The willingness to pay for ecosystem services on the Tibetan Plateau of China

Abstract

Ecosystem Services (ES) are common-pool resources that can be valued by people's willingness to pay (WTP). In contrast to place-based WTP research at the community-level, the stakeholders tend to be geographically diverse, and the benefits are not spatially apparent on the national level. Aiming to find the geographical diversity of the WTP for ES at the large scale, this study implemented an online survey of more than 25,000 samples to detect the WTP of Chinese people for water conservation, soil retention, carbon fixation, pollution decomposition, biodiversity conservation, and aesthetic existence of the Tibetan Plateau. The results showed the top limit of payments was 1,080.95 CNY/year/capita on average, and people would like to pay 172.40 CNY/year/capita for water conservation, which is the highest among the six ES. The percent of people “Aged 16-35”, “Government agency staff” and “Know WTP” influenced payments at provincial level. On an individual level, people's knowledge and attitudes directly drove the payment amounts, as well as their ecosystem management decisions. Consequently, geographical diversity of the payment for ES exists in China, and in contrast to the objective social structure and spatial accessibility of ES, people's knowledge and attitudes were the main driving forces of this geographical diversity. These findings suggest that a bottom-up adaptive governance approach is encouraged for managing common pool resources in developing countries.

Keywords

Payment for ES / Online survey / Spatial difference / Driving force / Structural equation

Declaration of Competing Interest

The author declares that there is no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgements

This research is financially supported by the Strategic Priority Research Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences (Grant No. XDA20020402); the Second Tibetan Plateau Scientific Expedition and Research Program (Grant No. 2019QZKK0405); the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 41861134038); and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China.

References

[1] Adhikari, B., Agrawal, A., 2013. Understanding the social and ecological outcomes of PES projects: A review and an analysis. Conserv. Soc. 11 (4), 359-374.

[2] Aguilar, F.X., Obeng, E.A., Cai, Z., 2018. Water quality improvements elicit consistent willingness-to-pay for the enhancement of forested watershed ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 30, 158-171.

[3] Bagstad, K.J., Johnson, G.W., Voigt, B., Villa, F., 2013. Spatial dynamics of ecosystem service flows: a comprehensive approach to quantifying actual services. Ecosyst. Serv. 4, 117-125.

[4] Baptiste, A.K., Foley, C., Smardon, R., 2015. Understanding urban neighborhood differences in willingness to implement green infrastructure measures: A case study of Syracuse, NY. Landsc. Urban Plan. 136, 1-12.

[5] Baral, N., Stern, M.J., Bhattarai, R., 2008. Contingent valuation of ecotourism in Annapurna conservation area, Nepal: Implications for sustainable park finance and local development. Ecol. Econ. 66 (2-3), 218-227.

[6] Bhandari, P., Mohan, K.C., Shrestha, S., Aryal, A., Shrestha, U.B., 2016. Assessments of ecosystem service indicators and stakeholder’s willingness to pay for selected ecosystem services in the Chure region of Nepal. Appl. Geogr. 69, 25-34.

[7] Casado-Arzuaga, I., Madariaga, I., Onaindia, M., 2013. Perception, demand and user contribution to ecosystem services in the Bilbao Metropolitan Greenbelt. J. Environ. Manag. 129, 33-43.

[8] Cavalcanti, C., Schlapfer, F., Schmid, B., 2010. Public participation and willingness to cooperate in common-pool resource management: A field experiment with fishing communities in Brazil. Ecol. Econ. 69 (3), 613-622.

[9] Chen, P., Gao, Y., Lee, A.T.L., Cering, L., Shi, K., Clark, S.G., 2016. Human-carnivore coexistence in Qomolangma (Mt. Everest) Nature Reserve, China: Patterns and compensation. Biol. Conserv. 1978, 18-26.

[10] Cook, D.C., Kristensen, N.P., Liu, S., 2016. Coordinated service provision in payment for ecosystem service schemes through adaptive governance. Ecosyst. Serv. 19, 103-108.

[11] Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Sutton, P., van der Ploeg, S., Anderson, S.J., Kubiszewski, I., Farber, S., Turner, R.K., 2014. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Glob. Environ. Change 26, 152-158.

[12] Davila, O.G., Koundouri, P., Pantelidis, T., Papandreou, A., 2017. Do agents’ characteristics affect their valuation of ’common pool’ resources? A full-preference ranking analysis for the value of sustainable river basin management. Sci. Total Environ. 575, 1462-1469.

