limburg KE, Erickson D, Gowdy JM, Nowosielsk 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(2):78–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huybers T (2003) Domestic tourism destination choices—a choice modeling analysis. Int J Tourism Res 5:445–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan WR (2003) The sunflower forest: ecological restoration and the new communion with nature. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamp U, Binder W, Hölzl K (2007) River habitat monitoring and assessment in Germany. Environ Monit Assess 127(1–3):209–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karr JR (1991) Biological integrity: a long-neglected aspect of water resource management. Ecol Appl 1(1):66–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krinsky I, Robb AL (1986) On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Rev Econ Stat 68(4):715–719

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lancaster K (1966) A new approach to consumer theory. J Political Econ 74:217–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Layton DF, Brown G (2000) Heterogeneous preferences regarding global climate change. Rev Econ Stat 82(4):616–624

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liao ZL, Xu ZX, Wang DB, Lu SQ, Hannam PM (2011) River environmental decision support system development for Suzhou Creek in Shanghai. J Environ Manage 92:2211–2221

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louviere JJ, Hensher DA (1983) Using discrete choice models with experimental design data to forecast consumer demand for a unique cultural event. J Consum Res 10(3):348–361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louviere JJ, Woodworth G (1983) Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: an approach based on aggregate data. J Mark Res 20(4):350–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD (2000) Stated choice methods: analysis and application. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lusk JL, Schroeder TC (2004) Are choice experiments incentive compatible? A test with quality differentiated beef steaks. Am J Agric Econ 86(2):467–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manski J (1977) The structure of random utility models. Theory Decis 8:229–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Massie M (2013) Flooding and the carrot river watershed source water protection plan, Saskatchewan: civic engagement and causal stories. In: Keskitalo ECH (ed) Climate change and flood risk management: adaptation and extreme events at the local level. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham, pp 222–257

    Google Scholar 

  • McFadden D (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. University of California, Berkeley. http://elsa.berkeley.edu/pub/reprints/mcfadden/zarembka.pdf. Accessed 18 Feb 2012

  • Meyerhoff J, Liebe U (2010) Determinants of protest responses in environmental valuation: a meta-study. Ecol Econ 70:366–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mill GA, van Rensburg TM, Hynes S, Dooley C (2007) Preferences for multiple use forest management in Ireland: citizen and consumer perspectives. Ecol Econ 60:642–653

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Mogas J, Riera P, Brey R (2009) Combining contingent valuation and choice experiments. A forestry application in Spain. Environ Resour Econ 43:535–551

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Othman J, Bennett J, Blamey R (2004) Environmental values and resource management options: a choice modeling experience in Malaysia. Environ Dev Econ 9:803–824

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pahl-Wostl C (2006) The importance of social learning in restoring the multifunctionality of rivers and floodplains. Ecol Soc 11(1):10

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedroli B, de Blust G, van Looy K, van Rooij S (2002) Setting targets in strategies for river restoration. Landsc Ecol 17(suppl 1):5–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pek CK, Jamal O (2011) A choice experiment analysis for solid waste disposal option: a case study in Malaysia. J Environ Manage 92:2993–3001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips KA, Maddala T, Johnson FR (2002) Measuring preferences for health care interventions using conjoint analysis: an application to HIV testing. Health Serv Res 37(6):1681–1705

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinto U, Maheshwari BL (2011) River health assessment in peri-urban landscapes: an application of multivariate analysis to identify the key variables. Water Res 45(13):3915–3924

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez MXV, González CJL (2003) Choice experiments and non use values. http://ecopub10.webs.ull.es/ponencias/choice.pdf. Accessed 20 Sep 2013

  • Rolfe J, Windle J (2003) Valuing the protection of aboriginal cultural heritage sites. Econ Rec 79:85–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rolfe J, Bennett J, Louviere J (2002) Stated values and reminders of substitute goods: testing for framing effects with choice modeling. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 46:1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sælen H, Ericson T (2013) The recreational value of different winter conditions in Oslo forests: a choice experiment. J Environ Manage 131:426–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sasao T (2004) An estimation of the social costs of landfill siting using a choice experiment. Waste Manage 24:753–762

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scarpa R, Thiene M, Hensher DA (2012) Preferences for tap water attributes within couples: an exploration of alternative mixed logit parameterizations. Water Resour Res 48(1):W01520. doi:10.1029/2010WR010148

    Google Scholar 

  • Shang ZY, Che Y, Yang K, Jiang Y (2012) Assesing local communities’ willingness to pay for river network protection: a contingent valuation study of Shanghai, China. Int J Environ Res Public Health 9(11):3866–3882

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thurstone L (1927) A law of comparative judgment. Psychol Rev 4:273–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Train K (2001) A comparison of hierarchical bayes and maximum simulated likelihood for mixed logit. University of California, Berkeley. http://emlab.berkeley.edu/~train/compare.pdf. Accessed 20 Feb 2012

  • Train KE (2009) Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press, UK

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Upton V, Dhubháin AN, Bullock C (2012) Preferences and values for afforestation: the effects of location and respondent understanding on forest attributes in a labelled choice experiment. Forest Policy Econ 23:17–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urbanska K, Webb NR, Edwards PJ (1997) Restoration ecology and sustainable development. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Heide CM, Van der Bergh JCJM, Van Ierland EC, Nunes PALD (2008) Economic valuation of habitat defragmentation: a study of the Veluwe, the Netherlands. Ecol Econ 67(2):205–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallmo K, Lew DK (2011) Valuing improvements to threatened and endangered marine species: an application of stated preference choice experiments. J Environ Manage 92(7):1793–1801

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang XH, Bennett J, Xie C, Zhang ZT, Liang D (2007) Estimating nonmarket environmental benefits of the conversation of cropland to forest and grassland program: a choice modeling approach. Ecol Econ 63:114–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woolsey S, Capelli F, Gonser T, Hoehn E, Hostmann M, Junker B, Paetzold A, Roulier C, Schweizer S, Tiegs SD, Tockner K, Weber C, Peter A (2007) A strategy to assess river restoration success. Freshw Biol 42(4):752–769

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang X, Xu, SG, Liu YY, Wang XD (2014) River ecosystem assessment and application in ecological restorations: A mathematical approach based on evaluating its structure and function. Ecol Eng. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2014.04.027

  • Yoo SH, Kwak SJ, Lee JS (2008) Using a choice experiment to measure the environmental costs of air pollution impacts in Seoul. J Environ Manage 86(1):308–318

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yuan W, Yang K, Tang M, Xu QX (2005) Stream structure characteristics and their impact on storage and flood control capacity in the urbanized plain river network. Geogr Res 24(5):717–724 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang XH (2012) Study on willingness to pay based on choice experiment method a case study of Xiangjiang river water pollution. Resour Dev Mark 28(7):600–603 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu Q, Yu KJ, Li DH (2005) The width of ecological corridor in landscape planning. Acta Ecol Sinica 25(9):2406–2412 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the “National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 71073055),” the “Ministry of Water Resources’ Special Funds for Scientific Research on Public Causes (No. 201201072-04)” and the “MOE Key Project of Philosophy and Social Sciences Research (No. 11JZD024).” We also would like to thank the editors and three reviewers of the journal for their insightful and helpful comments and suggestions.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Shanghai Key Laboratory of Urbanization and Ecological Restoration, East China Normal University, No. 500 Dongchuan Road, Shanghai, 200241, China

    Yue Che, Wen Li, Zhaoyi Shang, Chen Liu & Kai Yang

Authors
  1. Yue Che
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wen Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zhaoyi Shang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chen Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kai Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kai Yang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Che, Y., Li, W., Shang, Z. et al. Residential Preferences for River Network Improvement: An Exploration of Choice Experiments in Zhujiajiao, Shanghai, China. Environmental Management 54, 517–530 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0323-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0323-x

Keywords

  • River network
  • Choice experiment
  • Willingness to pay
  • Multinomial logit model
  • Random parameter logit model
  • Shanghai