Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Results

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Contingent Valuation of Yangtze Finless Porpoises in Poyang Lake, China

  • 641 Accesses

Abstract

In the chapter, collected information and data are presented and analyzed, such as sample characteristics and respondents’ attitudes on the protection of YFPs. Respondents’ socioeconomic characteristics are recorded, which serve further analysis of WTP bids—whether the WTP bids offered by the respondents are valid. In addition, based on the statements explaining how to decide the WTP amount, WTP bids are judged to be biased or valid. Furthermore, it also investigates the distribution of valid WTP bids, provides the descriptive statistics for data in the three cities, tests the validity of WTP responses statistically, compares the mean WTP in the three cities to test the distance effect, and analyzes mean WTP in China and Germany.

The result is that mean WTP in Beijing > mean WTP in Nanchang > mean WTP in Guangzhou, while they do not differ from each other statistically. Additionally, it is found out that dependent WTP bids of the respondents in Beijing have a significant relationship with the determinants Edu.Degree, INCOME, BEQUEST, and Econ.AndEnvi. at the 0.00 level (R² = 0.434). Dependent WTP estimates in Guangzhou are significantly related to the variables Envi.Group, SIGHTSEEING, BIODIVERSITY, and INCOME at the 0.00 level (R² = 0.434). Around 44% variance of WTP bids in Nanchang can be well-explained by the variables Income, Fam.Size, and Envi.Group at the 0.00 level. Last, the mean WTP in Germany is significantly larger than that in China.

In this chapter, the data obtained from the workshops are summarized and analyzed in the following way:

  • Socioeconomic characteristics of the samples (Sect. 5.1 and 5.4.1).

  • Evaluation of respondents’ attitude (Sect. 5.2).

  • Validity assessment of the WTP bids (Sect. 5.3).

  • Descriptive statistical results for WTP estimates (Sect. 5.4.2).

  • Theoretical validity tests of WTP (Sect. 5.4.3).

  • Comparison of WTP bids in Beijing, Guangzhou, and Nanchang to test the distance effects (Sect. 5.4.2.1).

  • Comparison of WTP means in China and Germany (Sect. 5.4.2.2).

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The population is the entire set of individuals to which findings of the survey are to be extrapolated (Levy and Lemeshow 1999). In this study, it refers to the people in Beijing, Guangzhou and Nanchang.

  2. 2.

    Gender proportions (male VS. female) in Beijing, Guangzhou and Nanchang are: 52.1% VS. 47.9 %, 51% VS. 49%, 52% VS. 48% respectively. (Data of the fifth population census, National Bureau of Statistics People’s Republic of China 2001).

  3. 3.

    Data of age distribution from the fifth population census in China, 2001

    Age

    0–14 (%)

    15–65 (%)

    >65 (%)

    Beijing

    13.6

    78.0

    8.4

    GuangDong Province (Capital: Guangzhou)

    24.17

    69.78

    6.05

    Jiangxi Province (Capital: Nanchang)

    25.99

    67.91

    6.11

    Source: The State Council of People’s Republic of China (2001)

  4. 4.

    In statistics, a result is called “statistically significant” if the probability of its occurrence by chance is less than 5%. Chance refers to unexpected, unplanned, unpredictable event that occurs without observable cause or human intention, and is not explainable by the known laws of science or statistics (http://www.businessdictionary.com).

  5. 5.

    Statistics. of or pertaining to observations that are unlikely to occur by chance and that therefore indicate a systematic cause (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/significantly).

