Public willingness-to-pay for conserving urban heritage trees in Guangzhou, south China

Urban Forestry and Urban Greening

Volumn 14, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 796-805

  Chen, Wendy Y ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation; Guangzhou; Heritage tree conservation; Urban heritage trees; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

CONTINGENT VALUATION; DECISION MAKING; DEVELOPING WORLD; HERITAGE CONSERVATION; INCOME; NATURAL RESOURCE; URBANIZATION; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

CHINA; GUANGDONG; GUANGZHOU;

EID: 84951787834     PISSN: 16188667     EISSN: 16108167     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2015.07.002     Document Type: Article

References (119)

1. Abendroth S., Kowarik I., Müller N., von der Lippe M. The green heritage: woody plants in parks of Bandung, Indonesia. Landscape Urban Plann. 2012, 106:12-22.
2. Alberini A., Boyle K., Welsh M. Analysis of contingent valuation data with multiple bids and response options allowing respondents to express uncertainty. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 2003, 45:40-62.
3. Arrow K.J., Solow R., Portney P., Leaner E., Radner R., Schuman H. Report of the NOAA Panel on contingent valuation. Fed. Regist. 1993, 58(10):4602-4614.
4. Bassuk N., Whitlow T. Environmental stress in street trees. Arboric. J. 1988, 12:195-201.
5. Bateman I.J., Carson R.T., Day B., Hanemann M., Hanley N., Hett T., Jones-Lee M., Loomes G., Mourato S., Özdemiroglu E., Pearce D.W., Sugden R., Swanson J. Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual 2002, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.
6. Bateman I.J., Cole M.A., Georgiou S., Hadley D.J. Comparing contingent valuation and contingent ranking: a case study considering the benefits urban river water quality improvements. J. Environ. Manage. 2006, 79:221-231.
7. Bateman I.J., Willis K.G. Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing Counties 1999, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, (645 pp).
8. Becker N., Freeman S. The economic value of old growth trees in Israel. For. Policy Econ. 2009, 11:608-615.
9. Blaine T.W., Lichtkoppler F.R., Jones K.R., Zondag R.H. An assessment of household willingness to pay for curbside recycling: a comparison of payment card and referendum approaches. J. Environ. Manage. 2005, 76:15-22.
10. Blomquist G., Whitehead J. Resource quality information and validity of willingness to pay in contingent valuation. Resour. Energy Econ. 1998, 20:179-196.
11. Bradshaw A.D., Hunt B., Walmsley T. Trees in the Urban Landscape: Principles and Practice 1995, Spon, London.
12. Brox J.A., Kumar R.C., Stollery K.R. Estimating willingness-to-pay for improved water quality in the presence of item non-response bias. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2003, 85:414-428.
13. Cameron T.A., Huppert D.D. OLS versus ML estimation of non-market resource values with payment card interval data. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 1989, 17:230-246.
14. Carson R.T., Flores N.E., Meade N.F. Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2001, 19:173-210.
15. Carson R.T., Groves T. Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2007, 37:181-210.
16. Carson R.T. Contingent Valuation: a Comprehensive Bibliography and History 2011, Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA.
17. Chambers C.M., Chambers P.E., Whitehead J.C. Contingent valuation of quasi-public goods: validity, reliability, and application to valuing a historic site. Public Finance Rev. 1998, 26:137-154.
18. Champ P.A., Bishop R.C. Donation payment mechanisms and contingent valuation: an empirical study of hypothetical bias. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2001, 19:383-402.
19. Champ P.A., Bishop R.C. Is willingness to pay for a public good sensitive to the elicitation format?. Land Econ. 2006, 82:162-173.
20. Chen W.Y., Aertsens J., Liekens I., Broekx S., De Nocker L. Impact of perceived importance of ecosystem services and stated financial constraints on willingness to pay for riparian meadow restoration in Flanders (Belgium). Environ. Manage. 2014, 54:346-359.
21. Chorography of Guangzhou Volume 2: Geography. Chorography of Guangzhou Editing Committee 1998, Guangzhou Press, Guangzhou.
22. Christie M., Hanley N., Warren J., Murphy K., Wright R., Hyde T. Valuing the diversity of biodiversity. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 58:304-317.
23. Clark A.J., Landolt W., Bucher J.B., Strasser R.J. Beech (Fagus sylvatica) response to ozone exposure assessed with a chlorophyll a fluorescence performance index. Environ. Pollut. 2000, 109:501-507.
24. Cranfield J.A.L., Magnusson E. Canadian consumer's willingness-to-pay for pesticide free food products: an ordered probit analysis. Int. Food Agribus. Manage. Rev. 2003, 6:13-30.
25. Cronbach L.J. Coefficient alpha and internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951, 16:297-334.
26. Cullen S. Putting a value on trees-CTLA guidance and methods. Arboric. J. 2007, 30:21-43.
27. Day B., Bateman I.J., Carson R.T., Dupont D., Louviere J.J., Morimoto S., Scarpa R., Wang P. Ordering effects and choice set awareness in repeat-response stated preference studies. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 2012, 62:73-91.
28. Day S.D., Seiler J.R., Persaud N. A comparison of root growth dynamics of silver maple and flowering dogwood in compacted soil and differing soil water contents. Tree Physiol. 2000, 20:257-263.
29. Dearborn D.C., Kark S. Motivations for conserving urban biodiversity. Conserv. Biol. 2010, 24:432-440.
30. Dong D., Zhou Z., He Y., Li G., Chen X. Economic evaluation of the conservation of old and famous trees based on tourists' willingness to pay-a case study of Jiuhua Mountain Scenic Area, Anhui (China). Resour. Environ. Yangtze Basin 2011, 20:1334-1340.
31. Dwyer J.F., Schroeder H.W., Gobster P.H. The significance of urban trees and forests: toward a deeper understanding of values. J. Arboric. 1991, 17:276-284.
32. Evans P. The care of trees in the built environment. Arboric. J. 2002, 26:257-261.
33. Farr M., Stoeckl N., Beg R.A. The non-consumptive (tourism) 'value' of marine species in the Northern section of the Great Barrier Reef. Mar. Policy 2014, 43:89-103.
34. Fay N. Environmental arboriculture, tree ecology and veteran tree management. Arboric. J. 2002, 26:213-238.
35. Fischer A., van der Wal R. Invasive plant suppresses charismatic seabird-the construction of attitudes towards biodiversity management options. Biol. Conserv. 2007, 135:256-267.
36. Frör O. Bounded rationality in contingent valuation: empirical evidence using cognitive psychology. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 68:570-581.
37. Fu L.K., Jin J.M. China Plant Red Data Book-Rare and Endangered Plants 1992, vol. 1. Science Press, Beijing, (741 pp).
38. García-Llorente M., Martín-López B., Montes C. Exploring the motivations of protesters in contingent valuation: insights for conservation policies. Environ. Sci. Policy 2011, 14:76-88.
39. Godefroid S. Temporal analysis of the Brussels flora as indicator for changing environmental quality. Landscape Urban Plann. 2001, 52:203-224.
40. Green T. Arborists should have a central role in educating the public about veteran trees. Arboric. J. 2002, 26:239-248.
41. Haigh M.J. Ruderal communities in English cities. Urban Ecol. 1980, 4:329-338.
42. Han F., Yang Z., Wang H., Xu X. Estimating willingness to pay for environment conservation: a contingent valuation study of Kanas Nature Reserve, Xingjiang, China. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2011, 180:451-459.
43. Hanley N., Macmillan D., Patterson I., Wright R.E. Economics and the design of nature conservation policy: a case study of wild goose conservation in Scotland using choice experiments. Anim. Conserv. 2003, 6:123-129.
44. Head L., Muir P. Nativeness, invasiveness, and nation in Australian plants. Geogr. Rev. 2004, 94:199-217.
45. He C., Chen J., Shi P., Fan Y. City expansion model of metropolitan area in China: a case of Beijing. Acta Geogr. Sin. 2003, 58:304-312.
46. Hermans C., Smeyers M., Rodriguez R.M., Eyletters M., Strasser R.J., Delhaye J.-P. Quality assessment of urban trees: a comparative study of physiological charaterisation, airborne imaging and on site fluorescence monitoring by the OJIP-test. J. Plant Physiol. 2003, 160:81-90.
47. Hou S.K. The Flora of Guangzhou 1956, Science Press, Beijing, China, (935 pp).
48. Huang Z., Liang J., Wu Y., Wan Q. The Urban Climate of Guangzhou 1994, The Meteorology Press, Beijing, (153 pp).
49. Ignatieva M., Stewart G.H., Meurk C. Planning and design of ecological networks in urban areas. Landscape Ecol. Eng. 2011, 7:17-25.
50. Jacobsen J.B., Boiesen J.H., Thorsen B.J., Strange N. What's in a name?. The use of quantitative measures versus 'iconised' species when valuing biodiversity. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2008, 39:247-263.
51. Jakobsson K.M., Dragun A.K. Contingent Valuation and Endangered Species: Methodological Issues and Applications 1996, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, (269 pp).
52. Jakobsson K.M., Dragun A.K. The worth of a possum: valuing species with the contingent valuation method. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2001, 19:211-227.
53. Jim C.Y. Pressure on urban trees in Hong Kong: pervasive problem and possible amelioration. Arboric. J. 1998, 22:37-60.
54. Jim C.Y. Spatial differentiation and landscape-ecological assessment of heritage trees in urban Guangzhou (China). Landscape Urban Plann. 2004, 69:51-68.
55. Jim C.Y. Outstanding remnants of nature in compact cities: patterns and preservation of heritage trees in Guangzhou city (China). Geoforum 2005, 36:371-385.
56. Jim C.Y. Monitoring the performance and decline of heritage trees in urban Hong Kong. J. Environ. Manage. 2005, 74:161-172.
57. Jim C.Y., Chen W.Y. Perception and attitude of residents toward urban green spaces in Guangzhou (China). Environ. Manage. 2006, 38:338-349.
58. Jim C.Y., Liu H.T. Statutory measures for the protection and enhancement of the urban forest in Guangzhou City, China. Forestry 2000, 73:311-329.
59. Jim C.Y., Zhang H. Species diversity and spatial differentiation of old-valuable trees in urban Hong Kong. Urban For. Urban Green. 2013, 12:171-182.
60. Jin J., Wang Z., Liu X. Valuing black-faced spoonbill conservation in Macao: a policy and contingent valuation study. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 68:328-335.
61. Jones R.E., Davis K.L., Bradford J. The value of trees: factors influencing homeowner support for protecting local urban trees. Environ. Behav. 2013, 45:650-676.
62. Jonsell M. Old park trees: a highly desirable resource for both history and beetle diversity. J. Arboric. 2004, 30:238-244.
63. Jordan J.L., Elnagheeb A.H. Consequences of using different question formats in contingent valuation: a Monte Carlo study. Land Econ. 1994, 70:97-110.
64. Konijnendijk C.C., Richard R.M., Kenney A., Randrup T.B. Defining urban forestry-a comparative perspective of North America and Europe. Urban For. Urban Green. 2006, 4:93-103.
65. Kotchen M.J., Reiling S.D. Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation of nonuse values: a case study involving endangered species. Ecol. Econ. 2000, 32:93-107.
66. Kramer R.A., Mercer D.E. Valuing a global environmental good: U.S. residents' willingness to pay to protect tropical rain forest. Land Econ. 1997, 73:196-210.
67. Krupnick A., Hoffmann S., Qin P. The willingness to pay for mortality risk reductions in China. RFF Working Paper 2010, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
68. Larson S., Stoeckl N., Neil B., Welters R. Using resident perception of values associated with the Australian Tropical Rivers to identify policy and management priorities. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 94:9-18.
69. Li M., Hao Q., Zeng L. Causes of the decline of ancient and heritage trees and countermeasures. Spec. Econ. Anim. Plant 2012, 04:49-50.
70. Li Y. Conservation of heritage trees. Chin. Arboric. Abstr. 2008, 5:27-28.
71. Liebe U., Preisendörfer P., MeyerhoffJ. To pay or no to pay: competing theories to explain individual's willingness to pay for public environmental goods. Environ. Behav. 2011, 43:106-130.
