Willingness to Pay: Animal Welfare and Related Influencing Factors in China

Transcription

1 This article was downloaded by: [Dr Kenneth Shapiro] On: 09 June 2015, At: 09:05 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: Registered office: Mortimer House, Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: Willingness to Pay: Animal Welfare and Related Influencing Factors in China Yingjie Zhao a & Shasha Wu a a Human and Law College, Northeast Forestry University, Harbin, Heilongjiang, PR China Published online: 26 Mar To cite this article: Yingjie Zhao & Shasha Wu (2011) Willingness to Pay: Animal Welfare and Related Influencing Factors in China, Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 14:2, , DOI: / To link to this article: PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content ) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

2 This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

3 JOURNAL OF APPLIED ANIMAL WELFARE SCIENCE, 14: , 2011 Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: print/ online DOI: / Willingness to Pay: Animal Welfare and Related Influencing Factors in China Yingjie Zhao and Shasha Wu Human and Law College, Northeast Forestry University, Harbin, Heilongjiang, PR China Personal willingness to pay, an important research aspect on nonhuman animal welfare, is the foundation of animal welfare legislation. As China has no special laws on the issue, it is important to study animal welfare. This article assesses personal willingness to pay for animal welfare in China, using the Contingent Valuation Method. Based on collected data of 229 visitors from Heilongjiang Northeast Tiger Garden (Harbin), Beijing Zoo, Changchun Zoo and Botanical Garden, Dalian Forest Zoo, and Harbin North Forest Zoo, the study researched willingness to pay for animal welfare and associated influence factors in China. Results showed a high rate of personal willingness to pay (89.5%). Factors such as age, education, and income had obvious effects on personal willingness to pay; however, gender and career had only slight effects. Very few Chinese are familiar with the term animal welfare. The majority believe that every person s welfare should be improved, no matter the welfare law on nonhuman animals (Liu Ying & Hao Xiaofei, 2007). With a number of reports circulating about the immoral treatment of nonhuman animals, however, more and more attention has been paid to animal welfare (Qu Yunpeng, 2007). Some provinces in China have carried out local legislations, such as Hubei province s regulations on animal experimentation; this has caused a great deal of controversy. However, the attitude toward whether animal welfare should be backed by legislation is unclear. Correspondence should be sent to Yingjie Zhao, Human and Law College, Northeast Forestry University, Harbin, Heilongjiang, PR China. zyj @163.com 150

4 WILLINGNESS TO PAY 151 That different people focus on different things will definitely affect investment choices. Animals nonuse value can be evaluated by personal willingness to pay (WTP). Contingent valuation method (CVM; Davis, 1963; Venkatachalam, 2004) is the most common method for investigating WTP. CVM is a technical method of simulating market. The key point is to directly research people s WTP or willingness to accept ecosystem s service functions and to express the economic value of ecosystem services through WTP or willingness to accept (Chen Lin, Ouyang Zhi-yun, Wang Xiaoke, Miao Hong, & Duan Xiaonan, 2006). CVM was first brought forward by Ciriacy-Wantrup, who suggested it as a feasible method for achieving the additional market value effected by the soil and water conservation using personal willingness (Venkatachalam, 2004). Davis first applied CVM in 1963 to study the entertainment value of woodland camping and hunting (Edward, 1981). The CVM s applications have extended to economic value study on various nonmarket goods: 1. Water and air quality improvements; 2. Natural areas and wildlife protections; 3. Health; 4. Ecosystem services; 5. Functional recovery from initial study on environment, recreation, and hunting; 6. Aesthetic benefits (Davis, 1963; Singer, 1999; Zhang Pei, Dong Qian, & Xu Yueming, 2008); and 7. Evaluation of animal welfare s nonuse value through the example of assessing the welfare of animals on the farm (Bennett, 1996). CVM was introduced in China in the 1990s. Currently, research on assessing the economic value of environmental goods, using this method, has made possible (a) the evaluation of biodiversity value for Changbai Mountain Nature Reserve (Xue Dayuan, 2000), (b) the evaluation of the residents willingness to pay on Beijing air quality improvement (Li Ying, Bai Mo, Yang Kaizhong, & Wang Xuejun, 2001), and (c) the evaluation of the Chinese residents willingness to pay on non-genetically modified vegetable oil (Kevin Chen, Shi Minjun, & Getu Hailu, 2004). However, no research has been reported on the evaluation of significant products of nonmarket valuation, such as conservation-value assessment of the typical wild habitat and China s rare and endangered species. To investigate citizens personal WTP for animal welfare, we analyze this issue and associated factors based on collected data from the main zoos: (a) Heilongjiang Northeast Tiger Garden, (b) Beijing Zoo, (c) Dalian Forest Zoo, (d) Changchun Zoo and Botanical Garden, and (e) Harbin North Forest Zoo. The nonuse evaluation of welfare protection for animals in the wild is not discussed here.

5 152 ZHAO AND WU METHOD Participants The survey includes the personal willingness to pay for Chinese animal welfare questionnaire and individual interviews. The questionnaire, developed by the authors, is aimed at (a) Harbin North Forest Zoo, (b) Heilongjiang Northeast Tiger Garden, (c) Changchun Zoo and Botanical Garden, (d) Dalian Forest Zoo, and (e) Peking Zoo. Survey participants mainly included visitors (over the age of 18) to these five zoos. Interviews were conducted with visitors spending time in the Café Room. Investigators explained the basic idea of the survey and helped participants fill it out objectively within half an hour. Of 300 questionnaires given out, 263 were retrieved. The retrieved rate was 87.6%; 229 were effective, a rate of 87%. All data were analyzed by StatSoft Statistica V6.0 (StatSoft Corp., Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA). Apparatus The survey questionnaire consists of three parts: 1. Respondents demographics, including gender, age, educational level, career, and income; 2. Respondents awareness of animal welfare, including animal welfare awareness level, understanding level, emphasis, and whether there is an urgent need for legislation for protection; and 3. Respondents personal willingness to pay. Respondents are required to put a check mark ( p ) on the relevant option. The categories for each variable are presented in Table 1. The survey of 229 persons comprises 152 men and 77 women, 66.4% and 33.6%, respectively. For the consideration of the right knowledge and understanding of animal welfare, no investigation of teenagers under 18 years old is offered. The percentages of each age class surveyed and interviewed are as follows: 1 D 49.3%, 2 D 38.4%, and 3 D 12.3%. For educational levels of respondents, less well-educated persons are 22.7% and highly educated persons are 77.3%. For participants careers, administrative officers, university teachers, research institute staff, company employees, and other workers are 7.9%, 21.0%, 10.5%, 38.4%, and 22.3%, respectively. Respondents income levels break down as follows: low-income employees, 70.9%; middle-income class, 13.0%; and high income respondents, 16.9%.

6 WILLINGNESS TO PAY 153 TABLE 1 The Description of the Variables of Respondent Samples Viable Description Acronym Respondents Male D 1, Female D 2 Gender years D 1, years D 2, above 41 D 3 Age Less educated (middle school or below) D 1, Education High educated (college or above) D 2 Executive officers D 1, University teachers D 2, Career Research institutes staff D 3, Company employees D 4, Others D 5 Less ($732 $2,196 per year) D 1, Middle Income ($2, $4,392 per year) D 2, High (more than $4,392 per year) D 3 Animal welfare Whether or not heard of animal welfare (YES D 1, NO D 2) Animal welfare awareness The understanding level of animal welfare (Have no idea D 1, Do not know very well D 2, Understanding level of animal welfare Acquaintance D 3, Very familiar D 4) Should animal welfare be attached importance? (Should D 1, Should not D 2, No idea D 3) Attention degree of animal welfare Whether the legislation should be enacted to protect animal welfare (Necessary D 1, Not necessary D 2, Indifference D 3) Need for legislation Willingness to pay Whether willing to pay some fees to improve animal welfare (Would like to D 1, Would not like to D 2) RESULTS Analysis of the Awareness and Influence Factors Attitude of payment Awareness. According to the statistics garnered from 229 samples, when the question whether heard of the animal welfare or not was asked, 42.4% of those surveyed had never heard of it; however, 57.6% answered yes. These statistics show that, currently, the level of public awareness about animal welfare is low. Table 2 shows that difference in gender has little effect on awareness of animal welfare. Conversely, age, education, careers, and income have significant effects on such awareness. The following list details percentages of respondents in the categories of age, education, career, and income who answered yes to the question whether heard of the animal welfare or not. 1. Age: (a) 18 30, 49.6%; (b) 31 40, 62.5%; and (c) 41 and up, 65.5%; 2. Education: high level, 55.9%; low level, 63.5%;

7 154 ZHAO AND WU TABLE 2 The Variance Analysis of Awareness About Animal Welfare Factors SS Freedom MS Value F P Gender Age Educational level Career Income Career: university faculty, 68.8%; persons associated with enterprises and institutions, 71.6%; and others in undesignated careers, 29.4%; and 4. Income: lower, 58.1%; middle, 90.0%; and high, 30.8%. We could conclude from answers to the questionnaire that the middle class pays far more attention to animal welfare than do the other classes. In the career group, however, an unexpected result occurred: the questionnaire showed that half of both executive officers and half the research institute staff knew about animal welfare. Analysis of Understanding the Level of Animal Welfare and Related Factors Level of understanding. According to statistics for the 229 samples, levels of understanding differed: 43.2% of those surveyed said they did not understand what animal welfare is; 37.1% said they knew a little about animal welfare; and 18.2% said they understand the term. Only 1.5% indicated a clear understanding of animal welfare. Overall, these results show people s very low understanding of animal welfare. Table 3 shows that difference in gender had no significant effect on understanding animal welfare; however, age, education, career, and income had major effects. Further analysis shows the following percentages of those in these four categories (age, education, career, and income) who answered understanding and quite understanding : 1. Age: (a) 18 30, 10.6%; (b) 31 40, 23.9%; 41 and over, 28.8%; 2. Education: higher levels, 16.9%; lower levels, 28.8%; 3. Career: university faculty, 31.3%; those in enterprises, 30.7%; and others in undesignated careers, 5.9%; and 4. Income: low, 22.5%; medium, 20.0%; and high, 7.7%.

8 WILLINGNESS TO PAY 155 TABLE 3 The Variance Analysis of Understanding Level of Animal Welfare and Related Factors Factors SS Freedom MS Value F P Gender Age Educational level Career Income Analysis of Degree of Attention Paid to Animal Welfare and Related Factors According to statistics provided by the samples, 88.2% of the respondents agreed that people should pay more attention to animal welfare, 10.5% did not comment, and 1.3% said that more attention should not be paid to animal welfare. Table 4 shows that gender, age, and career had no apparent effect on the degree of attention paid to animal welfare; however, education and income levels did. Education. Of less well-educated respondents, 88.5% believed that animal welfare should be considered; however, 11.5% were indifferent to the subject. Yet, no one thought it useless to care about animal welfare. When queried about the importance of animal welfare, 88.1% of more highly educated participants responded positively; 1.7% opposed it; and the remainder, 10.2%, did not care about this issue. Income. In the low-income group, 92.5% of respondents agreed that animal welfare should be important, 1.9% opposed it, and 5.6% had no interest in the issue. Of respondents in the medium-income group, those in the middle class, 80.0% admitted the importance of animal welfare; however, 20.0% had no interest in the issue. In the high-income group, 76.9% supported animal welfare; however, 23.1% of the respondents expressed no interest in the issue. TABLE 4 The Variance Analysis of Attention Degree of Animal Welfare Factors SS Freedom MS Value F P Gender Age Educational level Career Income

9 156 ZHAO AND WU TABLE 5 The Variance Analysis of the Necessity of Legislation Factors SS Freedom MS Value F P Gender Age Educational level Career Income The Necessity for Animal Welfare Legislation and Impact Analysis Statistics provided by the sample show that 86.0% of those interviewed responded positively when questioned as to whether it is necessary to create animal welfare legislation; only 4.8% of those surveyed said no, and 9.2% had no interest in the issue. The majority of respondents expressed great interest in animal welfare legislation, and a small fraction did not care about it. Based on data from Table 5, differences in gender and age have no effect on opinions regarding animal welfare legislation. However, career and levels of education and income do. Education. In the group of less well-educated respondents, 83.1% thought it necessary to create legislation to protect animals, 5.1% opposed creating such legislation, and 11.8% did not care. Of respondents in the more highly educated group, 96.2% said yes to the necessity for creating animal welfare legislation and 3.8% opposed such legislation. Careers. All executive officers thought it necessary to create laws to protect animals. Of university teachers, 93.8% favored such legislation; 6.2% were indifferent. In research institutions, 75.0% of the staff said yes to the necessity for creating animal welfare legislation; however, 25.0% were not interested. From enterprises that support creating animal welfare legislation, 85.2% of the staff supported it, 8.0% opposed it, and 6.8% were indifferent. Of respondents in other careers, 80.4% considered animal welfare legislation necessary, 7.8% said no, and 11.8% were indifferent. Income. Responses also differed across income levels. In the lower income group, 93.1% of respondents favored animal welfare legislation, 5.0% disagreed, and 1.9% did not care. In the medium-income group, 70.0% said yes to creating animal welfare legislation, 30.0% were indifferent, and no one was

10 WILLINGNESS TO PAY 157 TABLE 6 The Variance Analysis of Willingness to Pay Factors SS Freedom MS Value F P Gender Age Educational level Career Income against such legislation, In the higher income group, 69.2%, supported creating animal welfare legislation, 7.7% opposed, it, and 20.1% were not interested. Personal Willingness to Pay and Its Influence Factors on Animal Welfare Sample statistics show that 89.5% of those surveyed favored paying to improve animal welfare; however, 10.5% did not favor paying. From Table 6, it is obvious that the main factors affecting personal willingness to pay are levels of education and income; differences in gender, age, and career are not significant factors. Education. Further analysis of statistics on levels of education shows that the lower the educational level, the higher the percentage of personal willingness to pay. Of respondents on the lower educational level, 94.2% showed a willingness to pay to protect animals; only 88.1% of those on the higher level said they were willing to pay to protect animals. Income. Further analysis shows that those with incomes in lower or medium ranges are more likely to be willing to pay to protect animals than are those with higher incomes. Of respondents in the lower and medium income groups, 90.6% and 90.0%, respectively, said they were willing to pay to protect animals; in the higher income group, only 84.6% were willing to pay. DISCUSSION According to the statistics, 42.4% of the population has never heard of animal welfare, which indicates that the public has only little awareness of animal welfare. This phenomenon is closely connected with the people-oriented traditional idea of Chinese people. To let people understand that both nonhuman animals

11 158 ZHAO AND WU and human beings are of a part of nature, we suggest that more information about the concept of animal-welfare conception be strengthened in various aspects. If there are no animals on earth, then the day of human destruction will become a reality, not a fairy tale. Establishing the concept of concordant development between humans and animals should be taken into consideration. Based on the surveys filled out by adults 18 years old and up, older people are more aware and care more about animal welfare. This may reflect a higher social pressure in those who are younger to care more about their own personal needs related to career and survival than about other unrelated stuff. As age tends to reduce such social pressures, the result can be caring more about some major issues, including paying more attention to animals. This trend benefits the improvement of animal welfare protection. More highly educated people showed less awareness of animal welfare than the less well educated, a difference of 7.6%, which indicates that the highly educated think less about social issues than do the less well educated. These data can also show an educational deficiency in China. However, the middleincome class the majority of the Chinese people pays a great deal of attention to animal welfare, which can promote its development. As to participants careers, company employees (71.6%) showed higher awareness than others. This may be caused by the continuous alternations of their jobs. Because of the needs of their jobs, they must expand their views to accommodate all kinds of work. University teachers (68.8%) also showed a good awareness of animal welfare; this is considered a positive trend. These teachers can lead and influence their students to know and care more about animal welfare and to spread the word about its importance. However, those working in other careers (29.4%), showed a focus on needing to improve their own living conditions and less focus on concerns such as caring about the animals. Unfortunately, according to the analysis data, those with a high level of income know less about animal welfare; only 30.8% of them have heard of it. This indicates that when it comes to protecting animals, those who earn more money need to raise (improve) their consciousness. Of those surveyed, 80.3% did not understand, or understood only a little of, animal welfare. Furthermore, only 7.7% of the higher income earners understood it. These data show that the Chinese people have limited understanding of animal welfare and the important of promoting it. In addition, it is the duty of animal welfare workers to promote the concept of animal welfare so that the public will remember it. Another big influence on understanding animal welfare is the difference in careers. None of the executive officers or staff of research institutions knew (or knew only a little) about animal welfare. This corresponds with the results obtained from the animal welfare awareness part of the surveys. Even though some of them have heard of animal welfare, they still know only a small part

12 WILLINGNESS TO PAY 159 of it. This result may also be connected to their jobs especially for institution staff, who usually care only about their own field. That 88.2% of the people believe in animal welfare issues should be valued as a gratifying result. Statistics show that the public still pays attention to animals and believe that, even under less affluent living conditions, animals and humans should be accorded equal treatment. The situation provides a strong basis for promoting the idea of animal welfare. Confirming the positive aspects of animal welfare, 83.0% of participants affirmed the necessity for creating laws to protect animals. Optimistically, 100% of the executive officers support this action; perhaps they always use the law to solve affairs. Although the work of executive officers differs from that of others, all cast relatively high votes for creating such legislation. A low level of respondents, 4.8%, was against it. Those against it expressed the opinion that making laws to protect animals is nonsense due to current insufficient social security under China s economic condition. In addition, 9.2% of participants were unconcerned about animal welfare. These results may reflect China s current economic conditions, indicating that carrying out the Animal Welfare Act would be inappropriate and that local or branch legislation should address some aspects of animal welfare, followed by gradually spreading the word and promoting the issue. As awareness of the animal welfare issue improves, a suitable time for enforcing the Animal Welfare Act will emerge. The proportion of the high-level, middle-level, and low-level income participants who supported creating legislation is 69.2%, 70.0%, and 93.1%, respectively. These percentages indicate that those with lower incomes care about animal welfare more than those with midlevel or higher incomes. The disparity between level of income and the rate of support for creating legislation once again proves that those with high incomes pay less attention to animal welfare and show less social responsibility. It is good news that, regardless of income and education, 89.5% of the participants were willing to pay for animal welfare and although their personal standard of living was not high, expressed dedication to promoting animal welfare. This is a good sign for advancing this work smoothly. Therefore, the responsible agencies should provide information about donations and open channels for donation so that those who love animals can contribute to their care. CONCLUSION This article discusses a survey aimed at Chinese people through analyzing the 229 samples of tourists from four main cities: Harbin, Dalian, Changchun, and Beijing.

13 160 ZHAO AND WU From analyzing the samples, we conclude that the majority of the Chinese populace has no (or little) idea of animal welfare; some surveyed had never heard of it. All the aforementioned statistics show that the term animal welfare is still unfamiliar in China. In addition, the statistics show that it is necessary to spread the word about animal welfare to ensure nationwide clarity about it. It is essential, for at least the following two reasons, to popularize animal welfare, create benefits for animals, and make a conscious effort to ensure their protection: 1. To promote international trades to develop smoothly and 2. To improve China s international prestige. The difference in ages has an obvious influence on the understanding and awareness of animal welfare. As people grow older, they pay more attention to animal welfare. Therefore, it is crucial to reinforce animal welfare education for young adults to help promote the idea of protecting animals. Levels of income also affect people s understanding and awareness of animal welfare as well as their attitude toward it. The middle-income class has a good understanding of animal welfare, those in the low-income class care more about animal welfare, and those on the high-income level rate lowest on all three aspects. Analysis of the sample statistics shows a majority (especially in the lower income group) favors creating legislation to protect animals. Almost everyone thought it only common sense to protect animals from injury, which is the basis for creating such legislation. Therefore, responsible agencies should accelerate efforts to propose the act. Finally, according to the sample statistics, the rate of individual willingness to pay was 89.5%. Education and income levels have a great effect on this. REFERENCES Bennett, R. M. (1996). People s willingness to pay for farm animal welfare. Animal Welfare, 5, Chen Lin, Ouyang Zhi-yun, Wang Xiaoke, Miao Hong, & Duan Xiaonan. (2006). Applications of contingent valuation method in evaluation of non-market values. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 26, Davis, R. K. (1963). Recreation planning as an economic problem. Natural Resources Journal, 3, Edward, M. (1981). The demand for site-specific recreational activities: A characteristics approach. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 8, Kevin Chen, Shi Minjun, & Getu Hailu. (2004). Willingness to pay for non-genetically modified vegetable oil in China. Journal of Zhejang University (Humanities and Social Sciences), 34,

14 WILLINGNESS TO PAY 161 Li Ying, Bai Mo, Yang Kaizhong, & Wang Xuejun. (2001). Study on residents willingness to pay for improving air quality in Beijing. Urban Environment & Urban Ecology, 5, 6 8. Liu Ying & Hao Xiaofei. (2007). The economic effect analysis of animal welfare barriers. Commercial Times, 35, Qu Yunpeng. (2007). Legislation of animal welfare and building of harmonious society. Academic Exchange, 10, Singer, P. (1999). Animal liberation. Beijing, China: Guangming Daily Press. Venkatachalam, L. (2004). The contingent valuation method: A review. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24, Xue Dayuan. (2000). Valuation on non-use values of biodiversity by contingent valuation method in Changbai Mountain biosphere reserve in China. China Environmental Science, 20, Zhang Pei, Dong Qian, & Xu Yueming. (2008). Analysis of willingness to pay and influences to non-use value of Baiyangdian wetland. Rural Economy, 4,