Estimating the Non-Use Value of Laojun Mountain National Park: A Contingent Valuation Study with Cultural Identity Mediation in Yunnan, China

Abstract

This study applies the Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) to estimate the non-use value of Laojun Mountain National Park, a culturally and ecologically significant site within the Three Parallel Rivers World Heritage region of northwestern Yunnan, China. Based on 219 valid survey responses, the analysis identifies education, income, occupation, cultural identity, and recognition of legacy values as significant determinants of willingness to pay (WTP) for conservation. Interaction effect logistic regression shows that the influence of cultural identity on WTP is moderated by income level and ecological awareness. Valuation results indicate that the park’s annual non-use value ranges from 79.697 to 260.841 billion yuan, based on median and mean estimates. Motivational analysis highlights aesthetic appreciation, cultural meaning, and intergenerational ethics as key drivers of conservation support, while refusal to pay is primarily attributed to expectations of governmental responsibility, especially among low-income and less-educated respondents. These findings advance theoretical understanding of bio-cultural valuation, offer practical guidance for the design of Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes, and underscore the importance of integrating socio-cultural dimensions into sustainable conservation finance and policy strategies.

1. Introduction

Mountain ecosystems represent some of the world’s most ecologically rich and environmentally vulnerable landscapes. These regions play a critical role in maintaining biodiversity, regulating hydrological cycles, stabilizing climate, and preserving cultural heritage, especially in areas where ecological and sociocultural systems are deeply interwoven. In particular, mountainous regions of China, such as northwestern Yunnan Province which is home to the UNESCO-recognized “Three Parallel Rivers” World Natural Heritage site, exemplify the intersection of biophysical complexity and ethno-cultural diversity. However, as climate change accelerates and tourism intensifies, the ecological integrity and cultural resilience of these mountainous landscapes face unprecedented threats. Within this context, it is vital to assess the non-use values of mountain ecosystems, which are those values that are unrelated to direct consumption but rooted in ethical responsibility, spiritual identity, cultural continuity, and intergenerational equity [1,2]. In this study, we treat cultural identity as a bio-cultural determinant of non-use values (existence, bequest, option): it shapes willingness to pay for conservation not as a separate ‘cultural value’, but as a preference shifter that strengthens non-use motivations in sacred/mountain landscapes.

These belief systems exemplify bio-cultural conservation and offer insights into sustainable human–nature interactions [3,4]. The interdependence of ecological functions and cultural meanings positions Laojun Mountain as a vital site for evaluating ecosystem non-use values, which include existence value (the intrinsic worth of knowing that a place exists), bequest value (its preservation for future generations), and option value (its potential future use) [1,5]. Despite a growing global emphasis on ecosystem service valuation (ESV), China’s research efforts have predominantly focused on provisioning and regulating services, such as carbon sequestration, soil retention, and water regulation [6,7,8]. Non-use values, especially those shaped by local cosmologies and identities, remain underrepresented in both academic discourse and policy frameworks [9]. Although the Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) has been widely used to quantify WTP for ecosystem services in coastal wetlands [5,10], marine tourism [11], and protected areas [12], very few studies have applied it to complex mountain systems inhabited by multiple ethnic minorities.

Notably, many previous CVM studies fail to capture the role of cultural identity in shaping public WTP for ecosystem conservation [13]. Similar contingent valuation applications, such as Damigos et al.’s (2017) [14] study on aquifer recharge in Italy, highlight the method’s versatility in environmental valuation. The incorporation of cultural mediators such as sacred geographies, traditional ecological knowledge, and ritual landscapes remains a significant research gap. Furthermore, limited attention has been given to disaggregating socio-economic determinants of WTP, including education, income, risk perception, and ecological awareness [15,16,17]. This omission is increasingly problematic given the accelerating ecological changes in Laojun Mountain. Recent monitoring indicates that the glacier retreat rate has reached 8.3 m per year, and the habitat of endemic alpine flora has declined by 12.5%. At the same time, fragmentation of wildlife corridors, particularly for the Black Snub-nosed Monkey (Rhinopithecus bieti), has worsened [18,19]. These changes are compounded by the pressures of mass tourism, which contributes to ecological degradation even as it supports regional economies [20].

Given these circumstances, a rigorous valuation of Laojun Mountain’s non-use ecosystem services is crucial not only for academic knowledge but also for policy design. Accurate estimations of WTP can inform ecological compensation mechanisms, enhance public engagement in environmental governance, and support sustainable tourism strategies within China’s evolving national park system [21]. This study applies the CVM to evaluate the non-use value of Laojun Mountain by engaging three stakeholder groups: local residents, tourists, and park management personnel. Using stratified random sampling, we seek to address three interrelated research questions:

• What is the total non-use value of Laojun Mountain’s ecosystem, and how is it distributed across existence, bequest, and option values?
• What are the primary socio-economic, cognitive, and cultural factors influencing WTP?
• How does cultural identity mediate individual preferences for ecosystem protection?

Lastly, this study offers a replicable framework for incorporating ecological, economic, and cultural attentions in mountain conservation strategies, with potential applications across the Global low-latitude regions where comparable pressures on biodiversity and cultural heritage persist [22,23,24]. Section 2 summarizes the literature review. Section 3 presents methods and materials. Similarly, Section 4 explains the results of data analysis, Section 5 underscores the discussion, theoretical and practical, along with limitations and future research directions, while Section 6 completes the conclusion of the research.

2. Literature Review

Over the last three decades, ecosystem service valuation has expanded from provisioning and regulating functions to explicitly include non-use values, existence, bequest, and option values [1,25]. These values capture the intrinsic worth people place on ecosystems even when they derive no direct use, a perspective that becomes especially salient in mountain socio-ecological systems where biodiversity conservation, spiritual symbolism, and heritage practices intersect. Mountain regions contribute disproportionately to water regulation, climate moderation, carbon sequestration, and endemic habitat, while sustaining distinctive cultural lifeways [22,23,26]. Their topographic isolation and ritual geographies often preserve sacred landscapes and traditional ecological knowledge, making non-material benefits central to how communities value nature [27]. In China’s north-western Yunnan, the Hengduan Mountains, including Laojun Mountain within the UNESCO “Three Parallel Rivers” World Heritage site, are a paradigmatic bio-cultural landscape of global significance, coupling exceptional endemism with deep cultural meaning [28]. Within such landscapes, cultural identity, a sense of belonging, memory, and obligation attached to place, shapes preferences for stewardship and willingness to support conservation financially.