72. Liu S., Chen S., Zhang C. The value of heritage trees. For. China 2007, 13:43.
73. Lohr V.I., Pearson-Mims C.H., Tarnai J., Dillman D.A. How urban residents rate and rank the benefits and problems associated with trees in cities. J. Arboric. 2004, 30:28-35.
74. Long A.J., Nair P.K.R. Trees outside forests: agro-, community, and urban forestry. New For. 1999, 17:145-174.
75. Loomis J.B., White D.S. Economic benefits of rare and endangered species. Ecol. Econ. 1996, 18:197-206.
76. Lorenzo A.B., Blanche C.A., Qi Y., Guidry M.M. Assessing residents' willingness to pay to preserve the community urban forest: a small-city case study. J. Arboric. Urban For. 2000, 26:319-325.
77. Marsal J., Girona J. Effects of water stress cycles on turgor maintenance processes in pear leaves (Pyrus communis). Tree Physiol. 1997, 17:327-333.
78. Martín-López B., Montes C., Benayas J. The non-economic motives behind the willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation. Biol. Conserv. 2007, 139:67-82.
79. Mell I.C., Henneberry J., Hehl-Lange S., Keskin B. Promoting urban greening: valuing the development of green infrastructure investments in the urban core of Manchester. UK. Urban For. Urban Green. 2013, 12:296-306.
80. Meyer J.G. America's Famous and Historic Trees 2001, Houghton Mifflin, New York, NY.
81. MeyerhoffJ., Liebe U. Do protest responses to a contingent valuation question and a choice experiment differ?. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2008, 39:433-446.
82. Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of China Protection and Management of Urban Historical Trees 2000, Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of China, 〈http://www.mohurd.gov.cn/fjms/fjmszcfb/200611/t20061101_157014.html〉.
83. Mitchell R.C., Carson R.T. Using Survey to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method 1989, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, (463 pp).
84. Mitchell R.C. On designing constructed markets in valuation surveys. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2002, 22:297-321.
85. Mynors C. The Law of Trees, Forests and Hedgerows 2002, Sweet and Maxwell, London.
86. Noonan D.S. Contingent valuation and cultural resources: a meta-analytic review of the literature. J. Cult. Econ. 2003, 27:159-176.
87. Nowak D.J. Assessing environmental functions and values of veteran trees. Proceeding of the International Congress on the Protection and Exploitation of Veteran Trees 2004, 45-49. Regione Piemonte and Universita di Torino, Torino, Italy. G. Nicolotti, P. Gonthier (Eds.).
88. Nowak D.J., Dwyer J.F. Understanding the benefits and costs of urban forest ecosystems. Urban and Community Forestry in the Northeast 2007, 25-46. Springer, Dordrecht. second ed. J.E. Kuser (Ed.).
89. Pearce D., Mourato S., Navrud S., Ready R.C. Review of existing studies: their policy use and future research need. Valuing Cultural Heritage: Applying Environmental Valuation Techniques to Historic Buildings, Temples and Artifacts 2002, 257-270. Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton. S. Navrud, R. Ready (Eds.).
90. Peper P.J., Mori S. Root barrier and extension casing effects on Chinese hackberry. J. Arboric. 1999, 25:1-8.
91. Qiu Y. Conservation and Utilization of Ancient and Famous Trees in Guangzhou 2011, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, (Master Thesis, 84 pp).
92. Read H. Veteran Trees: A Guide to Good Management. English Nature 2000, Peterborough, UK.
93. Richardson L., Loomis J. The total economic value of threatened, endangered and rare species: an updated meta-analysis. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68:1535-1548.
94. Ressurreição A., Gibbons J., Kaiser M., Dentinho T.P., Zarzycki T., Bentley C., Austen M., Burdon D., Atkins J., Santos R.S., Edwards-Jones G. Different cultures, different values: the role of cultural variation in public's WTP for marine species conservation. Biol. Conserv. 2012, 145:148-159.
95. Rival L. The Social Life of Trees: Anthropological Perspective on Tree Symbolism 1998, Berg, Oxford, UK.
96. Roy S., Byrne J., Pickering C. A systematic quantitative review of urban tree benefits, costs and assessment methods across cities in different climatic zones. Urban For. Urban Green. 2012, 11:351-363.
97. Sander H., Elliku J., Läänelaid A., Reisner V., Reisner Ü., Rohtla M., Šestakov M. Urban trees of Tallinn, Estonia. Proc. Est. Acad. Sci. Biol. Ecol. 2003, 52:437-452.
98. Sanesi G., Chiarello F. Residents and urban green spaces: the case of Bari. Urban For. Urban Green. 2006, 4:125-134.
99. Sattout E.J., Talhouk S.N., Caligari P.D.S. Economic value of cedar relics in Lebanon: an application of contingent valuation method for conservation. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 61:315-322.
100. Smardon R.C. Perception and aesthetics of the urban environment: review of the role of vegetation. Landscape Urban Plann. 1988, 15:85-106.
101. Stevens T.H., DeCoteau N.E., Willis C.E. Sensitivity of contingent valuation to alternative payment schedules. Land Econ. 1997, 73:140-148.
102. Tabbush P.M. Cultural value of trees, woods and forests. Report to the Forestry Commission 2010, Farnham Surrey, Alice Holt Lodge, 〈http://www.forestry.gov.uk/fr/INFD-874EMN〉, (64 pp).
103. Tartaglia-Kershaw M. The recreational and aesthetic significance of urban woodland. Landscape Res. 1982, 7:22-25.
104. TEEB The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundation 2010, Earthscan, London.
105. Tello M.L., Tomalak M., Siwecki R., Gáper J., Motta E., Mateo-Sagasta E. Biotic urban growing conditions-threats, pests and diseases. Urban Forests and Trees: A Reference Book 2005, 325-365. Springer, Heidelberg. C.C. Konijnendijk, K. Nilsson, T.B. Randrup, J. Schipperijn (Eds.).
106. Venkatachalam L. The contingent valuation method: a review. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2004, 24:89-124.
107. Venkatraman N., Grant J.H. Construct measurement in organizational strategy research: a critique and proposal. Acad. Manage. Rev. 1986, 11:71-87.
108. Vesely É.-T. Green for green-the perceived value of a quantitative change in the urban tree estate of New Zealand. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 63:605-615.
109. Wang M.-Z., Merrick J.R. Urban forest corridors in Australia: policy, management and technology. Nat. Resour. Forum 2013, 37:189-199.
110. Welsh M.P., Poe G.L. Elicitation effects in contingent valuation: comparisons to a multiple bounded discrete choice approach. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 1998, 36:170-185.
111. Weng Q., Yang S. Managing the adverse thermal effects of urban development in a densely populated Chinese city. J. Environ. Manage. 2004, 70:145-156.
112. White J. What is a veteran tree and where are they all?. Q. J. For. 1997, 91:222-226.
113. White P.C.L., Gregory K.W., Lindley P.J., Richards G. Economic values of threatened mammals in Britain: a case study of the otter Lutra lutra and the water vole Arvicola terrestris. Biol. Conserv. 1997, 82:345-354.
114. Whitehead J.C., Hoban T.J. Testing for temporal reliability in contingent valuation with time for changes in factors affecting demand. Land Econ. 1999, 75:453-465.
115. Whitting D., Briscoe J., Mu X., Barron W. Estimating the willingness to pay for water services in developing countries: a case study of the use of contingent valuation surveys in southern Haiti. Econ. Dev. Cult. Change 1990, 38:293-311.
116. Wong K.K. Greening of the Chinese mind: environmentalism with Chinese characteristics. Asia-Pacific Rev. 2005, 13:39-57.
117. Yang G. Value analysis of ancient and famous trees in historical city-a case study of the ancient city of Lijiang. Guangdong Agric. Sci. 2011, 19:63-65.
118. Ye G., Hu Y., Jiang A., Zhao B., Xu Z. Resource investigation and age identification to the fifth batch of ancient and famous trees in Guangzhou. Guangdong Landscape Archit. 2008, 30:34-36.
119. Zhou X., Ma J., Zhang W. Economic evaluation of Amur tiger conservation in China: a case study of residents' willingness to pay in Harbin. J. Northeast For. Univ. 2007, 35:81-86.