How much will the Chinese public pay for air pollution mitigation? A nationwide empirical study based on a willingness-to-pay scenario and air purifier costs

摘要

Willingness to pay (WTP) for clean air is one of the most important indicators of the public's acceptance of air pollution mitigation policies. However, few studies have characterized the spatial distribution of WTP, explored its "hypothetical bias", or analyzed its relationship with air pollutant concentrations. To address this gap in knowledge, a nationwide empirical study (N = 9744) was conducted from December 2016 to February 2017 in China. The contingent valuation method (CVM) was adopted to assess WTP based on a scenario, and air purifier costs (APCs) incurred by the public were used as an indicator of WTP in the real-life scenario.The results show that the mean value of APCs (243.81 CNY (year.person)(-1)) is lower than WTP (275.39 CNY (year.person)(-1)), which means that the Chinese public may not pay as much money for clean air in the actual scenario as in the WTP scenario. This result is important for predicting and evaluating the feasibility and effectiveness of air pollution economic policies. We also observed significant spatial differences in APCs: the public in more heavily polluted areas such as the eastern coastal region, northern coastal region, Middle Yellow River region and northeast region have higher APCs than the public in other regions, the proportion of people who purchased air purifiers and the distribution of APCs positively correlated with concentrations of particulate matter with aerodynamic diameters less than 2.5 (PM2.5), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), and ozone (O-3), while no significant spatial difference or correlation relationship was observed for WTP. This result indicates that pollutant concentration is not the main driving factor of WTP but they are driving factors for APCs, which may provide new evidence for the driving factors of WTP and APCs. Finally, the policy implications behind these results are discussed, providing references and scientific support for policy makers and subsequent research. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.