Identity is enacted through sacred-site observance, ritual participation, intergenerational teaching, and local narratives that bind people to land and waters [29]. A growing body of work shows that emotional attachment and perceived obligation elevate WTP for protecting culturally significant ecosystems and species, complementing instrumental motives [11,15,30]. In Yunnan, traditions among Naxi, Yi, and other groups embed stewardship within everyday life and religious practice, reinforcing pro-conservation norms [3,4]. At the same time, national park reforms can spur tension between standardized conservation protocols and local practice, prompting identity renegotiation and concerns about cultural commodification. Against this backdrop, valuation exercises that measure identity explicitly are better positioned to reflect the true social benefits at stake. The CVM is the most widely used tool for quantifying non-use value [31], with applications from groundwater and wetlands to coral reefs, charismatic fauna, and mountain parks [17,29,32,33,34,35,36].

CVM is grounded in welfare economics under hypothetical market conditions, eliciting WTP for changes in environmental quality or conservation programs [37,38]. While critiques highlight hypothetical bias, scope insensitivity, and protest responses [39,40,41], methodological refinements including consequentiality and ability-to-pay scripts, cheap talk, split-sample scope tests, bootstrap inference, and integration with choice experiments, have improved validity and interpretability [2,13,42,43,44]. Crucially for culturally significant landscapes, CVM can operationalize identity-based preferences that are invisible in markets, provided the instrument incorporates validated identity items and the econometric model tests identity’s direct and moderating roles [10,45,46]. Mountain protected areas such as Laojun Mountain embody both ecological value and symbolic, spiritual, and educational benefits. The presence of “holy mountains” and “dragon pools” in Yunnan provides empirical and conceptual justification for extending valuation beyond instrumental metrics [24,47]. In China’s evolving national park system, the policy discourse on ecological civilization foregrounds ethical and cultural dimensions of stewardship [48].

This strengthens the case for integrating non-use values into budgeting, payments for ecosystem services (PES), and community programs. Empirical work underscores heterogeneous responses to PES by ecosystem and household type [49,50] and links biodiversity restoration to service gains [51], while broader pressures from air pollution and climate change complicate forest conservation in Asia [52]. Embedding identity-sensitive valuation within PES design can improve legitimacy and community buy-in, aligning financial instruments with local meanings [3,53]. Despite extensive use of CVM globally and in China, spanning marshlands, coral reefs, flagship species, and scenic sites [10,29,34,36], three gaps persist in mountain bio-cultural contexts: (1) Measurement: Many studies rely on demographics (income, education, age) and coarse attitudinal proxies, leaving cultural identity unmeasured or treated anecdotally. This limits the ability to test identity’s role as a latent construct shaping WTP [8,21,54,55]. (2) Modeling pathways: Even when identity is discussed, its mechanisms direct effects on WTP, moderation of income or ecological awareness, or mediation through perceived benefits, are rarely modeled explicitly. Advances in multi-stakeholder valuation, participatory mapping, sentiment analysis, and spatial scenario building point to richer frameworks, but seldom quantify identity within CVM econometrics [4,18,20]. (3). Context specificity: Mountain parks couple sacred geographies with conservation imperatives and tourism pressures. Few CVM studies simultaneously address identity, scope sensitivity, protest diagnostics, and ability-to-pay (ATP) bounds in such settings, limiting policy transferability to national park finance and PES. Responding to these gaps requires instruments that (i) measure cultural identity with validated multi-item scales; (ii) embed identity ex ante in the valuation scenario (e.g., stewardship of sacred sites, intergenerational duties); (iii) estimate econometric models that test identity’s direct and interaction effects on WTP alongside ecological awareness and socio-demographics. Best practice also entails transparent treatment of protest responses, scope tests comparing basic versus enhanced conservation programs, bootstrap confidence intervals for distribution-sensitive metrics (e.g., medians in right-skewed WTP), and ATP constraints that anchor responses in realistic household budgets [13,43,44].

In mountain contexts, external validity further hinges on defining the reference population (visitors and proximal residents), with any national-scale scenarios presented as illustrative and accompanied by wide, clearly labeled CIs. This framework aligns with contemporary ecosystem-service science linking valuation to actionable conservation [56] and with portfolio perspectives that treat conservation investments as risk-return choices across services and sites [57]. Laojun Mountain’s inclusion in the UNESCO Three Parallel Rivers site underlines both its ecological importance and its role as a repository of cultural memory. Prior studies have advanced ecological valuation in adjacent mountain systems (e.g., Haba Snow Mountain) and non-use valuation for emblematic species and wetlands [12,36]. Yet, as several reviews note, the integration of socio-cultural mediators into CVM remains limited [3,8,54]. Given ongoing national park reforms and rising tourism, Laojun Mountain is an apt site to test how cultural identity, conceptualized as a reflective latent construct, shapes non-use valuation and interacts with income and ecological awareness in a right-skewed WTP environment.

Building on this literature, the study advances a culture-first CVM for a mountain national park by: (1) Developing and validating a cultural identity scale tailored to Laojun Mountain (CFA, reliability), capturing belonging, ritual participation, sacred-site knowledge, and intergenerational duty. (2) Estimating WTP with identity as both a predictor and moderator, alongside ecological awareness and socio-demographics, and reporting distribution-robust statistics (medians with bootstrap CIs). (3) Implementing diagnostics (protest classification, scope sensitivity via basic vs. enhanced programs, ATP bounds) that address classic CVM concerns [39,40,41], with contemporary remedies [13,42,43,44]. (4) Translating findings to policy instruments (PES targeting, heritage stewardship funds, community benefit-sharing) consistent with China’s ecological civilization agenda and national park reforms [48,49,51,52,53]. As well as it also strengthens the argument for bio-cultural renovation in other highland counties across the Global South, where maintenance goals frequently conflict with economic significances [21,22,26]. This current literature review validates that while CVM remains a valuable instrument for measuring non-use ecosystem values, its efficacy depends on the integration of ecological, cultural, and cognitive dimensions. Mountain ecosystems, including Laojun Mountain, necessitate context-sensitive valuation methods that respect local spiritual values and cultural heritage.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Research Design and Study Area

This study designs a mixed-methods contingent valuation method to evaluate the non-use values of Laojun Mountain’s ecosystem, concentrating on option, bequest, and existence values. These values mirror the intangible yet central dimensions of ecosystem services that are not tied to direct consumption or market-based trades. The conceptual framework draws from well-being economics and builds on the Total Economic Value (TEV) paradigm as presented in Figure 1, wherein non-use values are recognized as vital mechanisms alongside direct and indirect use values [1]. Given the region’s complex bio-cultural landscape and fragile alpine ecosystems, this study integrates ecological economics, political ecology, and bio-cultural conservation frameworks. Special attention is given to the mediating role of cultural identity operationalized through knowledge of sacred sites, spiritual engagement with the landscape, and ethnic affiliation in shaping WTP for ecosystem preservation. By combining structured CVM techniques with socio-cultural indicators, this study advances a context-sensitive valuation methodology tailored to high-mountain environments. The study area spans four administrative regions, such as Lijiang, Dali, Nujiang, and Diqing as illustrated in Figure 2. It demonstrates high ecological heterogeneity with altitudinal ranges from 1820 to 4480 m and is home to over 2800 higher plant species and more than 500 vertebrates, including the endangered Yunnan golden monkey.

