中国城市居民对青藏高原生态资产的支付意愿——以中国27市为例

doi:10.31497/zrzyxb.20200305

自然资源学报 ›› 2020, Vol. 35 ›› Issue (3): 563-575.doi: 10.31497/zrzyxb.20200305

• “国土空间生态修复”专栏 • 上一篇下一篇

中国城市居民对青藏高原生态资产的支付意愿——以中国27市为例

张锐¹, 刘焱序¹, 赵嵩¹, 傅伯杰^1,2

1. 北京师范大学地理科学学部,地表过程与资源生态国家重点实验室,北京 100875;
2. 中国科学院生态环境研究中心,城市与区域生态国家重点实验室,北京 100085

收稿日期:2019-05-14 修回日期:2019-11-03 出版日期:2020-03-28 发布日期:2020-03-28
通讯作者: 刘焱序（1988- ）,男,陕西西安人,博士,讲师,研究方向为综合自然地理学与景观生态。E-mail: yanxuliu@bnu.edu.cn
作者简介:张锐（1991- ）,女,甘肃平凉人,博士研究生,研究方向为综合自然地理与景观生态。E-mail: zhangrui01@bnu.edu.cn
基金资助:
中国科学院战略性先导科技专项课题（XDA20020402）; 第二次青藏高原综合科学考察研究项目（2019QZKK0405）; 国家自然科学基金项目（41861134038）; 中央高校基本科研业务费专项

Chinese urban residents' willingness to pay for ecosystem service of the Tibetan Plateau: A case study of 27 cities in China

ZHANG Rui¹, LIU Yan-xu¹, ZHAO Song¹, FU Bo-jie^1,2

1. State Key Laboratory of Earth Surface Processes and Resource Ecology, Faculty of Geographical Science, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China;
2. State Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, CAS, Beijing 100085, China

Received:2019-05-14 Revised:2019-11-03 Online:2020-03-28 Published:2020-03-28

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 青藏高原作为一个独特的生态—地理单元,其多种生态系统服务向周边各个区域供给,这种区域差异有可能引起青藏周边地域居民对其生态系统服务的感知不同,进一步影响生态管理对策的制定。选取27个城市,基于13254份网络问卷,通过支付意愿法探究城市居民对青藏高原生态系统服务感知的区域差异及其原因。结果表明:（1）不同区域支付金额存在显著差异,WTP从高到底为东北—华北地区、东南沿海地区、西北地区、中部地区和西南地区,年平均支付金额分别为1185.7元、1021.1元、1012.3元、957.1元和894.7元。（2）总金额中六项生态系统服务的分配比例依次为水源涵养>碳固定>土壤保持>生物多样性保育>污染物净化>美学景观,其中水源涵养和美学景观的比例区域差异小;土壤保持的比例西南和西北地区较大,距平值为1.68%和1.87%;污染物净化沿海地区、西南和中部地区金额分配比例较大,距平值分别为2.04%、2.20%、2.20%;碳固定和生物多样性保育不具备显著的区域差异性。（3）在支付金额的影响程度上,管理意愿>主观认知>客观情况;其中对国家政策响应的积极性与支付金额关联性最大。（4）生态系统服务类型和城市发展水平对支付金额区域差异起主导因素,水源涵养和美学景观各个区域的影响因素相似,一线城市受个人客观情况影响较小;空间距离仅能影响生物基因保育服务与人均月收入的相互关联。研究结果可以为基于利益相关者生态系统服务需求的青藏高原生态资产价值化与管理提供借鉴。

