IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v74y2018icp214-219.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Valuing cultivated land protection: A contingent valuation and choice experiment study in China

Author

Listed:
  • Jin, Jianjun
  • He, Rui
  • Wang, Wenyu
  • Gong, Haozhou

Abstract

This study is to examine the public’s preferences for cultivated land protection in Wenling City of China using a dichotomous choice contingent valuation method (CVM) and a choice experiment method. An empirical comparison of the welfare measures derived from the CVM and CE was conducted. We found that the valid response rate of the CVM was higher than that of the CE, while the CE data produced a higher percentage share of supporting votes for cultivated land protection than the CVM data. The estimation results show that the mean willingness to pay from the CVM is larger than that obtained from the CE, but they are not significantly different. Our results indicate that carefully designed CVM and CE were suitable to value cultivated land protection in China. The study results can contribute to the literature on comparing the willingness to pay estimates derived from the CVM and CE and can help improve our current understandings of local public’s preferences for cultivated land protection.

Suggested Citation

  • Jin, Jianjun & He, Rui & Wang, Wenyu & Gong, Haozhou, 2018. "Valuing cultivated land protection: A contingent valuation and choice experiment study in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 214-219.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:74:y:2018:i:c:p:214-219
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.09.023
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837716313643
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.09.023?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John W. Duffield & David A. Patterson, 1991. "Inference and Optimal Design for a Welfare Measure in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 67(2), pages 225-239.
    2. Scarpa, Riccardo & Rose, John M., 2008. "Design efficiency for non-market valuation with choice modelling: how to measure it, what to report and why," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(3), pages 1-30.
    3. Nick Hanley & Susana Mourato & Robert E. Wright, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuatioin?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    4. Richard Carson & Jordan Louviere, 2011. "A Common Nomenclature for Stated Preference Elicitation Approaches," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 49(4), pages 539-559, August.
    5. Richard Carson & Robert Mitchell & Michael Hanemann & Raymond Kopp & Stanley Presser & Paul Ruud, 2003. "Contingent Valuation and Lost Passive Use: Damages from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(3), pages 257-286, July.
    6. John Loomis & Thomas Brown & Beatrice Lucero & George Peterson, 1997. "Evaluating the Validity of the Dichotomous Choice Question Format in Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(2), pages 109-123, September.
    7. John C. Bergstrom & Richard C. Ready, 2009. "What Have We Learned from Over 20 Years of Farmland Amenity Valuation Research in North America?," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 31(1), pages 21-49.
    8. Robert J. Johnston & Joshua M. Duke, 2007. "Willingness to Pay for Agricultural Land Preservation and Policy Process Attributes: Does the Method Matter?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(4), pages 1098-1115.
    9. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
    10. Ninan, K.N. & Sathyapalan, Jyothis, 2005. "The economics of biodiversity conservation: a study of a coffee growing region in the Western Ghats of India," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 61-72, October.
    11. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
    12. Mike Christie & Christopher D. Azevedo, 2009. "Testing the Consistency Between Standard Contingent Valuation, Repeated Contingent Valuation and Choice Experiments," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(1), pages 154-170, February.
    13. Colombo, Sergio & Calatrava-Requena, Javier & Hanley, Nick, 2006. "Analysing the social benefits of soil conservation measures using stated preference methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(4), pages 850-861, July.
    14. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
    15. Vivien Foster & Susana Mourato, 2003. "Elicitation Format and Sensitivity to Scope," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 24(2), pages 141-160, February.
    16. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Swait, Joffre & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1996. "A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 243-253, September.
