Resident Willingness to Pay for Ecotourism Resources and Associated Factors in Sanjiangyuan National Park, China

doi:10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2021.05.012

Abstract

Abstract:

Willingness to Pay (WTP), Willingness to Work (WTW) and Willingness to Accept Compensation (WTA) are the three quantitative criteria for assessing local ecological asset values for the social aspects of ecosystem services and residents’ willingness to contribute to and receive compensation for tourism ecology. The objectives of this study are to estimate the residents’ willingness to pay, work and accept compensation for conservation at Sanjiangyuan National Park, and to analyze the relationship between residents’ attitude towards tourism ecology and the ecological assets of the National Park based on a standard questionnaire survey. The dichotomous choice Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) was employed to determine the willingness. The survey conducted in 2018 collected WTP, WTW, WTA, socio-demFographical information, social trust and resident perceptions toward tourism impacts and relevant management strategies from 244 residents in two counties. Based on generalized linear modeling, income and education level are important for residents’ WTP and WTA, but other social characteristics, such as gender and age, do not have significant effects. The social trust is found to be a significant factor on residents’ willingness, despite the limitation on education level. Also, government funding is associated with residents’ inclination to WTP, WTW and WTA, but the support levels differ among the two counties due to geographical and social heterogeneities. The estimated WTP, WTW and WTA for the Sanjiangyuan National Park in 2018 were 1.2448×10 ⁷ yuan, 1.247×10 ⁶ hours and 2.3232×10 ⁷ yuan yr ^-1 based on the survey and published demographics. This study, for the first time, estimates the WTP, WTW and WTA for the Sanjiangyuan National Park and informs ecological conservation managers and policy makers. Ultimately, to maintain the long-term benefits arising from sustainable development, compensation should be specifically tailored and site-dependent, and development measures based on local resources should be adopted by governments to actively support eco-tourism activities.

Key words: willingness to pay, tourism ecology compensation, contingent valuation method, Sanjiangyuan National Park

MA Ting, MIN Qingwen, XU Kun, SANG Weiguo. Resident Willingness to Pay for Ecotourism Resources and Associated Factors in Sanjiangyuan National Park, China[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2021, 12(5): 693-706.

Figures/Tables 6

References 74

[1]	Ahlheim M, Frör O, Luo J, et al. 2015. Towards a comprehensive valuation of water management projects when data availability is incomplete—The use of benefit transfer techniques. Water, 7(5):2472-2493.
[2]	Azimy M W, Khan G D, Yoshida Y, et al. 2020. Measuring the impacts of saffron production promotion measures on farmers’ policy acceptance probability: A randomized conjoint field experiment in Herat Province, Afghanistan. Sustainability, 12(10):4026. DOI: 10.3390/su12104026.
[3]	Bai X F, Tan X Y, Guo Z C, et al. 2009. Empirical study on willingness to pay for ecological value of forest resources: Taking region of Beijing-Tianjin-Tangshan-Chengde as an example. Technology Economics, 28(5):47-58. (in Chinese).
[4]	Baral N, Gautam R, Timilsina N, et al. 2007. Conservation implications of contingent valuation of critically endangered white-rumped vulture Gyps bengalensis in South Asia. The International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management, 3(3):145-156.
[5]	Bennett J W, 1984. Using direct questioning to value the existence benefits of preserved natural areas. Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 28(2-3):136-152.
[6]	Bo J, Yang B, Wong C P, et al. 2019. China’s ecological civilization program-Implementing ecological redline policy. Land Use Policy, 81:111-114.
[7]	Borisova N N, Goodman A C. 2003. Measuring the value of time for methadone maintenance clients: Willingness to pay, willingness to accept, and the wage rate. Health Economics, 12(4):323-334.
[8]	Cao M, Li P, Liu S. 2015. Analysis of the network of protected areas in China based on a geographic perspective: Current status, issues and integration. Sustainability, 7(11):15617-15631.
[9]	Ciriacy-Wantrup S V. 1947. Capital returns from soil-conservation practices. Journal of Farm Economics, 29(4):1181-1196.
[10]	Costanza R, D’Arge R, de Groot R, et al. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387(6630):253-260.
[11]	Dai Y. 2018. Development of a national park framework in China. Diss., Fredericton, Canada: University of New Brunswick.
[12]	Dehghani M, Farshchi P, Danekar A, et al. 2010. Recreation value of Hara biosphere reserve using willingness to pay method. International Journal of Environmental Research, 4(2):271-280.
[13]	Du F C. 2012. Ecological resettlement of Tibetan herders in the Sanjiangyuan: A case study in Maduo County of Qinghai. Nomadic Peoples, 16(1):116-133.
[14]	Ellis F. 2000. Rural livelihoods and diversity in developing countries, London, UK: Oxford University Press.
[15]	Feng D, Liang L, Wu W, et al. 2018. Factors influencing willingness to accept in the paddy land-to-dry land program based on contingent value method. Journal of Cleaner Production, 183(4):392-402.
[16]	Foggin J M, Yuan C. 2020. Promoting conservation and community development through ecotourism: Experiences from valued conservation landscapes on the Tibetan Plateau. Plateau Perspectives Working Paper. Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan: Plateau Perspectives. http://plateauperspectives.org/downloads/ .
[17]	Foggin J M. 2008. Depopulating the Tibetan grasslands: National policies and perspectives for the future of Tibetan herders in Qinghai Province, China. Mountain Research & Development, 28(1):26-31.
[18]	Grêt-Regamey A, Brunner S H, Kienast F. 2012. Mountain ecosystem services: Who cares? Mountain Research and Development, 32(S1):23-34.
[19]	Gross J E, Woodley S, Welling L A, et al. 2016. Adapting to climate change: Guidance for protected area managers and planners. Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 24. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
[20]	Hadker N, Sharma S, David A, et al. 1997. Willingness-to-pay for Borivli National Park: Evidence from a contingent valuation. Ecological Economics, 21(2):105-122.
[21]	Han F, Yang Z, Wang H, et al. 2011. Estimating willingness to pay for environment conservation: A contingent valuation study of Kanas Nature Reserve, Xinjiang, China. Environmental Monitoring Assessment, 180(1-4):451-459.
[22]	He S, Su Y, Wang L, et al. 2018. Taking an ecosystem services approach for a new national park system in China. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 137(6):136-144.
[23]	Hsu J S, Leonard T, Tsui K. 1991. Statistical inference for multiple choice tests. Psychometrika, 56(2):327-348.
[24]	Ishiguro K. 2019. Evaluation of forest preservation in Cambodian rural villages. Journal of Sustainable Development, 12(1). DOI: 10.5539/jsd.v12n1p27.
[25]	Jonas H D, Lee E, Jonas H C, et al. 2017. Will “other effective area-based conservation measures” increase recognition and support for ICCAs? Parks, 23(2):63-78.
[26]	Kadushin A, Harkness D. 2014. Supervision in social work. New York, USA: Columbia University Press.
[27]	Kang S, Xu Y, You Q, et al. 2010. Review of climate and cryospheric change in the Tibetan Plateau. Environmental Research Letters, 5(1):15101. DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/5/1/015101.
[28]	Khoo H L, Ong G P. 2015. Understanding sustainable transport acceptance behavior: A case study of Klang Valley, Malaysia. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 9(3):227-239.
[29]	Kotchen M J, Reiling S D. 2000. Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation of nonuse values: A case study involving endangered species. Ecological Economy, 32(1):93-107.
[30]	Krikser T, Profeta A, Grimm S, et al. 2020. Willingness to pay for district heating from renewables of private households in Germany. Sustainability, 12(10):4129. DOI: 10.3390/su12104129.
[31]	Li H, Cai Y. 2016. Agricultural land ecological compensation standard estimate based on farmers’ willingness to accept—A case study of Hubei Province. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 4(4):44-47.
[32]	Li X L, Gao J, Brierley G, et al. 2013. Rangeland and degradation on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau: Implications for rehabilitation. Land Degradation & Development, 24(1):72-80.
[33]	Lin L Y, Xu L Z, Hu J, et al. 2014. Determination of industry ecological compensation standard using contingent valuation method: A case study of stone industry in Ningde City, Fujian Province. Acta Scientiae Circumstantiae, 34(1):259-264. (in Chinese)
[34]	Liu C, Côté R. 2017. A framework for integrating ecosystem services into China’s circular economy: The case of eco-industrial parks. Sustainability, 9(9):1510-1515.
[35]	Liu J, Li S, Ouyang Z, et al. 2008. Ecological and socioeconomic effects of China’s policies for ecosystem services. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of USA, 105(28):9477-9482.
[36]	Ma T, Xu K, Xing Y, et al. 2020. Tendencies of residents in Sanjiangyuan National Park to the optimization of livelihoods and conservation of the Natural Reserves. Sustainability, 12(12):5173. DOI: 10.3390/su12125173.
[37]	Moore M H. 1995. Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Cambridge, USA: Harvard University Press.
[38]	Naidoo R, Adamowicz W L. 2005. Biodiversity and nature-based tourism at forest reserves in Uganda. Environmental Development Economy, 10(2):159-178.
[39]	Navrud S, Mungatana E D. 1994. Environmental valuation in developing countries: The recreational value of wildlife viewing. Ecological Economy, 11(2):135-151.
[40]	Palomo I, Martín-López B, Potschin M. et al. 2013. National Parks, buffer zones and surrounding lands: Mapping ecosystem service flows. Ecosystem Service, 4:104-116.
[41]	Plott C R, Zeiler K. 2005. The willingness to pay-willingness to accept gap, the “endowment effect,” subject misconceptions, and experimental procedures for eliciting valuations. American Economic Review, 95(3):530-545.
[42]	Rasool F, Ogunbode C A. 2015. Socio-demographic differences in environmental concern and willingness to pay for addressing global climate change in Pakistan. Asian Journal of Social Science, 43(3):273-298.
[43]	Roth B D, Kroo I M. 2008. Enhanced collaborative optimization: A decomposition-based method for multidisciplinary design. International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, New York, USA:927-936.
[44]	Sanjiangyuan National Park Administration. 2018. Sanjiangyuan National Park overall plan. http://sjy.qinghai.gov.cn .
[45]	Scarpa R, Chilton S M, Hutchinson W G, et al. 2000. Valuing the recreational benefits from the creation of nature reserves in Irish forests. Ecological Economy, 33(2):237-250.
[46]	Schoof N, Luick R, Jürgens K, et al. 2020. Dairies in Germany: Key factors for grassland conservation? Sustainability, 12(10):4139-4144.
[47]	Shrestha R K, Alavalapati J R, Seidl A F, et al. 2007. Estimating the local cost of protecting Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve, Nepal: A contingent valuation approach. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 9(4):413-416.
[48]	Solikin A. 2017. Willingness to pay and willingness to work to avoid deforestation and forest degradation. ICoSI 2014. Springer, Singapore, 119-129. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-287-661-4_14.
[49]	Sun X, Cheng G Y, Khan A, et al. 2020. The role of tourism, and natural resources in the energy-pollution-growth nexus: An analysis of belt and road initiative countries. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 64(6):999-1020.
[50]	Suntikul W, Butler R, Airey D. 2010. Implications of political change on national park operations: Doi Moi and tourism to Vietnam’s national parks.Journal of Ecotourism, 9(3): 201-218.
[51]	Tisdell C. 1996. Ecotourism, economics, and the environment: Observations from China. Journal of Travel Research, 34(4):11-19.
[52]	Turnhout E, Neves K, de Lijster E, 2014. “Measurementality” in biodiversity governance: Knowledge, transparency, and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Environment Planning A, 46(3):581-597.
[53]	Turpie J K. 2003. The existence value of biodiversity in South Africa: How interest, experience, knowledge, income and perceived level of threat influence local willingness to pay. Ecological Economy, 46(2):199-216.
[54]	Voltaire L, Pirrone C, Bailly D. 2013. Dealing with preference uncertainty in contingent willingness to pay for a nature protection program: A new approach. Ecological Economy, 88:76-85.
[55]	Wang G, Innes J L, Wu S W, et al. 2012. National Park development in China: Conservation or commercialization? AMBIO, 41(3):247-261.
[56]	Wang L, Zeng Y, Zhong L. 2017. Impact of climate change on tourism on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau: Research based on a literature review. Sustainability, 9(9):1539. DOI: 10.3390/su9091539.
[57]	Wang P W, Zhong L S. 2018. Tourist willingness to pay for protected area ecotourism resources and influencing factors at the Hulun Lake Protected Area. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 9(2):174-180.
[58]	Wang P, Jia J. 2012. Tourists’ willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation and environment protection, Dalai Lake protected area: Implications for entrance fee and sustainable management. Ocean & Coast Management, 62:24-33.
[59]	Wang S, Liu J, Zhang C, et al. 2011. Effects of afforestation on soil carbon turnover in China’s subtropical region. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 21(1):118-134.
[60]	Wang W, Jin J, He R, et al. 2018. Farmers’ willingness to pay for health risk reductions of pesticide use in China: A contingent valuation study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(4):625. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15040625.
[61]	Wang X, Adamowski J F, Wang G, et al. 2019. Farmers’ willingness to accept compensation to maintain the benefits of urban forests. Forests, 10(8):691. DOI: 10.3390/f10080691.
[62]	Wang X, Zhang Y, Huang Z, et al. 2016. Assessing willingness to accept compensation for polluted farmlands: A contingent valuation method case study in northwest China. Environmental Earth Sciences, 75(3):179. DOI: 10.1007/s12665-015-4872-y.
[63]	Wang Y, Sun M, Song B. 2017. Public perceptions of and willingness to pay for sponge city initiatives in China. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 122:11-20.
[64]	Wang Y, Zhang Y. 2009. Air quality assessment by contingent valuation in Ji’nan, China. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(2):1022-1029.
[65]	Wilkie D S, Carpenter J F, Zhang Q. 2001. The under-financing of protected areas in the Congo Basin: So many parks and so little willingness-to-pay. Biodiversity and Conservation, 10(5):691-709.
[66]	Wilson J J, Lantz V A, MacLean D A, 2010. A benefit-cost analysis of establishing protected natural areas in New Brunswick, Canada. Forest Policy and Economics, 12(2):94-103.
[67]	Xiong K, Kong F. 2017. The analysis of farmers’ willingness to accept and its influencing factors for ecological compensation of Poyang Lake wetland. Procedia Engineering, 174:835-842.
[68]	Xu W, Xiao Y, Zhang J, et al. 2017. Strengthening protected areas for biodiversity and ecosystem services in China. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of USA, 114(7):1601-1603.
[69]	Xu Z M, Cheng G D, Zhang Z Q, et al. 2003. Applying contingent valuation in China to measure the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in Ejina region. Ecological Economics, 44(2-3):345-358.
[70]	Xu Z, Li J, Yang Z, et al. 2020. Residents’ willingness to pay for the elimination of Ulva prolifera bloom: A case study in Qingdao, China. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. DOI: 10.1080/09640568.2020.1784114.
[71]	Yan J, Li H, Hua X, et al. 2017. Determinants of engagement in off-farm employment in the Sanjiangyuan region of the Tibetan Plateau. Mountain Research and Development, 37(4):464-473.
[72]	Zhong L, Buckley R C, Wardle C, et al. 2015. Environmental and visitor management in a thousand protected areas in China. Biological Conservation, 181:219-225. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2014.11.007.
[73]	Zhou C, Ding X H, Li G P, et al. 2015. Ecological compensation standards in the water source area of the middle route project of the South-North water transfer project. Resources Science, 37(4):792-804. (in Chinese)
[74]	Zhou Y, Guo L, Liu Y. 2019. Land consolidation boosting poverty alleviation in China: Theory and practice. Land Use Policy, 82(6):339-348.

