Estimating the Non-Use Value of Laojun Mountain National Park: A Contingent Valuation Study with Cultural Identity Mediation in Yunnan, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
This manuscript estimates the non-use values ​​of Laojunshan National Park in Yunnan Province and, incorporating cultural value factors, explores the impact of cultural identity on willingness to pay. Overall, the article is innovative in its research topic and methodology, and provides a useful economic rationale for ecological conservation policies. However, It has certain shortcomings in its questionnaire design, statistical analysis, and quantification of non-use values, which require further improvement. Specific review comments are as follows:
1. The title of the article only mentions "non-use value," but the introduction discusses "non-use value" and "cultural value" in parallel (Line 68), potentially leading to conceptual confusion. It is recommended that the research topic be unified. If "cultural value" plays a significant role in the research, it is recommended that "cultural value" be explicitly mentioned in the title. If cultural value is a dimension of non-use value, its relationship to non-use value should be clarified in the introduction, and how cultural value influences non-use value estimates should be explained.
2. The current questionnaire lacks clarity in terms of questions and answers, failing to clearly present key questions and options. It is recommended that the questionnaire be enriched to ensure that more factors that may influence willingness to pay are covered, particularly in terms of measuring cultural identity and ecological awareness. Further supplement the specific location and time of questionnaire distribution. Key indicators such as "cultural identity" and "ecological awareness" require clearer operational definitions and explanation of their relevance to the research objectives.
3. Although the manuscript estimates non-use value, the quantification of this value remains unclear. Further exploration is recommended for how to quantify non-use value based on questionnaire survey results, taking into account potential biases. For example, participants in the questionnaire may be more likely to favor or care about a particular scenic spot, while those who did not participate may have completely different profiles, leading to sample bias.
4. While estimates of non-use value are provided, translation of these estimates into concrete policy recommendations remains insufficient. Further clarification is recommended for how to design ecological compensation mechanisms based on these non-use value estimates, particularly in the context of integrating cultural value and ecological services, and how to apply these estimates to policymaking.
Author Response
We sincerely thank the reviewer for their thoughtful and encouraging feedback. We appreciate the recognition of our methodological approach and rigorous analysis. We have carefully considered and addressed all the suggestions as follows:
Comments 1:
The title of the article only mentions "non-use value," but the introduction discusses "non-use value" and "cultural value" in parallel (Line 68), potentially leading to conceptual confusion. It is recommended that the research topic be unified. If "cultural value" plays a significant role in the research, it is recommended that "cultural value" be explicitly mentioned in the title. If cultural value is a dimension of non-use value, its relationship to non-use value should be clarified in the introduction, and how cultural value influences non-use value estimates should be explained.
Response:
Thank you so much to the reviewer for this detailed feedback, and have revised accordingly. We now explicitly position cultural identity as a bio-cultural determinant of non-use values (existence, bequest, option) rather than a parallel construct. We added a bridging sentence in the Introduction and clarified the conceptual alignment in Methods.
Comments 2:
The current questionnaire lacks clarity in terms of questions and answers, failing to clearly present key questions and options. It is recommended that the questionnaire be enriched to ensure that more factors that may influence willingness to pay are covered, particularly in terms of measuring cultural identity and ecological awareness. Further supplement the specific location and time of questionnaire distribution. Key indicators such as "cultural identity" and "ecological awareness" require clearer operational definitions and explanation of their relevance to the research objectives.
Response :
We appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful guidance. We have expanded the Survey Instrument and Sampling details and provided a measurement appendix with item wording and sources. By adding Appendix A (Measurement Items, CI/LVR/SE/CA), which now lists indicators, Likert scales, and sources. [Appx A, Table A1]. Similarly, Method 3.3 (Survey Instrument Design and Implementation) describes design features (payment card, scope test, protest handling). [p. 8, 3.3]. Methods 3.4 (Sampling Strategy and Data Collection) specifies where and when data were collected (counties: Yulong, Jianchuan, Lanping, Weixi; sites: Liming Danxia, Ninety-Nine Dragon Pool, trailheads; phases and dates). [p. 9, heading 3.4]. We also added Table S1 with sample composition by stakeholder group (residents, staff/rangers, tourists). [Supp., Table S1].
Comment 3:
Although the manuscript estimates non-use value, the quantification of this value remains unclear. Further exploration is recommended for how to quantify non-use value based on questionnaire survey results, taking into account potential biases. For example, participants in the questionnaire may be more likely to favor or care about a particular scenic spot, while those who did not participate may have completely different profiles, leading to sample bias.
Response 3:
We are grateful for this constructive comment. We made the quantification pipeline explicit and added robustness. Results 4.4 (Payment Amount and Value Assessment): (i) median WTP is the primary estimate; (ii) bootstrap CIs (1,000 reps); (iii) protest-handling sensitivity (Table D1); (iv) an illustrative national scenario with clearly stated assumptions. [p. 16, 4.4; Appx D, Table D1]. Role-aware model addressing tourist influence and selection (inverse Mills ratio) is reported in Table C3; tourists show higher WTP after adjustment, while Cultural Identity remains significant. [Supp., Table C3]. We reference these checks in 4.3–4.4 and note transportability limits (estimates most credible for park visitors and proximal residents). [p. 16, 4.4]
Comment 4:
While estimates of non-use value are provided, translation of these estimates into concrete policy recommendations remains insufficient. Further clarification is recommended for how to design ecological compensation mechanisms based on these non-use value estimates, particularly in the context of integrating cultural value and ecological services, and how to apply these estimates to policymaking.
Response:
Many thanks for raising this important point. We added a concise policy-translation paragraph linking estimates to actionable tools. Discussion/Policy Implications 5.1: “Applying the estimates. Median WTP provides a conservative budgeting anchor for park finance (earmarked conservation fund targets); protest sensitivity informs fee safeguards (reduced rates/waivers for low-income residents). Role-aware results support differential pricing/communication for tourists vs. locals, and the CI findings motivate identity-based outreach (heritage narratives, community co-branding). For PES design, median WTP by stakeholder group can set indicative per-household stipends and match-fund ratios returning a share of revenues to communities and cultural custodians.” [p. 20, 5.1]
We would like to thank the referee again for taking the time to review our manuscript.
Sincerely,
All the authors.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article makes a valuable contribution to the field of environmental economics and sustainable conservation by applying the Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) to assess the non-use value of Laojun Mountain National Park. The selection of this culturally and ecologically significant site within the Three Parallel Rivers World Heritage region provides a rich context for exploring the interplay between socio-cultural factors and willingness to pay (WTP) for conservation.
The analysis of 219 valid survey responses is robust, with clear identification of key determinants of WTP, such as education, income, occupation, cultural identity, and recognition of legacy values. The use of interaction-effect logistic regression to examine the moderating role of income level and ecological awareness on the influence of cultural identity adds depth to the findings, revealing nuanced relationships that enhance theoretical understanding of bio-cultural valuation.
The valuation results, indicating a substantial annual non-use value range for the park, underscore its importance and provide a solid basis for policy discussions. The motivational analysis is particularly insightful, highlighting aesthetic appreciation, cultural meaning, and intergenerational ethics as key drivers of conservation support, while also acknowledging the role of governmental responsibility expectations in shaping payment refusal, especially among vulnerable groups.
Overall, the study is well-structured, methodologically sound, and offers practical guidance for designing Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes. It effectively underscores the necessity of integrating socio-cultural dimensions into sustainable conservation finance and policy strategies.
However, the article requires some minor modifications as follows:
Firstly, the literature review of the article is rich in content, but many of the references are outdated. It is recommended to cite the latest literature;
Secondly, some charts should be more aesthetically pleasing and easy to read, such as Figure 1;
The third is the regression analysis of willingness to pay. In the discussion of the results, it is not only necessary to report the content presented in the table, but also to explain the problems and underlying reasons included.
Author Response
We sincerely thank the reviewer for their thoughtful and encouraging feedback. We appreciate the recognition of our methodological approach and rigorous analysis. We have carefully considered and addressed all the suggestions as follows:
Comments 1:
the literature review of the article is rich in content, but many of the references are
outdated.lt is recommended to cite the latest literature.
Response:
We are grateful for this constructive comment. We have incorporated some recent studies (2017–2024) on contingent valuation, ecosystem services, and willingness to pay, including applications in mountain protected areas and sacred landscapes [Hanley & Czajkowski (2020), Bateman et al. (2019), Carson (2018), Zhang (2017), etc]. Obsolete or duplicative citations were removed, thereby strengthening the theoretical foundation.
Comments 2:
some charts should be more aesthetically pleasing and easy to read, such as Figure 1.
Response:
We thank the reviewer for raising this point. We replaced Fig. 1 and rebuilt Fig. 2 at 400 dpi with projection/scale.
Comment 3:
the regression analysis of wilingness to pay. In the discussion of the results, it is notonly necessary to report the content presented in the table, but also to explain the problems andunderlying reasons included.
Response:
Thank you for raising this. We re-examined the CI × income interaction using three robustness specifications (see Table C4): (1) income quartiles with CI interactions, (2) rank-inverse normalized income × CI, and (3) CI residualized on income interacted with raw income to reduce collinearity. Across all three, the interaction remains positive and statistically significant, indicating that income amplifies the association between Cultural Identity (CI) and WTP. Highlighted in lines 433 to 449.
We would like to thank the referee again for taking the time to review our manuscript.
Sincerely,
All the authors.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for the opportunity to review an interesting article with CVM. Here are my main comments and suggestions.
- The contingent valuation model (CVM) appears to have been employed correctly.
- The introduction is overly long and could be shortened. For example, lines 107–120 seem redundant and could be removed.
- The literature review could be condensed to place greater emphasis on cultural identity rather than general discussions of CVM.
- Figure 1 does not appear sufficiently scientific in its current form and requires it to be updated. The accompanying map, Figure 2, also requires improvement with a high-resolution map.
- The operationalization of cultural identity is insufficiently clear. The authors should explicitly explain how it was measured and discussed in the Methods section.
- The manuscript describes cultural identity as a “sacred spirit toward nature,” but the sample includes residents, park rangers/staff, and tourists. The cultural identity of rangers/staff and tourists may differ significantly from that of residents, yet the analysis does not distinguish among these groups. Subsample analyses should be conducted to assess the role of cultural identity more accurately.
- Descriptive statistics should be provided to show how many observations come from each group: (1) residents, (2) park rangers/staff, and (3) tourists.
- The high mean willingness to pay (WTP) may be driven primarily by tourists. A group-by-group analysis should be conducted to test this possibility.
- The interaction term cultural identity × income is reported as positively significant. However, it may be expected to be negative, since residents with higher cultural identity could be associated with lower income. The authors should double-check the robustness of this result and, if correct, provide a clear explanation of why the finding aligns—or does not align—with conventional expectations.
- Theoretical contributions could be strengthened with a more direct interpretation of findings in this study.
I hope the aforementioned points can help improve your manuscript.
Author Response
We sincerely thank the reviewer for their thoughtful and encouraging feedback. We appreciate the recognition of our methodological approach and rigorous analysis. We have carefully considered and addressed all the suggestions as follows:
Comment 1:
The introduction is overly long and could be shortened. For example, lines 107-120 seem redundant and could be removed.
Response
Thank you for this insightful suggestion. We revised the introduction and shortened the intro by ~25% and moved the background, also removed the discussion from lines 107 to 120 as we found it redundant.
Comment 2:
The literature review could be condensed to place greater emphasis on cultural identity rather than general discussions of CVM.
Response:
We appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful guidance. We rewrite the whole literature to define and discuss the cultural identity, while also highlighted.
Comment 3:
Figure 1 does not appear sufficiently scientific in its current form and requires updating. The accompanying map, Figure 2, also requires improvement with a high-resolution map.
Response:
We thank the reviewer for raising this point. We replaced Fig. 1 and rebuilt Fig. 2 at 400 dpi with projection/scale.
Comment 4:
The operationalization of cultural identity is insufficiently clear. The authors should explicitly explain how it was measured and discussed in the Methods section.
Response:
Once again, we thank the reviewer for this thoughtful insight point. We now define the cultural identity, also construct, list items, and report reliability/CFA in the methodology as well as in the results section. We supplemented Appendix B, Table B1.
Comment 5:
The manuscript describes cultural identity as a 'sacred spirit toward nature," but the sample includes residents, park rangers/staff, and tourists. The cultural identity of rangers/staff and tourists among these groups. Subsample analyses should be conducted to assess the role of cultural identity more accurately.
Response:
We appreciate and thank the reviewer for this thoughtful suggestion. We added counts and group-specific WTP. We supplemented Appendix S, Table S1, for the sub-sample, while Appendix C, Table C1, group counts (group differences). To avoid over-interpretation from underpowered subgroups, we retained the pooled specification and clarified this rationale by highlighting it in the Methods (lines 302-307) and Limitations (lines 665-69). We agree that finer subgroup modeling (e.g., multi-group measurement checks and role-stratified paths) is a valuable future direction and have added this point to the Discussion.
Comment 6:
Descriptive statistics should be provided to show how many observations come from each group:(1) residents,(2) park rangers/staff, and (3) tourists.
Response:
We are grateful for this constructive comment. We have added a role-specific composition table reporting the number and percentage of observations for residents, park rangers/staff, and tourists. The descriptive statistics are presented in Appendix C, Table C1. This appears as Table S1 (Supplementary Materials) and is cited in the Methods and Results. For clarity, our pooled models also include stakeholder-type indicators so that coefficients (e.g., Cultural Identity) are interpreted net of group composition.
Comment 7:
The high mean willingness to pay (WTP) may be driven primarily by tourists. A group-by-group analysis should be conducted to test this possibility.
Response:
Once again, thanks to the reviewer for his great insights. We agree that tourists might contribute to higher WTP values. The study addresses this concern using a role-aware specification that includes stakeholder indicators (Tourist, Staff/Ranger; Resident baseline), selection adjustment (Inverse Mills ratio), and socioeconomic controls. As shown in Table C3, being a tourist is associated with higher WTP (coef. = 18.7, p = 0.011) even after adjustment, whereas the Cultural Identity coefficient remains positive and significant (coef. = 7.8, p = 0.001). To avoid compositional inflation of aggregate valuations, we emphasize median-based WTP in Section 4.4 in lines 464-478 (less sensitive to the upper tail) and provide protest-handling sensitivity (Table D1). Given the total sample size (N = 219), fully stratified group-by-group regressions would be underpowered; accordingly, we retain the pooled model with role controls and note this as a limitation.
Comment 8:
The interaction term cultural identity x income is reported as positively significant. However, it may be expected to be negative, since residents with higher cultural identity could be associated with lower income. The authors should double-check the robustness of this result and, if correct, provide a clear explanation of why the finding aligns—or does not align—with conventional expectations.
Response:
Thank you for raising this. We re-examined the CI × income interaction using three robustness specifications (see Table C4): (1) income quartiles with CI interactions, (2) rank-inverse normalized income × CI, and (3) CI residualized on income interacted with raw income to reduce collinearity. Across all three, the interaction remains positive and statistically significant, indicating that income amplifies the association between Cultural Identity (CI) and WTP. Highlighted in lines 433 to 449.
Comment 9:
Theoretical contributions could be strengthened with a more direct interpretation of findings in this study.
Response:
We are grateful for this constructive comment. In the revised manuscript, we now tie specific empirical results directly to the theoretical contributions, and also heighlighted.
We would like to thank the referee again for taking the time to review our manuscript.
Sincerely,
All the authors.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe research is answering these 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?
The paper is well structured and written.
It has 66 references, 36 of those are from 2016 or later, while 30 are more than 10 years old.
There are some critical aspects related to the topic of WTP that are not adequately referred to in in this paper and are related to the isolated characteristics of such research. Meaning if for every site we asked people to pay how many people could actually pay for conservation of every site? Each person has a cap / limit on how much they can spend for such topics – environment, culture and so on. Therefore the WTP is questionable itself, but even more:
- How can the results mostly onsite be take to estimate the national value, as those who come on site evidentially value this site and or have more financial means than people who don’t come to this site. Applying the result from people on site needs to be explained if used for national data.