The socio-cultural landscape is correspondingly diverse, populated by indigenous communities including the Naxi, Bai, and Lisu, which sustain deeply rooted spiritual relations with the countryside. Spotting these cultural dynamics is crucial for capturing non-instrumental ecosystem values, which are repeatedly overlooked in traditional cost–benefit frameworks.

3.2. Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) Justification

The CVM is selected for its strength in quantifying non-use values, mostly in contexts where market prices fail to capture ethical, spiritual, and cultural concerns [25]. CVM is extensively viewed as the most direct quantified favorite method for eliciting distinct WTP in hypothetical scenarios involving public properties [13,31]. In this research, CVM is applied to estimate the entire non-use value of Laojun Mountain by eliciting WTP from three shareholder groups: 1. Local residents living in surrounding counties. 2. Both domestic and international tourists. 3. The park and forest management workforce. This triangulation confirms a pluralistic knowledge of how cultural and ecological values are perceived and monetized across different user groups.

3.3. Survey Instrument Design and Implementation

The study elicited WTP for the non-use values of Laojun Mountain using a structured questionnaire consistent with CVM protocols [31]. In line with good practice for rural, culturally sensitive settings, design refinements drew on participatory inputs [58] and on prior CVM work in sacred/mountain landscapes emphasizing cultural and bio-cultural valuation [4,10]. Development proceeded in staged steps, targeted literature scoping, expert consultation (ecological economics, anthropology, conservation practice), pilot testing (n = 40; September 2024), and iterative revision, to ensure clarity and procedural rigor. The pilot yielded Cronbach’s α = 0.82, indicating strong internal consistency. The final instrument comprised 26 reflective items across four dimensions aligned with Appendix A: Cognitive Awareness (CA), Site Experience (SE), and Value Orientation, operationalized as Cultural Identity (CI) and Legacy Value Recognition (LVR), and demographics. The valuation scenario specified an annual household contribution to a Laojun Mountain Conservation Fund, implemented via a payment card ranging from 10 to 2000 CNY (upper bound set from pilot and local income profiles) to reduce starting-point bias.

A funnel sequence moved from general awareness/experience to specific WTP choices to help mitigate anchoring and hypothetical bias [13,43]. Enumerators used a brief budget-consequentiality script, reminding respondents to state realistic, affordable amounts used for policy-relevant funding decisions. Exact item wordings (CI, LVR, SE, and CA) appear in Appendix A; the survey blueprint is summarized in

Table 1. Questionnaire Structure Design.

Dimension	Sample Questions	Indicators	Scale Type
Demographics	Q1–Q6. Age; gender; education; income; residence distance; household size	Controls & segmentation	Categorical/numeric
Cultural Identity (CI)	Q7. I feel a strong sense of belonging to local cultural traditions. Q8. My family participates in rituals linked to local mountains or lakes. Q9. I feel responsible for safeguarding local customs for future generations. Q10. I know the stories associated with Laojun Mountain’s sacred sites.	Place/cultural attachment; ritual participation; belonging; stewardship.	5-point Likert
Cognitive Awareness (CA)	Q11. I can identify key species or habitats in the park. Q12. I am aware of current conservation threats (e.g., waste, habitat loss). Q13. I follow news/updates about the park’s environment. Q14. Conservation benefits future generations.	Ecological knowledge; threat awareness; intergenerational concern.	5-point Likert
Site Experience (SE)	Q15. I felt emotionally engaged and immersed during my visit. Q16. Trails/viewpoints/facilities supported a high-quality visit. Q17. Guided or digital interpretation (e.g., apps/AR) made the experience more meaningful. Q18. Park management (crowding/cleanliness) did not detract from my experience.	On-site experience quality; immersion; interpretation; management.	5-point Likert
Legacy Value Recognition (LVR)	Q19. Protecting Laojun Mountain is important even if I never visit again. Q20. We have a responsibility to pass this landscape to future generations. Q21. Conservation keeps options open for future learning/discovery. Q22. The site’s cultural symbols have value independent of economic use.	Existence value; bequest value; option value; intrinsic cultural value	5-point Likert
Willingness to Pay (WTP)	Q23. Are you willing to contribute annually to a Conservation Fund? (Yes/No) Q24. Select the maximum annual amount your household would pay. Q25. Please rate your certainty about that amount (0–10). Q26. If zero or refusal, main reason? (e.g., govt should pay/distrust fund/cannot afford/taxes already, etc.)	WTP presence; WTP magnitude; certainty; protest/ability-to-pay classification	Binary; Payment card ¥10–¥2000 (+ open field); Certainty 0–10; Multiple choice

. Additionally, the study measured four reflective latent constructs on a 5-point Likert scale: Cognitive Awareness (CA, 4 items), Site Experience (SE, 4 items; one item reverse-coded if retained), Cultural Identity (CI, 6 items), and Legacy Value Recognition (LVR, 4 items). Items were adapted from the cultural ecosystem services, visitor-experience, and bio-cultural identity studies and were refined through expert review and a pilot (n = 40). For analysis, construct scores equal the arithmetic mean of their items. WTP followed a yes/no participation question and a payment card for the maximum annual household contribution (¥10–¥2000 + open field), followed by certainty (0–10) and protest-reason classification; demographics (age, gender, education, income, residence distance, household size) served as controls. Exact wordings appear in Appendix A (

Table A1. Measurement Item.

