Cost-benefit analysis of the leisure value of urban greening in the new Chinese city of Zhuhai

Cities

Volumn 25, Issue 5, 2008, Pages 298-309

  Chen, Wendy Y ^a   Jim, C Y ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

Author keywords

contingent valuation; cost benefit analysis; leisure value; Urban greening; Zhuhai

Indexed keywords

CONTINGENT VALUATION; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY; ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES; GARDEN CITY; GREENSPACE; PUBLIC GOODS; QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; URBANIZATION; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

ASIA; CHINA; EURASIA; FAR EAST; GUANGDONG; ZHUHAI;

EID: 51349108661     PISSN: 02642751     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cities.2008.06.002     Document Type: Article

References (75)

1. Ahmed S.U., and Gotoh K. Cost-benefit Analysis of Environmental Goods by Applying the Contingent Valuation Method: Some Japanese Case Studies (2006), Springer
2. Arrow, K, Solow, R, Portney, P R, Leamer, E E, Radner, R and Schuman, H (1993) Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US Department of Commerce, Washington, DC.
3. Barber, A (2002) Planning: Past, Present and Future. Urban Parks Forum, Reading, Berkshire, UK.
4. Bateman, I, Langford, I H, Willis, K G, Turner, K and Garrod, G G (1993) The impacts of changing willingness to pay, question format in contingent valuation studies: an analysis of open-ended, iterative bidding and dichotomous choice formats. Global Environmental Change Working Papers 93-05, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
5. Bateman I.J., Carson R.T., Day B., Hanemann M., Hanley N., Hett T., Jones-Lee M., Loomis G., Mourato S., Ozdemiroǧlu E., Pearce D.W., Sugden R., and Swanson J. Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual (2002), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK
6. Bhatia M.R., and Fox-Rushby J.A. Validity of willingness to pay: hypothetical versus actual payment. Applied Economics Letters 10 (2003) 737-740
7. Bian Y. Work and Inequality in Urban China State (1994), University of New York Press, Albany, NY
8. Bishop R.C., and Heberlein T.A. Measuring values of extra-market goods: are indirect measures biased. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 61 (1979) 926-930
9. Boyle K.J., and Bishop R.C. Welfare measurements using contingent valuation: a comparison of techniques. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 70 (1988) 20-28
10. Boyle K.J., Johnson F.R., McCollum D.W., Desvousges W.H., Dunford R.W., and Hudson S.P. Valuing public goods: discrete versus continuous contingent valuation responses. Land Economics 72 (1996) 381-396
11. Buckland S.T., Macmillan D.C., Duff E.I., and Hanley N. Estimating mean willingness to pay from dichotomous choice contingent valuation studies. The Statistician 48 (1999) 109-124
12. Burgess J., Harrison C.M., and Limb M. People, parks and the urban green: a study of popular meanings and values for open spaces in the city. Urban Studies 25 (1988) 455-473
13. Carson R.T., Flores N.E., and Meade N.F. Contingent valuation controversies and evidence. Environmental and Resource Economics 19 (2001) 173-210
14. Chen, W Y (2006) Assessing the Services and Value of Green Spaces in Urban Ecosystem: A Case of Guangzhou City. PhD Thesis, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
15. Cheng F. Application of the theory of ecological economics and improve economic efficiency. Soil and Water Conservation in China 1983 5 (1983) 17-21 (in Chinese)
16. Chiesura A. The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and Urban Planning 68 (2004) 129-138
17. Cropper M., and Alberini A. Contingent valuation. In: Newman P. (Ed). The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics and the Law (1) (1998), Stockton Press, New York 420-425
18. Dalenberg D., Fitzgerald J.M., Schuck E., and Wicks J. How much is leisure worth? Direct measurement with contingent valuation. Review of Economics of the Household 2 (2004) 351-365
19. Davis R. Recreation planning as an economic problem. Natural Resources Journal 3 (1963) 239-249
20. del Saz Salazar S., and Menéndez L.G. Estimating the non-market benefits of an urban park: does proximity matter?. Land Use Policy 24 (2007) 296-305
21. Dwyer J.F., McPherson E.G., Schroeder H.W., and Rowntree R.A. Assessing the benefits and costs of the urban forest. Journal of Arboriculture 18 (1992) 227-234
