4.3 Article

Assessing Local Communities' Willingness to Pay for River Network Protection: A Contingent Valuation Study of Shanghai, China

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph9113866

Keywords

river network; attitude; contingent valuation; willingness to pay; Shanghai

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71073055, 41171017]
  2. Ministry of Water Resources Special Funds for Scientific Research on Public Causes [201201072-04]
  3. MOE Key Project of Philosophy and Social Sciences Research [11JZD024]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

River networks have experienced serious degradation because of rapid urbanization and population growth in developing countries such as China, and the protection of these networks requires the integration of evaluation with ecology and economics. In this study, a structured questionnaire survey of local residents in Shanghai (China) was conducted in urban and suburban areas. The study examined residents' awareness of the value of the river network, sought their attitude toward the current status, and employed a logistic regression analysis based on the contingent valuation method (CVM) to calculate the total benefit and explain the socioeconomic factors influencing the residents' willingness to pay (WTP). The results suggested that residents in Shanghai had a high degree of recognition of river network value but a low degree of satisfaction with the government's actions and the current situation. The study also illustrated that the majority of respondents were willing to pay for river network protection. The mean WTP was 226.44 RMB per household per year. The number of years lived in Shanghai, the distance from the home to the nearest river, and the amount of the bid were important factors that influenced the respondents' WTP. Suggestions for comprehensive management were proposed for the use of policy makers in river network conservation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available