The Valuation of Grassland Ecosystem Services in Inner Mongolia of China and Its Spatial Differences
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methodology
2.1. Grasslands in Inner Mongolia
2.2. Questionnaire Survey
2.3. Data Collection
2.4. Data Analysis
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Demographic Profile of the Respondents
3.2. Respondents’ Knowledge and Awareness about Grassland Ecosystem Services
3.3. Attitudes towards Payment
3.4. Mean WTP and its Spatial Distribution
3.5. Influencing Factors of WTP
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Question Categories | Questionnaire |
---|---|
1. Knowledge and awareness questions | |
How is your knowledge level of grassland ecosystem services? Are your concerned about the protection of grassland ecosystem services? | |
Is it important to protect the grasslands in Inner Mongolia? | |
2. The CV questions | Assume that there is a protection program to protect and restore grassland ecosystems and their services in Inner Mongolia. However, this protection program is not financially covered by the government and needs public contributions. Would you be willing to contribute or not? Yes No If yes, how much would you be willing to contribute? (Please pick up the number that is close to your maximum willingness-to-pay) □20 □50 □100 □200 □800 □1000 □>1000 |
3. Respondents’ background information | |
3.1 Age | How old are you? |
3.2 Education | What is your highest level of education? |
3.3 Household income | What is your average monthly household income? |
References
- Costanza, R.R.; D’Arge, R.; Groot, S.; Farber, M.; Grasso, B.; Hannon, K.; Limburg, S.; Naeem, R.; O’Neill, J.; Paruelo, R.; et al. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 1997, 387, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: The Assessment Series (Four Volumes and Summary); Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Chapman, P.M.; Selck, H.; Doorn, N.; Munns, W.R. Ecosystem services deserve better than “dirty paper”. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2017, 36, 867–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Divinsky, I.; Becker, N.; Bar, P. Ecosystem service tradeoff between grazing intensity and other services—A case study in Karei-Deshe experimental cattle range in northern Israel. Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 24, 16–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Egoh, B.N.; Reyers, B.; Rouget, M.; Richardson, D.M. Identifying priority areas for ecosystem service management in South African grasslands. J. Environ. Manag. 2011, 92, 1642–1650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sala, O.E.; Paruelo, J.M. Ecosystem services in grasslands. In Nature’s Services, Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems; Daily, G.C., Ed.; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1997; pp. 237–252. [Google Scholar]
- White, R.; Murray, S.; Rohweder, M. Pilot Analysis of Global Ecosystems Grassland Ecosystems; World Resources Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2000; ISBN 1-56973-461-5. [Google Scholar]
- Zheng, X.; Zhang, J.; Cao, S. Net value of grassland ecosystem services in mainland China. Land Use Policy 2018, 79, 94–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bateman, I.J.; Day, B.H.; Georgiou, S.; Lake, I. The aggregation of environmental benefit values, welfare measures, distance decay and WTP. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 60, 450–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dai, E.; Huang, Y.; Wu, Z.; Zhao, D. Analysis of spatio-temporal features of a carbon source/sink and its relationship to climatic factors in the Inner Mongolia grassland ecosystem. J. Geogr. Sci. 2016, 26, 297–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Costanza, R.; de Groot, R.; Sutton, P.; Van der Ploeg, S.; Anderson, S.J.; Kubiszewski, I.; Farber, S.; Turner, R.K. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Glob. Environ. Change 2014, 26, 152–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campbell, E.T.; Brown, M.T. Environmental accounting of natural capital and ecosystem services for the US National Forest System. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2012, 14, 691–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Connor, J.D.; Bryan, B.A.; Nolan, M.; Stock, F.; Gao, L.; Dunstall, S.; Graham, P.; Ernst, A.; Newth, D.; Grundy, M.; et al. Modelling Australian land use competition and ecosystem services with food price feedbacks at high spatial resolution. Environ. Model. Softw. 2015, 69, 141–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sutton, P.C.; Anderson, S.J.; Costanza, R.; Kubiszewski, I. The ecological economics of land degradation: Impacts on ecosystem service values. Ecol. Econ. 2016, 129, 182–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caro-Borrero, A.; Corbera, E.; Neitzel, K.C.; Almeida-Leñero, L. “We are the city lungs”: Payments for ecosystem services in the out skirts of Mexico City. Land Use Policy 2015, 43, 138–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Freeman, A.M., III. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods; Resources for the Future Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Cooper, J.C.; Hanemann, M.; Signorello, G. One-and-one-half-bound dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Rev. Econ. Stat. 2002, 84, 742–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mitchell, R.C.; Carson, R.T. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method; Resource for the Future: Washington, DC, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