22. Forster B.A. Valuing outdoor recreational activity: a methodological survey. Journal of Leisure Research 21 (1989) 181-201
23. Freeman A.M. Approaches to measuring public goods demands. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 61 (1979) 915-920
24. Garrod G.D., Willis K.G., Bjarnadottir H., and Cockbain P. The non-priced benefits of renovating historic buildings: a case study of Newcastle's Grainger Tower. Cities 13 (1996) 423-430
25. Goulder L.H., and Kennedy D. Valuing ecosystem services: philosophical bases and empirical methods. In: Daily G.C. (Ed). Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems (1997), Island Press, Washington, DC 23-47
26. Guangdong Census Office (2002) Tabulation on the 2000 Population Census of Guangdong Province (Zhuhai). Guangdong Economic Press, Guangzhou, China.
27. Hayward D.G., and Weitzer W.H. Understanding urban park users: a key to effective planning and management. Parks and Recreation Resources 2 (1983) 24-27
28. Hanemann M. Welfare evaluation in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66 (1984) 332-341
29. Hanemann M. Welfare evaluation in contingent valuation experiments with discrete response data: reply. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 71 (1989) 1057-1061
30. Hanemann M., Loomis J., and Kanninen B. Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 73 (1991) 1255-1263
31. Hoehn J.P., and Randall R. A satisfactory benefit cost indicator from contingent valuation. Journal of Economics and Management 14 (1987) 226-247
32. Howarth B.R., and Farber S. Accounting for the value of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 43 (2002) 196-210
33. Huhtala A. What price recreation in Finland? A contingent valuation study of non-market benefits of public outdoor recreation areas. Journal of Leisure Research 36 (2004) 23-44
34. Jetter K., and Paine T.D. Consumer preferences and willingness to pay for biological control in the urban landscape. Biological Control 30 (2004) 312-322
35. Jim C.Y., and Chen W.Y. Recreation-amenity use and contingent valuation of urban green spaces in Guangzhou, China. Landscape and Urban Planning 75 (2006) 81-96
36. Johannesson M., Liljas B., and O'Conor R.M. Hypothetical versus real willingness to pay: some experimental results. Applied Economics Letters 4 (1997) 149-151
37. Langford I.H., Bateman I.J., and Langford H.D. A multilevel modeling approach to triple-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics 7 (1996) 197-211
38. Li X. Public participation and policy-making under socialist market economy. Journal of Fujian School of Administration and Fujian Institute of Economics and Management 2002 1 (2002) 44-48 (in Chinese)
39. Liu J. Study on leisure space environment of residential district. Shanxi Architecture 32 2 (2006) 34-35 (in Chinese)
40. Liu Y. The necessity and possibility of inhabitant participation in Chinese urban planning. Urban Research 86 (2001) 56-58
41. Loomis J.B., Kent P., Strange L., Fausch K., and Covich A. Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: results from a contingent valuation survey. Ecological Economics 33 (2000) 103-117
42. Loomis J. A comparison of the effect of multiple destination trips on recreation benefits as estimated by travel cost and contingent valuation methods. Journal of Leisure Research 38 (2006) 46-60
43. Lorenzo A.B., Blanche C.A., Qi Y., and Guidry M.M. Assessing residents' willingness to pay to preserve the community urban forest: a small-city case study. Journal of Arboriculture 26 (2000) 319-325
44. Ma H., and Zhang J. Survey Studies of the State Leisure Life among the Chinese Public (2004), China Economics Publishing, Beijing
45. McPherson, E G (1994) Benefits and costs of tree planting and care in Chicago. In: Chicago's Urban Forest Ecosystem: Results of the Chicago Urban Forest Climate Project, E G McPherson, D J Nowak, and R A Rowntree (eds.), pp. 95-113. US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, General Technical Report NE-186.
46. McPherson E.G., and Simpson J.R. A comparison of municipal forest benefits and costs in Modesto and Santa Monica, California, USA. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 1 (2002) 61-74
47. Miller R.W. Urban Forestry: Planning and Managing Urban Greenspaces (1997), Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ
48. Mitchell, R C and Carson, R T (1989) Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