References

  • Adreoni, J. (1989). Giving with impure altruism: Applications to charity and Ricardian equivalence. Journal of Political Economy, 97, 1447–1458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adreoni, J. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. The Economic Journal, 100, 464–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alberini, A., and Flores, N. (1995). A bibliography of contingent valuation studies and papers. Natural Resource Damage Assessment, Inc., CA. San Diego. 186pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Babbie, E. (2007). The practice of social research (11th ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Backhaus, K., Erichson, B., Plinke, W., & Weiber, R. (1996). Multivariate Analysemethoden, Berlin:Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Backhaus, K., Erichson, B., Plinke, W., & Weiber, R. (2000). Multivariate analysemethoden. Berlin/Heidelberg/New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bateman, T. S., & Zeithaml, C. P. (1989). The psychological context of strategic decisions: A model and convergent experimental findings. Strategic Management Journal, 10, 59–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, J., Morrison, M., & Blamey, R. (1998). Testing the validity of responses to contingent valuation questioning. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 42, 131–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broadhurst, D., Goodacre, R., Jones, A., Rowland, J. J., & Kel, D. B. (1997). Genetic algorithms as a method for variable selection in multiple linear regression and partial least squares regression, with applications to pyrolysis mass spectrometry. Analytica Chimica Acta, 348, 71–86.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Busenitz, L. W., & Barney, J. W. (1997). Differences between entrepreneurs and managers in large organizations: Biases and heuristics in strategic decision-making. Journal of Business Venturing, 12, 19–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carson, R. T. (1991). Constructed markets. In J. B. Braden & C. D. Kolstad (Eds.), Measuring the demand for environmental quality (pp. 121–162). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carson, R. T., & Mitchell, R. C. (1995). Sequencing and nesting in contingent valuation surveys. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 28, 155–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carson, R. T., Wright, J. L., Carson, N., Alberini, A., & Flores, N. (1995). A bibliography of contingent valuation studies and papers. Natural Resource Damage Assessment, Inc., CA. San Diego. 186pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chilton, S. M., & Hutchinson, W. G. (2000). A note on the warm glow of giving and scope sensitivity in contingent valuation studies. Journal of Economic Psychology, 21, 343–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • China Popin. (2008). [Online] Available: http://www.cpirc.org.cn/tjsj/tjsj_cy_detail.asp?id=9229. 13 Mar 2008.

  • China’s National Bureau of Statistics. (2008). Available: http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/statisticaldata/yearlydata/

  • China State Statistics Bureau. (2008). China population and employment statistics yearbook 2008. Beijing: China Statistics Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, R. G., Brookshire, D., & Schulz, W. D. (1986). Valuing environmental goods: An assessment of the contingent valuation methodology. Savage: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Desvousges, W. H., Johnson, F. R., Dunford, R. W., Boyle, K. J., Hudson, S. P., & Wilson, N. (1993). Measuring natural resource damages with contingent valuation: Tests of validity and reliability. In J. A. Hausman (Ed.), Contingent valuation: A critical assessment (pp. 91–159). Amsterdam: North Holland.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dziegielewska, D. A. P., & Mendelsohn, R. (2005). Valuing air quality in Poland. Environmental and Resource Economics, 30, 131–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, S. F., & Anderson, G. D. (1987). Overlooked biases in contingent valuation surveys: some considerations. Land Economics, 63(2), 168–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrod, G., & Willis, K. G. (1999). Economic valuation of the environment: Methods and case studies. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • González-Cabán, A., Loomis, J. B., Rodriguez, A., & Hesseln, H. (2007). A comparison of CVM survey response rates, protests and willingness-to-pay of native Americans and general population for fuels reduction policies. Journal of Forest Economics, 13, 49–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, S. L., Seakbrooke, W., & Jaffry, S. A. (1998). Considering conservation value in economic appraisal of coastal resources. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 41, 313–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hadker, N., Sharma, S., David, A., & Muraleedharan, T. R. (1997). Willingness-to-pay for Borivli National Park: Evidence from a contingent valuation. Ecological Economics, 21, 105–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halstead, J. M., Luloff, A. E., & Stevens, T. H. (1992). Protest bidders in contingent valuation. Northeastern Journal of Agriculture Resource Economics, 21, 160–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halvorsen, B. (1996). Ordering effects in contingent valuation surveys: Willingness to pay for reduced health damages from air pollution. Environmental and Resource Economics, 8, 485–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanemann, M. (1994). Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8, 19–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herkle, S. (2010). Eine ökonomische Bewertung des Jangtse Glattschweinswals mit der Kontingenten Bewertungsmethode, Master Thesis, Martin-Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howell, D. C. (1997). Statistical methods for psychology (4th ed.). Boston: Duxbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S. E., & Dutton, J. E. (1988). Discerning threats and opportunities. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33, 370–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jorgensen, B. S., Syme, G. J., Bishop, B. J., & Nancarrow, B. E. (1999). Protest responses in contingent valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics, 14, 131–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jorgensen, B. S., Wilson, M. A., & Heberlein, T. A. (2001). Fairness in the contingent valuation of environmental goods: Attitude toward paying for environmental improvements at two levels of scope. Ecological Economics, 36, 133–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Knetsch, J. L. (1992). Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 22, 57–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenyon, W., & Nevin, C. (2001). The use of economic and participatory approaches to assess forest development: A case study in the Ettrick Valley. Forest Policy and Economics, 3, 69–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinnear, P. R., & Gray, C. D. (2000). SPSS for windows made simple release 10. Hove: Psychology Press Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, P. S., & Lemeshow, S. (1999). Sampling of populations: Methods and applications (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley-Interscience.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loomis, J., & King, M. (1994). Comparison of mail and telephone-mail contingent valuation surveys. Journal of Environmental Management, 41, 309–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mattsson, L., & Li, C. Z. (1994). Sample nonresponse in a mail contingent valuation survey: An empirical test of the effect on value inference. Journal of Leisure Research, 26, 182–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyerhoff, J., & Liebe, U. (2006). Protest beliefs in contingent valuation: Explaining their motivation. Ecological Economics, 57, 583–594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. (1995). Multiple regression development with GDCC. Master thesis, University of Montana.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. C., & Carson, R. T. (1989). Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation method. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrisson, M. D., Blamey, R. K., & Bennett, J. W. (2000). Minimising payment vehicle bias in contingent valuation studies. Environmental and Resource Economics, 16, 407–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Motulsky, H. (1995–2002). Multicollinearity in multiple regression. Retrieved from http://www.graphpad.com/articles/Multicollinearity.htm

