Journal of Resources and Ecology ›› 2021, Vol. 12 ›› Issue (5): 693-706.DOI: 10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2021.05.012
• Ecotourism • Previous Articles Next Articles
MA Ting1,2,3,4(), MIN Qingwen2,3, XU Kun5, SANG Weiguo1,*(
)
Received:
2020-12-04
Accepted:
2021-02-25
Online:
2021-09-30
Published:
2021-11-30
Contact:
SANG Weiguo
About author:
MA Ting, E-mail: 17400198@muc.edu.cn
Supported by:
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.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: http://www.jorae.cn/EN/10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2021.05.012
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 |
Table 1 Summary data for the variables collected from the mail survey conducted in Maduo and Zaduo counties
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) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
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 * |
Table 2 Logistic and quasi-Poisson model output for willing to pay
Variable | Logistic model (Willing to pay) | quasi-Poisson model (WTP) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
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) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
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 |
Table 3 Logistic and quasi-Poisson model output for willing to work
Variable | Logistic model (Willing to work) | quasi-Poisson model (WTW) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
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 |
Variables | Logistic model (Willing to accept compensation) | quasi-Poisson model (WTA) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Coefficient | Standard error and significance | Coefficient | Standard error and significance | |
County: Zaduo | -1.48 | 0.698 * | -0.886 | 0.203 *** |
Degree of support for tourism: Neutral | 0.374 | 1.24 | 0.349 | 0.394 |
Some support | 1.00 | 0.923 | 0.334 | 0.228 |
Strong support | 0.860 | 0.945 | 0.277 | 0.194 |
Awareness of the largest impact: Plantation | -1.02 | 0.940 | -0.145 | 0.353 |
Rock | -0.916 | 1.43 | -0.202 | 0.500 |
Soil | -0.846 | 1.05 | -0.734 | 0.364 * |
Water | -1.90 | 1.18 | -0.844 | 0.477 |
Wildlife | -0.731 | 1.14 | -0.478 | 0.349 |
Heard ecological compensation policy: Yes | 0.232 | 0.637 | -0.380 | 0.207 |
Proposed best ecology compensation method: Donation | -2.89 | 0.958 ** | -1.31 | 0.305 *** |
Taxation | -4.00 | 1.08 *** | -2.51 | 0.455 *** |
Tourism | -1.36 | 0.777 | -0.854 | 0.257 ** |
Gender: Female | 0.0633 | 0.607 | -0.0669 | 0.169 |
Mean age | -0.00669 | 0.0317 | -0.000680 | 0.00739 |
Education level: Middle school | -0.206 | 1.02 | 0.197 | 0.299 |
High school | -3.27 | 1.04 ** | -1.42 | 0.484 ** |
College | -0.685 | 1.22 | -0.367 | 0.325 |
Annual income | -0.0000419 | 0.0000241 | -0.00000430 | -0.00000593 |
Table 4 Logistic and quasi-Poisson model output for willing to accept compensation
Variables | Logistic model (Willing to accept compensation) | quasi-Poisson model (WTA) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Coefficient | Standard error and significance | Coefficient | Standard error and significance | |
County: Zaduo | -1.48 | 0.698 * | -0.886 | 0.203 *** |
Degree of support for tourism: Neutral | 0.374 | 1.24 | 0.349 | 0.394 |
Some support | 1.00 | 0.923 | 0.334 | 0.228 |
Strong support | 0.860 | 0.945 | 0.277 | 0.194 |
Awareness of the largest impact: Plantation | -1.02 | 0.940 | -0.145 | 0.353 |
Rock | -0.916 | 1.43 | -0.202 | 0.500 |
Soil | -0.846 | 1.05 | -0.734 | 0.364 * |
Water | -1.90 | 1.18 | -0.844 | 0.477 |
Wildlife | -0.731 | 1.14 | -0.478 | 0.349 |
Heard ecological compensation policy: Yes | 0.232 | 0.637 | -0.380 | 0.207 |
Proposed best ecology compensation method: Donation | -2.89 | 0.958 ** | -1.31 | 0.305 *** |
Taxation | -4.00 | 1.08 *** | -2.51 | 0.455 *** |
Tourism | -1.36 | 0.777 | -0.854 | 0.257 ** |
Gender: Female | 0.0633 | 0.607 | -0.0669 | 0.169 |
Mean age | -0.00669 | 0.0317 | -0.000680 | 0.00739 |
Education level: Middle school | -0.206 | 1.02 | 0.197 | 0.299 |
High school | -3.27 | 1.04 ** | -1.42 | 0.484 ** |
College | -0.685 | 1.22 | -0.367 | 0.325 |
Annual income | -0.0000419 | 0.0000241 | -0.00000430 | -0.00000593 |
[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. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||