Construct	Code	Item Wording	Scale	Sources
Cultural Identity (CI)	CI1	I know the stories associated with Laojun Mountain’s sacred sites.	1–5	Pretty et al., 2009; Maffi, 2005; Chan et al., 2012; Aryal et al., 2021; Ren et al., 2025 [3,4,64,65,66]
	CI2	My family participates in rituals linked to local mountains or lakes.	1–5
	CI3	I feel a strong sense of belonging to local cultural traditions.	1–5
	CI4	I feel responsible for safeguarding local customs for future generations.	1–5
Site Experience (SE)	SE1	The site’s interpretive signs and storytelling enhanced my understanding of its cultural and ecological significance.	1–5	Falk & Dierking, 2016; Kim, Ritchie & McCormick, 2012; Oh, Fiore & Jeoung, 2007 [67,68,69]
	SE2	I felt emotionally engaged and immersed during my visit.	1–5
	SE3	Trails, viewpoints, and on-site facilities supported a high-quality visit.	1–5
	SE4	Guided or digital interpretation (e.g., apps/AR) made the experience more meaningful.	1–5
Legacy Value Recognition (LVR)	LVR1	Protecting Laojun Mountain is important even if I never visit again.	1–5	De Groot et al., 2010; Farber et al., 2002; Chan et al., 2012 [1,6,66]
	LVR2	We have a responsibility to pass this landscape to future generations.	1–5
	LVR3	Conservation keeps options open for future learning and discovery.	1–5
	LVR4	The site’s cultural symbols have value independent of economic use.	1–5
Ecological Awareness (EA)	EA1	I can identify key species or habitats in the park.	1–5	Mengist et al., 2020; Canedoli et al., 2024; Sonwani et al., 2022; Ren et al., 2020; Wilkins et al., 2021 [3,9,18,22,52]
	EA2	I am aware of current conservation threats here (e.g., waste, habitat loss).	1–5
	EA3	I follow news or updates about the park’s environment.	1–5
	EA4	I believe conservation benefits future generations.	1–5

,

Table A2. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).

Construct	Item	Loadings	Cronbach’s Alpha	Composite Reliability (CR)	Average Variance Extracted (AVE)
Cultural Identity (CI)			0.88	0.89	0.59
	CI1	0.78
	CI2	0.82
	CI3	0.80
	CI4	0.74
Legacy Value Recognition (LVR)			0.85	0.87	0.62
	LVR1	0.83
	LVR2	0.81
	LVR3	0.78
	LVR4	0.76
Site Experience (SE)			0.83	0.86	0.57
	SE1	0.79
	SE2	0.76
	SE3	0.74
	SE4	0.78
Cognitive Awareness (CA)			0.81	0.84	0.54
	CA1	0.77
	CA2	0.73
	CA3	0.72
	CA4	0.76

and

Table A3. Discriminant validity: Fornell–Larcker criterion.

Construct	CI	LVR	SE	CA
CI	0.768	0.58	0.42	0.36
LVR	0.58	0.787	0.47	0.39
SE	0.42	0.47	0.755	0.33
CA	0.36	0.39	0.33	0.735

); factor loadings, reliability, AVE, and Discriminant validity evidence are reported in Appendix B and Appendix C.

3.4. Sampling Strategy and Data Collection

Our primary models are estimated on the pooled sample to recover an overall CI effect while controlling for stakeholder type via occupation/role indicators together with standard socioeconomic covariates. This approach preserves statistical power (total N = 219) and avoids unstable subgroup estimates that could arise from splitting the sample into residents, staff/rangers, and tourists. A stratified random sampling strategy was employed to ensure the inclusion of three key stakeholder groups: (1) Local residents from Yulong, Jianchuan, Lanping, and Weixi counties, representing populations with place-based cultural and ecological knowledge. (2) Tourists, sampled from major scenic spots such as Liming Danxia, the Ninety-Nine Dragon Pool, and key trailheads. (3) Park staff and rangers, accessed through cooperation with the Laojun Mountain National Park Administration. The sample size was estimated using Cochran’s formula at a 95% confidence level and 5% precision, targeting 250 responses. A total of 270 questionnaires were distributed between June 2024 and May 2025. After removing invalid submissions due to speed completion or inconsistent answers, 219 valid responses were retained (effective rate: 87.6%), ensuring strong statistical reliability. Data were collected over three distinct phases:

• Pilot Phase (June 2024): Twenty pretest interviews to refine language, flow, and branching logic.
• Main Fieldwork (Oct 2024–April 2025): Trained field enumerators conducted face-to-face interviews using QR-code-based surveys on the Wenjuanxing platform. Respondents were guided through the questionnaire at park entrance points and major scenic areas. To enhance inclusivity, staff members and rangers were directly approached at the administrative offices.
• Online Supplementation (March–May 2025): To broaden national awareness sampling, online distribution was conducted via official park social media, academic networks, and tourism promotion pages.

To minimize response bias, all participants were assured of anonymity and informed that the scenario was hypothetical. Completion time, consistency checks, and response rate distribution were monitored to exclude speeders and straight-liners. Sample composition by stakeholder role is reported in

Table A8. Sample composition by group.

Group	Numbers	Percentage (%)
Residents	92	42.0
Park rangers/staff	41	18.7
Tourists	86	39.3
Total	219	100.0

.

3.5. Analytical Framework

3.5.1. Non-Use Value Estimation

The early conceptualization of non-use value was introduced by Ciriacy-Wantrup (1947) [59], emphasizing the economic return of conservation efforts. Following standard CVM practice, the median WTP of positive responses was used as the central estimator:

M (WTP) = M (WTP > 0) × P

(1)

where M (WTP > 0) is the median WTP among those willing to pay, and P is the proportion of respondents who reported a positive WTP.

The total non-use value (Vt) is calculated as:

Vt = M (WTP) × N

(2)

where N is the total reference population for the valuation (urban population in China = 943.5 million, as of 2024).

3.5.2. Econometric Modeling

To explore the drivers of WTP and the mediating role of cultural identity, we employed binary logistic regression and ordinal regression models: Logistic Regression (Dependent Variable: WTP decision) and Independent variables: age, gender, education, income, environmental satisfaction, and cultural attachment. Ordinal Regression (Dependent Variable: WTP amount tiers): Explanatory variables include both socio-demographic factors and value motivations (existence, option, and bequest). Interaction terms were added to test how cultural identity moderates the impact of ecological awareness on WTP. All analyses were conducted in R 4.3.2 and Stata 17. We assessed multicollinearity via variance inflation factors (VIFs;

Table 2. Multicollinearity Diagnostics—Variance Inflation Factors.

Variable	Variance Inflation Factors (VIF)	Tolerance (1/VIF)
Age	1.42	0.703
Gender	1.18	0.847
Education Level	1.62	0.617
Income	1.71	0.585
Environmental Awareness	1.83	0.546
Cultural Identity (Proxy Score)	1.59	0.629
Ecological Satisfaction	1.34	0.746
Interaction Term (Env × Culture)	1.96	0.510
Mean VIF	1.58	–

); all values were <2.5, indicating no material multicollinearity among predictors [60]. We tested for heteroskedasticity using the Breusch–Pagan test (

Table 3. Breusch–Pagan Test for Heteroskedasticity.