    17. Jin, Jianjun & Wang, Zhishi & Ran, Shenghong, 2006. "Comparison of contingent valuation and choice experiment in solid waste management programs in Macao," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 430-441, May.
    18. Kenneth E. Train, 1998. "Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences over People," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 230-239.
    19. repec:reg:rpubli:98 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Nick Hanley & Douglas MacMillan & Robert E. Wright & Craig Bullock & Ian Simpson & Dave Parsisson & Bob Crabtree, 1998. "Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1), pages 1-15, March.
    21. Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Liljenstolpe, Carolina, 2003. "Valuing wetland attributes: an application of choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 95-103, November.
    22. Ian J. Bateman & Richard T. Carson & Brett Day & Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Tannis Hett & Michael Jones-Lee & Graham Loomes, 2002. "Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2639.
    23. Stevens, T. H. & Belkner, R. & Dennis, D. & Kittredge, D. & Willis, C., 2000. "Comparison of contingent valuation and conjoint analysis in ecosystem management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 63-74, January.
    24. Johannesson, Magnus & Blomquist, Glenn C. & Blumenschein, Karen & Johansson, Per-olov & Liljas, Bengt & O'Conor, Richard M., 1999. "Calibrating Hypothetical Willingness to Pay Responses," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 21-32, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chandio, Abbas Ali & Ozdemir, Dicle & Gokmenoglu, Korhan K. & Usman, Muhammad & Jiang, Yuansheng, 2024. "Digital agriculture for sustainable development in China: The promise of computerization," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    2. Ye, Sijing & Song, Changqing & Shen, Shi & Gao, Peichao & Cheng, Changxiu & Cheng, Feng & Wan, Changjun & Zhu, Dehai, 2020. "Spatial pattern of arable land-use intensity in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    3. Xiaoyong Zhong & Dongyan Guo & Hongyi Li, 2023. "Quantitative Assessment of Horizontal Ecological Compensation for Cultivated Land Based on an Improved Ecological Footprint Model: A Case Study of Jiangxi Province, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(5), pages 1-14, March.
    4. Liu, Hongbin & Sun, Zhanli & Luo, Xiaojuan & Dong, Xiuru & Wu, Mengyao, 2020. "A spatial-temporal analysis of the effects of households’ land-use behaviors on soil available potassium in cropland: A case study from urban peripheral region in Northeast China," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 9(5).
    5. Xaysompheng Sengkhamyong & Helmut Yabar & Takeshi Mizunoya, 2022. "Assessing Household Willingness to Pay for the Conservation of the Phou Chom Voy Protected Area in Lao PDR," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-20, September.
    6. Janmaat, Johannus & Geleta, Solomon & Loomis, John, 2019. "Detecting social network effects on willingness to pay for environmental improvements using egocentric network measures," MPRA Paper 96675, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Xue, Jibin & Lang, Jiahui & Guan, Yanjun & Lu, Shibao, 2023. "Design and measurement of small-scale regional ecological compensation model," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 1392-1405.
    8. Chen, Zhu & Zhang, Anlu & Zhou, Kehao & Huang, Lingxiang, 2021. "Can payment tools substitute for regulatory ones? Estimating the policy preference for agricultural land preservation, Tianjin, China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    9. Yanwei Zhang & Xinhai Lu & Yucheng Zou & Tiangui Lv, 2022. "Nudging Strategies for Arable Land Protection Behavior in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-20, October.
    10. Bingyi Wang & Tong Chen & Wangbing Liu, 2023. "Accounting for the Logic and Spatiotemporal Evolution of the Comprehensive Value of Cultivated Land around Big Cities: Empirical Evidence Based on 35 Counties in the Hefei Metropolitan Area," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-22, July.
    11. Lin, Yi-Hsing & Hong, Chun-Fu & Lee, Chun-Hung & Chen, Chih-Cheng, 2020. "Integrating Aspects of Ecosystem Dimensions into Sorghum and Wheat Production Areas in Kinmen, Taiwan," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    12. Admasu, Wubante Fetene & Van Passel, Steven & Nyssen, Jan & Minale, Amare Sewnet & Tsegaye, Enyew Adgo, 2021. "Eliciting farmers’ preferences and willingness to pay for land use attributes in Northwest Ethiopia: A discrete choice experiment study," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    13. Yunxian Yan & Lingqing Wang & Jun Yang, 2022. "The Willingness and Technology Preferences of Farmers and Their Influencing Factors for Soil Remediation," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-15, October.