关键词: 青藏高原, 支付意愿, 生态资产, 影响因素, 区域差异

Abstract: As a special ecological and geographical region, the Tibetan Plateau provides various ecosystem services for the surrounding areas. Does the ecosystem service perceive differently from the public who have regional characteristic respectively? Meanwhile, would the regional difference influence the valuation of the Tibetan Plateau and ecological management measures? Based on 13254 questionnaires from 27 cities in China, this paper aims to value the ecosystem service and the drivers of public willingness to pay, and probe into the spatial heterogeneity in the above-mentioned verdict. The results show that: (1) The sorts of average maximum willing payment are: Northeast and North regions (1185.7 yuan/year) > Southeast coastal region (1021.1 yuan/year) > Northwest region (1012.3 yuan/year) > Central region (957.1 yuan/year) > Southwest region (894.7 yuan/year). (2) The allocation proportion sequence of ecosystem services is sorted as water conservation > carbon fixation > soil retention > biodiversity conservation > pollution decomposition > aesthetic existence. The allocation proportion of payment has no spatial heterogeneity in water conservation and aesthetic. The people in Northwest and Southwest regions are willing to pay more in soil retention, while those in Southeast coastal, Southwest and Central regions are willing to pay more compared with North region in pollution decomposition. It is difficult to grasp the spatial heterogeneity in carbon fixation and biodiversity conservation. (3) The drivers of public willingness to pay are ordered as ecosystem management attitudes > subjective indicators > objective indicators. (4) The types of ecosystem services and the level of urban development are the dominant factors for the regional differences of payment amount. The spatial difference has no influence on water conservation and aesthetic existence, and the objective indicators of the first-tier cities link less tighter to the payments than others do. Spatial distance only affected the correlation between biodiversity conservation and per capita monthly income. The findings can enhance the publicity of ecosystem management in the Tibetan Plateau.

Key words: pay for ecosystem service, willingness to pay, influencing factor, regional difference, Tibetan Plateau

张锐, 刘焱序, 赵嵩, 傅伯杰. 中国城市居民对青藏高原生态资产的支付意愿——以中国27市为例[J]. 自然资源学报, 2020, 35(3): 563-575.

ZHANG Rui, LIU Yan-xu, ZHAO Song, FU Bo-jie. Chinese urban residents' willingness to pay for ecosystem service of the Tibetan Plateau: A case study of 27 cities in China[J]. JOURNAL OF NATURAL RESOURCES, 2020, 35(3): 563-575.

