Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Public Perception and Willingness to Pay for Urban Wetland Ecosystem Services: Evidence from China

  • Wetland Conservation
  • Published:
Wetlands Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Due to accelerated urbanization and the lack of positive perception of wetland ecosystem services, urban wetland ecosystems have been severely altered in China. It is crucial to understand public perception and willingness to participate in the urban wetland conservation. This study aims to better insight into the public perceptions and willingness to pay (WTP) for urban wetland conservation and the influencing factors in China. Results from a questionnaire survey of 377 residents in Jiaxing city showed the public has little knowledge of wetland ecosystem services. The respondents knew little about ecological services of urban wetlands except for the environmental purification and leisure functions. Gender, age, and educational levels of respondents significantly affect their perception. Results from the contingent valuation survey indicated that 57% of respondents were reluctant to pay for the urban wetland conservation program (WTP=0). It was generally accepted by respondents that protection and management of urban wetland be financed by the government. The result of binary logistic regression displayed that respondents’ perception was the most significant factor affecting their willingness to pay for wetland conservation programs. Results of this study provided an inspiration for the design of long-term mechanisms for urban wetland conservation in China, such as explore and establish the public participation mechanisms of wetland conservation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aguilar FX, Obeng EA, Cai Z (2018) Water quality improvements elicit consistent willingness-to-pay for the enhancement of forested watershed ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services. 30:158–171

    Google Scholar 

  • Alarcon GG, Fantini AC, Salvador CH, Farley J (2017) Additionality is in detail: Farmers' choices regarding payment for ecosystem services programs in the Atlantic forest. Brazil. Journal of Rural Studies. 54:177–186

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandara R, Tisdell C (2003) Comparison of rural and urban attitudes to the conservation of Asian elephants in Sri Lanka: empirical evidence. Biological Conservation. 110:327–342

    Google Scholar 

  • Beuel S, Alvarez M, Amler E, Behn K, Kotze D, Kreye C, Leemhuis C, Wagner K, Willy DK, Ziegler S (2016) A rapid assessment of anthropogenic disturbances in East African Wetlands. Ecological Indicators. 67:684–692

    Google Scholar 

  • Bremer LL, Farley KA, Lopez-Carr D (2014) What factors influence participation in payment for ecosystem services programs? An evaluation of Ecuador's SocioParamo program. Land use policy. 36:122–133

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen JL, Lin YS, Chuang CT (2018) Improving the management of Taiwanese fishery resource conservation zones based on public perceptions and willingness to pay for ecosystem services. Journal of Coastal Conservation. 22:385–398

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen Y, Cai GP, Han HQ, Luo XQ, Wang HZ (2017) Residents’ cognition to ecosystem service functions of urban wetland parks. Journal of Nanjing Forestry University. 41(6):147–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Costanza R (2006) Nature: ecosystems without commodifying them. Nature. 443:749

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Das A, Basu T (2020) Assessment of peri-urban wetland ecological degradation through importance-performance analysis (IPA): A study on Chatra Wetland. India. Ecological Indicators. 114:106274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson F, Viga D, Lizarraga I, Castillo T (2006) Collaboration and conflict in an applied human ecology project in coastal Yucatan, Mexico. Landscape and Urban Planning. 74:204–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Du XJ, Huang ZH (2018) Spatial and temporal effects of urban wetlands on housing prices: Evidence from Hangzhou. China. Land Use Policy. 73:290–298

    Google Scholar 

  • Dugan P (1993) Wetlands in Danger: A World Conservation Atlas. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Duke EA, Goldstein JH, Teel TL (2014) Payments for ecosystem services and landowner interest: Informing program design trade-offs in Western Panama. Ecological Economics. 103:44–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworak T, Berglund M, Grandmougin B, Mattheiss V, Holen S (2009) International Review on Payment Schemes for Wet Buffer Strips and Other Types of Wet Zones along Privately Owned Land. Tecnhical Report, Ecologic, Berlin/Viena.

