The Impact of Environmental Preferences on Public Supporting for the River Ecosystem Restoration Program in China

Zhang, Y.; Li, S.

Artykuł - szczegóły

Tytuł artykułu

The Impact of Environmental Preferences on Public Supporting for the River Ecosystem Restoration Program in China

Autorzy

Zhang Y. , Li S.

Treść / Zawartość

Pełne teksty:

Pobierz

Identyfikatory

Warianty tytułu

Wpływ uwarunkowań środowiskowych na społeczne poparcie dla Programu odnowy środowiska rzecznego w Chinach

Języki publikacji

EN PL

Abstrakty

Restoration of the urban river system is urgently needed as urban river pollution is becoming an important environmental problem in China. Apart from the technical challenge, explicitly including the local residents’ preferences toward ecosystem management and restoration often is critical for municipal planners and policy implementation. This study used a contingent valuation method to estimate the public preferences for supporting urban river restoration in Hangzhou and Nanjing, China. The results show that environmental preferences including perception, beliefs and past behavior were better explanatory variables than socio-demographic characteristics for explaining people’s support for ecosystem restoration actions. But the respondents’ demand and supply on environment goods are mismatch. People want better environments goods but they are unwilling to make an effort to build the environments. We also find that the average conjectural payment for the restoration project is only 36 Yuan RMB per capital. Efforts to assess and foster support for urban ecosystem restoration should be pay more attentions to the public’s perception, beliefs and past behavior.

Odnowa środowiska rzecznego na terenach zurbanizowanych staje się w Chinach ważnym problemem środowiskowym, z uwagi na wysoki poziom zanieczyszczeń. Oprócz wyzwań technicznych, wyraźne uwzględnienie preferencji lokalnych społeczności odnoszących się do zarządzania środowiskiem i jego restytucji stanowi istotne wyzwanie dla miejskich planistów i wdrażanych programów. W tym artykule zastosowano metodę wyceny warunkowej w celu określenia społecznych preferencji związanych z wdrażanym programem odnowy środowiska rzecznego w Hangzou i Najing w Chinach. Otrzymane wyniki pokazują, że preferencje środowiskowe (uwzględniające percepcję, przekonania i dotychczasowe wzorce zachowania) okazały się być trafniejszymi zmiennymi wyjaśniającymi, niż wskaźniki społeczno-demograficzne, w kontekście wyjaśniania poziomu społecznego wsparcia dla działań podejmowanych na rzecz restytucji środowiska. Zarazem popyt i podaż respondentów na dobra środowiskowe rozmijają się. Ludzie oczekują lepszej jakości środowiska, ale nie są zainteresowani podejmowaniem osobistych działań w tym kierunku. Okazało się także, że przeciętny poziom hipotetycznego finansowego wsparcia respondentów dla działań na rzecz środowiska wynosi zaledwie 36 yuanów RMB za kapitał. Wysiłki w celu oceny i kształtowania wsparcia dla odbudowy środowiska powinny w większym stopniu zwracać uwagę na społeczny odbiór podejmowanych działań, ludzkie przekonania i dotychczasowe wzorce zachowania.

Słowa kluczowe

river restoration public preference environmental awareness city planning water quality urbanization China

restytucja środowiska wodnego preferencje społeczne świadomość ekologiczna planowanie miast jakość wody urbanizacja Chiny

Wydawca

Lublin University of Technology

Czasopismo

Problemy Ekorozwoju

Rocznik

2014

Tom

Vol. 9, nr 2

Strony

55--64

Opis fizyczny

Bibliogr. 58 poz., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Zhang Y.

yifei_zhang@126.com

International Business School, Shanghai University of International Business and Economics, Shanghai, China, 201620

autor

Li S.

szl0042@auburn.edu

Department of Economic and Management, Shanghai Ocean University, Shanghai, China, 201306