  • National Bureau of Statistics People’s Republic of China. (2009). China population statistics 2009. Beijing: China Population and Development Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.cpdrc.org.cn

  • Nunes, P. A. L. D., & Schokkaert, E. (2003). Identifying the warm glow effect in contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 45, 231–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Posavac, S. S. (1998). Strategic overbidding in contingent valuation: Stated economic value of public goods varies according to consumers’ expectations of funding source. Journal of Economic Psychology, 19, 205–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richiardi, L., Boffetta, P., & Merletti, F. (2002). Analysis of nonresponse bias in a population-based case-control study on lung cancer. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 55, 1033–1040.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, M., Scott, D. A., & Donaldson, C. (2004). Valuing health care using willingness to pay: A comparison of the payment card and dichotomous choice methods. Journal of Health Economics, 23, 237–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seasholtz, M. B., & Kowalski, B. (1993). The parsimony principle applied to multivariate calibration. Analytica Chimica Acta, 277, 165–177.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Singleton, R. A., & Straits, B. C. (2005). Approaches to social research (4th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • The State Council of People’s Republic of China (2001). China’s 4th census, retrieved from http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjgb/rkpcgb/.

  • Söderquist, T. (1998). Why give up money for the Baltic Sea. Environmental and Resource Economics, 12, 249–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Throsby, C. D., & Withers, G. A. (1986). Strategic bias and demand for public goods: Theory and an application to the arts. Journal of Public Economics, 31, 307–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Whitehead, J. C., Groothuis, P., & Blomquist, G. C. (1993). Testing for non-response and sample selection bias in contingent valuation: Analysis of a combination phone/mail survey. Economics Letters, 41, 215–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wronka, T. C. (2001). Protestantworten – theoretischer Hintergrund, empirischer Befund und Lösungsstrategien. In P. Elsasser & J. Meyerhoff (Eds.), Ökonomische Bewertung von Umweltgütern. Anwendung der Kontingenten Bewertung im deutschsprachigen Raum (pp. 161–183). Marburg: Metropolis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zajac, E. J., & Bazerman, M. H. (1991). Blind spots in industry and competitor analysis: Implications for interfirm (Mis)perceptions for strategic decisions. Academy of Management Review, 16, 37–56.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Economics, Helmholtz Center for Environmental Research — UFZ, Permoserstraße 15, Leipzig, Germany

    Yanyan Dong

Authors
  1. Yanyan Dong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Dong, Y. (2013). Results. In: Contingent Valuation of Yangtze Finless Porpoises in Poyang Lake, China. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2765-6_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation