4.6 Article

Key Factors of Rural Households' Willingness to Pay for Cleaner Heating in Hebi: A Case Study in Northern China

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY
卷 13, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su13020633

关键词

cleaner heating; pro-environmental behavior; willingness to pay; subsidy policies; environmental attitude

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71704045]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

As coal-fired heating in winter exacerbates air pollution in rural areas of northern China, promoting cleaner heating transition is crucial. However, intentions and actions of rural households are deficient. The study found that willingness to pay for cleaner heating is influenced by economic and environmental factors, with higher household income and environmental concern enhancing willingness to pay.
As coal-fired heating in winter in rural areas of northern China exacerbates air pollution, promoting cleaner heating transition is of significance for environmental sustainability. However, this is difficult as intentions and actions of rural households are deficient. This case study in northern China aims to estimate rural households' willingness to pay (WTP) for facilities and energy for cleaner heating and explore its key factors. The survey-based analysis found that the total annual WTP for cleaner heating (sum of the WTP for heating facilities and energy per year) varied from RMB 250 to RMB 6800 (RMB 100 approximate to USD 15 in 2018), with a quite low average and a huge difference. The variation of the WTP can be attributed to economic and demographic features and environmental attitudes of households. Improvement of household income and environmental concern will enhance the WTP for cleaner heating, but a high vacancy rate and aging population in rural areas will generally inhibit it. Based on this study, some policy suggestions were proposed to promote cleaner heating transition in rural households; specifically, more attention should be paid to the poor and aged households.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据