- Lindhjema, H.; Grimsrudb, K.; Navrud, S.; Kolle, S.O. The social benefits and costs of preserving forest biodiversity and ecosystem services. J. Environ. Econ. Policy 2015, 4, 202–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ingraham, M.W.; Foster, S.G. The value of ecosystem services provided by the U.S. National Wildlife Refuge System in the contiguous U.S. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 67, 608–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, T.; Yan, H.; Zhan, J. Economic Valuation of Forest Ecosystem Services in Heshui Watershed using Contingent Valuation Method. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2012, 13, 2445–2450. [Google Scholar]
- Pinto, R.; Brouwer, R.; Patrício, J.; Abreu, P.; Marta-Pedroso, C.; Baeta, A.; Franco, J.N.; Domingos, T.; Marques, J.C. Valuing the non-market benefits of estuarine ecosystem services in a river basin context: Testing sensitivity to scope and scale. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2016, 169, 95–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fleischer, A.; Sternberg, M. The economic impact of global climate change on Mediterranean rangeland ecosystems: A space-for-time approach. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 59, 287–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pu, S.; Shao, Z.; Fang, M.; Yang, L.; Liu, R.; Bi, J.; Ma, Z. Spatial distribution of the public’s risk perception for air pollution: A nationwide study in China. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 655, 454–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bai, Y.; Wu, J.; Clark, C.M.; Naeem, S.; Pan, Q.; Huang, J.; Han, X. Tradeoffs and thresholds in the effects of nitrogen addition on biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: Evidence from Inner Mongolia grasslands. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2010, 16, 358–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qi, J.; Chen, J.; Wan, S.; Ai, L. Understanding the coupled natural and human systems in Dryland East Asia. Environ. Res. Lett. 2012, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhou, S.; Zhao, K. Evaluation of the effects of implementing degraded grassland ecosystem restoration technology: A case study on technology for returning grazing land to grassland. J. Resour. Ecol. 2017, 8, 359–368. [Google Scholar]
- Fan, F.; Liang, C.; Tang, Y.; Harker-Schuch, I.; Porter, J.R. Effects and relationships of grazing intensity on multiple ecosystem services in the Inner Mongolian steppe. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 675, 642–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bateman, I.J.; Carson, R.T.; Day, B.; Hanemann, M.; Hanley Hett, N.T.; Jones-Lee, M.; Loomes, G.; Mourato, S.; Özdemiroglu, E.; Pearce, D.W.; et al. Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Kangethe, A.; Franic, D.M.; Corso, P.S. Comparing the validity of the payment card and structured haggling willingness to pay methods: The case of a diabetes prevention program in rural Kenya. Soc. Sci. Med. 2016, 169, 86–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cummings, R.G.; Taylor, L.O. Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: A cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. Am. Econ. Rev. 1999, 89, 649–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mwebaze, P.; Marris, G.C.; Brown, M.; MacLeod, A.; Jones, G.; Budge, G.E. Measuring public perception and preferences for ecosystem services: A case study of bee pollination in the UK. Land Use Policy 2018, 71, 355–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Z.; Gong, Y.; Mao, X. Exploring the value of overseas biodiversity to Chinese netizens based on willingness to pay for the African elephants protection. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 637–638, 600–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wei, W.; Wu, Y. Willingness to pay to control PM2.5 pollution in Jing-Jin-Ji Region, China. Appl. Econ. Lett. 2017, 24, 753–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ndambiri, H.; Brouwer, R.; Mungatana, E. Comparing welfare estimates across stated preference and uncertainty elicitation formats for air quality improvements in Nairobi, Kenya. Environ. Dev. Econ. 2016, 1, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Haab, T.C.; McConnell, K.E. Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources: The Econometrics of Non-market Valuation; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Arcury, T. Environmental attitude and environmental knowledge. Hum. Organ. 1990, 49, 300–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Istamto, T.; Houthuijs, D.; Lebret, E. Willingness to pay to avoid health risks from road-traffic-related air pollution and noise across five countries. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 497–498, 420–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Wang, M.; Mo, H. The impact of spatial heterogeneity on ecosystem service value in a case study in Liuyang River Basin, China. J. Resour. Ecol. 2018, 9, 209–217. [Google Scholar]