参考文献

[1] MIGUEL MARTINEZ-PAZ J, BANOS-GONZALEZ I, MARTINEZ-FERNANDEZ J, et al. Assessment of management measures for the conservation of traditional irrigated lands: The case of the Huerta of Murcia (Spain). Land Use Policy, 2019, 81: 382-391.
[2] STICKLER C M, NEPSTAD D C, COE M T, et al.The potential ecological costs and cobenefits of REDD: A critical review and case study from the Amazon region. Global Change Biology, 2009, 15(12): 2803-2824.
[3] 刘焱序, 傅伯杰, 赵文武, 等. 生态资产核算与生态系统服务评估: 概念交汇与重点方向. 生态学报, 2018, 38(23): 8267-8276.
[LIU Y X, FU B J, ZHAO W W, et al.Ecological asset accounting and ecosystem services evaluation: Concept intersection and key research priorities. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2018, 38(23): 8267-8276.]
[4] MATZEK V, WILSON K A, KRAGT M.Mainstreaming of ecosystem services as a rationale for ecological restoration in Australia. Ecosystem Services, 2019, 35: 79-86.
[5] BARBIER E.The policy challenges for green economy and sustainable economic development. Natural Resources Forum, 2011, 35(3): 233-245.
[6] LOGAR I, BROUWER R, PAILLEX A.Do the societal benefits of river restoration outweigh their costs?: A cost-benefit analysis. Journal of Environmental Management, 2019, 232: 1075-1085.
[7] KHAN I, ZHAO M J, KHAN S U.Ecological degradation of an inland river basin and an evaluation of the spatial and distance effect on willingness to pay for its improvement. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2018, 25(31): 31474-31485.
[8] REED M S, ALLEN K, ATTLEE A, et al.A place-based approach to payments for ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions, 2017, 43: 92-106.
[9] FERREIRA A M, MARQUES J C, SEIXAS S.Integrating marine ecosystem conservation and ecosystems services economic valuation: Implications for coastal zones governance. Ecological Indicators, 2017, 77: 114-122.
[10] NEEDHAM K, HANLEY N.Valuing a managed realignment scheme: What are the drivers of public willingness to pay?. Ocean & Coastal Management, 2019, 170: 29-39.
[11] HANLEY N, BOYCE C, CZAJKOWSKI M, et al.Sad or happy?: The effects of emotions on stated preferences for environmental goods. Environmental & Resource Economics, 2017, 68(4): 821-846.
[12] NIEMINEN E, AHTIAINEN H, LAGERKVIST C-J, et al.The economic benefits of achieving good environmental status in the finnish marine waters of the Baltic Sea. Marine Policy, 2019, 99: 181-189.
[13] HE J, HUANG A P, XU L D.Spatial heterogeneity and transboundary pollution: A contingent valuation (CV) study on the Xijiang River Drainage Basin in South China. China Economic Review, 2015, 36: 101-130.
[14] AREGAY F A, YAO L Y, ZHAO M J.Spatial preference heterogeneity for integrated river basin management: The case of the Shiyang River Basin, China. Sustainability, 2016, 8(10): 17-29.
[15] BROUWER R, BLIEM M, GETZNER M, et al.Valuation and transferability of the non-market benefits of river restoration in the Danube River Basin using a choice experiment. Ecological Engineering, 2016, 87: 20-29.
[16] BROUWER R, BROUWER S, ELEVELD M A, et al.Public willingness to pay for alternative management regimes of remote marine protected areas in the North Sea. Marine Policy, 2016, 68: 195-204.
[17] DE VALCK J, BROEKX S, LIEKENS I, et al.Contrasting collective preferences for outdoor recreation and substitutability of nature areas using hot spot mapping. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2016, 151: 64-78.
[18] LIZIN S, BROUWER R, LIEKENS I, et al.Accounting for substitution and spatial heterogeneity in a labelled choice experiment. Journal of Environmental Management, 2016, 181: 289-297.
[19] DE VALCK J, ROLFE J.Spatial heterogeneity in stated preference valuation: Status, challenges and road ahead. International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, 2017, 11(4): 355-422.
[20] VINCENT J R, CARSON R T, DESHAZO J R, et al.Tropical countries may be willing to pay more to protect their forests. PNAS, 2014, 111(28): 10113-10118.
[21] LOGAR I, BROUWER R.Substitution effects and spatial preference heterogeneity in single-site and multiple-site choice experiments. Land Economics, 2018, 94(2): 302-322.
[22] DE VALCK J, LANDUYT D, BROEKX S, et al.Outdoor recreation in various landscapes: Which site characteristics really matter?. Land Use Policy, 2017, 65: 186-197.
[23] VOLLMER D, RYFFEL A N, DJAJA K, et al.Examining demand for urban river rehabilitation in Indonesia: Insights from a spatially explicit discrete choice experiment. Land Use Policy, 2016, 57: 514-525.
[24] SAGEBIEL J, GLENK K, MEYERHOFF J.Spatially explicit demand for afforestation. Forest Policy and Economics, 2017, 78: 190-199.
[25] BAKHTIARI F, JACOBSEN J B, THORSEN B J, et al.Disentangling distance and country effects on the value of conservation across National Borders. Ecological Economics, 2018, 147: 11-20.
[26] JOHNSTON R J, BOYLE K J, ADAMOWICZ W, et al.Contemporary guidance for stated preference studies. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 2017, 4(2): 319-405.
[27] KIRCHNER W K.Designing and conducting survey-research: A comprehensive guide. Personnel Psychology, 1993, 46(2): 443-444.
[28] 张立伟, 傅伯杰, 吕一河, 等. 基于综合指标法的中国生态系统服务保护有效性评价研究. 地理学报, 2016, 71(5): 766-779.
[ZHANG L W, FU B J, LYU Y H, et al.The using of composite indicators to assess the conservational effectiveness of ecosystem services in China. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2016, 71(5): 766-779.]
[29] 孙鸿烈, 郑度, 姚檀栋, 等. 青藏高原国家生态安全屏障保护与建设. 地理学报, 2012, 67(1): 3-12.
[SUN H L, ZHENG D, YAO C D, et al.Protection and construction of the national ecological security shelter zone on Tibetan Plateau. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2012, 67(1): 3-12.]
[30] 谢高地, 鲁春霞, 肖玉, 等. 青藏高原高寒草地生态系统服务价值评估. 山地学报, 2003, 21(1): 50-55.
[XIE G D, LU C X, XIAO Y, et al.The economic evaluation of grassland ecosystem services in Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. Journal of Mountain Science, 2003, 21(1): 50-55.]
[31] 谢高地, 鲁春霞, 冷允法, 等. 青藏高原生态资产的价值评估. 自然资源学报, 2003, 18(2): 189-196.
[XIE G D, LU C X, LENG Y F, et al.Ecological asset valuation of the Tibetan Plateau. Journal of Natural Resources, 2003, 18(2): 189-196.]
[32] 黄麟, 曹巍, 徐新良, 等. 西藏生态安全屏障保护与建设工程的宏观生态效应. 自然资源学报, 2018, 33(3): 398-411.
[HUANG L, CAO W, XU X L, et al.The ecological effects of ecological security barrier protection and construction project in Tibet Plateau. Journal of Natural Resources, 2018, 33(3): 398-411.]
[33] 郝庆, 封志明, 杨艳昭, 等. 西藏土地资源承载力的现实与未来. 自然资源学报, 2019, 34(5): 911-920.
[HAO Q, FENG Z M, YANG Y Z, et al.Evaluation on land carrying capacity of Tibet based on dietary nutrients: Present and prospects. Journal of Natural Resources, 2019, 34(5): 911-920.]