Model Type	χ2 Statistic	Degrees of Freedom	p-Value	Interpretation
WTP Decision	2.87	1	0.090	Homoskedastic (p > 0.05)
WTP Amount	1.21	1	0.271	Homoskedastic (p > 0.05)

); p > 0.05 indicates no statistical evidence of heteroskedasticity in the pooled models. As a conservative practice, we report heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors throughout. Continuous variables entering interactions (e.g., Cultural Identity × income) were mean-centere d before product-term construction to reduce nonessential collinearity. Robustness checks for the interaction are provided in Appendix C (

Table A6. Interaction robustness: Identity × Income.

Model Specification	Identity × Income	SE	p.Value
(1) Income quartiles	3.6	1.6	0.024
(2) Rank-inverse normalized income × identity	0.34	0.12	0.005
(3) Identity residualized on income × (raw) income	0.31	0.13	0.017

).

4. Data Analysis Results

4.1. Basic Characteristics of the Sample

A total of 219 valid questionnaires were collected for this study. The demographic characteristics of the sample are presented in

Table 4. Demographic Characteristics of Respondents.

Variable	Category	Frequency	Percentage (%)	Chi-Square (p-Value)
Gender	Male	102	46.58	0.243
	Female	117	53.42
Age	Under 18	3	1.37	0.118
	18–25	12	5.48
	26–30	17	7.76
	31–40	96	43.84
	41–50	52	23.74
	51–60	27	12.33
	Over 60	12	5.48
Education	Primary or below	5	2.28	<0.001
	Junior high	12	5.48
	High school/Technical	32	14.61
	Bachelor’s degree	118	53.88
	Postgraduate	52	23.74

Note: OR = Odds Ratio.

. The gender distribution of respondents was relatively balanced, with a slightly higher proportion of females than males (53.42% vs. 46.58%). The age structure was primarily composed of middle-aged and young adults, with the 31–50 age group accounting for 67.58%. The respondents had a relatively high level of education, with 77.62% holding a bachelor’s degree or above, including 23.74% with a postgraduate degree. In terms of occupation, employees of enterprises and public institutions accounted for the highest proportion (30.59%), followed by government administrative staff (18.72%) and tourism professionals (7.76%). Chi-square tests were conducted to analyze the relationships between gender, age, and willingness to pay. The results showed that gender (p = 0.24) and age (p = 0.12) were not significantly associated with willingness to pay.

4.2. Analysis of Awareness, Attitudes, and Willingness to Pay

As shown in

Table 5. Distribution of Awareness, Attitudes, and Willingness to Pay.

Question	Option	Frequency	Percentage (%)	Correlation with WTP (OR)
Level of Awareness	Very familiar	43	19.63	2.15 **
	Quite familiar	55	25.11	1.89 *
	Generally familiar	74	33.79	1.00 (reference)
	Not familiar	47	21.47	0.67
Site Experience	Strongly like	103	47.03	3.02 ***
	Like	82	37.44	2.15 **
	Neutral/Dislike	34	15.53	1.00 (reference)

Note: *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.

, respondents had a relatively high level of awareness of Laojun Mountain, with 44.74% reporting they were “very familiar” or “quite familiar.” Evaluations of the site experience were generally positive, with 84.47% expressing that they “liked” or “strongly liked” the site. Notably, all respondents (100%) believed that protecting Laojun Mountain is “very worthwhile,” yet the actual rate of willingness to pay was 84.47%.

4.3. Regression Analysis of Factors Influencing Willingness to Pay

4.3.1. Main Effects Model

A multivariate logistic regression analysis was conducted to examine the direct effects of key socio-demographic and attitudinal variables on respondents’ WTP for ecosystem and cultural preservation, as demonstrated in

Table 6. Regression Analysis of Factors Influencing Willingness to Pay.

Variable	Coefficient (β)	Std. Error	OR	95% CI	p-Value
Education (Bachelor)	0.60 ***	0.15	1.82	[1.36, 2.44]	<0.001
Income (>100 k)	0.77 ***	0.18	2.15	[1.52, 3.06]	<0.001
Tourism Professional	1.11 ***	0.25	3.02	[1.86, 4.92]	<0.001
Cultural Identity	0.54 ***	0.12	1.72	[1.36, 2.18]	<0.001
Legacy Value Recognition	0.32 ***	0.09	1.38	[1.16, 1.64]	<0.002

Note: OR = Odds Ratio, *** p < 0.001. Occupation/role indicators in the model capture stakeholder types (residents, park staff/rangers, and visitors), allowing the CI coefficient to be interpreted net of group composition.

. The results indicate that education level, income, and occupation type significantly influence WTP. Respondents with a university degree were significantly more likely to be willing to pay than those without, with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.82 (β = 0.60, p < 0.001), indicating they are 82% more likely to express WTP. Those earning more than 100,000 yuan annually had an OR of 2.15 (β = 0.77, p < 0.001), suggesting a strong positive relationship between income level and WTP. Individuals working in tourism-related occupations were the most likely to pay (OR = 3.02, β = 1.11, p < 0.001), underscoring the sector’s vested interest in conservation and cultural heritage. Both cultural identity (β = 0.54, OR = 1.72, p < 0.001) and legacy value recognition (β = 0.32, OR = 1.38, p = 0.002) were also significant, reflecting the influence of cultural and emotional attachment on WTP decisions. These results suggest that both socioeconomic factors (education, income, occupation) and cultural affiliations are strong, independent predictors of support for conservation financing.

As shown in Appendix E Table A8, the final sample comprises 92 residents (42.0%), 41 park staff/rangers (18.7%), and 86 tourists (39.3%). In the role-aware model as presented in the Appendix C in

Table A5. Selection-adjusted robustness: tourist influence on WTP amount.

Variable	Coefficients.	S.E	p.Value
Tourist (vs resident)	18.7	7.3	0.011
Staff (vs resident)	9.5	6.9	0.164
Income (per 10 k CNY)	2.1	0.6	0.001
Cultural identity (1–5)	7.8	2.4	0.001
Education (years)	0.9	0.4	0.027
Ecological awareness (1–5)	3.1	1.5	0.039
Inverse Mills ratio (λ)	12.4	5.8	0.033
Constant	15.2	9.1	0.095

, the tourist status is associated with higher WTP (coef. = 18.7, p = 0.011), while Cultural Identity remains a positive predictor (coef. = 7.8, p = 0.001).

4.3.2. Interaction Effects Model

To explore whether the influence of key variables is conditional upon the presence of other factors, a second regression model was estimated, incorporating interaction terms as presented in

Table 7. Interaction Effects Logistic Regression on Willingness to Pay.

Variable	Coefficient (β)	Std. Error	OR	95% CI	p-Value
Cultural Identity	0.48	0.14	1.62	[1.24, 2.05]	<0.001
Legacy Value Recognition	0.21	0.11	1.23	[0.99, 1.58]	0.065
Ecological Awareness	0.09	0.10	1.09	[0.90, 1.36]	0.34
Education (Bachelor)	0.12	0.13	1.13	[0.88, 1.56]	0.28
Income (>100 k)	0.17	0.16	1.19	[0.95, 1.79]	0.19
Tourism Professional	0.24	0.19	1.27	[0.88, 1.94]	0.16
Cultural Identity × Legacy Value	0.31	0.10	1.36	[1.13, 1.90]	0.002
Ecological Awareness × Education	0.28	0.11	1.32	[1.07, 1.72]	0.004
Cultural Identity × Income	0.35	0.12	1.42	[1.13, 1.95]	0.001

p < 0.05.

. The inclusion of interaction terms offers a deeper understanding of moderated relationships between predictors and WTP. Cultural Identity remained a strong and statistically significant predictor (β = 0.48, OR = 1.62, p < 0.001), indicating its robust influence on WTP across contexts. While Legacy Value Recognition, Education, Income, and Occupation became statistically non-significant in this model, their combined effects with other variables revealed important insights: The interaction term Cultural Identity × Legacy Value was significant (β = 0.31, OR = 1.36, p = 0.002), suggesting that individuals who both identify culturally with the site and recognize its legacy value are particularly motivated to pay. Ecological Awareness × Education was also significant (β = 0.28, OR = 1.32, p = 0.004), indicating that ecological concern translates into WTP more strongly among the educated. Cultural Identity × Income showed a highly significant interaction (β = 0.35, OR = 1.42, p = 0.001), meaning that the cultural relevance of the site has an even greater effect on WTP among higher-income individuals.

These results highlight that individual characteristics do not operate in isolation. Instead, their effects on WTP are amplified or diminished depending on their interaction with other factors. For instance, cultural identity alone increases WTP, but its influence is significantly stronger when combined with high income or legacy value awareness. Similarly, the interaction plot illustrated in Figure 3, demonstrating the predicted probability of being WTP for Laojun Mountain conservation, based on two key interacting factors: Cultural Identity (low vs. high) and Income Level (≤100 k vs. >100 k yuan/year. Cultural Identity significantly increases WTP as follows: 1. Individuals with high cultural identity are consistently more likely to express willingness to pay than those with low identity. 2. At low income, WTP rises from 7% (low identity) to 15% (high identity). 3. This reflects the strong emotional and symbolic connection that individuals feel toward Laojun Mountain as part of their cultural landscape. Furthermore, the Income moderates the effect of cultural identity when: 1. Among low-income respondents, cultural identity has a moderate effect (from 7% to 15%). 2. Among high-income respondents, the effect is amplified with WTP increases from 10% to 22%, showing that cultural identity has a much stronger influence when economic resources are also available. 3.

This is consistent with the significant interaction term (β = 0.35, OR = 1.42, p = 0.001) in Table 6. The positive CI × income interaction holds across three alternative specifications (Appendix C, Table A6), with predictors mean-centered and VIFs < 2.5, indicating the result is not an artifact of income coding or multicollinearity. Finally, the Non-parallel lines = significant interaction showing: The diverging slopes in the plot visually confirm the presence of a significant interaction effect: the impact of cultural identity on WTP depends on income level.

4.4. Payment Amount and Value Assessment

The distribution of respondents’ stated payment amounts under the CVM was notably right-skewed, with a median value of 100 yuan per year as illustrated in

Table 8. Distribution of Payment Amounts and Value Estimation.

Payment Amount (yuan/year)	Frequency	Percentage (%)	Cumulative (%)
10	28	15.14	15.14
50	27	14.59	29.73
100	51	27.57	57.30
200	29	15.68	72.98
500	26	14.05	87.03
1000	13	7.03	94.06
2000	11	5.95	100.00

. This skewness suggests that while a large number of respondents were willing to pay modest amounts, a smaller segment expressed significantly higher willingness, raising the overall mean. Based on this distribution: The median-based valuation of the Laojun Mountain ecosystem’s non-use value was estimated at 79.697 billion yuan per year, reflecting a conservative and robust measure. The mean-based valuation, more sensitive to high outlier payments, was 260.841 billion yuan per year, capturing the full economic potential as perceived by the public. These figures underscore the considerable public valuation of Laojun Mountain’s ecological and cultural significance, offering strong economic justification for sustained investment in its preservation and sustainable use. Through the CVM, the validity of the results is confirmed, indicating that a wide range of respondents have assigned significant non-use value to the site. Our primary non-use value (NUV) estimate is reported for a policy-relevant reference population comprising park visitors and proximal residents of counties directly linked to Laojun Mountain National Park. Because on-site samples over-represent visitors, we do not posit a national NUV.

To limit upper-tail influence (often higher among tourists), we report median WTP as the primary valuation metric and provide protest-handling sensitivity (

Table A7. Protest diagnostics & sensitivity.

Metric	Values
Protest/zero-WTP cases (n)	34
Protest rate (%)	15.5
Median WTP (protests excluded)	80 CNY
Median WTP (protests coded as zero)	70 CNY
Change (%)	−12.5

). A role-aware specification (Table A5) indicates that tourist status is associated with higher WTP even after adjustment, while Cultural Identity remains a positive predictor; this guards against compositional inflation in aggregate valuation. For transparency, an illustrative national scenario is presented in Appendix D with clearly stated assumptions and wide bootstrap confidence intervals (1000 reps). We also discuss selection (participation in paying) and transportability limitations, noting that estimates are most credible for park visitors and proximal residents of counties directly linked to Laojun Mountain National Park; extrapolation beyond this reference population should be interpreted cautiously.

• Valuation Results

• Median-based estimation: 79.697 billion yuan/year.
• Mean-based estimation: 260.841 billion yuan/year.