Bibliografia

1. ADAMOWICZ W., BOXALL P., WILLIAMS M., LOUVIERE J., 1998,Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation, in: American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80 (1), p. 64-75.
2. AJZEN I., FISHBEIN M.,Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviors, Prentice-Hall, New York 1980.
3. APPLETON J., 1975, Landscape Evaluation: The Theoretical Vacuum, in: Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 66, p. 120-123.
4. BAE H., 2011, Urban Stream Restoration in Korea: Design Considerations and Residents’ Willingness to Pay, in: Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 10(2), p. 119-126.
5. BARRO S. C., BRIGHT A. D.,1998, Public Views on Ecological Restoration A Snapshot from the Chicago Area, in: Ecological Restoration, 16 (1), p. 59-65.
6. BOHM P., 1994, CVM Spells Responses to Hypothetical Questions, in: Journal of Natural Resources 34, p. 37.
7. BOYD J., WAINGER L., 2003,Measuring Ecosystem Service Benefits: The Use of Landscape Analysis to Evaluate Environmental Trades and Compensation.Discussion Paper, http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/handle/10738.(1.02.2014).
8. CAIRNS Jr. J., 1991, The Status of the Theoretical and Applied Science of Restoration Ecology, in: Environmental Professional 13(3), p. 186-194.
9. CAMERON T. A., 1988, A New Paradigm for Valuing Non-market Goods Using Referendum Data: Maximum Likelihood Estimation by Censored Logistic Regression, in: Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 15 (3), p. 355-379.
10. CAMERON T. A., 1991, Interval Estimates of Non-market Resource Values from Referendum Contingent Valuation Surveys, in: Land Economics 67 (4), p. 413-421.
11. CAMERONT.A., JAMES M.D., 1987. Efficient Estimation Methods for ‘Closed-ended’ Contingent Valuation Surveys, in: The Review of Economics and Statistics 69(2), p. 269-276.
12. CARNES S.A., SCHWEITZER M., PEELLE E.B., WOLFE A.K., MUNRO J.F., 1998, Measuring the Success of Public Participation on Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Activities in the US Department of Energy, in: Technology in Society 20 (4), p. 385-406.
13. CARPENTER S. R., CARACO N. F., CORNELL D. L., HOWARTH R. W., SHARPLEY A. N., SMITH V. H., 1998, Nonpoint Pollution of Surface Waters with Phosphorus and Nitrogen, in: Ecological Applications 8 (3), p. 559-568.
14. CHAN K. W., 2010, The Household Registration System and Migrant Labor in China: Notes on a Debate, in: Population and Development Review 36 (2), p. 357-364.
15. CICCHETTI C. J., PECK N., 1989, Assessing Natural Resource Damages: The Case Against Contingent Value Survey Methods, in: Natural. Resources & Environment 4, p. 6.
16. COBBING P., SLEE B., 1994, The Application of CVM to a Land Use Controversy in the Scottish Highlands, in:Landscape Research 19 (1), p. 14-17.
17. DAMIGOS D., KALIAMPAKOS D., 2003, Assessing the Benefits of Reclaiming Urban Quarries: a CVM Analysis, in: Landscape and Urban Planning 64 (4), p. 249-258.
18. DOWNS P. W., KONDOLF G. M., 2002, Post-project Appraisals in Adaptive Management of River Channel Restoration, in: Environmental Management 29 (4), p. 477-496.
19. DUNLAP R. E., 1991, Trends in Public Opinion Toward Environmental Issues: 1965-1990, in: Society & Natural Resources 4 (3), p. 285-312.
20. ENDTER-WADA J., BLAHNA D., KRANNICH R., BRUNSON M., 1998,A Framework for Understanding Social Science Contributions to Ecosystem Management, in: Ecological Applications 8 (3), p. 891-904.
21. FAN C. C., 2008, China on the Move: Migration, the State, and the Household, in: The China Quarterly 196, p. 924-956.
22. GORE J.A.,Restoration of Rivers and Streams, Butterworth Publishers, MA:985.
23. HADKER N., SHARMA S., DAVID A., MURALEEDHARAN T. R., 1997, Willingness-to-pay for Borivli National Park: Evidence from a Contingent Valuation, in: Ecological Economics, 21 (2), p. 105-122.
24. HAGER M. A., WILSON S., POLLAK T. H., ROONEY P. M., 2003, Response Rates for Mail Surveys of Nonprofit Organizations: A Review and Empirical Test, in: Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 32 (2), p. 252-267.
25. HANEMANN M., LOOMIS J., KANNINE B., 1991, Statistical Efficiency of Double-bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation, in: American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1255-1263.
26. HANEY A., POWER R. L., 1996, Adaptive Management for Sound Ecosystem Management, in: Environmental Management 20 (6), p. 879-886.
27. HITE D., HUDSON D., INTARAPAPONG W., 2002, Willingness to Pay for Water Quality Improvements: The Case of Precision Application Technology, in: Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 27 (2), p. 433-449.
28. HONG H., TAMER E., 2003, A Simple Estimator for Nonlinear Error in Variable Models, in: Journal of Econometrics 117 (1), p. 1-19.
29. HUANG M., JIANG H., 2009, The spatial and temporal characteristics of surface ultraviolet radiation and total ozone in urban agglomeration of Yangtze River Delta, in: Urban Remote Sensing Event, p. 1-7.
30. KAPLAN S., 1987, Aesthetics, Affect, and Cognition Environmental Preference from an Evolutionary Perspective, in: Environment and Behavior 19 (1), p. 3-32.
