中国野生动物资源保护的经济价值评估——以北京市居民的支付意愿研究为例被引量：24

The Economic Evaluation of Domestic Wildlife Conservation——A Case Study of Residents' Willingness to Pay in Beijing

下载PDF

导出

摘要本文运用意愿调查价值评估法中支付卡式和二分式两种问卷格式,对北京市居民保护濒危野生动物的支付意愿进行研究。支付卡式问卷和双边界二分式的有效问卷分别为350份和250份。支付卡式问卷调查分析得到平均支付意愿为13.90元/户.月,二分式问卷的调查结果为18.99元/户.月。由支付卡问卷结果得到北京市居民20年总支付意愿为41.63×108元;二分式问卷则为184.7×108元,后者是前者的4.57倍。支付卡式问卷结果的主要影响因素是户均月收入和文化程度;二分式问卷结果的主导因子是户均月收入。考虑到二分式问卷比支付卡式问卷更能够逼近样本的真实意愿,认为将二分式问卷的研究结果作为北京居民对我国野生动物的总经济价值的评估更为适合。 Species extinctions coupled with large-scale deterioration of wildlife habitat are becoming more and serious worldwide and there is no exception in China. The contingent valuation method （CVM） is a wildly applied monetary evaluation method for valuing environmental and natural resource-related goods, such as the conversation of wildlife species. We estimated the willingness of Beijing＇ s residents to pay （WTP） for the conservation of endangered wildlife and economics species. The payment card and dichotomous choice question formats were used, which were more popular than others of the contingent valuation method. Our research focused on calculating the total economic valuation of wildlife conservation and making a comparison of the distinction among different question formats of CVM. In eight typical residential areas of Beijing city, we carried out 600 face-to-face interviews for payment card and double-bounded dichotomous choice format. Statistical analysis indicated that the results of two question formats could be comparable. 81.3 % and 77.9 % respondents have positive willing to pay for the wildlife conversation in payment card and double-bounded dichotomous choice format respectively. Different estimates were got from the different questionnaires. Non-parameter analysis of the payment card data showed that the mean amount of willing to pay （WTP） was 13.90 Yuan RMB per household per month. For the double-bounded dichotomous choice format, a probit regression model was used to analyze the respondents＇ responses, and the estimate of 18.99 Yuan RMB per household per month was the final result. By the dichotomous choice format, the aggregate amount of willing to pay for Beijing＇ s residents was 18.47 billion Yuan RMB for 20 years, which was 4.57 times of the result by payment card question format. Since it can fully stimulate the market activities by bargaining, it was found that double-bounded format was statistically more efficient than payment card format and more closely approximate to the true WTP of respondents. Therefore, we suggested that the estimated results in double-bounded format as the total economic value of wildlife conservation and the double-bounded format are recommended in developing countries. Through correlation analysis considering the relationship among WTP and the characteristics of respondents such as Age （A）, Sexual （S）, Education （E）, Income （I）, Knowledge （K）, it was identified that the factors that influence the responses were mainly the mean income per household per month and the education attainment of the respondent. Considering the huge positive externalities of the ecosystem services, we regarded the results as conservative estimates for the total economic valuation of domestic wildlife conservation.

作者陈琳欧阳志云段晓男王效科

机构地区中国科学院生态环境研究中心系统生态重点实验室

出处《资源科学》 CSSCI CSCD 北大核心 2006年第4期131-137,共7页 Resources Science

基金国家自然科学基金(编号:30230090)

关键词意愿调查价值评估法野生动物支付意愿支付卡式二分式 Contingent valuation method Wildlife Willingness to pay Payment card Dichotomous choice

分类号 S863 [农业科学—野生动物驯养]

引文网络
相关文献

参考文献21

1马建章,邹红菲,郑国光.中国野生动物与栖息地保护现状及发展趋势[J].中国农业科技导报,2003,5(4):3-6. 被引量：28
2张维平.生物多样性与可持续发展的关系[J].环境科学,1998,19(4):92-96. 被引量：25
3刘雨芳,尤民生.中国的生物多样性及其数据资源与信息系统研究现状[J].湘潭师范学院学报（自然科学版）,2002,24(1):58-63. 被引量：5
4Loomis J B,Walsh R G.Recreation Economic Decisions,Comparing Benefits and Costs (Second Edition)[M].State College,Pennsylvania:Venture Publishing,Inc.,1997.1 ～ 440.
5Blaine T W,Lichtkoppler F R,Jones K R,et al.An assessment of household willingness to pay for curbside recycling:A comparison of payment card and referendum approaches[J].Journal of Environmental Management,2005,76:15 ～ 22.
6Jakobsson A K D.The worth of a possum:valuing species with the contingent valuation method[J].Environmental and Resource Economics,2001,19(3):211 ～ 227.
7Godoy R,Lubowski R,Markandya A.A method for the economic valuation of non-timber tropical forest products[J].Economic Botany,1993,47(3):220 ～ 223.
8Costanza R.,SC Farber,J.Maxwell.Valuation and management of wetland ecosystems[J].Ecological Economics,1989,1:335 ～ 361.
9Bennett J W.Using direct questioning to value the existence benefits of preserved natural areas[J].Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics,1984,28(23):136～ 152.
10Ranjith B,Clem T.Changing abundance of elephants and willingness to pay for their conservation[J].Journal of Environmental Management,2005,76:47 ～ 59.

二级参考文献70

1张维平,王绍芳.生物高度多样性国家初探[J].环境科学,1993,14(1):59-63. 被引量：2
2[11]Bateman I J, Langford I H, Turner R K,et al. Elicitation and truncation effects in contingent valuation studies[J]. Ecological Economics, 1999, 12:161-179.
3[12]Bonnieux F, Rainelli P. Contingent valuation methodology and the EU institutional framework [A]. In: Bateman I J, Willis K G, eds. Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing Countries[C]. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. 585-612.
4[13]Carson R T. Valuation of tropical rainforests: Philosophical and practical issues in the use of contingent valuation [J]. Ecological Economics, 1998, 24: 15-29.
5[14]Loomis J B, Kent P, Strange L, et al. Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: Results from a contingent valuation survey [J]. Ecological Economics, 2000, 33: 103-117.
6[15]Jorgenson B S, Wilson M A, Heberlein T A. Fairness in the contingent valuation of environmental public goods: Attitude toward paying for environmental improvements at two levels of scope [J]. Ecological Economics, 2001, 36(1): 133-148.
7[17]Lovett A, Bateman I J. Economic analysis of environmental preferences: Progress and prospects [J]. Computer, Environment and Urban systems, 2001, 25: 131-139.
8[18]Smith V K. Non-market valuation of environmental resources: An interpretive appraisal [J]. Land Economics, 1993, 69: 1-26.
9[19]Brown T C, Gregory R. Why the WTP-WTA disparity matters [J]. Ecological Economics, 1999, 28: 323-335.
10[20]Hanemann W M. The economic theory of WTP and WTA [A]. In: Bateman I J, Willis K G, eds. Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing Countries[C]. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.42-96.