4.5. Robustness to ATP and Trimming

The study report medians as primary (Hicksian measure), and includes 5%/10% trimmed means. An ATP-bounded sensitivity (top-code at 2% of self-reported annual income) yields qualitatively identical NUV rankings; detailed outputs in Appendix D. The study also discusses this in the limitations.

4.6. Analysis of Payment Motivation

Table 9. Motivation Analysis.

Motivation Type	Number of Respondents	Percentage (%)	Correlation with Payment (β)
Natural Resources	120	64.86	0.28 **
Landscape Value	134	72.43	0.34 ***
Recreational Value	90	48.65	0.19 *
Cultural Value	69	37.30	0.25 **
Bequest Value	103	55.68	0.31 ***

Notes: *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05 and β = Standardized Regression Coefficient.

presents the analysis of respondents’ self-reported motivations for their willingness to pay, based on a multiple-response format. The most frequently cited motives were landscape value (72.43%) and bequest value (55.68%), indicating a dominant concern for both aesthetic appreciation and intergenerational equity. Regression analysis reveals that all five motivational factors were positively associated with payment amount, after controlling for socio-economic characteristics via STATA 17.0. The strongest predictors were: Landscape Value (β = 0.34, p < 0.001) and Bequest Value (β = 0.31, p < 0.001). These findings suggest that individuals are motivated not only by the tangible benefits of natural resources or recreational use, but also by intangible values linked to beauty, heritage, and legacy. Notably, the cultural and ecological embeddedness of the Laojun Mountain landscape appears central to public support for conservation funding.

4.7. Analysis of Reasons for Refusing to Pay

Among the 34 respondents, as shown in

Table 10. Multiple Response Analysis of Reasons for Refusing to Pay.

Reason	Response Count	Response %	Case %
Government Responsibility	26	70.27	76.47
Survey Methodology	7	18.92	20.59
Lack of Interest	4	10.81	11.76

Note: Significance level α = 0.05.

, who indicated an unwillingness to pay, the most frequently cited reason was the belief that ecological conservation is the government’s responsibility (76.47%). This suggests a perception gap regarding individual versus institutional responsibility in environmental stewardship. Demographically, this subgroup was characterized by: Low income (64.71% earning <50,000 yuan/year), Low education (58.82% with junior high or less) and Non-tourism occupations (85.29%). These patterns suggest that financial constraints and a lack of engagement with the tourism economy may reduce individuals’ sense of agency or benefit from conservation efforts. This aligns with previous findings in environmental behavior literature, where socioeconomic marginalization can correlate with disengagement from public good contributions.

5. Discussion

The findings of this study offer a multifaceted understanding of the determinants of willingness to pay (WTP) for ecosystem and cultural preservation in Laojun Mountain, a region of outstanding ecological and cultural significance. Drawing upon the CVM, the results reaffirm the growing body of literature that emphasizes the importance of integrating non-use values, such as cultural identity and bequest motivations, into environmental valuation frameworks. The regression analyses reveal that socio-demographic factors, particularly education, income, and occupational background, significantly influence individuals’ likelihood to contribute financially to conservation initiatives. These findings echo earlier studies asserting that economic capacity and educational attainment shape environmental preferences and behavioral intentions. The particularly high odds ratio (OR = 3.02) among tourism professionals reflects their heightened stake in the sustainable management of Laojun Mountain, given the site’s role in supporting the local tourism economy. On-site CVM samples capture individuals with higher park salience and may differ from non-visitors in preferences and liquidity constraints. We therefore restrict our primary NUV to a proximal/visitor frame and present a separate illustrative national extrapolation only for sensitivity.

Transportability to a national frame is limited by selection into visitation, income differences, and information asymmetries; policy use should accordingly target local and regional financing and stewardship instruments. While higher WTP among tourists is consistent with findings in other case studies [32], this relationship may partly reflect vested interests, since tourism revenues are dependent on site conservation. For this reason, tourism-linked WTP should be considered as one contributing factor, but not as a definitive indicator of broader social preferences. It is also important to recognize that each individual’s willingness to pay is bounded by household budget constraints and competing priorities, such as education, health, and other environmental causes. As such, WTP results in this study should be interpreted as a relative measure of conservation preference rather than an absolute indicator of financial capacity. This aligns with previous findings that highlight substitution effects and budget limitations as critical factors influencing stated WTP [43]. Cultural identity emerged as a consistently strong predictor across both the main and interaction effects models, reinforcing theoretical arguments about the embeddedness of environmental values in collective memory and symbolic meaning [61,62].

The interaction terms further elucidate how cultural identity interacts with other variables to shape WTP in nuanced ways. Specifically, individuals who possess a strong cultural affiliation and concurrently recognize the site’s legacy value are significantly more inclined to support conservation financially (OR = 1.36, p = 0.002). Likewise, the interaction between cultural identity and income (OR = 1.42, p = 0.001) illustrates that the affective connection to place is particularly potent when individuals have the economic means to act on it. These results align with emerging frameworks that stress the conditional nature of pro-environmental behaviors on both structural and cognitive factors [54,55]. The visualization of the interaction effect (Figure 3) provides compelling evidence of this moderation. Among lower-income respondents, the probability of WTP nearly doubles with strong cultural identity (from 7% to 15%). Among higher-income individuals, this effect is even more pronounced (from 10% to 22%), suggesting that economic capacity amplifies the influence of cultural affiliations on conservation support. The non-parallel slopes in the interaction plot further confirm that these relationships are not merely additive but reflect true interaction effects, a finding with strong policy implications.

The analysis of payment amounts highlights the asymmetric nature of valuation, with a median WTP of 100 yuan/year and a right-skewed distribution suggesting the presence of both modest contributors and a minority of highly motivated donors. This variation is essential for constructing tiered or differentiated payment-for-ecosystem-services (PES) schemes that align with both capacity and motivation. The resulting estimates of non-use value 79.697 to 260.841 billion yuan annually constitute a compelling economic rationale for targeted investment in Laojun Mountain’s preservation. Motivational analysis further supports the claim that intangible benefits landscape aesthetics, cultural significance, and intergenerational equity play a central role in driving WTP. The high predictive strength of landscape value (β = 0.34, p < 0.001) and bequest value (β = 0.31, p < 0.001) underscores the salience of both present enjoyment and future-oriented stewardship. The role of cultural value (β = 0.25, p < 0.01) is particularly noteworthy in a setting where sacred natural sites, traditional knowledge, and ethnic identity are deeply intertwined. These insights consistent with global calls to integrate cultural ecosystem services more fully into valuation methodologies [24].