31. KEMPTON W. M., BOSTER J. S., HARTLEY J. A., Environmental Values in American Culture, MIT Press, 1996.
32. KERN K., 1992,Rehabilitation of Streams in South-west Germany, in: River Conservation and Management, p. 321-335.
33. LEE K. N., 1995, Deliberately Seeking Sustainability in the Columbia River Basin, in: Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions, p. 214-238.
34. LOOMIS J., KENT P., STRANGE L., FAUSCH K., COVICH A., 2000, Measuring the Total Economic Value of Restoring Ecosystem Services in an Impaired River Basin: Results from a Contingent Valuation Survey, in: Ecological Economics 33 (1), p. 103-117.
35. MANGIONE T. W.,Mail Surveys: Improving the Quality, California: Thousand Oaks, 1995.
36. MANSKI C. F., TAMER E., 2003,Inference on Regressions with Interval Data on a Regressor or Outcome, in: Econometrica, 70 (2), p. 519-546.
37. McCARTHY N., 2004,Local-level Public Goods and Collective Action. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), http://www.ifpri.org/publication/local-level-public-goods-and-collective-action (1.02.2014).
38. McCOY E.D., MUSHINSKY H.R., 2002, Measuring the Success of Wildlife Community Restoration, in: Ecological Applications 12 (6), p. 1861-1871.
39. MILON J. W., ADAMS C. M., CARTER D. W.,Floridians’ Attitudes About the Environment and Coastal Marine Resources, Florida Sea Grant College Program, University of Florida 1998.
40. PRATKANIS A. R., BRECKLER S. J., GREENWALD A. G.,Attitude Structure and Function, NJ: Hillsdale 1989.
41. PROCTOR J. D., 1998, Environmental Values and Popular Conflict over Environmental Management: A Comparative Analysis of Public Comments on the Clinton Forest Plan, in: Environmental Management 22 (3), p. 347-358.
42. PRUCKNER G. J., 1995, Agricultural Landscape Cultivation in Austria: An Application of the CVM, in: European Review of Agricultural Economics 22 (2), p. 173-190.
43. RIVERS D., VUONG Q. H., 1988, Limited Information Estimators and Exogeneity Tests for Simultaneous Probit Models, in: Journal of Econometrics 39 (3), p. 347-366.
44. ROSENBERGER R. S., WALSH R. G., 1997, Nonmarket Value of Western Valley Ranchland Using Contingent Valuation, in: Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 22, p. 296-309.
45. SCHMIDT D. C., CARLSON S. R., KYLE G. B., FINNEY B. P., 1998, Influence of Carcass-derived Nutrients on Sockeye Salmon Productivity of Karluk Lake, Alaska: Importance in the Assessment of an Escapement Goal, in: North American Journal of Fisheries Management 18 (4), p. 743-763.
46. SCHMIDT J.C., WEBB R.H., VALDEZ R.A., MARZOLF G.R., STEVENS L.E., 1998, Science and Values in River Restoration in the Grand Canyon, in: BioScience, 48 (9), p. 735-747.
47. SMITH C. L., GILDEN J. D., CONE J. S., STEEL B. S., 1997, Contrasting Views of Coastal Residents and Coastal Coho Restoration Planners, in: Fisheries 22 (12), p. 8-15.
48. VAN der STEDE W. A., YOUNG S. M., CHEN C. X., 2005, Assessing the Quality of Evidence in Empirical Management Accounting Research: The Case of Survey Studies, in: Accounting, Organizations and Society 30 (7), p. 655-684.
49. STEEL B. S., LIST P., SHINDLER B., 1994, Conflicting Values About Federal Forests: a Comparison of National and Oregon Publics, in: Society & Natural Resources 7 (2), p. 137-153.
50. STEEL B. S., SODEN D. L., WARNER R. L., 1990, The Impact of Knowledge and Values on Perceptions of Environmental Risk to the Great Lakes, in: Society & Natural Resources 3(4), P. 331-348.
51. STEVENS T. H., ECHEVERRIA J., GLASS R. J., HAGER T., MORE T. A., 1991, Measuring the Existence Value of Wildlife: What Do CVM Estimates Really Show?, in: Land Economics 67 (4), p. 390-400.
52. TOURANGEAU R., COUPER M. P., CONRAD F., 2004, Spacing, Position, and Order Interpretive Heuristics for Visual Features of Survey Questions, in: Public Opinion Quarterly 68 (3), p. 368-393.
53. TUNSTALL S. M., TAPSELL S. M., EDEN S., 1999, How Stable Are Public Responses to Changing Local Environments? A’before’and’after’case Study of River Restoration, in: Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 42 (4), p. 527-545.
54. ULRICH R. S., 1984, View Through a Window May Influence Recovery from Surgery, in: Science 224 (4647), p. 420-421.
55. WILKINS S., KEITH D.A., ADAM P., 2003, Measuring Success: Evaluating the Restoration of a Grassy Eucalypt Woodland on the Cumberland Plain, Sydney, Australia, in: Restoration Ecology 11 (4), p. 489-503.
56. WONG L., WAI P. H., 1998, Reforming the Household Registration System: A Preliminary Glimpse of the Blue Chop Household Registration System in Shanghai and Shenzhen, in: International Migration Review 32(4), p. 974-994.
57. WU X., & TREIMAN D. J., 2004, The Household Registration System and Social Stratification in China: 1955-1996, in: Demography 41 (2), p. 363-384.
58. ZHAO Y., 1997, Labor Migration and Returns to Rural Education in China, in: American Journal of Agricultural Economics 79 (4), p. 1278-1287.

Typ dokumentu

Bibliografia

Identyfikator YADDA

bwmeta1.element.baztech-8dc75b9e-9621-408c-92f6-492af6f6cbbd