The Use of Choice Experiments to Value Public Preferences for Cultivated Land Protection in China

  • 1 College of Public Administration, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610064, China;
    2 School of Economics, University of Sydney, NSW 2006 Australia

Received date: 2013-06-12

  Revised date: 2014-07-21

  Online published: 2014-09-10

Supported by

National Social Science Foundation of China (12XGL011), the Youth Project of Ministry of Education (12YJC790136) and the Central College Fund of Sichuan University (skqy201231).


Effective programs and policies for cultivated land resource protection are often the focus of government policy-makers and researchers. Here we use survey data from Wuhan City, Hubei, China to attempt to apply a choice experiment for assessing main stakeholder preferences for cultivated land resource protection based on the hypothesis of market and policy. According to the basic principle of choice experiments, the area of cultivated land, quality of cultivated land, cost of cultivated land protection and cultivated land ecological landscape were included as attributes in the experimental design. Surveys were undertaken on two main stakeholders groups (farmers and urban residents). Our results show strong divergence between farmers and urban residents regarding protecting attributes. We then analyzed and compared welfare changes affected by different attribute combination programs. The result of this study provides theoretical and decision-making support for farmland protection funds and agricultural subsidy systems.

Cite this article

MA Aihui, ZHANG Jingjing . The Use of Choice Experiments to Value Public Preferences for Cultivated Land Protection in China[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2014 , 5(3) : 263 -271 . DOI: 10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2014.03.009


Adamowicz W, J Louviere, M Williams. 1994. Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 26(3):271-292.

Alpizar F, F Carlsson, P Martinsson. 2001. Using choice experiments for non-market valuation. Department of Economics Göteborg University, Working Papers in Economics.

Brouwer R, T Dekker, J Rolfe, J Windle. 2010. Choice certainty and consistency in repeated choice experiments. Environmental and Resource Economics, 46:93-109.

Cai Y Y, ChenY, Ren Y S, et al. 2008. Measuring agricultural land's non-market values of urban leisure agriculture. Resources Science, 30(2):305-313. (in Chinese)

Carlsson F, M Kataria, E Lampi . 2010. Dealing with ignored attributes in choice experiments on valuation of Sweden's environmental quality objectives. Environmental and Resource Economics, 47:65-89.

Espinosa M, J Barreiro-Hurlé, E Ruto. 2010. What do farmers want from agri-environmental scheme design? a choice experiment approach. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 61(2):259-273.

Ferrini S, R Scarpa. 2007. Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: a Monte Carlo study. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 53:342-363.

Hanley N, R E Wright, B Alvarez-Farizo. 2006. Estimating the economic value of improvements in river ecology using choice experiments: an application to the water framework directive. Journal of Environmental Management, 78:183-193.

Jin J J, Wang Z S. 2006. Choice experiment method and its application to solid waste management in Macao. Environmental Science, 27(4): 820-825. (in Chinese)

Jin J J, Wang Z S. 2005. Economic valuation of solid waste management in Macao. China Environmental Science, 25(6):751-755. (in Chinese)

Lancaster K. 1966. A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy, 77:132-157.

Ma A H, Zhang A L. 2013. Cultivated land ecological compensation willingness based on choice experiments. Resources Science, 35(10):2067-2074.

Ma A H, Cai Y Y, Zhang A L. 2012. An empirial study of cultivated land ecological compensation based on choice experiments method. Journal of Natural Resources, 27(7):1154-1164. (in Chinese)

Mazotta M and J Opaluch. 1995. Decision making when choices are complex: a test of Heiners hypothesis. Land Economics, 71:500-515.

Mørkbak M R, T Christensen and D Gyrd-Hansen. 2010. Choke price bias in choice experiments. Environmental and Resource Economics, 45:537-551.

Rambonilaza M, J Dachary-Bernard. 2007. Land-use planning and public preferences: what can we learn from choice experiment method. Landscape and Urban Planning, 83: 318-326.

Swait J and W Adamowicz. 1996. The effect of choice experiment and task demands on consumer behavior: Discriminating between contribution and confusion. Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology, University of Alberta, Staff Paper Series 24091.

Travisi C M, P Nijkamp. 2008. Valuing environmental and health risk in agriculture: a choice experiment approach to pesticides in Italy. Ecological Economics, 67:598-607.

Xu Z M, Zhang Z Q, Long A H, et al. 2003. Choice modeling and its potential application to ecosystem management. Acta Geographica Sinica, 58(3):398-405. (in Chinese)

Xu Z, Fang T, Song Q, et al. 2005. The application of conjoint analysis on development and test of new product concept. Quantity Statistics and Management, 24(6):25-32. (in Chinese)

Zhai G L, Zhang S Q, K Andreas, et al. 2007. Theory and practice of choice experiment: a case study on china's sloping land conversion program. Journal of Beijing University: Natural Science Edition, 43(2):235-239. (in Chinese)

Zhang L, J Bennett, Dai G C, et al. 2008. Cost-benefit analysis on the program for conversion of cropland to forestland in China. Beijing: Economic Science Press, 7. (in Chinese)