IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i18p4852-d264433.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Community Participation and Preferences Regarding Conservation and Development Policies in China’s Giant Panda Nature Reserves

Author

Listed:
  • Ben Ma

    (School of Economics and Management, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China)

  • Yali Wen

    (School of Economics and Management, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China)

Abstract

Community participation in conservation activities is an important mechanism to coordinate the conflicts between conservation and local development. Hence, it is necessary to understand farmers’ preferences for different conservation and development policies. By surveying households residing inside and outside the four giant panda nature reserves in the Qinling Mountains, China, in 2018, this study uses a choice experiment model to evaluate participation willingness and stated preferences regarding the establishment of national parks (NPs), ecotourism development, ecological public welfare forest compensation, and provision of ecological jobs. Our results suggest that these conservation and development policies all have a positive impact on community participation in conservation. Among the different conservation and development policies, farmers seem to prefer the government developing ecotourism most, followed by providing ecological jobs, establishing NPs, and finally the compensation amount and period of ecological public welfare forests. Moreover, farmers with different characteristics have different preferences regarding conservation and development policies. Age, education level, whether the respondent is a village cadre, family forestland area, family income, and whether the respondent lives in a nature reserve are relevant socio-economic characteristics of the affected farmers.

Suggested Citation

  • Ben Ma & Yali Wen, 2019. "Community Participation and Preferences Regarding Conservation and Development Policies in China’s Giant Panda Nature Reserves," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-17, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:18:p:4852-:d:264433
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/18/4852/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/18/4852/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. repec:oup:apecpp:v:37:y:2015:i:1:p:86-106 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Wang, Shuxian & Wu, Linhai & Zhu, Dian & Wang, Hongsha & Xu, Lingling, 2014. "Chinese consumers’ preferences and willingness to pay for traceable food attributes: The case of pork," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 165639, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Chervier, Colas & Le Velly, Gwenolé & Ezzine-de-Blas, Driss, 2019. "When the Implementation of Payments for Biodiversity Conservation Leads to Motivation Crowding-out: A Case Study From the Cardamoms Forests, Cambodia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 499-510.
    5. Miranda, Juan José & Corral, Leonardo & Blackman, Allen & Asner, Gregory & Lima, Eirivelthon, 2016. "Effects of Protected Areas on Forest Cover Change and Local Communities: Evidence from the Peruvian Amazon," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 288-307.
    6. Ma, Ben & Cai, Zhen & Zheng, Jie & Wen, Yali, 2019. "Conservation, ecotourism, poverty, and income inequality – A case study of nature reserves in Qinling, China," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 236-244.
    7. Brownstone, David & Train, Kenneth, 1998. "Forecasting new product penetration with flexible substitution patterns," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1-2), pages 109-129, November.
    8. Coria, Jessica & Calfucura, Enrique, 2012. "Ecotourism and the development of indigenous communities: The good, the bad, and the ugly," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 47-55.
    9. Ellen Verhofstadt & Miet Maertens, 2015. "Can Agricultural Cooperatives Reduce Poverty? Heterogeneous Impact of Cooperative Membership on Farmers' Welfare in Rwanda," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 37(1), pages 86-106.
    10. Arne Risa Hole, 2007. "Fitting mixed logit models by using maximum simulated likelihood," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 7(3), pages 388-401, September.
    11. Clements, Tom & Suon, Seng & Wilkie, David S. & Milner-Gulland, E.J., 2014. "Impacts of Protected Areas on Local Livelihoods in Cambodia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 64(S1), pages 125-134.
    12. Pienaar, Elizabeth F. & Jarvis, Lovell S. & Larson, Douglas M., 2014. "Using a choice experiment framework to value conservation-contingent development programs: An application to Botswana," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 39-48.
    13. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    14. Lee, Deborah E. & Du Preez, Mario, 2016. "Determining visitor preferences for rhinoceros conservation management at private, ecotourism game reserves in the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa: A choice modeling experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 106-116.
    15. Driss Ezzine-de-Blas & Sven Wunder & Manuel Ruiz-Pérez & Rocio del Pilar Moreno-Sanchez, 2016. "Global Patterns in the Implementation of Payments for Environmental Services," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-16, March.
    16. Ben Ma & Zheng Zhao & Huimin Ding & Yali Wen, 2018. "Household costs and benefits of biodiversity conservation: case study of Sichuan giant panda reserves in China," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 1665-1686, August.
    17. Ferraro, Paul J., 2002. "The local costs of establishing protected areas in low-income nations: Ranomafana National Park, Madagascar," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(2-3), pages 261-275, December.
    18. Lybbert, Travis J. & Magnan, Nicholas & Spielman, David J. & Bhargava, Anil K. & Gulati, Kajal, 2012. "Farmers' Heterogeneous Valuation of Laser Land Leveling in Eastern Uttar Pradesh: An Experimental Auction Approach to Informing Segmentation & Subsidy Strategies," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126806, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. Mark Morrison & Jeff Bennett & Russell Blamey & Jordan Louviere, 2002. "Choice Modeling and Tests of Benefit Transfer," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(1), pages 161-170.