Variables	Maduo County	Zaduo County	Total
Number of responses received	129	115	244
Number of villages	5	7	12
Mean WTP in yuan yr^-1 (Number of responses not willing)	223 (39)	162.8 (20)	194.5 (59)
Mean WTW in hours yr^-1 (Number of responses not willing)	25.98 (8)	12.12 (9)	19.48 (17)
Mean WTA in yuan yr^-1 (Number of responses not willing)	372.5 (24)	352.5 (19)	363 (43)
Gender composition (M = Male, F = Female)	M78, F52	M94, F20	M172, F72
Mean age in years	33.82	38.81	36.17
Mean annual personal income in yuan yr^-1	26438	24508	25829
Education level (P = Primary school, M = Middle school, H = High school, C = College)	P79, M9, H4, C8	P52, M4, H11, C9	P131, M13, H15, C17
Mean number of household members	3.155	4.336	3.738
Mean family residency length in years	32.12	37.43	34.62
Degree of support for local development of ecology tourism (-1 = Negative, 0 = Neutral, 1 = Some support, 2 = Strong support)	-1, 0, 1, 2: 32, 23, 28, 41	-1, 0, 1, 2: 6, 3, 88, 18	-1, 0, 1, 2: 38, 26, 116, 59
Priority for local conservation development (Eco = Ecology, Env = Environment)	Eco 10 Env 102	Eco 13 Env 58	Eco 23 Env 160
Awareness of the largest impact of ecology tourism (A = Air, P = Plantation, R = Rock, S = Soil, W = Water, L = Wildlife)	A 17, P 51, R 10, S 17, W 11, L 23	A 4, P 33, R 12, S 20, W 24, L 18	A 21, P 84, R 22, S 37, W 35, L 41
Heard ecology compensation policy or not (No = Not Heard, Yes = Heard)	No 59, Yes 61	No 83, Yes 30	No 142, Yes 91
Proposed best ecology compensation method (Gov = Government, Don = Donation, Tax = Taxation, Tour = Tourism)	Gov 52, Don 33, Tax 25, Tour 12	Gov 71, Don 5, Tax 2, Tour 25	Gov 123, Don 38, Tax 27, Tour 37

