环境与资源价值CV评估预测有效性研究进展

doi:10.11849/zrzyxb.2012.08.016

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 条件价值法是评估非市场产品价值的最重要方法,在环境与资源价值评估中得到广泛的应用,预测有效性是条件价值研究中最为核心的内容。论文在对环境与资源项目条件价值评估预测有效性实证研究回顾与分析的基础上,初步总结了导致CV有效性差的主要原因,认为无收入限制、温暖光辉以及"答非所问"等诸多原因均来自市场的虚拟性。介绍了提高CV预测有效性的三类主要措施,即事前措施、事后措施及事间措施。同时分析了CV预测有效性表达方式的局限性,提出应合理看待CV预测有效性的结果。

关键词: 环境与资源价值, 条件价值, 预测有效性, 校正因子

Abstract: Contingent valuation (CV) is a mainstream approach to estimating valuation of nonmarket goods, especially of environmental and resource program. As contingent valuation method is on ground of a fiction market, CV validity is ongoing debated, and predictive validity is the core of debasements.CV predictive validity refers to the consistency between people’s sayings and their doings, and Calibration factor (Cf) is used as its characteristic. The closer Cf is to 1, the better CV predictive validity is.In this paper, we retrospected CV predictive validity case studies on environment and resource programs at first. Literature on Cf meta-analysis showed that CV has poor predictive validity, and attribution of the evaluated goods matter.Five factors were summarized as influencing factors of CV predictive validity: without income constraints, warm glow, irrelevant answer, strategic behavior and uncertainty. We deemed these factors could all be attributed to the hypothetical nature of CV deal market. CV hypothetical nature is the primary cause to its poor validity.Three kinds of countermeasures were introduced to improve CV predictive validity: ex ante countermeasures such as cheap talk, ex post countermeasures like follow-up certainty question, and in medias res mitigation countermeasures.We also analyzed the limitation of CV predictive validity expression. Though Cf is a good index of CV validity, good predictive is not equal to scientific. A good Cf does not mean a good CV study; it just represents the market authenticity. At the end of this paper some future research prospect were presented. We call for CV mechanism design research work to improve CV validity fundamentally.

Key words: environment and resource valuation, contingent valuation, predictive validity, calibration factor

中图分类号:

X196

许丽忠, 钟满秀, 韩智霞, 胡军, 黄梅芬, 张江山. 环境与资源价值CV评估预测有效性研究进展[J]. 自然资源学报, 2012, 27(8): 1421-1430.

XU Li-zhong, ZHONG Man-xiu, HAN Zhi-xia, HU Jun, HUANG Mei-fen, ZHANG Jiang-shan. Predictive Validity of Contingent Valuation on Environment and Resource Programs: A Review[J]. JOURNAL OF NATURAL RESOURCES, 2012, 27(8): 1421-1430.