- There is a visible interpretation bias when describing the results. For example, the tone of the research is at points negative towards less financially advantaged groups. Their answers are interpreted as a gap in understanding – or better, not understanding the role of society and the state. But we could then ask what the state is for if all the issues can be addressed by individual persons’? There are “obvious positive” opinion on higher WTP, but connection to tourism for example could be read as biased because they depend on the site conservation. This is not addressed. The variables of knowledge and finance are both related to higher WTP, why is then only education listed as the tool for changing financially disadvantaged persons opinion and not the financial help or programs that cover the WTP potential fee for those persons.
As stated, most of the objections are known for this method, but the authors should address them in the research.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer’s Comments
We sincerely thank the reviewer for the constructive feedback, which has greatly improved the quality of our manuscript. Below, we respond point by point, indicating where we revised the text. All changes are highlighted in the revised manuscript.
Comment 1:
References
The paper has 66 references, 30 of which are more than 10 years old.
Response:
We are grateful for this constructive comment. We have incorporated some recent studies (2017–2024) on contingent valuation, ecosystem services, and willingness to pay, including applications in mountain protected areas and sacred landscapes [Hanley & Czajkowski (2020), Bateman et al. (2019), Carson (2018), Zhang (2017), etc]. Obsolete or duplicative citations were removed, thereby strengthening the theoretical foundation.
Comment 2:
Each person has a cap on spending across different causes, so WTP for a single site may be questionable.
Response:
We appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful guidance. We agree with this concern and added (i) a consequentiality/ATP script in the instrument, (ii) ATP-bounded sensitivity, (iii) 5%/10% trimmed means, and (iv) report median WTP as primary. We also highlight them in Section 3.3 and added a new heading of 4.5 (Robustness to ATP and trimming).
Comment 3:
Results from onsite visitors may not be representative of the national population.
Response:
We thank the reviewer for highlighting this important issue. We agree that on-site samples over-represent visitors and cannot be directly generalized to a national frame. We now limit the primary NUV to a policy-relevant reference population and present a clearly labelled illustrative national scenario with wide CIs, plus a transportability discussion in Section 4.4 and Section 5 (On-site CVM samples capture individuals with higher park salience ………).
Comment 4:
The results appear to frame less financially advantaged groups negatively, implying a gap in understanding.
Response:
We appreciate this important remark. We have revised the wording in the Discussion section to avoid negative framing of disadvantaged groups. The revised text now emphasizes that lower willingness to pay (WTP) reflects broader financial and social constraints rather than a lack of understanding. We also highlight that from lines 644 to 647 (To avoid regressive impacts, we outline tiered fees…………)
Comment 5:
The connection between higher WTP and tourism could appear biased, as tourism depends on site conservation.
Response:
We value this detailed feedback and have revised accordingly. We agree that this relationship should be contextualized. We added financial and programmatic tools alongside education. The discussion is highlighted from lines 546 to 555 in the Discussion section.
Comment 6: Knowledge and finance variables
Both knowledge and finance influence WTP. Why emphasize education but not financial support?
Response:
We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. In the revision, we have added a discussion on the role of financial support programs (e.g., subsidies, conservation funds, or payment schemes) that could complement educational initiatives. This balanced perspective better reflects the dual importance of financial capacity and knowledge in shaping WTP. The text is highlighted from lines 596 to 607.
Comment 7:
Many objections to the WTP method are already known in the literature and should be acknowledged.
Response:
We fully agree with the reviewer, and thank you for this valuable insight. We have now included a subsection summarizing the most common objections to the WTP approach, including hypothetical bias, income effects, and context dependency. The discussion is acknowledged in Section 5.2. Limitations and Future Research Directions, from lines 651 to 656.
We would like to thank the referee again for taking the time to review our manuscript.
Sincerely,
All the authors.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe group-by-group analysis would be nicer to support your arguments and the relationship of interest. However, I understand the data limitation and acknowledging them in the section of 5.2. Limitations and Future Research Directions is a nice approach to complement the limitation.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe corrections had been made