[13] Duraiappah, A.K., Asah, S.T., Brondizio, E.S., Kosoy, N., O’Farrell, P.J., Prieur-Richard, A.H., Subramanian, S.M., Takeuchi, K., 2014. Managing the mismatches to provide ecosystem services for human well-being: A conceptual framework for understanding the New Commons. Curr. Opin. Environ. Syst. 7, 94-100.

[14] Falk, T., Spangenberg, J.H., Siegmund-Schultze, M., Kobbe, S., Feike, T., Kuebler, D., Settele, J., Vorlaufer, T., 2018. Identifying governance challenges in ecosystem services management -conceptual considerations and comparison of global forest cases. Ecosyst. Serv. 32, 193-203.

[15] Farley, J., 2012. Ecosystem services: The economics debate. Ecosyst. Serv. 1, 40-49.

[16] Farley, J., Costanza, R., 2010. Payments for ecosystem services: From local to global. Ecol. Econ. 69 (11), 2060-2068.

[17] Felipe-Lucia, M.R., Comin, F.A., Escalera-Reyes, J., 2015. A framework for the social valuation of ecosystem services. Ambio 44 (4), 308-318.

[18] Feng, L., Xu, J.Y., 2015. Farmers’ willingness to participate in the next-stage Grain-for-Green Project in the Three Gorges Reservoir area, China. Environ. Manag. 56 (2), 505-518.

[19] Fisher, B., Kulindwa, K., Mwanyoka, I., Turner, R.K., Burgess, N.D., 2010. Common pool resource management and PES: Lessons and constraints for water PES in Tanzania. Ecol. Econ. 69 (6), 1253-1261.

[20] Galik, C.S., Grala, R.K., 2017. Conservation program delivery in the southern US: Preferences and interactions. J. Environ. Manag. 198, 75-83.

[21] Gao, H., Yang, S., 2009. A severe drought event in northern China in winter 2008-2009 and the possible influences of La Nina and Tibetan Plateau. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 114, D24104.

[22] Gunton, R.M., van Asperen, E.N., Basden, A., Bookless, D., Araya, Y., Hanson, D.R., Goddard, M.A., Otieno, G., Jones, G.O., 2017. Beyond ecosystem services: Valuing the Invaluable. Trends Ecol. Evol. 32 (4), 249-257.

[23] Guo, Y., Zheng, H., Wu, T., Wu, J., Robinson, B.E., 2020. A review of spatial targeting methods of payment for ecosystem services. Geogr. Sustain. 1 (2), 40-48.

[24] Hamed, A., Madani, K., Von Holle, B., Wright, J., Milon, J.W., Bossick, M., 2016. How much are Floridians willing to pay for protecting sea turtles from sea level rise? Environ. Manag. 57, 176-188.

[25] He, D.M., Wu, R.D., Feng, Y., Li, Y.G., Ding, C.Z., Wang, W.L., Yu, D.W., 2014. China’s transboundary waters: New paradigms for water and ecological security through applied ecology. J. Appl. Ecol. 51 (5), 1159-1168.

[26] Huang, L., Shao, Q., Liu, J., Lu., Q., 2018. Improving ecological conservation and restoration through payment for ecosystem services in Northeastern Tibetan Plateau, China. Ecosyst. Serv. 31, 181-193.

[27] Immerzeel, W., Stoorvogel, J., Antle, J., 2008. Can payments for ecosystem services secure the water tower of Tibet? Agric. Syst. 96 (1-3), 52-63.

[28] Iranah, P., Lal, P., Wolde, B.T., Burli, P., 2018. Valuing visitor access to forested areas and exploring willingness to pay for forest conservation and restoration finance: The case of small island developing state of Mauritius. J. Environ. Manag. 223, 868-877.

[29] Ishihara, H., Pascual, U., Hodge, I., 2017. Dancing with storks: The role of power relations in payments for ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 139, 45-54.

[30] Kenter, J.O., Hyde, T., Christie, M., Fazey, I., 2011. The importance of deliberation in valuing ecosystem services in developing countries —Evidence from the Solomon Islands. Glob. Environ. Chang 21 (2), 505-521.

[31] Lant, C.L., Ruhl, J.B., Kraft, S.E., 2008. The tragedy of ecosystem services. Bioscience 58 (10), 969-974.