    20. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    21. Fredrik Carlsson & Peter Martinsson, 2003. "Design techniques for stated preference methods in health economics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(4), pages 281-294, April.
    22. Allenby, Greg M. & Rossi, Peter E., 1998. "Marketing models of consumer heterogeneity," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1-2), pages 57-78, November.
    23. Wang, Ju-Han Zoe, 2019. "National parks in China: Parks for people or for the nation?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 825-833.
    24. Hall, Jane & Viney, Rosalie & Haas, Marion & Louviere, Jordan, 2004. "Using stated preference discrete choice modeling to evaluate health care programs," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 57(9), pages 1026-1032, September.
    25. Charles Palmer & Salvatore Di Falco, 2012. "Biodiversity, poverty, and development," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 28(1), pages 48-68, Spring.
    26. Lonn, Pichdara & Mizoue, Nobuya & Ota, Tetsuji & Kajisa, Tsuyoshi & Yoshida, Shigejiro, 2018. "Evaluating the Contribution of Community-based Ecotourism (CBET) to Household Income and Livelihood Changes: A Case Study of the Chambok CBET Program in Cambodia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 62-69.
    27. Cernea, Michael M. & Schmidt-Soltau, Kai, 2006. "Poverty Risks and National Parks: Policy Issues in Conservation and Resettlement," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 34(10), pages 1808-1830, October.
    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. Ben Ma & Yuqian Zhang & Yilei Hou & Yali Wen, 2020. "Do Protected Areas Matter? A Systematic Review of the Social and Ecological Impacts of the Establishment of Protected Areas," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-13, October.
    2. Inayat Ullah & Dong-Young Kim, 2021. "Inclusive Governance and Biodiversity Conservation: Evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-27, March.
    3. Ma, Ben & Zhang, Yuqian & Huang, Yuan & Wen, Yali, 2020. "Socioeconomic and ecological direct and spillover effects of China's giant panda nature reserves," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(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. Ma, Ben & Cai, Zhen & Zheng, Jie & Wen, Yali, 2019. "Conservation, ecotourism, poverty, and income inequality – A case study of nature reserves in Qinling, China," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 236-244.
    2. 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).
    3. Ben Ma & Yuqian Zhang & Yilei Hou & Yali Wen, 2020. "Do Protected Areas Matter? A Systematic Review of the Social and Ecological Impacts of the Establishment of Protected Areas," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-13, October.
    4. 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.
    5. Apurba Shee & Calum G. Turvey & Ana Marr, 2021. "Heterogeneous Demand and Supply for an Insurance‐linked Credit Product in Kenya: A Stated Choice Experiment Approach," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(1), pages 244-267, February.
    6. 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.
    7. Wang Bing & K M Safiqul Islam & Md. Miraj Hossen, 2019. "Economic development through the implementation of environment policies:An empirical study from the South-West coastal areas of Bangladesh," International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147-4478), Center for the Strategic Studies in Business and Finance, vol. 8(6), pages 292-300, October.
    8. Wang, Shuxian & Wu, Linhai & Zhu, Dian & Wang, Hongsha & Xu, Lingling, 2014. "Chinese consumers’ preferences and willingness to pay for traceable food attributes: The case of pork," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 165639, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Iván Pérez-Rubio & Daniel Flores & Christian Vargas & Francisco Jiménez & Iker Etxano, 2021. "To What Extent Are Cattle Ranching Landholders Willing to Restore Ecosystem Services? Constructing a Micro-Scale PES Scheme in Southern Costa Rica," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-24, July.
    10. Wu, Linhai & Wang, Shuxian & Zhu, Dian & Hu, Wuyang & Wang, Hongsha, 2015. "Chinese consumers’ preferences and willingness to pay for traceable food quality and safety attributes: The case of pork," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 121-136.
    11. Probst, Lorenz & Houedjofonon, Elysée & Ayerakwa, Hayford Mensah & Haas, Rainer, 2012. "Will they buy it? The potential for marketing organic vegetables in the food vending sector to strengthen vegetable safety: A choice experiment study in three West African cities," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 296-308.
    12. Hoyos Ramos, David, 2010. "Using discrete choice experiments for environmental valuation," BILTOKI 1134-8984, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Economía Aplicada III (Econometría y Estadística).
    13. Julia Martin-Ortega & Giacomo Giannoccaro & Julio Berbel, 2011. "Environmental and Resource Costs Under Water Scarcity Conditions: An Estimation in the Context of the European Water Framework Directive," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 25(6), pages 1615-1633, April.
    14. Siriwardena, K.S.D. & Gunaratne, L.H.P., 2007. "Analysis of Public Choice on Environmental Health Management: The Case of Dengue Fever Control in Kandy District," Sri Lankan Journal of Agricultural Economics, Sri Lanka Agricultural Economics Association (SAEA), vol. 9, pages 1-13.
    15. Mulatu, Dawit W. & van der Veen, Anne & van Oel, Pieter R., 2014. "Farm households' preferences for collective and individual actions to improve water-related ecosystem services: The Lake Naivasha basin, Kenya," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 22-33.
    16. Ma, Ben & Zhang, Yuqian & Huang, Yuan & Wen, Yali, 2020. "Socioeconomic and ecological direct and spillover effects of China's giant panda nature reserves," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    17. 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.
    18. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    19. Khan, Md. Tajuddin & Kishore, Avinash & Joshi, Pramod Kumar, 2016. "Gender dimensions on farmers’ preferences for direct-seeded rice with drum seeder in India:," IFPRI discussion papers 1550, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

    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:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:18:p:4852-:d:264433. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.