Variables	Maduo County	Zaduo County	Total
Number of responses received	129	115	244
Number of villages	5	7	12
Mean WTP in yuan yr^-1 (Number of responses not willing)	223 (39)	162.8 (20)	194.5 (59)
Mean WTW in hours yr^-1 (Number of responses not willing)	25.98 (8)	12.12 (9)	19.48 (17)
Mean WTA in yuan yr^-1 (Number of responses not willing)	372.5 (24)	352.5 (19)	363 (43)
Gender composition (M = Male, F = Female)	M78, F52	M94, F20	M172, F72
Mean age in years	33.82	38.81	36.17
Mean annual personal income in yuan yr^-1	26438	24508	25829
Education level (P = Primary school, M = Middle school, H = High school, C = College)	P79, M9, H4, C8	P52, M4, H11, C9	P131, M13, H15, C17
Mean number of household members	3.155	4.336	3.738
Mean family residency length in years	32.12	37.43	34.62
Degree of support for local development of ecology tourism (-1 = Negative, 0 = Neutral, 1 = Some support, 2 = Strong support)	-1, 0, 1, 2: 32, 23, 28, 41	-1, 0, 1, 2: 6, 3, 88, 18	-1, 0, 1, 2: 38, 26, 116, 59
Priority for local conservation development (Eco = Ecology, Env = Environment)	Eco 10 Env 102	Eco 13 Env 58	Eco 23 Env 160
Awareness of the largest impact of ecology tourism (A = Air, P = Plantation, R = Rock, S = Soil, W = Water, L = Wildlife)	A 17, P 51, R 10, S 17, W 11, L 23	A 4, P 33, R 12, S 20, W 24, L 18	A 21, P 84, R 22, S 37, W 35, L 41
Heard ecology compensation policy or not (No = Not Heard, Yes = Heard)	No 59, Yes 61	No 83, Yes 30	No 142, Yes 91
Proposed best ecology compensation method (Gov = Government, Don = Donation, Tax = Taxation, Tour = Tourism)	Gov 52, Don 33, Tax 25, Tour 12	Gov 71, Don 5, Tax 2, Tour 25	Gov 123, Don 38, Tax 27, Tour 37

Variable	Logistic model (Willing to pay)		quasi-Poisson model (WTP)
Variable	Coefficient	Standard error and significance	Coefficient	Standard error and significance
County: Zaduo	-2.32	0.799 ^**	-0.768	0.299 ^*
Degree of support for tourism: Neutral	4.60	1.36 ^***	2.52	0.682 ^***
Some support	5.17	1.21 ^***	2.32	0.596 ^***
Strong support	3.61	1.01 ^***	1.93	0.569 ^***
Awareness of the largest impact: Plantation	-0.054	0.953	-0.270	0.451
Rock	0.906	1.61	1.23	0.946
Soil	-1.25	1.05	-0.486	0.481
Water	17.80	1032.00	-0.324	0.582
Wildlife	-0.402	1.02	-0.321	0.449
Heard ecological compensation policy: Yes	-0.496	0.592	-0.235	0.288
Proposed best ecology compensation method: Donation	-1.58	0.877	-0.338	0.359
Taxation	-2.40	1.12 ^*	-1.073	0.448 ^*
Tourism	0.826	0.825	-0.322	-0.318
Gender: Female	-0.508	0.572	-0.420	0.287
Mean age	0.00323	0.0277	0.00828	0.0121
Education level: Middle school	0.144	0.968	-0.219	0.415
High school	-0.897	1.13	-2.14	1.03 ^*
College	1.59	1.38	-0.847	-0.553
Annual income	0.0000520	0.0000240 ^*	0.0000207	0.00000901 ^*

Variable	Logistic model (Willing to pay)		quasi-Poisson model (WTP)
Variable	Coefficient	Standard error and significance	Coefficient	Standard error and significance
County: Zaduo	-2.32	0.799 ^**	-0.768	0.299 ^*
Degree of support for tourism: Neutral	4.60	1.36 ^***	2.52	0.682 ^***
Some support	5.17	1.21 ^***	2.32	0.596 ^***
Strong support	3.61	1.01 ^***	1.93	0.569 ^***
Awareness of the largest impact: Plantation	-0.054	0.953	-0.270	0.451
Rock	0.906	1.61	1.23	0.946
Soil	-1.25	1.05	-0.486	0.481
Water	17.80	1032.00	-0.324	0.582
Wildlife	-0.402	1.02	-0.321	0.449
Heard ecological compensation policy: Yes	-0.496	0.592	-0.235	0.288
Proposed best ecology compensation method: Donation	-1.58	0.877	-0.338	0.359
Taxation	-2.40	1.12 ^*	-1.073	0.448 ^*
Tourism	0.826	0.825	-0.322	-0.318
Gender: Female	-0.508	0.572	-0.420	0.287
Mean age	0.00323	0.0277	0.00828	0.0121
Education level: Middle school	0.144	0.968	-0.219	0.415
High school	-0.897	1.13	-2.14	1.03 ^*
College	1.59	1.38	-0.847	-0.553
Annual income	0.0000520	0.0000240 ^*	0.0000207	0.00000901 ^*

Variable	Logistic model (Willing to work)		quasi-Poisson model (WTW)
Variable	Coefficient	Standard error and significance	Coefficient	Standard error and significance
County: Zaduo	-3.18	1.17 ^**	-1.65	0.207 ^***
Degree of support for tourism: Neutral	1.99	1.70	-0.014	0.312
Some support	2.96	1.46 ^*	0.281	0.215
Strong support	2.86	1.62 .	0.417	0.173 ^*
Awareness of thelargest impact: Plantation	0.763	1.08	0.994	0.322 ^**
Rock	0.160	11.85	0.805	0.451 .
Soil	1.92	1.25	0.753	0.332 ^*
Water	18.17	1799.00	0.771	0.381^*
Wildlife	1.03	1.32	0.640	0.323 .
Heard ecological compensation policy: Yes	1.81	0.947 .	-0.182	-0.178
Proposed bestecology compensation method: Donation	-1.96	1.27	-0.438	0.216 ^*
Taxation	-3.94	1.69 ^*	-0.907	0.262 ^***
Tourism	0.414	1.26	-0.429	0.197 ^*
Gender: Female	-1.00	0.805	-0.204	0.155
Mean age	0.00751	0.0563	0.00218	0.00729
Education level: Middle school	-1.99	1.17	-0.327	0.319
High school	-0.850	1.23	-0.453	0.366
College	-0.959	1.51	-0.319	0.296
Annual income	0.0000339	0.0000359	-0.00000239	0.00000529