    14. Su, Jie & Gasparatos, Alexandros, 2024. "Assessing the heterogeneity of public acceptability for mangrove restoration through a choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 218(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    2. Patrick Lloyd-Smith & Ewa Zawojska & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2020. "Moving beyond the Contingent Valuation versus Choice Experiment Debate: Presentation Effects in Stated Preference," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 96(1), pages 1-24.
    3. Catalina M. Torres Figuerola & Antoni Riera Font, 2009. "Defining environmental attributes as external costs in choice experiments: A discussion," CRE Working Papers (Documents de treball del CRE) 2009/1, Centre de Recerca Econòmica (UIB ·"Sa Nostra").
    4. Lin, Yi-Hsing & Hong, Chun-Fu & Lee, Chun-Hung & Chen, Chih-Cheng, 2020. "Integrating Aspects of Ecosystem Dimensions into Sorghum and Wheat Production Areas in Kinmen, Taiwan," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    5. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    6. Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Henrik Andersson & Olivier Beaumais & Romain Crastes & François-Charles Wolff, 2014. "Is Choice Experiment Becoming more Popular than Contingent Valuation? A Systematic Review in Agriculture, Environment and Health," Working Papers 2014.12, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.
    7. Dachary-Bernard, Jeanne, 2007. "La méthode des choix multi-attributs appliquée aux Monts d’Arrée," Cahiers d'Economie et de Sociologie Rurales (CESR), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 84.
    8. Jeanne Dachary-Bernard, 2007. "La méthode des choix multi-attributs appliquée aux Monts d’Arrée," Post-Print hal-01201152, HAL.
    9. Duke, Joshua M. & Borchers, Allison M. & Johnston, Robert J. & Absetz, Sarah, 2012. "Sustainable agricultural management contracts: Using choice experiments to estimate the benefits of land preservation and conservation practices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 95-103.
    10. Jeanne Dachary-Bernard, 2007. "La méthode des choix multi-attributs appliquée aux Monts d’Arrée," Cahiers d'Economie et Sociologie Rurales, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 84, pages 133-166.
    11. Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Andersson, Henrik & Beaumais, Olivier & Crastes dit Sourd, Romain & Hess, François-Charles & Wolff, François-Charles, 2017. "Stated preferences: a unique database composed of 1657 recent published articles in journals related to agriculture, environment, or health," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 98(3), November.
    12. Catalina M. Torres & Antoni Riera & Dolores García, 2009. "Are Preferences for Water Quality Different for Second-Home Residents?," Tourism Economics, , vol. 15(3), pages 629-651, September.
    13. Brey, Raul & Riera, Pere & Mogas, Joan, 2007. "Estimation of forest values using choice modeling: An application to Spanish forests," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 305-312, December.
    14. Jin, Jianjun & Wang, Zhishi & Ran, Shenghong, 2006. "Comparison of contingent valuation and choice experiment in solid waste management programs in Macao," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 430-441, May.
    15. F Alpizar & F Carlsson & P Martinsson, 2003. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 8(1), pages 83-110, March.
    16. Mandy Ryan & Verity Watson, 2009. "Comparing welfare estimates from payment card contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(4), pages 389-401, April.
    17. Vivien Foster & Susana Mourato, 2003. "Elicitation Format and Sensitivity to Scope," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 24(2), pages 141-160, February.
    18. del Saz Salazar, Salvador & Hernandez Sancho, Francesc & Sala Garrido, Ramon, 2009. "Estimación del valor económico de la calidad del agua de un río mediante una doble aproximación: una aplicación de los principios económicos de la Directiva Marco del Agua," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 9(01), pages 1-27.
    19. Joan Mogas & Pere Riera & Raul Brey, 2009. "Combining Contingent Valuation and Choice Experiments. A Forestry Application in Spain," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 43(4), pages 535-551, August.
    20. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:74:y:2018:i:c:p:214-219. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.