However, the analysis of respondents who refused to pay reveals critical barriers to broader participation. The predominant rationale belief in government responsibility (76.47%) points to a persistent delegation of environmental stewardship to institutional actors. Coupled with the socio-economic profile of this subgroup such as low income, low education, and non-tourism occupations, these findings reflect systemic disparities in environmental engagement and capacity. Although educational initiatives can enhance awareness and willingness to contribute, financial constraints remain a key determinant of WTP. Therefore, complementary measures such as targeted subsidies, conservation funds, or community-based payment schemes could provide more equitable support for disadvantaged groups, enabling them to participate in conservation financing. These findings should not be interpreted as a lack of understanding or appreciation among less financially advantaged groups. Instead, they primarily reflect financial and social constraints that limit individuals’ ability to contribute monetarily. Conservation responsibilities extend beyond individuals to state institutions and broader society, which must play a central role in creating enabling conditions for inclusive participation. Future interventions should therefore combine inclusive education campaigns with supportive institutional measures to foster a shared responsibility for conservation.

5.1. Theoretical and Practical Contributions

First, our estimates show that cultural identity (CI) is a significant predictor of WTP net of socio-economic controls and stakeholder type (Table 6), and that this effect is amplified by income (positive CI × income; Figure 3; Table A6). Theoretically, this moves contingent valuation beyond a purely utilitarian account toward a bio-cultural valuation model in which symbolic attachment and stewardship norms exert independent explanatory power. The positive interaction supports an identity–capacity complementarity: cultural motivation supplies willingness, while income relaxes the budget constraint that translates willingness into payment. In environmental valuation terms, CI behaves as a non-market preference shifter that is not reducible to standard demographics, helping explain heterogeneity in non-use values for sacred/mountain landscapes. Second, our role-aware model indicates that tourist status raises WTP even after adjustment (Table A5), while CI remains significant. This pattern clarifies that higher aggregate WTP is not merely compositional (more tourists) but reflects additive cultural mechanisms shared across groups. Theoretically, this refines CVM’s treatment of passive-use values by separating contextual capacity effects (tourist purchasing power) from enduring identity effects (shared meanings, heritage claims). CI thus operates as a cross-role latent driver consistent with bio-cultural frameworks in which non-use values are embedded in social memory and place meaning.

Third, our median-based valuation with protest diagnostics (Table A7) and selection adjustment (Table A5, λ term) demonstrates how method choices align with theory. If non-use values are concentrated among high-identity individuals, then right-tail sensitivity and protest responses are expected. Using the median and reporting protest handling reconciles stated values with normative claims about fairness and legitimacy in sacred landscapes, and strengthens the credibility of CI-informed CVM in policy settings. Fourth, at a construct level, CI showed reliable measurement and role-aware robustness (

Table A4. Group Descriptive Statistics.

Variable	Residents (n = 92)	Staff (n = 41)	Tourists (n = 86)
Age (years, mean ± sd)	39.6 ± 12.1	36.4 ± 9.2	34.8 ± 10.7
Female (%)	51.1	45.0	56.0
Education (years)	12.9 ± 3.1	15.1 ± 2.6	15.6 ± 3.0
Income (CNY/yr, median)	52,000	68,000	72,000
Cultural identity (1–5, mean)	3.92 ± 0.67	3.71 ± 0.61	3.48 ± 0.73

, Table A5 and Table A6), supporting its status as a core explanatory construct, not just a correlate, in mountain-park valuation. This invites theory to treat cultural identity as a first-order determinant of non-use value formation, alongside existence, bequest, and option motives, rather than a background covariate. Taken together, the results support a bio-cultural augmentation of CVM: (i) Identity shifts preferences toward conservation contributions; (ii) Capacity (income, tourist status) scales the expression of those preferences; and (iii) transparent handling of selection/protests is integral where heritage meanings are salient. This integrated account links environmental economics with cultural geography and conservation social science by specifying how and when cultural identity enters the WTP decision, and why its effect varies across budget constraints without being reducible to them.

To avoid regressive impacts, the study outlined tiered fees (reduced rates for low-income residents), voucher/waiver programs, matched community funds, and Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) that return a share of revenues to local households and cultural custodians.

5.2. Limitations and Future Research Directions

While this study offers robust insights, several limitations warrant acknowledgement. First, the reliance on stated preferences through CVM, although standard, remains susceptible to hypothetical bias and strategic responding. Several methodological objections to contingent valuation and WTP approaches are well documented in the literature. These include hypothetical bias, income sensitivity, embedding effects, and context dependency [62]. While these limitations do not invalidate the method, they highlight the need for cautious interpretation and for combining WTP with complementary approaches when informing policy. Second, because our survey data were collected primarily from onsite visitors, the findings may not be fully representative of the broader national population. On-site respondents are more likely to exhibit stronger cultural attachment to the site and higher financial willingness to pay compared with individuals who have not visited. Consequently, extrapolating onsite WTP estimates to a national scale should be approached with caution. Future research could incorporate off-site surveys or national sampling to provide more balanced estimates [63]. Third, although our models include group-level controls, we did not estimate fully stratified (resident/tourist/staff) regressions due to sample-size constraints. Future work with larger strata can examine role-specific measurement and paths (e.g., multi-group invariance and subgroup SEM) to assess how CI operates within each stakeholder group.

Fourth, the cross-sectional survey design captures static preferences, limiting the ability to observe changes over time or in response to environmental shifts. Five, the study’s geographic scope, though rich in cultural and ecological value, may limit generalizability to other contexts without similar socio-ecological profiles. Future research could address these limitations by employing longitudinal designs, incorporating behavioral experiments, or integrating revealed preference data where feasible. Moreover, expanding the analysis to compare local and non-local visitors could illuminate geographic patterns in WTP. Finally, future studies should further explore the role of emotional geographies, spiritual narratives, and intergenerational memory in shaping conservation values, especially within Indigenous or ethnic minority communities.

6. Conclusions

This study demonstrates that the willingness to pay for conservation in Laojun Mountain is shaped by an intricate interplay of socio-economic status, cultural affiliation, ecological awareness, and legacy considerations. Through the use of CVM and interaction effects modeling, the findings reveal that cultural identity significantly enhances WTP, especially when combined with high income or legacy recognition. These insights advocate for more inclusive and culturally responsive environmental valuation practices. By recognizing the symbolic and spiritual dimensions of nature and the uneven capacities of individuals to contribute financially, conservation policies can become more effective, equitable, and ethically grounded. By advancing a bio-cultural perspective, future studies can inform more just and sustainable conservation policies, linking valuation science with the realities of landscape governance and environmental ethics.