  • Faulkner S (2004) Urbanization impacts on the structure and function of forested wetlands. Urban Ecosystem. 7:89–106

    Google Scholar 

  • Feng L, Xu JY (2015) Farmers’ Willingness to Participate in the Next-Stage Grain-for-Green Project in the Three Gorges Reservoir Area. China. Environmental Management. 56:505–518

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Giovanopoulou E, Nastis SA, Papanagiotou E (2011) Modeling farmer participation in agri-environmental nitrate pollution reducing schemes. Ecological Economics. 70:2175–2180

    Google Scholar 

  • Hadker N, Sharma S, David A, Muraleedharan TR (1997) Willingness to pay for Borivli national park: evidence from a contingent valuation. Ecological Economics. 21:105–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton SF, Sunding DL, Zilberman D (2003) Public goods and the value of product quality regulations: the case of food safety. Journal of Public Economics. 87:799–817

    Google Scholar 

  • Han F, Yang Z, Wang H, Xu Z (2011) Estimating willingness to pay for environmental conservation: A contingent valuation study of Kanas Nature Reserve, Xinjiang, China. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 180(1):451–459

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hassan S (2017) Environmental attitudes and preference for wetland conservation in Malaysia. Journal for Nature Conservation. 37:133–145

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu SJ, Niu ZG, Chen YF, Li LF, Zhang HY (2017) Global wetlands: Potential distribution, wetland loss, and status. Science of the Total Environment. 586:319–327

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hu CX, Fu BJ, Chen LD, Gulinck H (2006) Farmer's attitudes towards the grain-for-green programme in the loess hilly area, china: a case study in two small catchments. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology. 13(3):211–220

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiang WG, Lv JX, Wang CC, Chen Z, Liu YH (2017) Marsh wetland degradation risk assessment and change analysis: A case study in the Zoige Plateau. China. Ecological Indicators. 82:316–326

    Google Scholar 

  • Keddy PA (2010) Wetland Ecology: Principles and Conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamsal P, Atreya K, Pant KP, Kumar L (2016) Tourism and wetland conservation: application of travel cost and willingness to pay an entry fee at Ghodaghodi Lake Complex. Nepal. Natural Resources Forum. 40:5–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Lian G, Guo XD, Fu BJ, Wang J, He T (2005) Farmer's perception and response towards grain-for-green program and eco-environment based on participatory rural appraisal. Acta Ecologica Sinica. 25(7):1741–1747

    Google Scholar 

  • Ma H, Lu Y, Xing Y, He G, Sun Y (2009) Rural households’ attitude and economic strategies toward the conversion of cropland to forest and grassland program (CCFG): a case study in Qira. China. Environmental Management. 43:1039–1047

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ma S, Swinton SM, Lupi F, Christina JF (2012) Farmers’ Willingness to Participate in Payment-for-Environmental-Services Programmes. Journal of Agricultural Economics. 63(3):604–626

    Google Scholar 

  • McInnes RJ, Everard M (2017) Rapid Assessment of Wetland Ecosystem Services (RAWES): An example from Colombo. Sri Lanka. Ecosystem Services. 25:89–105

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehta JN, Heinen JT (2001) Does Community-Based Conservation Shape Favorable Attitudes Among Locals? An Empirical Study from Nepal. Environmental Management. 28(2):165–177

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mei YD, Sohngen B, Babb T (2018) Valuing urban wetland quality with hedonic price model. Ecological Indicators. 84:535–545

    Google Scholar 

  • Meng WQ, He MX, Hu BB, Mo XQ, Li HY, Liu BQ, Wang ZL (2017) Status of wetlands in China: A review of extent, degradation, issues and recommendations for improvement. Ocean & Coastal Management. 146:50–59

    Google Scholar 

  • Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing: Wetlands and Water Synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nsengimana V, Weihlerb S, Kaplin BA (2017) Perceptions of Local People on the Use of Nyabarongo River Wetland and Its Conservation in Rwanda. Society & Natural Resources. 30(1):3–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Okoye CU (1998) Comparative analysis of factors in the adoption of traditional and recommended soil erosion control practices in Nigeria. Soil and Tillage Research. 45:251–263

    Google Scholar 

  • Olive A (2014) Urban awareness and attitudes toward conservation: a first look at Canada’s cities. Applied Geography. 54:160–168

    Google Scholar 

  • Pablo TL, Kristen CG, Rodolfo BS (2018) Socio-Environmental Perception of an Urban Wetland and Sustainability Scenarios: A Case Study in Mexico City. Wetlands. 38:169–181

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramachandra TV (2009) Conservation and Management of Urban Wetlands: Strategies and Challenges. ENVIS technical report: 32. http://ces.iisc.ernet.in/biodiversity.

  • Russi D, Brink PT, Badura T (2013) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for Water and Wetlands. IEEP, London and Brussels.