49. Mitchell R.C., and Carson R.T. Current issues in the design, administration, and analysis of contingent valuation surveys. In: Johansson P.O., Kriström B., and Mäler K.G. (Eds). Current Issues in Environmental Economics (1995), Manchester University Press, Manchester, UK 10-34
50. Morrison M.D., Blamey R.K., and Bennett J.W. Minimising payment vehicle bias in contingent valuation studies. Environmental and Resource Economics 16 (2000) 407-422
51. National Bureau of Statistics of China (2005) China City Statistical Yearbook. China Statistics Press, Beijing, (in Chinese).
52. Nunes P.A.L.D. The Contingent Valuation of Natural Parks: Assessing the Warmglow Propensity Factor (2002), Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA
53. Page S., Nielsen K., and Goodenough R. Managing urban parks: user perspectives and local leisure needs in the 1990s. The Service Industries Journal 14 (1994) 216-237
54. Payne L.L., Mowen A.J., and Orsega-Smith E. An examination of park preferences and behaviors among urban residents: the role of residential location, race and age. Leisure Sciences 24 (2002) 181-198
55. Pepper C., McCann L., and Burton M. Valuation study of urban bushland at Hartfield Park, Forrestfield, Western Australia. Ecological Management and Restoration 6 (2005) 190-196
56. Perkins H.A., and Heynen N. Inequitable access to urban reforestation: the impact of urban political economy on housing tenure and urban forests. Cities 21 (2004) 291-299
57. Peterson G.L., and Loomis J.B. Trends in leisure value and valuation. In: Gartner W.G., and Lime D.W. (Eds). Trends in Outdoor Recreation, Leisure, and Tourism (2000), CAB International, Wallingford, UK 215-224
58. Portney P.R. The contingent valuation debate: why economists should care. Journal of Economic Perspectives 8 (1994) 3-17
59. Prest A.R., and Turvey R. Cost-benefit analysis: a survey. The Economic Journal 75 (1965) 683-735
60. Price C. Valuation of unpriced products: contingent valuation, cost-benefit analysis and participatory democracy. Land Use Policy 17 (2000) 187-196
61. Price C. Quantifying the aesthetic benefits of urban forestry. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 1 (2002) 123-133
62. Qin X. A study of leisure activities of residents in Guangzhou. Consumer Economics 21 (2005) 72-75 (in Chinese)
63. Saz-Salazar del S., and Menéndez L.G. Estimating the non-market benefits of an urban park: does proximity matter. Land Use Policy 24 (2007) 296-305
64. Shi J. Citizens' leisure activities and quality of open space in residential areas. Journal of Shandong Construction University 21 (2006) 325-330 (in Chinese)
65. Treiman T., and Gartner J. Are residents willing to pay for their community forests? Results of a contingent valuation survey in Missouri, USA. Urban Studies 43 (2006) 1537-1548
66. Tyrväinen L., and Väänänen H. The economics value of urban forest amenities: an application of the contingent valuation method. Landscape and Urban Planning 43 (1998) 105-118
67. van den Berg A.E., Hartig T., and Staats H. Preference of nature in urbanized societies: stress, restoration, and the pursuit of sustainability. Journal of Social Issues 63 (2007) 79-96
68. Whitford V.A., Ennos R., and Handley J.F. City form and natural process: indicators for the ecological performance of urban areas and their application to Merseyside, UK. Landscape and Urban Planning 57 (2001) 91-103
69. Whittington D. Improving the performance of contingent valuation studies in developing countries. Environmental and Resource Economics 22 (2002) 323-367
70. Xie Y., and Costa F.J. Urban planning in socialist China: theory and practice. Cities 10 (1993) 103-114
71. Xu Z., Cheng G., Zhang Q., Su Z., and Loomis J. Applying contingent valuation in China to measure total economic value of restoring ecosystem service in the Ejina region. Ecological Economics 44 (2003) 345-358
72. Yoo S.H., and Chae K.S. Measuring the economic benefits of the ozone pollution control policy in Seoul: results of a contingent valuation survey. Urban Studies 38 (2001) 49-60
73. Zeng X. Analysis on the system for public participation in urban planning. Planners 21 (2005) 16-19 (in Chinese)
74. Zhuhai Construction Bureau (2005) Green System Planning of Zhuhai. Zhuhai Government, Guangdong, China, (in Chinese).
75. Zhuhai Statistics Bureau (2005) Zhuhai Statistical Yearbook. Zhuhai Government, Guangdong, China, (in Chinese)..