参考文献

[1] 张茵, 蔡运龙. 用条件估值法评估九寨沟的游憩价值——CVM方法的校正与比较[J]. 经济地理, 2010, 30(7): 1205-1211.
[2] 陈应发. 条件价值法——国外最重要的森林游憩价值评估方法[J]. 生态经济, 1996(5): 35-37.
[3] 薛达元. 环境物品的经济价值评估方法: 条件价值法[J]. 农村生态环境, 1999, 15(3): 39-43.
[4] 杜亚平. 改善东湖水质的经济分析[J]. 生态经济, 1996(6): 15-20.
[5] 徐中民, 张志强, 程国栋, 等. 额济纳旗生态系统恢复的总经济价值评估[J]. 地理学报, 2002, 57(1): 107-116.
[6] 张明军, 孙美平, 姚晓军, 等. 不确定性影响下的平均支付意愿参数估计[J]. 生态学报, 2007, 27(9): 3852-3859.
[7] 刘亚萍, 潘晓芳, 钟秋平, 等. 生态旅游区自然环境的游憩价值[J]. 生态学报, 2006, 26(11): 3765-3774.
[8] 赵军, 杨凯, 刘兰岚, 等. 环境与生态系统服务价值的WTA/WTP不对称[J]. 环境科学学报, 2007, 27(5): 854-860.
[9] 许丽忠, 吴春山, 王菲凤, 等. 条件价值法评估旅游资源非使用价值的可靠性检验[J]. 生态学报, 2007, 27(10): 4301-4309.
[10] 张翼飞. 城市内河生态系统服务的意愿价值评估——CVM有效性可靠性研究的视角. 上海: 复旦大学, 2008.
[11] 韩智霞. 初探WTA/WTP不对称的动力机制——兼评CVM实施框架. 福州: 福建师范大学, 2010.
[12] 赵菊勤. 条件价值评估法的有效性和可靠性研究. 兰州: 西北师范大学, 2009.
[13] Mitchell R C, Carson R T. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method [M]. Washington D C: Resources for the Future, 1989.
[14] Bohm P. Estimating demand for public goods: An experiment [J]. European Economic Review, 1972, 3(2): 111-130.
[15] Carson R T, Theodore Groves. Incentive and informational properties of preference questions [J]. Environmental and Resource Economics, 2007, 37: 181-210.
[16] Sinden J. Empirical tests of hypothetical biases in consumers’surplus surveys [J]. Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1988, 32: 98-112.
[17] Seip K, Strand J. Willingness to pay for environmental goods in Norway: A contingent valuation study with real payment [J]. Environmental and Resource Economics, 1992, 2(1): 91-106.
[18] Champ P, Bishop R, Brown T, et al. Using donation mechanisms to value nonuse benefits from public goods [J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 1997, 33: 151-162.
[19] Champ P, Brown T. A comparison of contingent and actual voting behavior //Proceedings from the W-133 Benefits and Cost Transfer in Natural Resource Planning, 10th Interim Report, 1997.
[20] Cummings R, Taylor L. Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: A cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method [J]. The American Economic Review, 1999, 89(3): 649-666.
[21] MacMillan D C, Smart T, Thorburn A. A field experiment involving cash and hypothetical charitable donations [J]. Environmental and Resource Economics, 1999, 14: 399-412.
[22] Poe G, Clark J, Rondeau D, et al. Provision point mechanisms and field validity tests of contingent valuation [J]. Environmental and Resource Economics, 2002, 23: 105-131.
[23] Vossler C A, Kerkvliet J. A criterion validity test of the contingent valuation method: Comparing hypothetical and actual voting behavior for a public referendum [J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 2003, 45: 631-649.
[24] Christie M. An examination of the disparity between hypothetical and actual willingness to pay using the contingent valuation method: The case of red Kite conservation in the United Kingdom [J]. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 2007, 55: 159-169.
[25] 许丽忠, 朱宇, 张江山, 等. 环境资源价值PC格式CV法评估在中国的预测有效性实验室研究[J]. 科学通报, 2009, 54(22): 3574-3581.
[26] Johnston R J. Is hypothetical bias universal? Validating contingent valuation responses using a binding public referendum [J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 2006, 52: 469-481.
[27] Balistreri E, Mcclelland G, Poe G, et al. Can hypothetical questions reveal true values? A laboratory comparison of dichotomous choice and open-ended contingent values with auction values [J]. Environmental and Resource Economics, 2001, 18: 275-292.
[28] Loomis J, Brown T, Lucero B, et al. Evaluating the validity of the dichotomous choice question format in contingent valuation [J]. Environmental and Resource Economics, 1997, 10: 109-123.
[29] Cummings R G, Brookshire D S, Schulze W D. Valuing environmental goods: A state of the arts assessment of the contingent method . Working Paper, 1986.