[32] Li, C., Zheng, H., Li, S.Z., Chen, X.S., Li, J., Zeng, W.H., Liang, Y.C., Polasky, S., Feldman, M.W., Ruckelshaus, M., Ouyang, Z.Y., Daily, G.C., 2015. Impacts of conservation and human development policy across stakeholders and scales. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 112 (24), 7396-7401.

[33] Liu, Y., Zhang, R., Zhao, W., Wang, S., Fu, B., 2020. Comparison between tourists’ and inhabitants’ willingness to pay for nature in the Tibetan Plateau. J. Clean. Prod. 255, 120219.

[34] Lopez-Mosquera, N., Garcia, T., Barrena, R., 2014. An extension of the Theory of Planned Behavior to predict willingness to pay for the conservation of an urban park. J. Clean. Prod. 135, 91-99.

[35] Maren, I.E., Bhattarai, K.R., Chaudhary, R.P., 2014. Forest ecosystem services and biodiversity in contrasting Himalayan forest management systems. Environ. Conserv. 41 (1), 73-83.

[36] Martin-Ortega, J., Mesa-Jurado, M.A., Berbel, J., 2015. Revisiting the impact of order effects on sensitivity to scope: A contingent valuation of a common-pool resource. J. Agric. Econ. 66 (3), 705-726.

[37] Mayer, M., Woltering, M., 2018. Assessing and valuing the recreational ecosystem services of Germany’s national parks using travel cost models. Ecosyst. Serv. 31, 371-386.

[38] Maynard, S., James, D., Davidson, A., 2015. Determining the value of multiple ecosystem services in terms of community wellbeing: Who should be the valuing agent? Ecol. Econ. 115, 22-28.

[39] McGinnis, M.D., Ostrom, E., 2014. Social-ecological system framework: Initial changes and continuing challenges. Ecol. Soc. 19 (2), 30.

[40] Memon, J.A., Thapa, G.B., 2016. Explaining the de facto open access of public property commons: Insights from the Indus Delta mangroves. Environ. Sci. Policy 66, 151-159.

[41] Murtinho, F., Hayes, T., 2017. Communal participation in payment for environmental services (PES): Unpacking the collective decision to Enroll. Environ. Manag. 59 (6), 939-955.

[42] Nkhata, B.A., Breen, C., Hay, D., Wilkinson, M., 2017. Property rights, institutional regime shifts and the provision of freshwater ecosystem services on the Pongola River floodplain, South Africa. Int. J. Commons 11 (1), 97-118.

[43] Obeng, E.A., Aguilar, F.X., 2018. Value orientation and payment for ecosystem services: Perceived detrimental consequences lead to willingness-to-pay for ecosystem services. J. Environ. Manag. 206, 458-471.

[44] Ostrom, E., 2009. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems. Science 325 (5939), 419-422.

[45] Ouyang, Z., Zheng, H., Xiao, Y., Polasky, S., Liu, J., Xu, W., Wang, Q., Zhang, L., Xiao, Y., Rao, E.M., Jiang, L., Lu, F., Wang, X.K., Yang, G.B., Gong, S.H., Wu, B.F., Zeng, Y., Yang, W., Daily, G.C., 2016. Improvements in ecosystem services from investments in natural capital. Science 352 (6292), 1455-1459.

[46] Plumb, S.T., Paveglio, T., Jones, K.W., Miller, B.A., Becker, D.R., 2018. Differentiated reactions to Payment for Ecosystem Service Programs in the Columbia River Basin: A qualitative study exploring irrigation district characteristics as local common-pool resource management institutions in Oregon, USA. Int. J. Commons 12 (1), 202-224.

[47] Rickels, W., Dovern, J., Quaas, M., 2016. Beyond fisheries: Common-pool resource problems in oceanic resources and services. Glob. Environ. Change 40, 37-49.

[48] Rodriguez-Ortega, T., Bernues, A., Alfnes, F., 2016. Psychographic profile affects willingness to pay for ecosystem services provided by Mediterranean high nature value farmland. Ecol. Econ. 128, 232-245.

[49] Salzman, J., Bennett, G., Carroll, N., Goldstein, A., Jenkins, M., 2018. The global status and trends of Payments for Ecosystem Services. Nat. Sustain. 1 (3), 136-144.

[50] Sarker, A., Ross, H., Shrestha, K.K., 2008. A common-pool resource approach for water quality management: An Australian case study. Ecol. Econ. 68, 461-471.

[51] Sarkki, S., Karjalainen, T.P., 2015. Ecosystem service valuation in a governance debate: Practitioners’ strategic argumentation on forestry in northern Finland. Ecosyst. Serv. 16, 13-22.

[52] Sattler, C., Schroter, B., Jerico-Daminello, C., Sessin-Dilascio, K., Meyer, C., Matzdorf, B., Wortmann, L., Sinisgalli, P.A.D., Meyer, A., Giersch, G., 2015. Understanding governance structures in community management of ecosystems and natural resources: The Maruja case study in Brazil. Ecosyst. Serv. 16, 182-191.

[53] Schirpke, U., Candiago, S., Vigl, L.E., Jager, H., Labadini, A., Marsoner, T., Meisch, C., Tasser, E., Tappeiner, U., 2019. Integrating supply, flow and demand to enhance the understanding of interactions among multiple ecosystem services. Sci. Total Environ. 651, 928-941.

[54] Scyphers, S.B., Picou, J.S., Brumbaugh, R.D., Powers, S.P., 2014. Integrating societal perspectives and values for improved stewardship of a coastal ecosystem engineer. Ecol. Soc. 19 (3), 38.

[55] Senzaki, M., Yamaura, Y., Shoji, Y., Kubo, T., Nakamura, F., 2017. Citizens promote the conservation of flagship species more than ecosystem services in wetland restoration. Biol. Conserv. 214, 1-5.

[56] Shoyama, K., Yamagata, Y., 2016. Local perception of ecosystem service bundles in the Kushiro watershed, Northern Japan —application of a public participation GIS tool. Ecosyst. Serv. 22, 139-149.

[57] Soto, J.R., Escobedo, F.J., Khachatryan, H., Adams, D.C., 2018. Consumer demand for urban forest ecosystem services and disservices: examining trade-offs using choice experiments and best-worst scaling. Ecosyst. Serv. 29, 31-39.

[58] Tadie, D., Fischer, A., 2017. Natural resource governance in lower Omo, Ethiopia —negotiation processes instead of property rights and rules? Int. J. Commons 11 (1), 445-463.

[59] Torres-Miralles, M., Grammatikopoulou, I., Rescia, A.J., 2017. Employing contingent and inferred valuation methods to evaluate the conservation of olive groves and associated ecosystem services in Andalusia (Spain). Ecosyst. Serv. 26, 258-269.

[60] van Riper, C.J., Kyle, G.T., Sherrouse, B.C., Bagstad, K.J., Sutton, S.G., 2017. Toward an integrated understanding of perceived biodiversity values and environmental conditions in a national park. Ecol. Indic. 72, 278-287.

[61] Varma, V., Ratnam, J., Viswanathan, V., Osuri, A.M., Biesmeijer, J.C., Madhusudan, M.D., Sankaran, M., Krishnadas, M., Barua, D., Budruk, M., Isvaran, K., Jayapal, R., Joshi, J., Karanth, K.K., Krishnaswamy, J., Kumar, R., Mukherjee, S., Nagendra, H., Niphadkar, M., Owen, N., Page, N., Prasad, S., Quader, S., Nandini, R., Robin, V.V., Sait, S.M., Shah, M.A., Somanathan, H., Srinivasan, U., Sundaram, B., 2015. Perceptions of priority issues in the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystems in India. Biol. Conserv. 187, 201-211.

[62] Vatn, A., 2010. An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services. Ecol. Econ. 69 (6), 1245-1252.

[63] Wang, P., Wolf, S.A., Lassoie, J.P., Poe, G.L., Morreale, S.J., Su, X.K., Dong, S.K., 2016. Promise and reality of market-based environmental policy in China: Empirical analyses of the ecological restoration program on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. Glob. Environ. Change 39, 35-44.

[64] West, P., Igoe, J., Brockington, D., 2006. Parks and peoples: The social impact of protected areas. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 35, 251-277.

[65] Yang, H., Lupi, F., Zhang, J., Chen, X., Liu, J., 2018. Feedback of telecoupling: The case of a payments for ecosystem services program. Ecol. Soc. 23 (2), 45.

[66] Zhang, L., Luo, Z.H., Mallon, D., Li, C.W., Jiang, Z.G., 2017. Biodiversity conservation status in China’s growing protected areas. Biol. Conserv. 210, 89-100.