- Menard, S.W. Applied Logistic Regression Analysis; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Yoo, S.H.; Kwak, S.Y. Willingness to pay for green electricity in Korea: A contingent valuation study. Energy Policy 2009, 37, 5408–5416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sutherland, R.J.; Walsh, R. Effect of distance on the preservation value of water quality. Land Econ. 1985, 61, 281–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variable | Groups | Percentage (%) |
---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 42.55 |
Female | 57.45 | |
Age | 16–29 | 58.78 |
30–49 | 36.91 | |
≥50 | 4.31 | |
Education | Primary school and below | 2.21 |
Junior high school | 6.56 | |
Senior high school and technical school | 12.26 | |
Bachelor or university degree | 65.76 | |
Postgraduate and above | 13.21 | |
Public institution personnel | Yes | 16.89 |
No | 83.11 | |
Household income (CNY/month) | ≤1000 | 5.39 |
1001–3000 | 12.10 | |
3001–5000 | 18.18 | |
5001–7000 | 16.39 | |
7001–10,000 | 16.55 | |
10,001–15,000 | 15.10 | |
15,001–20,000 | 8.19 | |
20,001–50,000 | 5.96 | |
>50,000 | 2.14 |
Ecosystem Service | Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Carbon sequestration | 1.76% | 3.15% | 19.26% | 43.84% | 31.99% |
Windbreak and sand fixation | 1.42% | 2.58% | 9.33% | 30.95% | 55.72% |
Water and soil conservation | 1.36% | 2.46% | 7.60% | 31.61% | 56.98% |
Biodiversity conservation | 1.48% | 2.84% | 11.60% | 35.11% | 48.98% |
Primary and secondary product provision | 1.48% | 3.25% | 14.53% | 40.43% | 40.31% |
Tourism and entertainment | 1.70% | 4.57% | 19.82% | 37.85% | 36.05% |
Ethnic culture inheritance | 2.30% | 7.25% | 29.56% | 34.26% | 26.63% |
Reasons | Percentage (%) |
---|---|
Protecting the grassland ecosystems is good for our environment. | 21.23 |
It is our responsibility to protect grassland ecosystems. | 19.52 |
Protecting grassland ecosystems will benefit our future generations. | 17.35 |
Protecting the grassland ecosystem can ensure the existence of the grassland in Inner Mongolia. | 14.47 |
Protecting grassland is very important for the production and life in Inner Mongolia | 13.42 |
Protecting the grassland ecosystem can provide us with option values. | 12.03 |
Others | 1.98 |
Reasons | Percentage (%) |
---|---|
My household cannot afford it. | 29.49 |
It is the government’s responsibility. | 21.82 |
We don’t believe that the funds would be effectively used. | 19.45 |
The grassland is far away from where I live and the local people should pay for the protection program. | 16.19 |
The people who destroyed the grassland should pay. | 9.7 |
Others | 3.35 |
Variable | Description | Mean | Std. Dev. |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male = 1; Female = 0 | 0.42 | 0..49 |
Age | 16–29 years old = 1; 30–49 years old = 2; 50 years old and above = 3 | 29.13 | 9.57 |
Education | Primary school and below = 1; Junior high school = 2; Senior high school and technical school = 3; Bachelor or university degree = 4; Postgraduate and above = 5 | 3.81 | 0.82 |
Student | Yes = 1; No = 0 | 0.32 | 0.46 |
Income | Household monthly income (CNY): ≤1000 = 1; 1001–3000 = 2; 3001–5000 = 3; 5001–7000 = 4; 7001–10,000 = 5; 10,001–15,000 = 6; 15,001–20,000 = 7; 20,001–50,000 = 8; >50,000 = 9 | 4.47 | 1.98 |
Region | Inner Mongolia and neighboring provinces = 1; Others = 0 | 0.25 | 0.43 |
Concern | Concern about protection of grassland ecosystem services in Inner Mongolia: Totally not = 1; Not very = 2; Ordinary = 3; Concerned = 4; Very concerned = 5 | 3.55 | 0.94 |
Variables | Coef. | Std. Err | p > |z| |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | 0.06 | 0.05 | 0.170 |
Age | –0.003 | 0.04 | 0.940 |
Education | 0.16 *** | 0.03 | 0.000 |
Income | 0.13 *** | 0.01 | 0.000 |
Region | 0.12 ** | 0.05 | 0.032 |
Constant | –0.93 *** | 0.15 | 0.000 |
Log likelihood | –2001.41 | ||
Prob > chi2 | 0.000 | ||
Observations | 3573 |
Variables | Coef. | Std. Err | p > |z| |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | 21.29 | 24.08 | 0.377 |
Age | –46.70 ** | 21.16 | 0.027 |
Education | 0.40 | 17.49 | 0.982 |
Income | 50.94 *** | 6.49 | 0.000 |
Region | 66.67 ** | 27.49 | 0.015 |
Concern | 80.16 *** | 14.10 | 0.000 |
Constant | –147.59 * | 89.48 | 0.099 |
Sigma | 434.16 | 7.17 | |
Log likelihood | –5814.35 | ||
Prob > chi2 | 0.000 | ||
Observation | 2199 |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Ning, J.; Jin, J.; Kuang, F.; Wan, X.; Zhang, C.; Guan, T. The Valuation of Grassland Ecosystem Services in Inner Mongolia of China and Its Spatial Differences. Sustainability 2019, 11, 7117. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11247117
Ning J, Jin J, Kuang F, Wan X, Zhang C, Guan T. The Valuation of Grassland Ecosystem Services in Inner Mongolia of China and Its Spatial Differences. Sustainability. 2019; 11(24):7117. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11247117
Chicago/Turabian StyleNing, Jing, Jianjun Jin, Foyuan Kuang, Xinyu Wan, Chenyang Zhang, and Tong Guan. 2019. "The Valuation of Grassland Ecosystem Services in Inner Mongolia of China and Its Spatial Differences" Sustainability 11, no. 24: 7117. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11247117
APA StyleNing, J., Jin, J., Kuang, F., Wan, X., Zhang, C., & Guan, T. (2019). The Valuation of Grassland Ecosystem Services in Inner Mongolia of China and Its Spatial Differences. Sustainability, 11(24), 7117. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11247117