[30] List John, Craig Gallet. What experimental protocol in?uence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values? [J] Environmental and Resource Economics, 2001, 20: 241-254.
[31] Little Joseph, Robert Berrens. Explaining disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values: Further investigation using meta-analysis [J]. Economics Bulletin, 2004, 3(6): 1-13.
[32] Murphy James, Allen P, Thomas Stevens, et al. A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation [J]. Environmental and Resource Economics, 2005, 30: 313-325.
[33] Brown Thomas C, Patricia A Champ, Richard C Bishop, et al. Which response format reveals the truth about donations to a public good? [J] Land Economics, 1996, 72(2): 152-166.
[34] Arrow K, Solow R, Portney P R, et al. Report of the NOAA Panel on contingent valuation [J]. Federal Register, 1993, 58(10): 4601-4644.
[35] MacMillan D C. Actual and hypothetical willingness to pay for environmental outputs: Why are they different? A Report to SEERAD, 2004.
[36] Richard O’Doherty. The contingent valuation method . CSERGE Working Paper 93-01, 1993.
[37] Carson R T. Contingent valuation: Theoretical advances and empirical tests since the NOAA panel [J]. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1997, 79(5): 1501-1507.
[38] Foster V, Bateman I J, Harley D. Real and hypothetical willingness to pay for environmental preservation: A non-experimental comparison [J]. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1997, 48(2): 123-138.
[39] Glenn Blomquist, Karen Blumenschein, Magnus Johannesson. Eliciting willingness to pay without bias using follow-up certainty statements: Comparisons between probably/definitely and a 10-point certainty scale [J]. Environmental and Resource Economics, 2009, 43: 473-502.
[40] Mark Morrison, Thomas C Brown. Testing the effectiveness of certainty scales, cheap talk, and dissonance-minimization in reducing hypothetical bias in contingent valuation studies [J]. Environmental and Resource Economics, 2009, 44: 307-326.
[41] Murphy J, Stevens T, Weatherhead D. Is cheap talk effective at eliminating hypothetical bias in a provision point mechanism? [J]Environmental and Resource Economics, 2005, 30: 327-343.
[42] Shogren J F. Experimental methods and valuation [M]//Mäler K G, Vincent J. Handbook of Environmental Economics. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2001.
[43] Blumenschein K, Blomquist G C, Johannesson M, et al. Eliciting willingness to pay without bias: Evidence from a field experiment [J]. Economic Journal, 2008, 18(525): 114-137.
[44] Champ P, Bishop R. Donation Payment mechanisms and contingent valuation: An empirical study of hypothetical bias [J]. Environmental and Resource Economics, 2001, 19: 383-402.
[45] Champ P, Moore R, Bishop C. Hypothetical bias: The mitigating effects of certainty questions and cheap talk . Selected Paper prepared for presentation at the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Denver, Colorado, 2004.
[46] Wang H. Treatment of don’t-know responses in contingent valuation surveys: A random valuation model [J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 1997, 32: 219-232.
[47] Johannesson M, Johansson P-O, Kriström B, et al. Willingness to pay for antihypertensive therapy: Further results [J]. Journal of Health Economics, 1993, 12(1): 95-108.
[48] Ready R C, Whitehead J C, Blomquist G C. Contingent valuation when respondents are ambivalent [J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 1995, 29(2): 181-196.
[49] Vossler C A, Kerkvliet J, Polasky S, et al. External validating contingent valuation: An open-space survey and referendum in Corvallis, Oregon [J]. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 2003, 51: 261-277.
[50] Mitani Yohei, Nicholas Flores. Demand revelation, hypothetical bias, and threshold public goods provision [J]. Environmental and Resource Economics, 2009, 44: 231-243.
[51] 让—雅克·拉丰, 大卫·马赫蒂摩. 激励理论委托—代理模型[M]. 陈志俊, 等译. 北京: 中国人民大学出版社, 2002: 14-38.
[52] 靖继鹏. 信息经济学[M]. 北京: 清华大学出版社, 2004: 360-369.