| Literature DB >> 23202821 |
Zhaoyi Shang1, Yue Che, Kai Yang, Yu Jiang.
Abstract
River networks have experienced serious degradation because of rapid urbanization and population growth in developing countries such as China, and the protection of these networks requires the integration of evaluation with ecology and economics. In this study, a structured questionnaire survey of local residents in Shanghai (China) was conducted in urban and suburban areas. The study examined residents' awareness of the value of the river network, sought their attitude toward the current status, and employed a logistic regression analysis based on the contingent valuation method (CVM) to calculate the total benefit and explain the socioeconomic factors influencing the residents' willingness to pay (WTP). The results suggested that residents in Shanghai had a high degree of recognition of river network value but a low degree of satisfaction with the governments' actions and the current situation. The study also illustrated that the majority of respondents were willing to pay for river network protection. The mean WTP was 226.44 RMB per household per year. The number of years lived in Shanghai, the distance from the home to the nearest river, and the amount of the bid were important factors that influenced the respondents' WTP. Suggestions for comprehensive management were proposed for the use of policy makers in river network conservation.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23202821 PMCID: PMC3524602 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph9113866
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1River network in Shanghai and sampling sites.
Figure 2Water quality status of river network around sampling sites in Shanghai.
Descriptive statistics of socio-economic characteristics of the respondents.
| Item | Response | Percentage (%) | Item | Response | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | ≤20 | 8.85 | Household income (RMB per month) | 0–500 | 1.88 |
| 21–30 | 41.43 | 500–1,000 | 3.58 | ||
| 31–40 | 19.02 | 1,000–2,000 | 11.68 | ||
| 41–50 | 14.12 | 2,000–3,000 | 15.07 | ||
| 51–60 | 9.23 | 3,000–5,000 | 20.90 | ||
| >60 | 7.34 | 5,000–8,000 | 19.59 | ||
| Job | Civil Servant | 1.32 | 8,000–10,000 | 7.72 | |
| Researcher | 1.13 | 10,000–15,000 | 6.59 | ||
| Manager | 6.97 | 15,000–20,000 | 5.84 | ||
| Medical staff | 1.51 | 20,000–30,000 | 3.20 | ||
| Teacher | 1.69 | >30,000 | 3.95 | ||
| Worker | 35.40 | Distance to river | 0–500 m | 51.04 | |
| Private enterprise | 11.11 | 500–1,000 m | 22.22 | ||
| Farmer | 2.82 | 1,000–2,000 m | 12.81 | ||
| Student | 14.88 | 2,000–3,000 m | 4.14 | ||
| Retired | 9.79 | 3,000–5,000 m | 3.20 | ||
| Unemployed | 2.82 | >5,000 m | 6.59 | ||
| Others | 10.55 | Years lived in Shanghai | <1 Year | 11.11 | |
| Education level | Middle school and below | 22.03 | 1–5 Years | 27.87 | |
| High school | 38.79 | 5–10 Years | 18.27 | ||
| Vocational school | 17.89 | 10–20 Years | 14.69 | ||
| University | 14.50 | >20 Years | 28.06 | ||
| Graduated | 6.59 | Job-related influence | Yes | 36.16 | |
| Household population | 1 | 1.69 | No | 63.84 | |
| 2 | 6.40 | District | Urban | 38.5 | |
| 3 | 45.95 | Suburban | 61.5 | ||
| 4 | 21.09 | ||||
| 5 | 16.01 | ||||
| ≥6 | 8.85 |
Figure 3Frequencies of utilization of functions and services.
Figure 4Frequencies of utilization of entertainment functions.
Figure 5Respondents’ awareness of river network degradation.
Figure 6Respondents’ awareness of disappearance of cultural elements related to the river network.
Respondents’ attitude of protection.
| Government’s Degree of Protection | Satisfaction with Current Situation | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Options | Number | Percentage (%) | Options | Number | Percentage (%) |
| Powerful | 64 | 12.05 | Satisfied | 34 | 6.40 |
| Not bad | 285 | 53.67 | Tolerable | 402 | 75.71 |
| Weak | 114 | 21.47 | Disappointed | 94 | 17.70 |
| Not clear | 68 | 12.81 | |||
Descriptive statistics of WTP distribution.
| Bid Amount | 2 | 5 | 10 | 20 | 50 | 100 | 200 | 500 | Sum |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample size | 73 | 70 | 72 | 71 | 70 | 68 | 59 | 48 | 531 |
| WTP > 0 | 49 | 63 | 49 | 53 | 46 | 48 | 35 | 30 | 373 |
| WTP = 0 | 24 | 7 | 23 | 18 | 24 | 20 | 24 | 18 | 158 |
| Y(WTP > 0)% | 95.92 | 96.83 | 87.76 | 84.91 | 71.74 | 54.17 | 22.86 | 16.67 | |
| N(WTP = 0)% | 4.08 | 3.17 | 12.24 | 15.09 | 28.26 | 45.83 | 77.14 | 83.33 |
Results from binary logistic regression (WTP > 0, N = 373).
| B | S.E. | Wals | df | Significance | Exp (B) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AGE | 0.024 | 0.115 | 0.044 | 1 | 0.834 | 1.024 |
| JOB | 0.019 | 0.054 | 0.116 | 1 | 0.734 | 1.019 |
| EDU (educational level) | −0.007 | 0.138 | 0.002 | 1 | 0.960 | 0.993 |
| PEO (household population) | −0.046 | 0.132 | 0.120 | 1 | 0.729 | 0.955 |
| INC (household income) | 0.108 | 0.071 | 2.326 | 1 | 0.127 | 1.114 |
| DIS (distance from river) | −0.241 | 0.091 | 7.101 | 1 | 0.008 | 0.786 |
| LYS (years in Shanghai) | −0.234 | 0.114 | 4.208 | 1 | 0.040 | 0.792 |
| PRO (environmentally related job) | −0.038 | 0.297 | 0.017 | 1 | 0.898 | 0.963 |
| A (payment amount) | −0.012 | 0.002 | 48.345 | 1 | 0.000 | 0.988 |
| Constant | 2.649 | 1.063 | 6.215 | 1 | 0.013 | 14.140 |
| 2LogLikelihood | 325.502 | |||||
| Cox & Snell R Squared | 0.271 | |||||
Regional difference between urban and suburban areas.
| Area | B | S.E. | Wals | df | Significance | Exp (B) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Urban area | A (payment amount) | −0.010 | 0.002 | 18.864 | 1 | 0.000 | 0.990 |
| Constant | −0.936 | 1.770 | 0.279 | 1 | 0.597 | 0.392 | |
| 2LogLikelihood | 127.678 | ||||||
| Cox & Snell R Squared | 0.235 | ||||||
| Suburban | A(payment amount) | −0.007 | 0.001 | 36.247 | 1 | 0.000 | 0.993 |
| Constant | 4.372 | 1.222 | 12.802 | 1 | 0.000 | 79.223 | |
| 2LogLikelihood | 269.420 | ||||||
| Cox & Snell R Squared | 0.213 | ||||||