  • Shao YY, Zhou JW, Mu RM, Zhu L, Jiang TY (2018) City Development and Wetlands Protection in China. Ecology and Environmental Sciences. 27(2):381–388

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma B, Rasul G, Chettri N (2015) The economic value of wetland ecosystem services Evidence from the Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve. Nepal. Ecosystem Services. 12:84–93

    Google Scholar 

  • Siew MK, Yacoba MR, Radamb A, Adamua A, Alias EF (2015) Estimating willingness to pay for wetland conservation: a contingent valuation study of Paya Indah Wetland. Selangor Malaysia. Procedia Environmental Sciences. 30:268–272

    Google Scholar 

  • Song S, Alber TC, Prominski M (2020) Exploring integrated design guidelines for urban wetland parks in China. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 53:126712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126712

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun T, Lin W, Chen G, Guo P, Ying Z (2016) Wetland ecosystem health assessment through integrating remote sensing and inventory data with an assessment model for the Hangzhou bay. China. Science of Total Environment. 566-567:627

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Trenholm R, Haider W, Lantz V, Knowler D, Haegeli P (2017) Landowner preferences for wetlands conservation programs in two Southern Ontario watersheds. Journal of Environmental Management. 200:6–21

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wang CH, Wen YL, Li HY (2015) Analysis of urban and rural residents’ awareness of wetlands conservation in Beijing City. Journal of Huazhong Agricultural University. 3:86–93

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang YT, Li X, Sun MX, Yu HJ (2018) Managing urban ecological land as properties: Conceptual model, public perceptions, and willingness to pay. Resources, Conservation & Recycling. 133:21–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang Y, He C, Wang L, Liu Y, Ye K, Yang X, Su Y (2019) Framework for valuating urban wetland park ecosystem services based on the cascade approach. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies. 28(4):2429–2440

    Google Scholar 

  • Wei X, Guan ZF, Zhu HG (2016) Farmer’s willingness to participate in wetland restoration: a hurdle model approach. Agricultural Economics. 47:719–727

    Google Scholar 

  • Wetland China (2014) The report on the second national wetland resources survey (2009-2013). https://www.shidi.org/zt/2014xwfbh/.

  • Wiser RH (2007) Using contingent valuation to explore willingness to pay for renewable energy: a comparison of collective and voluntary payment vehicles. Ecological Economics. 62:419–432

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu JY, Lu YH, Chen LD, Fu BJ (2006) Local People's Perceptions as Decision Support for Protected Area Management in Wolong Biosphere Reserve. Journal of Environmental Management. 78(4):362–372

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang B, Shi YT, Liu JH, Xu J, Xie GD (2017) Economic values and dominant providers of key ecosystem services of wetlands in Beijing. China. Ecological Indicators. 77:48–58

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang CL, Robinson D, Wang J, Liu JB, Liu XH, Tong LJ (2011) Factors Influencing Farmers’ Willingness to Participate in the Conversion of Cultivated Land to Wetland Program in Sanjiang National Nature Reserve. China. Environmental Management. 47:107–120

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang YR, Zhou DM, Niu ZG, Xu FJ (2014) Valuation of lake and marsh wetlands ecosystem services in China. Chinese Geography Science. 24(3):269–278

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu HG, Guan ZF, Wei X (2016) Factors Influencing Farmers’ Willingness to Participate in Wetland Restoration: Evidence from China. Sustainability. 8:1325. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8121325

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors sincerely acknowledge the editor and the reviewers for their helpful comments and criticisms of the initial draft of this paper.

Availability of data and material

All data produced from this study are provided in this manuscript.

Code availability

Not applicable

Funding

This work was supported by the National Social Science Foundation of China (grant number 20BJY085).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Economics and Management, China Jiliang University, Hangzhou, 310018, China

    Chenxia Hu & Shan He

  2. Soil and Water Sciences Department, University of Florida-IFAS, FL, 32603, Gainesville, USA

    Alan L. Wright

Authors
  1. Chenxia Hu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alan L. Wright
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shan He
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Dr. Hu conceived, designed, and performed the experiments, and was a major contributor in writing the manuscript; Dr. He analyzed the data; Prof. Wright revised the paper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chenxia Hu.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Ethics approval

Not applicable

Consent to participate

Not applicable

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hu, C., Wright, A.L. & He, S. Public Perception and Willingness to Pay for Urban Wetland Ecosystem Services: Evidence from China. Wetlands 42, 19 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-022-01538-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-022-01538-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy