Department of Policy and Planning Sciences
Discussion Paper Series

No.1335

  Willingness to Sell (WTS): An Incorporative Market
Research of Contrastive Testing on WTP, WTS and
WTA

by
Yaxuan CHANG and Kunihiko YOSHINO

Oct 2015

UNIVERSITY OF TSUKUBA
Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8573
JAPANWillingness to Sell (WTS): An Incorporative
Market Research of Contrastive Testing on
WTP, WTS and WTA

Yaxuan CHANG * !

Kunihiko YOSHINO †#$%&'()"*+!,-"*!

Abstract
Since Environmental strategy assessment is becoming an important topic in more
and more countries or areas, the economic valuation of environment/ ecosystemservice/ public service/ public goods has been a key problem when evaluating thewhole projects. And Contingent Valuate Method is a main methodology to valuate thepublic goods in the past 50 years, while both the techniques of Willingness to Pay and!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.! /01%()!2%34(5%+!6)0430%(!2$7&&8!&9!:;9(!054!<5=;)&5>(5%08!2$;(5$(1+!?5;=()1;%@!&9!A13B3'0C!<D>0;8E!
F0G305$705HI@07&&C$&CJK!
L! M)&9(11&)!&9!N(K0)%>(5%!&9!2@1%(>!054!O59&)>0%;&5!<5H;5(();5H+!?5;=()1;%@!&9!A13B3'0C!<>0;8E!
1B@I1BC%13B3'0C$&CJK!
!
!

!

"!

Willingness to Accept are always under the argue of their huge bias, less ofobjectivity, and external interference factors.
This research offers a new technique called Willingness to Sell (WTS) to valuate
the non-market goods; the objective of this research is 1.Build the WTS theory;
2.Verify the piu-objectivity of WTS compared with WTP and WTA by using
incorporative market contractive method; 3. Conclude the limitation of WTP, WTS
and WTA in the economic valuation application and enrich the CV Method theory.
The result confirm that Willingness to Sell is a more objective technique in New
Contingent Valuate Method and it is very suitable to valuate general public goods andpublic services; Besides, through the correlation analysis of many respondents’ index,
many discussion details about influence factors on WTP, WTS and WTA are
concluded out in this research.
This research contributes a new technique and enriched the Contingent Valuate
Method greatly; it makes Contingent Valuate Method actually feasible in economic
market and can provide advisable financial support for government when doing
Environmental Strategy Assessment.

Keywords: Contingent Valuate Method (CV Method), Willingness to Sell (WTS),
Willingness to Pay (WTP), Willingness to Accept (WTA), Willingness to Depreciate(WTD), incorporative market, public service projects!

,!

1 Introduction

This research provides a new solution of valuating environmental resources/
ecosystem services/ public goods more objectively in Contingent valuation method(CV method). Another new technical support is added into CV method called
willingness to sell (WTS); and in this research an incorporative market method will be
employed to valuate public-service projects comparatively by conducting willingness
to pay (WTP), willingness to accept (WTA) and willingness to sell at the same timeon two different projects.!

1.1 Foreword
Since CV method is developed from the technique of survey research (Mitchell &Carson, 2013), researches design a series of questions to establish circumstances inevery single case and conduct the survey research to conclude the value out (Rea &Parker, 2012). In general, the CV Method is lack of generality and cannot be achievedby following rigid rules (Mitchell & Carson, 2013), because it always depends on thedetails of each case (Yin2013), that’s also the reason why it is called contingent
method (Portney, 1994). The essence of CV method research is about the study designand careful implementation (Carson, Flores & Meade, 2001), if each aspect of survey
process is well conducted, the value of result will be with more precision, accuracy,
and credibility (Fowler, 2008). And in CV method research, the overall design andstrategy must be set into important position to explore every detail of a valuation
program (Hakim, 1987).
In order to assess the quality of each case study more reliable and replicable (Yin &Heald, 1975), Researches use techniques and guidance applying to different case studies

to test the heuristic identification of new variables and hypotheses (George & Bennett,
1975), and all the techniques employed in conducting survey questions can be divided

into willingness to pay (WTP) and willingness to accept (WTA) (Shogren, Shin & Hayes,
et al, 1994).

!

P!

1.2 Literature Review of CV Method
After a foreword of CV Method, it is extremely necessary to stress one more timeon the reason why doing environment valuation is necessary. Of cause nature comesmuch earlier than human beings, and social comes later than human and theneconomic comes. So, in fact, Nature is priceless because nature is forever but
economic is just a production of time. But why we still need to know the environment
value? Because the government should know how much we should pay to keep thebalance of nature and human activities of today.
!
Goods Chain:
Low

High
Divisibility, Excludability, Externality
More or Less

Pure Private Goods

Private Goods

Quasi Public Goods

Pure Public Goods

Figure 1. Goods Chain in Environmental Economy⦻䠁ই!"⧟ຳ㓿⍾ᆖ#" ⨶䇪ᯩ⌅᭯ㆆ!" ␵ॾབྷᆖࠪ⡸⽮$"%&&'!" ""! ! Figure 1. is one of the important theory foundation of WTP and WTA. All the
goods in this world can be divided into pure private goods, private goods, quasi public
goods and pure public goods. From left to right are the different kinds of goods withdifferent divisibility, excludability and externality more or less.
WTA techniques consider environment/eco-system service as pure private goods,
and WTP techniques consider environment/ eco-system service as pure public goods.
While, actually, there are not so many pure private and pure public goods in the realworld, household goods is the closest to pure private on the left and national defenseis the closest to pure public goods on the right.

!

Q!

1.3 Weakness of WTA and WTP
However, in environmental economy, environment and ecosystem service belongs
to neither pure private nor pure public, most of them belong to the middle space,called quasi-public goods. So, if Hypothesis of WTP considers environment as a purepublic good, there will be some implicated information: The consumers have NO
ownership of environment service, non-payment equals no service (no better service).
And at the same time, WTA considers environment as a pure private good, theimplication of WTA is: The consumers possess the ownership of environment service,sold out means to give up using. WTA is not so widely used as WTP for it’s huge bias,
and WTA value is always many times bigger than WTP value even in one same
research, the first research on WTA found it is four times bigger than WTP. Althoughcompared to WTA, WTP has been taken in more valuation researches, but is WTP
really a perfect way to valuate public goods? The answer is NO.

OWT#/<!

R!

U;88;5H5(11!%&!M0@!,V!

S!

500$

!
498$

! ! ?%;8;%@!P-!

!

!

T!
?%;8;%@"-!
NOW

BETTER<5=;)&5>(5%!T&54;%;&5!

Figure 2. Indifference Curve of Utility in Willingness to Pay
ᰕᵜ䂅䄆⽮$"()"*+!" ണ䀓" ⫠ຳ䂅‫ב‬ǽ⫠ຳՊ䀸ണ䀓" ⫠ຳ䂅‫ב‬ǽ⫠ຳՊ䀸$",---!""" " Figure 2. is an important theory basis of WTP in environmental economy, but there!

*!

is a extremely important factor called INCOME, it means a WTP value is influenced
by income level, and a WTP value is NEVER bigger than income. So, if a WTP value
is used to represent the value of environment while the income level is deciding theWTP value, finally it becomes into the personal income level is deciding the value ofthe environment. This is the biggest weakness of WTP. Although many respondents
responded positively on the importance of ecosystem service in many researches, thewillingness of the financial contribution is still difficult to conclude (Yoshino, 2010),
and the reason is that: usually the WTP value is a subjective value which is strongly
depended on the personal income level.
Besides, another trouble of WTP is that, what we get is just the unit WTP, and if it
is necessary to conclude a total value, the unit WTP must be multiplied by apopulation size. Population size is another big weakness of WTP. For example, if
there is a city landscape but with international fame, how to decide the population ofthis unit WTP? It should be a town population size, a city size, a nation size or theworld size?

1.4 research objective
The large research objective of this research is to find a better method to valuate
public goods/environment/ecosystem service; it should be more objective than WTA
and less external factors than WTP such as personal income level and population size.
Finally, enrich the CV Method theory.

!

X!

2 Theory of Willingness to Sell

2.1 Definition of WTP, WTA, and WTS in new CV Method
In this research, a new definition of NEW CV Method will be given, in more
macroscopic view by the distinction of the attribute of activities that affect theenvironment:
The definition of willingness to pay (WTP): How much can be paid for the positive
activity which affects the environment. The definition of willingness to accept(WTA): How much must be compensated for the negative activity that affects theenvironment.
Besides WTP and WTA, a new technique called willingness to sell (WTS) will be
put into use in this research, and the definition of willingness to sell (WTS): Howmuch can public goods/ecosystem service be sold if the ownership transfers.
If the three techniques are classified by the different stance of respondents, WTP
hypothesis as a common user of pure public goods and WTA hypothesis as a owner ofpure private goods. But in WTS case, you (respondent) are just you, with your own
opinion on the environment valuation.

2.2 Theory basis of WTS

2.2.1 Distributor Theory/Salesman Theory in Economics
The first theory basis of WTS in economics principle can be called Distributor
Theory. Not only when people hold the ownership can they sell, in general, thedistributor holds the ownership of product and hires sales staff and service staff to dobusiness activities as dealer management (Stalk, Evans & Sgulman, 1992). A distributor(dealer) is a unitˋperson in a particular area and domain, who holds sales activities
or service (Churchill, 1979). Dealers hold independent institutions, ownership of goods(buy out the manufacturer's product / service), and obtain the operating profit(Lucking-Reiley & Spulber, 2001). In general, dealer is dependent on a supplier and!

Y!

supplier takes control of dealer decisions (Provan & Skinner, 1989), while management ofdiversified business and business process don’t/or rarely, stay under the constraints ofthe supplier (Frazier, Gill & Kale, 1989), and take rights and responsibility with the
suppliers equivalently of the interest and interdependence (Rideway, 1957). Sales staff isthe personnel who does direct sales (Churchill, Ford & Walker, et al, 2000), including
general manager, business manager, marketing manager, regional manager, business
representatives, etc. Both dealer and sales staff are related to the market, and sales
staffs accomplish their jobs by sales behavior, technology, and management as
dealer's executive (Anderson, 1996). That is the difference between dealer and sales staff,
if it classified according to whether hold the ownership, the dealer holds theownership of products while sales staff does not, and sales staff got sales
compensation and commissions with deferent proportion of salary (Tremblay, Côté &Balkin, 2003). We all know in real market, the staff who sells the goods in the shops or

the salesman of technology projects, although the product or projects don’t belong tothemselves while buyers sometimes really think they bought from the salesman orcontracted sales contract with the salesman. It means having no ownership will notaffect sales behavior of sales staff.
Sales channel refers to all the Enterprise or individual that (1) obtain the ownershipof goods or services or (2) to help to transfer ownership thereof, when the ownershipof a certain kind of goods or services transfer from the producer to the consumer(Donaldson, 2007).
Here we talk about the hypothesis to be used in contingent valuation method, as theenterprise/individual that help to transfer ownership, actually they are conducting
sales behaviors without the ownership of the product, which can be generally called
sales staff. When sales staff takes part in sales market, one of the most important
prerequisite elements is that the COST PRICE. In the simplest sales model, asalesman can start sales if only the master has told him the cost price of the product. If
with better sales technique skills, the sold price may be many times more than a costprice, while not every salesman would like to do that because it according to theregulations and principles of how the master decide the commission settlement. If thecommission is depend on the number of consumers, the sales staff would tend to
reduce the sales price on the basis of not being less than the cost price (sometimes atemporary cost loss is also accepted as a strategy to win customers); and if the sales!

Z!

staff get a ratio paid according to the amount of sales volume, the sales staff maybe
try very hard to improve the sales price as far as possible. While in both cases, thecost price is the most important element and it provides an intuitive price reference.
In the hypothesis of CV method, it will be enough for environment sales staff justknowing the cost price, while there is no cost price of environment and what we wantto know is just the “cost price” of environment, so we can use this “sales staff”
method to ask people to valuate the “cost price” of environment in their mind, and thecost price of the public goods in their mind is just the value of the public goods fromtheir personal view; of course it also can be employed into the valuation of humanactivity or government projects.
2.2.2 Ownership Theory in Economics
Another theory basis of WTS in economics principle is about the discussion ofownership. In economics, ownership cost and owner ship benefit is always a pair, andthey usually happened together, while when applying WTA valuation, actually it
conducts a fictitious market to set conditions of a transfer of ownership withcompletely ignoring ownership cost (Grossman & Hart, 1986). Considering only theownership benefits makes WTA always causing big bias and lack of feasibility,
reliability and validity. Ignores ownership cost only think about ownership benefit, it
is root cause of the huge bias of WTA. If ask a person suppose a big park is yours andhow much money do you want to require if someone wants to cut the trees in yourpark, it is a typical question in WTA techniques but it also a typical question to ignore
ownership cost completely and only to think about the ownership benefit, because if
you really give a park to a person, he needs to cost a huge money on purchasing plantfertilizer and watering the trees everyday and spend much time to take care of thepark first.
In CV method, both WTP and WTA, considered ownership conditions in an
extremely complex way, WTP theory considers ownership at the viewpoint of purepublic goods while WTA as pure private goods, and economists argued and reached aconsensus of quasi-public goods. Although a clear ownership is the basis of trading
activities in economic, but the difficulty in environment management research is that
nobody can divide the ownership and to conclude the ownership cost and benefit of!

[!

quasi-public goods clearly; And we cannot think about ownership cost and benefit at
the same time in environmental science because nature does not belong to anyone, As
we mentioned before, WTA in contingent valuation method leads to big bias because
it ignores the ownership cost completely, this has nothing to do with social
investigation skills, but the foundation of the ownership theory. To ignore just one
aspect is such a bias idea just like WTA, so, in WTS case, a better approach to solve
the problem is that both the ownership cost and the ownership benefit will be ignored
through the design of the survey research.
2.2.3 Classification of human activity in Environmental Economics
Another theory basis in environmental economics is about the evaluation ofhuman activity. In general, the definition of WTP and WTA is that: (WTP) for an
improvement of environmental quality and (WTA) of the compensation forrenouncing this improvement (Ahlheima & Buchholzb, 2000). In CV method studies, there
are four main questions in survey research, WTP: 1.WTP for the improvement of theenvironment or ecosystem service. 2.WTP for the activity to avoid environmental
degradation. WTA: 3.WTA for ceasing the activity to improve the environment.
4.WTA for the degradation of environment. Through the main questions in CV
method research, it is extremely clear that WTP is usually for positive activity and
WTA is for negative activity, which needs sacrifice of losses (Knetsch, 1997).
In fact, the classification is depended on the evaluation of human behavior.
Researches always distinguish people’s environmental behavior on the basis of many
variables (Schahn & Holzer, 1990), such as experiences and the cognition of the times,
when they doing questionnaire design before going to field survey (Willis, 2004). When
we consider it as a positive activity to the environment such as Pro-environment
behavior or environmental activism behavior (Pichert & Katsikopoulos, 2008), a
questionnaire is always designed to ask the WTP of the respondents to test theconsistency with economic theory (Diamond & Hausman, 1994), while when it considered
to be a negative activity and causes environmental impact (Glasson, Therivel & Chadwick,
2013)

such as environmental damage or pollution projectsˈwe usually ask the

respondents to get their WTA for the behavior which running afoul of environmental
ethic or environmental codes (Sagoff, 2007). While, here a huge blank happens: Just!

"-!

like most general public goods or general government projects, if the activity cannot
say negative or positive exactly, How to valuate those activities? And in those cases,
how can we conduct CV method when the influence of the activity is not sounequivocal? Is it possible to employ the CV method if the attribute of the activity isdifficult to distinguish? Or in other words, if the activity which affects theenvironment itself cannot say either positive or negative at all from the viewpoint ofnow, how to conclude the valuation of those activities and how to conclude thevaluation of general public goods which is neither negative nor positive? In nature,
there are many human activities neither good nor bad, for example, if the local
government wants to build a center park in a city, and there will be many different
ways to design the park, is it better to set a grass ground than a lake? Between lake
and the grass ground, which one is better to the environment? If standing from theviewpoint of protecting the environment, it will be a difficult question to decide
which one is good and which one is bad exactly although there are many ways to do
the environmental projects valuation. While this is such a usual problem that eachcountry may meets those kinds of government projects, thus, an attention should begrasped to find a valuation methodology on all the general ecosystem service,
government

projects,

travelresource,

historic

heritage

and

many

other

visible/intangible nonmarket goods. Not only for those which have obvious negative
positive differentiation. In those cases, neither WTA nor WTP is suitable, and WTS
techniques are a kind of perfect choice to be conducted to valuate the general public
goods or general government projects.

!

""!

2.3 Contrast of WTS and WTA
Before introduce the survey techniques of WTS, a contrast of WTS and WTA;WTS and WTP will be discussed in this research.
Willingness to Sell (WTS)

Willingness to Accept (WTA)

Conditions of Hypothesis:

Conditions of Hypothesis:

A Third-Party Private Goods

Pure Private Goods

What will happen after been sold?

What will happen after been sold?

An Ownership Transferred, But
Nothing Change for the respondent

Respondents’ Ownership Loss

What’s the consequence of been soldWhat’s the consequence of been soldfor the respondent?

for the respondent?
FROM: Make use as a owner

Nothing Change for the respondent

INTO: Renounce/Give up

What’s the subsequent activity?

What’s the subsequent activity?

Temporarily unknown or neither

In most cases, there will be negative

negative nor positiveeffect or Personal Benefits Loss

Figure 3. Contrast List of WTS and WTA
Although some researches they called WTA as WTS sometimes because a transferof ownership occurred in WTA cases, such as the questionnaire to ask the huntersabout their willingness to accept to give up hunting (Hammack & Brown, 1974), while it’s
not so similar with sales behavior (Miller, 1964), it’s much closer to the acceptance forrenouncing the ownership (Tietenberg, 1974), that’s why it is called WTA rather thanWTS in most of the studies; and Figure 3. shows the differences clearly.
!

!

",!

2.4 Contrast of WTS and WTP in economics utility models

9:;"

.

U;88;5H5(11!%&! !

/"

500$

N(K)($;0%(!,V!

!
498$

0"
!

<)4+4)=">-"!

<)4+4)="%-"

NOW

WORSE

12345627(2)"06284)462"

Figure 4. Indifference Curve of Utility in Willingness to Sell
Compared with WTP, an important value in WTS is called Willingness to
Depreciate (WTD), it means after the environment conditions become worse, howmuch can be depreciated of willingness to sell value. Although they use the same
economics model, WTS is free from the external factors like income level in WTP.
Figure 5. shows the theory foundation of WTD through the indifference curve ofutility but with no external factors, and if WTD techniques are well conducted, it will
be more objective than WTP in theory. While in this research, the WTD theory is justbuilt and mentioned, the techniques of WTD have not been deeply conducted yet.

2.5 Question design and survey techniques of WTS
From now on, the survey techniques and question design will be introduced.
In order to make the question design easy to understand, a simple valuate target!

"P!

will be an example: a tree. The typical question of WTP is: How much would you liketo pay to protect this tree/ to make the tree looks better? The typical question of WTA
is: If the tree is yours, How much would you like to accept if it will be cut down?
While in WTS case, there is some extremely important survey tips: Never try todescribe like this “Imagine if you are a salesman of an environment company, and all
the nature recourses in this world are belong to this company… ”; Although thetheory foundation is called Distributer Theory, never try to ask respondents to think assalesmen because it will be too complex and difficult to understand for the generalpublic. Usually, the rule of social survey is that it should be EASY to understand,especially if the survey respondents are general public, try to make the question easierand easier. So, in this research, the WTS question is designed into: If the tree belongs
to your friend A, and friend A wants to sell it to your friend B, How much can be soldaccording to your personal preference? (Investigator must stress on both A and B are
respondent’s friends; this suppose is very important because it makes respondent athird-party stance, and think the problem standing out of personal losses and benefits.)
Of course, in other different cases, different questions can be designed, AS LONG AS,
to make respondents ignore ownership cost and ownership benefit at the same time.
This is the key essence principle in WTS survey design.

2.6 Details of the research objectives
After the comprehensive understanding of WTS theory, the details of the objectiveof this research will be shown:(1) Compute the contractive value of WTP, WTS and WTA; (WTP<WTS<WTA).
(2) Verify the piu-objectivity of WTS compared with WTP and WTA.
(3) Conclude the limitation of WTP, WTS and WTA in the economic valuation
application.
(4) Compute a economic value of ecosystem service project which is much closer
to the real market.
(5) Offer an advisable financial value support for local government of doing
Strategy Environment Assessment.

!

"Q!

3 Methodology

3.1 Contrastive Research Method.
In order to test the value of WTP, WTA and WTS, a contrastive research method
must be employed, thus, testing WTP, WTA, and WTS on the same target project at
the same time is extremely important to find out the differences among the threevalues and to do the value analysis of regularity and universality.

3.2 Incorporative Market Method
Figure 5. shows how the incorporative market method works. By conducting theabsolutely same techniques of WTP, WTS and WTA into two different projects,
and finally, a comparative valuation results analysis will be done between the twodifferent projects.

9:A"

9:;"

9:."

9:A"

9:;"

9:."

1?6@=@)(7";(534?("

1?62674?"
A56B(?)"

Contingent Market

Real Market
Economic Value Known Reference

Figure 5. Incorporative Market Method Model
Left side is the valuate target and right side is an economic value known finishedproject as a reference. Before doing valuation of the target project, a finished value
known project need to be chose first, and here are some principles of how to choose
the reference project: 1.) Economic value knowable; 2.) Projects Period; 3.)
Projects region; 4.) Projects scale; 5.) Social familiarity; 6.) Social recognition. Of
course it is impossible to find two absolutely same projects, but by considering the!

"*!

6 aspects, a similar level project can be chose as a reference, while a pre-survey
maybe necessary when deciding the reference project.

Value1 of Ecosystem Service
WTP

WTS

WTA

Value2 of Economic Project
WTP

WTS

1?6@=@)(7";(534?("
1?62674?"
A56B(?)"

WTA

Figure 6. Computational Method of Value
Figure 6. shows the computational method of the value, after testing the value1 andvalue 2, the value of an Ecosystem Service can be concluded through a known
quantity through a finished project, because the value of an economic project can becomputed exactly employing the economics method. What researchers should do is tochoose a quantity known reference project and then get the value1 and value2.

!

"X!

4 Research Site

4.1 Introduction of Amoy City
In this research, the research site is Amoy city in Fujian Province in China. The city
land area is 1573.16km!; Average temperature is 18.5! ~ 25.4 ! (2014); Annual precipitation is 1663.1mm (2014); Resident population is 3,730,000 (2013).
The reasons why Amoy city is selected are:
(1) Amoy city pays high attention to the city planning and Strategy Environment
Assessment.
(2) Amoy city is very famous for its tourist resources and holds a national fame oflivable city and with good weather and nature environment.
(3) Amoy city implements many general government projects and new planning, withexcellent plan publicity; and local government pays attention to public
participation.
So, cities like Amoy is the best choice to test WTS valuation method, not forenvironment damages or environment protecting, just for valuating general city
planning and general public goods.

Figure 7. Research site: Map of Amoy City!

"Y!

Figure 8. The Circular Green Road System Plan of Amoy CityXIAMEN MUNICIPAL COMMISSION OF URBAN PLANNING:
http://www.xmgh.gov.cn/zwgk/ghcg/201305/t20130528_28364.htm

Figure 8. shows the planning of the Circular green road, the valuate target project ischose here, a new greenway planning in Amoy Circular Road.

!

"Z!

!"#$ Introduction of the study area: New challenge of Amoy CircularRoad
Circular Road: Road by the sea which green width is over 50 meters. And table 1.
Shows the details of the information of Circular Road
Table 1. Details of the Index of Circular Road
Coastline Length: 43kmˈwidth˖44-60km
Motor drive path: 18-24m
Bike path: 6-7m
Walking path: 6-8m
Full length of tourism resource: 39km
Green belt: 80-100m
Total area of green˖47ha
History investment: 3,800,000,000¥
Amoy Circular Road is working as urban traffic roads, tourism recourses and urban green area at thesame time. From 2012, the government set a new goal to make Circular Road an international tourism
coastline, and until now many different kinds of small projects are carrying out every year; such as (1)part rectification projects; (2) improve facilities projects; (3) new landscaping projects. In this research,on the basis of the public information of the government’s planning on the website, a green road part
improvement project is chose.

!

"[!

This project planning (see figure 9.) has two main parts:
1. Architectural Planning of the Greenway Leisure Inn
2. Architectural Planning of the Greenway Area

Figure 9. Two Main Parts of the Project Planning
Amoy Bay Park is chose as the reference project because it has a similar economic value level inplanning, and the investment in economics of Bay Park is 170,000,000 ¥. (This value is only known
for researcher, and the respondents will not be told this economic value of the Bay Park when
conducing field survey.)!

,-!

5 Field Survey

In this research, respondent self-administered survey has been avoided. Interview/ Visit survey ischose as the investigation method, and the investigator will directly inquiry the respondents after strict
guidance. It took about 20~30 minutes per respondent to finish the survey.
A details of the planning with many pictures have been printed and the investigator showed theprinted planning and pictures of the projects, and then started using continuous verbal introductions
until the respondents understood about the CV method, and finally asked them to answer the questions.
And all the data is filled by investigator.
In this field survey research, Non-probability sampling is chose, by using quota sampling (sex, age)and convenience sampling combined method, to conduct the interview survey.

5.1 Survey site and Time Schedule:
1.2015.7.17~7.18 Pre-survey randomly.
2.2015.7.19~7.22 Amoy Circular Road.
3.2015.7.23~7.25 Amoy Bay Park.
4.2015.7.26~7.28 Xiamen University. (Xiamen University is also located in Circular Road)

5.2 Field Survey Result
As a result, 69 persons in total have been interviewed. (See Table 2.)
Table 2. Field Survey Respondents!

Total: 69

MaleFemaleAmoy Circular Road

22

16

Amoy Bay Park

19

12

,"!

Table 3. Index of Correlation Analysis of the Respondents
Amoy Circular Road

Amoy Bay Park

Live in Amoy or not

50% Local

67.7% Local

Access frequency

42.1%<5/Year;

38.7%<5/Year;

5/Year<10.5%<10/Year

5/Year<32.3%<10/Year

10/Year<15.8%<20/Year

10/Year<29.0%<20/Year

31.6%>20/Year
Purpose of visit

94.7% Leisure, Travel

96.8% Leisure, Travel

2.6% Business

3.2% Others

2.6% Others
Visit companion

Importance of the area
Satisfaction of the area

42.1% Friends

45.2% Family

39.5% Family

29.0% Mate

13.2% Mate

22.6% Friends

5.3% Oneself

3.2% Oneself

97.4% Extremely important

77.4% Extremely important

2.6% General important

22.6% General important

23.7% Very satisfied

45.2% Very satisfied

71.1% General satisfied

48.4% General satisfied

2.6% Not so satisfied

6.5% Not so satisfied

2.6% Not satisfied
Age

16~45

14~46

Sex

Male:57.9% Female:42.1%

Male:61.3% Female:38.7%

Job

26.3% Company employee

35.5% Student

26.3% Student

22.6% Company employee

23.7% Private owner

19.4% Private owner

13.2% National institutions

16.1% National institutions

5.3% No job

6.5% No job

5.3% Others
Education level!

63.2%University

54.8%University

21.1%Master and PHD

19.4%Skills school

10.5%Senior high school

9.7%Master and PHD

2.6%Junior middle school

9.7%Senior high school,,!

Income

2.6%Skills school

6.5%Junior middle school

18.4%<2000

48.4%<2000

2000<23.7%<5000

2000<35.5%<5000

5000<36.8%<10000

5000<16.1%<1000021.1%>10000
Table 3. is all the personal index of the respondents; in this research, 1.) Local Amoy citizen or not;2.) Access frequency; 3.) Purpose of visit; 4.) Visit companion; 5.) Importance of the target place; 6.)
Satisfaction of the target place; 7.) Age; 8.) Sex; 9.) Job; 10.) Education level; 11.) Income level.
correlation survey questions are conducted.

!

,P!

6 Data Analysis and Discussion

6.1 Value of WTP, WTS and WTA

Table 4. Amoy Circular Road Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Std. Deviation

WTP

38

0

3,000

393.82597.725WTS

38

500,000

3,000,000,000

277,197,368.42

569,423,371.912

WTA

38 1,500,000 50,000,000,000 2,086,684,210.53 8,096,399,144.082

Valid
N(listwise)

38

Table 5. Amoy Bay Park Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum
5

Maximum
1,000

Mean
130.48Std. Deviation

WTP

31

240.819

WTS

31

WTA

31 1,000,000 2,000,000,000 428,161,290.32 489,878,222.743

500,000 1,000,000,000 103,580,645.16 192,417,518.986

Valid N(listwise) 31

Table 4. shows the descriptive statistics value of WTP, WTS and WTA of Circular Road andTable 5. is the value of Bay Park. Construction Department of Amoy concluded a economic
investment value of Bay Park about 170,000,000 Chinese yuan, and after checking the WTP,
WTS and WTA values of Bay Park, the WTS value 103,580,645.16 is the closest value to the real
economic investment.

!

,Q!

6.2 Correlation Discussion
6.2.1 Income
Figure 10. Circular Road WTP & Income Level

Figure 11. Bay Park WTP & Income Level

Figure 12. Circular Road WTS & Income Level

Figure 13. Bay Park WTS & Income Level

Figure 14. Circular Road WTA & Income Level

Figure 15. Bay Park WTA & Income Level!

,*!

! ! A7(!9;)1%!$&))(80%;&5!0508@1;1!;1!0'&3%!;5$&>(!8(=(8+!054!%7(!UAM!=083(!&9!'&%7!T;)$380)!\&04!
$01(!054!S0@!M0)B!$01(!17&]!(G%)(>(8@!$8(0)8@!%70%!UAM!701!0!K&1;%;=(!$&))(80%;&5!];%7!K()1&508!
;5$&>(!8(=(8C!A731+!K(&K8(!]7&!70=(!0!7;H7()!;5$&>(!8(=(8!0)(!>&)(!8;B(8@!%&!K0@!>&)(!9&)!%7(!
(5=;)&5>(5%^!K3'8;$!1()=;$(C!
! ! U7;8(+!%7(!)(80%;&517;K!'(%]((5!UA2!=083(!054!;5$&>(!8(=(8!;1!5&%!1&!$8(0)C!2((!%7(!T;)$380)!
\&04! UA2! _! O5$&>(! 9;H3)(+! %7(! 7;H7(1%! UA2! =083(! &9! (0$7! ;5$&>(! 8(=(8! ;1! 08>&1%! %7(! 10>(+! ;5!
&%7()!]&)41+!K(&K8(!$05!=0830%(!%7(!K3'8;$!1()=;$(!'01(4!&5!%7(;)!%7;5B;5H!054!%7;1!UA2!%7;5B;5H!
;1!;54(K(54(5%!&9!;5$&>(!8(=(8C!S0@!M0)B!UA2!_!O5$&>(!9;H3)(!081&!17&]1!05!08>&1%!(`308!UA2!
=083(!&9!4;99()(5%!;5$&>(!8(=(81C! !
! ! O%!;1!;>K&)%05%!%&!1((!%7(!T;)$380)!\&04!UA2!_!O5$&>(!9;H3)(!0H0;5+!%7(!0'&=(!"----!T7;5(1(!
@305! ;5$&>(! K(&K8(! 0)(! 8;B(8@! %&! =0830%(! %7(! (5=;)&5>(5%! 7;H7+! 054! ;%! ;1! &'=;&31! ;5! 9;H3)(!
T;)$380)! \&04! UA2! _! O5$&>(C! S3%! %7(! UA2! =083(! )(088@! 4&5a%! 70=(! 0! ;5$)(>(5%08! )(80%;&517;K!
];%7! ;5$&>(! 8(=(8b! &58@! &=()! "----! T7;5(1(! @305! K(&K8(! 0)(! $&51;4();5H! (5=;)&5>(5%! ]&)%7!
>&)(C!
! ! A7(!7;H7(1%!UAR!=083(!&9!T;)$380)!\&04!&9!(0$7!;5$&>(!8(=(8!;1!08>&1%!%7(!10>(!054!;%!;1!8;B(8@!
5&! &'=;&31! K&1;%;=(! )(80%;&517;K! ];%7! ;5$&>(! 8(=(8C! U7;8(+! 1((! 9;H3)(! S0@! M0)B! UAR! _! O5$&>(+!
%7(! UAR! =083(! &9! ;5$&>(! 354()! ,---! T7;5(1(! @305! ;1! >3$7! 7;H7()! %705! %7(! &%7()1+! ;5! &%7()!
]&)41+! ;5! S0@! M0)B! $01(+! ! K(&K8(! ];%7! K&&)! ;5$&>(! 8(=(8! 0)(! >&)(! 8;B(8@! %&! $80;>! >&)(! 9&)!
$&>K(510%;&5C!

!

,X!

6.2.2 Education Level
Figure 16. Circular Road WTP & Education

Figure 17. Bay Park WTP & Education

Figure 18. Circular Road WTS & Education

Figure 19. Bay Park WTS & Education

Figure 20. Circular Road WTA & Education

Figure 21. Bay Park WTA & Education!

,Y!

! ! A7(!1($&54!$&))(80%;&5!0508@1;1!;1!0'&3%!(43$0%;&5!8(=(8+!054!%7(!UAM!=083(!&9!'&%7!T;)$380)!
\&04! $01(! 054! S0@! M0)B! $01(! 17&]! 0! 93cc@! K&1;%;=(! $&))(80%;&5! ];%7! (43$0%;&5! 8(=(8C! S3%! %7(!
%7)&3H7! %7(! %(54(5$@+! K(&K8(! ];%7! 7;H7()! (43$0%;&5! 8(=(8! 0)(! >&)(! 8;B(8@! %&! K0@! >&)(b! ]7;8(!
$&>K0)(4!];%7!;5$&>(!8(=(8+!%7(!;5983(5$(!&9!(43$0%;&5!8(=(8!;1!1>088()C!S&%7!T;)$380)!\&04!$01(!
054!S0@!M0)B!$01(+!%7(!35;=()1;%@!(43$0%(4!K(&K8(!]&384!8;B(!%&!K0@!%7(!>&1%!>&5(@C!
! ! O5!T;)$380)!\&04!UA2!_!<43$0%;&5!9;H3)(+!%7(!35;=()1;%@!054!/0%()^!MdN!(43$0%(4!K(&K8(!0)(!
8;B(8@!%&!=0830%(!%7(!(5=;)&5>(5%!7;H7()+!054!;5!S0@!M0)B!UA2!_!<43$0%;&5!9;H3)(+!;%!;1!(G%)(>(8@!
$8(0)! %70%! /01%()^! MdN! (43$0%(4! K(&K8(! =0830%(! %7(! (5=;)&5>(5%! %7(! 7;H7(1%C! O%! 1((>1! 8;B(!
K(&K8(!];%7!7;H7()!(43$0%;&5!]&384!8;B(!%&!=0830%(!(5=;)&5>(5%!>&)(!>&5(@+!054!K(&K8(!];%7!
7;H7()! (43$0%;&5! 8(=(8! $05! 7(8K! %7(>! B((K! 0! H&&4! 354()1%054;5H! 43);5H! 051]();5H! %7(! 13)=(@!
`3(1%;&51b!%7(@!$05!354()1%054!%7(!K)&J($%1!;5%)&43$%;&51!'(%%()!054!354()1%054!%7(!Te!>(%7&4!
`3(1%;&51!'(%%()C!
! ! A7(! UAR! =083(! &9! '&%7! T;)$380)! \&04! $01(! 054! S0@! M0)B! $01(! 4;4! 5&%! 17&]! 05! &'=;&31!
$&))(80%;&5! ];%7! (43$0%;&5! 8(=(8C! O5! S0@! M0)B! $01(+! 1B;88(4! 1$7&&8! (43$0%(4! K(&K8(! )(`3;)(! %7(!
>&1%!>&5(@!9&)!$&>K(510%;&5C!
!

!

,Z!

6.2.3 Job!

Figure 22. Circular Road WTP & Job

Figure 23. Bay Park WTP & Job

Figure 24. Circular Road WTS & Job

Figure 25. Bay Park WTS & Job

Figure 26. Circular Road WTA & Job

Figure 27. Bay Park WTA & Job,[!

! ! A7(!%7;)4!$&))(80%;&5!0508@1;1!;1!0'&3%!4;99()(5%!J&'1+!;5!T;)$380)!\&04!$01(+!K(&K8(!]&)B;5H!9&)!
50%;&508!;51%;%3%;&51!]&384!8;B(!%&!K0@!%7(!8(11!>&5(@!(=(5!$&>K0)(4!];%7!5&!J&'!K(&K8(C!R54!;5!
S0@!M0)B!$01(+!5&!J&'!K(&K8(!K0@!%7(!8(11C! ! !
! ! 2((!9;H3)(!UA2!_!f&'!&9!T;)$380)!\&04!$01(+!$&>K05@!(>K8&@((1+!K);=0%(!&]5()1!054!5&!J&'!
K(&K8(!=0830%(!%7(!(5=;)&5>(5%!7;H7()!K);$(C!R54!;5!S0@!M0)B!UA2!_!f&'!9;H3)(+!5&!J&'!K(&K8(!
=0830%(!%7(!(5=;)&5>(5%!%7(!7;H7(1%C! !
! ! ! ! 2((! %7(! UAR! _! f&'! 9;H3)(+! ;5! '&%7! T;)$380)! \&04! 054! S0@! M0)B! $01(+! 50%;&508! ;51%;%3%;&51!
K(&K8(!)(`3;)(!%7(!8(11!>&5(@!054!5&!J&'!K(&K8(!)(`3;)(!%7(!>&1%!>&5(@+!054!;5!S0@!M0)B!$01(+!
1%34(5%!081&!)(`3;)(!>&)(!>&5(@!%705!]&)B;5H!K(&K8(C!

!

P-!

6.2.4 Sex!

Figure 28. Circular Road WTP & Sex

Figure 29. Bay Park WTP & Sex

Figure 30. Circular Road WTS & Sex

Figure 31. Bay Park WTS & Sex

Figure 32. Circular Road WTA & Sex

Figure 33. Bay Park WTA & Sex

P"!

! ! A7(! 9&)%7! $&))(80%;&5! 0508@1;1! ;1! 0'&3%! 1(G+! ;5! '&%7! T;)$380)! \&04! 054! S0@! M0)B! $01(+! >(5!
]&384!8;B(!%&!K0@!>&)(!9&)!(5=;)&5>(5%!%705!]&>(5C! !
! ! O5! T;)$380)! \&04! UA2! _! 2(G! 9;H3)(+! >(5! 0)(! >&)(! 8;B(8@! %&! =0830%(! (5=;)&5>(5%! 054! K3'8;$!
1()=;$(1!7;H7()!%705!]&>(5+!054!;5!S0@!M0)B!$01(+!>(5!054!]&>(5!0)(!0'&3%!10>(!8(=(8C!
! ! O5! T;)$380)! \&04! UAR! _! 2(G! 9;H3)(+! >(5! )(`3;)(! >&)(! >&5(@! %705! ]&>(5b! '3%+! ;5! S0@! M0)B!
$01(+!]&>(5!)(`3;)(!&'=;&31!>3$7!>&)(!%705!>(5+!%7(!)(01&5!&9!%7;1!73H(!$705H(!9;H3)(!;1!%70%+!
313088@!]&>(5!%0B(!%7(;)!$7;84)(5!%&!%7(!S0@!M0)B!%&!1K(54!0!]7&8(!09%()5&&5+!S0@!M0)B!1((>1!
8;B(! 0! H&&4! K80$(! 9&)! ]&>(5! %&! %0B(! $0)(! &9! %7(;)! $7;84)(5+! 1&! S0@! M0)B! >0@'(! >(051! >&)(!
;>K&)%05%!9&)!]&>(5C!

!

P,!

6.2.5 AgeFigure 34. Circular Road WTP & Age

Figure 35. Bay Park WTP & Age

Figure 36. Circular Road WTS & Age

Figure 37. Bay Park WTS & Age

Figure 38. Circular Road WTA & Age!

Figure 39. Bay Park WTA & AgePP!

! ! A7(!9;9%7!$&))(80%;&5!0508@1;1!;1!0'&3%!0H(+!;5!'&%7!T;)$380)!\&04!054!S0@!M0)B!$01(+!,-a1!@(0)!
&84! 054! P-a! 1! @(0)! &84! K(&K8(! 0)(! 8;B(8@! %&! K0@! >&)(! 9&)! (5=;)&5>(5%+! $&>K0)(4! ];%7! &%7()!
@&35H()!K(&K8(!&)!(84()!K(&K8(C! !
! ! O5!T;)$380)!\&04!UA2!_!RH(!9;H3)(+!K(&K8(!&9!,P!@(0)1!&84!054!P-a1!@(0)!&84!K(&K8(!=0830%(!%7(!
(5=;)&5>(5%!7;H7()+!054!;5!S0@!M0)B!$01(+!&58@!K(&K8(!0)&354!,-!@(0)1!&84!=0830%(!(5=;)&5>(5%!
054!K3'8;$!1()=;$(1!7;H7C! !
! ! 2((!'&%7!9;H3)(!&9!UAR!_!RH(!&9!%7(!%]&!$01(1+!K(&K8(!0)&354!,-!@(0)1!&84!)(`3;)(!%7(!>&1%!
>&5(@!9&)!$&>K(510%;&5C!

!

PQ!

6.2.6 Local people or not
Figure 40. Circular Road WTP & Local or not

Figure 41. Bay Park WTP & Local or not

Figure 42. Circular Road WTS & Local or not

Figure 43. Bay Park WTS & Local or not

Figure 44. Circular Road WTA & Local or not

Figure 45. Bay Park WTA & Local or not!

P*!

! ! A7(!1;G%7!$&))(80%;&5!0508@1;1!;1!0'&3%!]7(%7()!%7(@!8;=(!;5!R>&@!&)!5&%!+!;5!T;)$380)!\&04!$01(+!
:&$08!K(&K8(!]&384!8;B(!%&!K0@!>&)(!>&5(@!9&)!(5=;)&5>(5%!054!K3'8;$!1()=;$(1!%705!%)0=(8()1C!
U7;8(!;5!S0@!M0)B!$01(+!%)0=(8()1!]&384!8;B(!%&!K0@!>&)(!%705!8&$08!K(&K8(C!
! ! 2((!9;H3)(!T;)$380)!\&04!UA2!_!:;=(!;5!R>&@!&)!5&%+!;%!;1!(G%)(>(8@!$8(0)!%70%!:&$08!K(&K8(!0)(!
>&)(! 8;B(8@! %&! =0830%(! %7(! (5=;)&5>(5%! 7;H7! '($031(! %7(@! 0)(! B5&];5H! %7(! K80$(! '(%%()! %705!
%)0=(8()1C!U7;8(!;5!S0@!M0)B!$01(+!%)0=(8()1!0)(!=0830%;5H!%7(!(5=;)&5>(5%!7;H7()C!
! ! O5! 9;H3)(! T;)$380)! \&04! UAR! _! :;=(! ;5! R>&@! &)! 5&%+! :&$08! K(&K8(! )(`3;)(! >&)(! >&5(@! %705!
%)0=(8()1!054!S0@!M0)B!;1!&KK&1;%(!0H0;5C!

!

PX!

6.2.7 Access Frequency
Figure 46. Circular Road WTP & Access Frequency

Figure 47. Bay Park WTP & Access Frequency

Figure 48. Circular Road WTS & Access Frequency

Figure 49. Bay Park WTS & Access Frequency

Figure 50. Circular Road WTA & Access Frequency

Figure 51. Bay Park WTA & Access Frequency!

PY!

! ! A7(!1(=(5%7!$&))(80%;&5!0508@1;1!;1!0$$(11!9)(`3(5$@+!;5!T;)$380)!\&04!$01(+!K(&K8(!]7&!$&>(!
%&!T;)$380)!\&04!>&)(!&9%(5!0)(!8;B(8@!%&!K0@!>&)(b!054!;5!S0@!M0)B!$01(+!5&!$8(0)!)(80%;&517;K!
'(%]((5!UAM!054!0$$(11!9)(`3(5$@C!
! ! 2((! 9;H3)(! T;)$380)! \&04! UA2! _! R$$(11! 9)(`3(5$@+! %7(! 7;H7(1%! =0830%;&5! =083(! ;1! 08>&1%! %7(!
10>(!054!;%!>(051!UA2!;1!;54(K(54(5%!&9!0$$(11!9)(`3(5$@+!01!8&5H!01!%7(!)(1K&54(5%1!70=(!704!
0!H&&4!354()1%054;5H!&9!%7(!%0)H(%!K80$(+!%7(@!$05!=0830%(!%7(!K80$(!>&)(!&'J($%;=(8@C!U7;8(!;5!
S0@!M0)B!$01(!;%!17&](4!0!5(H0%;=(!$&))(80%;&5!];%7!9)(`3(5$@b!8(11!9)(`3(5$@!K(&K8(!=0830%;5H!
S0@!M0)B!>&)(!>0@'(!'($031(!%7(!8&$08!K(&K8(!0)(!5&%!1&!10%;19;(4!];%7!S0@!M0)B!5&]C! !
! ! O5!UAR!9;H3)(!&9!T;)$380)!\&04+!;%!;1!8;B(8@!7;H7!0$$(11!9)(`3(5$@!K(&K8(!]&384!8;B(!%&!)(`3;)(!
>&)(!>&5(@!9&)!$&>K(510%;&5!]7;8(!S0@!M0)B!;1!&KK&1;%(+!'3%!5&%!1&!&'=;&31C! !

!

PZ!

6.2.8 Access Purpose
Figure 52. Circular Road WTP & Access Purpose

Figure 53. Bay Park WTP & Access Purpose

Figure 54. Circular Road WTS & Access Purpose

Figure 55. Bay Park WTS & Access Purpose

Figure 56. Circular Road WTA & Access Purpose

Figure 57. Bay Park WTA & Access Purpose!

P[!

! ! A7(! (;H7%7! $&))(80%;&5! 0508@1;1! ;1! 0$$(11! K3)K&1(+! ;5! '&%7! T;)$380)! \&04! 054! S0@! M0)B! $01(+!
>&1%!K(&K8(!0)(!$&>;5H!%&!%7(!%0)H(%!K80$(!%&!%)0=(8!&)!9&)!8(;13)(!K3)K&1(+!1&+!088!%7(!9;H3)(1!7()(!
17&](4!%7(!%)0=(8^!8(;13)(!K3)K&1(!K(&K8(!]&384!8;B(!%&!K0@!>&)(!>&5(@+!=0830%(!(5=;)&5>(5%!
7;H7()!K);$(!054!)(`3;)(!>&)(!>&5(@!9&)!$&>K(510%;&5C! !

!

Q-!

6.2.9 Access Company
Figure 58. Circular Road WTP & Company

Figure 59. Bay Park WTP & Company

Figure 60. Circular Road WTS & Company

Figure 61. Bay Park WTS & Company

Figure 62. Circular Road WTA & Company

Figure 63. Bay Park WTA & Company!

Q"!

! ! A7(! 5;5%7! $&))(80%;&5! 0508@1;1! ;1! 0'&3%! 0$$(11! $&>K05@+! ;5! '&%7! T;)$380)! \&04! 054! S0@! M0)B!
$01(+! K(&K8(! ]7&! $&>(! ];%7! >0%(+! 90>;8@! 054! 9);(541! 0)(! >&)(! 8;B(8@! %&! K0@! >&)(! >&5(@! 9&)!
(5=;)&5>(5%!&)!K3'8;$!1()=;$(1!%705!%7&1(!]7&!$&>(!&58@!%7(;)!1(8=(1C! !
! ! 2((!9;H3)(!T;)$380)!\&04!UA2!_!T&>K05@+!K(&K8(!]7&!$&>(!];%7!%7(;)!90>;8@!0)(!=0830%;5H!%7(!
(5=;)&5>(5%!%7(!7;H7(1%!K);$(b!]7;8(!;5!S0@!M0)B!UA2!_!T&>K05@!9;H3)(+!%7(!=083(!;1!08>&1%!%7(!
10>(!5&!>0%%()!]7&>!%7(@!$&>(!];%7C!
! ! O5! '&%7! T;)$380)! \&04! 054! S0@! M0)B! UAR! _! T&>K05@! 9;H3)(+! K(&K8(! ]7&! $&>(! ];%7! %7(;)!
90>;8@! 0)(! 8;B(8@! %&! )(`3;)(! >&)(! >&5(@! 9&)! $&>K(510%;&5C! O%! 081&! 17&](4! %7(! ;>K&)%05$(! &9!
90>;8@!>(>'()1!;5!T7;5(1(!K(&K8(a1!%7;5B;5H!>&4(C! !

!

Q,!

6.2.10 Importance of the place
Figure 64. Circular Road WTP & Importance

Figure 65. Bay Park WTP & Importance

Figure 66. Circular Road WTS & Importance

Figure 67. Bay Park WTS & Importance

Figure 68. Circular Road WTA & Importance

Figure 69. Bay Park WTA & Importance!

QP!

! ! A7(! %(5%7! $&))(80%;&5! 0508@1;1! ;1! 0'&3%! %7(! ;>K&)%05$(! &9! %7(! %0)H(%! K80$(+! ;5! '&%7! T;)$380)!
\&04!054!S0@!M0)B!$01(1+!K(&K8(!]7&!%7;5B!%7(!%0)H(%!K80$(!;1!(G%)(>(8@!;>K&)%05%!0)(!8;B(8@!%&!
K0@! >&)(! >&5(@! 9&)! %7(! (5=;)&5>(5%! %705! %7&1(! ]7&! J31%! %7;5B! %7(! %0)H(%! K80$(! ;1! H(5()088@!
;>K&)%05%C!
! ! S&%7!T;)$380)!\&04!054!S0@!M0)B!$01(!9;H3)(!UA2!_!O>K&)%05$(!17&](4!(G%)(>(8@!;>K&)%05%!
%7;5B;5H! K(&K8(! 0)(! =0830%;5H! %7(! %0)H(%! K80$(! 7;H7()! K);$(+! 054! T;)$380)! \&04! 40%0! ;1! >&)(!
&'=;&31!%705!S0@!M0)B!40%0C!
! ! R54! 9;5088@! '&%7! T;)$380)! \&04! 054! S0@! M0)B! $01(! UAR! _! O>K&)%05$(! 9;H3)(! 17&](4! K(&K8(!
]7&! $&51;4();5H! %7(! %0)H(%! K80$(! (G%)(>(8@! ;>K&)%05%! ]&384! 8;B(! %&! )(`3;)(! >&)(! >&5(@! %705!
%7&1(! H(5()088@! ;>K&)%05%! %7;5B;5H! K(&K8(C! U7;8(! S0@! M0)B! 40%0! ;1! 081&! 5&%! 1&! &'=;&31! 8;B(!
T;)$380)!\&04!40%0C!

!

QQ!

6.2.11 Satisfaction of the place
Figure 70. Circular Road WTP & Satisfaction

Figure 71. Bay Park WTP & Satisfaction

Figure 72. Circular Road WTS & Satisfaction

Figure 73. Bay Park WTS & Satisfaction

Figure 74. Circular Road WTA & Satisfaction

Figure 75. Bay Park WTA & Satisfaction!

Q*!

! ! A7(!(8(=(5%7!$&))(80%;&5!0508@1;1!;1!0'&3%!%7(!10%;190$%;&5!&9!%7(!%0)H(%!K80$(+!;5!'&%7!T;)$380)!
\&04! 054! S0@! M0)B! $01(1+! K(&K8(! ];%7! 7;H7()! 10%;190$%;&5! &9! %7(! %0)H(%! K80$(! ]&384! 8;B(! %&! K0@!
>&)(!>&5(@!9&)!%7(!(5=;)&5>(5%!054!K3'8;$!1()=;$(1C!
! ! U7;8(! ;5! 9;H3)(! T;)$380)! \&04! UA2! _! 20%;190$%;&5+! K(&K8(! ];%7! J31%! H(5()088@! 10%;190$%;&5! 0)(!
=0830%;5H! %7(! (5=;)&5>(5%! %7(! 7;H7(1%! K);$(+! 054! ;5! S0@! M0)B! $01(! 08>&1%! (`308! =083(+! '3%! %7(!
7;H7(1%!UA2!=083(1!081&!$&>(!9)&>!H(5()088@!10%;190$%;&5C! !
! ! S&%7! T;)$380)! \&04! 054! S0@! M0)B! UAR! _! 20%;190$%;&5! 9;H3)(! 17&](4! H(5()088@! 10%;19;(4!
%7;5B;5H!K(&K8(!]&384!8;B(!%&!)(`3;)(!>&)(!>&5(@!9&)!$&>K(510%;&5C!

!

QX!

%"&$'()*+))(,-$,.$/01$)+213(,3(/4$5-6$7(8(/$,.$9:;$
Considering the target goods to be valuated, WTS is more suitable for general public goods andgeneral government projects compared with WTP and WTA. In the process of field survey, therespondents will not under the mood of resistance like WTP questions; they are happy to answer the
WTS questions compared with WTP questions. Besides, the final value of WTS is very closed to thereal market unlike the huge bias of WTA and the too-low valuation of WTP; it can provide anadvisable support on the investment of purchase public goods or the investment of the whole publicproject. Although all the social surveys depend on the personal characteristics of respondents more or
less, WTS is free from the influence of many external factors compared with WTP.
While, WTS techniques also have many limits, such as WTS is better to valuate those small-scale
projects, or small public goods because public respondents sometimes have no idea about very hugeand expensive projects; It is really difficult to ask public to give a WTS price of a huge projects which
they really don’t know how much it can be sold. To overcome this problem, the investigator need to be
full of experiences and can tell every detail of the huge project to the respondent. If the respondent
asks how big is 20ha? The investigator should change it into small images quickly like: it equals how
many basketball sports gym or it is similar with somewhere they already known well. While, generally,
WTS of a small fountain is absolutely simpler to answer than WTS of a whole Olympic Parks; Besides,
the WTS questions need more introductions than WTP or WTA questions because respondents should
be told every details of the whole project as far as possible, so that they can valuate it more objectively;in order to control their thinking mode, interview survey may be the best choice, so the cost of WTS
surveys maybe higher than WTP and WTA surveys; And WTS is requiring higher education level
respondents sometime, better educated people can understand the projects and understand thequestions better during the field survey.

!

QY!

7 Conclusion

Although respondents are not so many in this field survey, all the respondents were under goodunderstanding when they were answering the questions. In this research, not only the economic values
are concluded out, a deep exploration of their thinking mode is conducted, it is also the advantage ofinterview survey compared with general questionnaires. When they were considering WTP questions,about 89.86% considered their personal income level at the first time; when considering WTA
questions, 100% answered the questions just on the basis of their own subjective feelings andimagination; and when they considering the WTS questions, about 98.55% were trying to consider thereal market as a reference. This kind of thinking mode is even more important than a detail value, thus,
a methodology can ask the respondents to valuate the public goods on the basis of considering the realmarket as a reference; and this kind of thinking mode is much closer to the essence of doing ecosystemservice valuation.
Through the thinking mode research, it is found that WTP/WTA are still suitable to valuate clear
positive/negative activity projects; and it is easy for respondents to understand to use WTP to valuate
environment-protecting behaviors and WTA to value environmental damages. While, WTS is moresuitable to valuate those general human projects that cannot tell positive or negative temporarily AND
for all the general public goods; and WTS especially shows more superiority than WTP when valuate
general public goods; because WTS is with more objectivity compared with WTA, WTP, and doesn’t
depend on respondents’ personal factors (like income level), population size so much like WTP.
Although the social surveys are all under influences of the different characteristics of the
respondents more or less, there is generally a same influence aspect in CV Method research: Education
Level; the techniques in CV Method (WTS, WTP and WTA) ARE all under the influence of Education
Level more or less, because compared with other social surveys, CV Method is difficult to understandto general public; And people with higher education level seem like to keep a better understanding on
the CV survey questions. Especially for the correlation analysis of Circular Road and Bay Park, inmany figures, Circular Road figures showed more reasonability than Bay Park because the CircularRoad respondents are higher educated compared with Bay Park respondents.
When valuating human projects, WTS Value is much closer to Economic investment value. So
when a project investment planning needs public opinion, WTS can be conducted as a reference of!

QZ!

suitable investment. In Amoy’s case, investment of the Bay Park is 170,000,000¥ and WTS is103,580,645.16¥, WTS of Circular Road Green Way Project is 277,197,368.42¥, so a reasonable
investment from citizen’s viewpoint can be computed based on the existing opening planning.
Investment around 454,951,400¥ maybe suitable for the project of the Circular Road green way.
Strategy Environment Assessment is becoming more and more important in these years; Actually,
there are many well-planning government projects developing into negative projects finally in every
country, just like the Fukujima nuclear energy projects in Japan; and like many famous well-planning
tourism places finally suffering from the population and huge traveler pressure. Strategy Environment
Assessment should be a three-dimensional evaluating system considering every aspect of environment,
economy, social, culture, human and so on. When doing City Planning and Strategy Environment
Assessment, government should pay more attention to public opinion because good government
should represent citizens. New CV Method is no more just a game-methodology full of imagination
and uncertain factors; it can offer an advisable financial value support for local government. Besides,
the economic value of ecosystem service in new CV Method should not be an absolute value; it should
be a multi perspective comparative relative value, just like it is difficult to conclude an economic valueof water or air, but it is possible to compare the water and the air.
This research built the WTS (and WTD) theory and finished serious verifying experiments, while
the details of the WTS survey design techniques have not been concluded deeply in system; And more
researches of the techniques and applications of WTD should be focused more in the future research
work.

!

Q[!

Reference:

Ahlheima M, Buchholzb W. WTP or WTA-Is that the Question?.2000.
Anderson R E. Personal selling and sales management in the new millennium. Journal of Personal Selling & SalesManagement, 1996, 16(4): 17-32.
Carson R T, Flores N E, Meade N F. Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence. Environmental and resource
economics, 2001, 19(2): 173-210.
Churchill G A, Ford N M, Walker O C, et al. Sales force management. Boston, MA: Irwin/McGraw-Hill, 2000.
Churchill Jr G A. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of marketing research, 1979:
64-73.
Diamond P A, Hausman J A. Contingent valuation: Is some number better than no number?. The Journal of economic
perspectives, 1994: 45-64.
Donaldson B. Sales management: theory and practice. Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.
Environment, Ethics, and Behavior. New Lexington Press, San Francisco, 1997: 13-32.
Fowler Jr F J. Survey research methods. Sage publications, 2008.
Frazier G L, Gill J D, Kale S H. Dealer dependence levels and reciprocal actions in a channel of distribution in adeveloping country. The Journal of Marketing, 1989: 50-69.
George A L, Bennett A. Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Mit Press, 2005.
Glasson J, Therivel R, Chadwick A. INTRO TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSES. Routledge, 2013.
Grossman S J, Hart O D. The costs and benefits of ownership: A theory of vertical and lateral integration. The Journal of
Political Economy, 1986: 691-719.
Hakim C. Research design. Allen Unwin, London, 1987.
Hammack J, Brown G M. Waterfowl and wetlands: toward bio-economic analysis. Resources for the Future, 1974.
Knetsch J L. Reference states, fairness, and the choice of measure to value environmental changes.
Miller S J. The social base of sales behavior. Social Problems, 1964: 15-24.
Mitchell R C, Carson R T. Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Routledge, 2013.
Pichert D, Katsikopoulos KV. Green defaults: Information presentation and pro-environmental behaviour. Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology, 2008, 28(1): 63-73.
Portney P R. The contingent valuation debate: why economists should care. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 1994:
3-17.
Provan K G, Skinner S J. Interorganizational dependence and control as predictors of opportunism in dealer-supplier
relations. Academy of management Journal, 1989, 32(1): 202-212.
!

*-!

Rea L M, Parker R A. Designing and conducting survey research: A comprehensive guide. John Wiley & Sons, 2012.
Rideway V F. Administration of manufacturer-dealer systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1957: 464-483.
Sagoff M. The economy of the earth: Philosophy, law, and the environment. Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Schahn J, Holzer E. Studies of individual environmental concern the role of knowledge, gender, and background variables.
Environment and behavior, 1990, 22(6): 767-786.
Shogren J F, Shin S Y, Hayes D J, et al. Resolving differences in willingness to pay and willingness to accept. The
American Economic Review, 1994: 255-270.
Stalk G, Evans P, Sgulman L E. Competing on capabilities: the new rules of corporate strategy. Harvard Business Review,
1992.
Tietenberg T. Environmental and Natural Resources. Economics, 1988.
Tremblay M, Côté J, Balkin D B. Explaining Sales Pay Strategy Using Agency, Transaction Cost and Resource
Dependence Theories*. Journal of Management Studies, 2003, 40(7): 1651-1682.
Yin R K, Heald K A. Using the case survey method to analyze policy studies. Administrative science quarterly, 1975:
371-381.
Willis G B. Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. Sage Publications, 2004.
Yin R K. Case study research: Design and methods. Sage publications, 2013.
Yoshino K, Setiawan B I, Furuya H. Economic Valuation for Cidanau Watershed Area, Indonesia. JURNAL
MANAJEMEN HUTAN TROPIKA, 2010, 16(1).
ᰩᒣᾈ୍,ᅗゎ⎔ቃホ౯࡜⎔ቃ఍ィ. ᪥ᮏホㄽ♫, 2000.
⦻䠁ই, ⧟ຳ㓿⍾ᆖ: ⨶䇪ᯩ⌅᭯ㆆ. ␵ॾབྷᆖࠪ⡸⽮, 1994.
XIAMEN MUNICIPAL COMMISSION OF URBAN PLANNING:
http://www.xmgh.gov.cn/zwgk/ghcg/201305/t20130528_28364.htm!

!

*"!