中国城市居民对青藏高原生态资产的支付意愿——以中国27市为例

Chinese urban residents' willingness to pay for ecosystem service of the Tibetan Plateau: A case study of 27 cities in China

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

赞

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 0

[1]	王美知, 魏凤. 哈萨克斯坦粮食生产效率动态演进及区域差异[J]. 自然资源学报, 2021, 36(3): 594-605.
[2]	冀正欣, 王秀丽, 李玲, 关小克, 蔚霖, 许月卿. 南阳盆地区耕地利用效率演变及其影响因素[J]. 自然资源学报, 2021, 36(3): 688-701.
[3]	杨钊, 刘永婷, 秦金芳, 刘斌, 王盼盼, 刘世杰, 徐致云. 长三角游乐型主题公园客流时空分布特征及其影响因素分析——以上海欢乐谷、常州恐龙园、芜湖方特为例[J]. 自然资源学报, 2021, 36(3): 722-736.
[4]	李东昇, 张仁勇, 崔步礼, 赵云朵, 王莹, 姜宝福. 1986—2015年青藏高原哈拉湖湖泊动态对气候变化的响应[J]. 自然资源学报, 2021, 36(2): 501-512.
[5]	王长松, 段蕴歆, 张然. 历史时期黄河流域城市空间格局演变与影响因素[J]. 自然资源学报, 2021, 36(1): 69-86.
[6]	何培培, 张俊飚, 何可, 陈柱康. 农业生产何以存在低碳效率幻觉?——来自1997—2016年31个省份面板数据的证据[J]. 自然资源学报, 2020, 35(9): 2205-2217.
[7]	张圆刚, 余向洋. 生活空间重构旅游者的乡村游憩影响因素与路径——一个模糊集的定性比较分析[J]. 自然资源学报, 2020, 35(7): 1633-1646.
[8]	李航飞, 韦素琼, 魏少彬. 农户视角下台湾农业技术在大陆扩散影响因素分析——以广东韶关粤台农业合作试验区兰花种植业为例[J]. 自然资源学报, 2020, 35(7): 1686-1698.
[9]	耿甜伟, 陈海, 张行, 史琴琴, 刘迪. 基于GWR的陕西省生态系统服务价值时空演变特征及影响因素分析[J]. 自然资源学报, 2020, 35(7): 1714-1727.
[10]	王晓艺, 苏正安, 马菁, 杨鸿琨, 何周窈, 周涛. 河北坝上与坝下不同土地利用类型土壤入渗特征及其影响因素[J]. 自然资源学报, 2020, 35(6): 1360-1368.
[11]	高楠, 张新成, 王琳艳. 中国红色旅游网络关注度时空特征及影响因素[J]. 自然资源学报, 2020, 35(5): 1068-1089.
[12]	单菁竹, 李京梅, 许志华. CVM中的抗议性响应:动机与影响——以胶州湾浒苔治理支付意愿为例[J]. 自然资源学报, 2020, 35(3): 626-638.
[13]	李莉, 侯国林, 夏四友, 黄震方. 成都市休闲旅游资源空间分布特征及影响因素[J]. 自然资源学报, 2020, 35(3): 683-697.
[14]	杨静涵, 刘梦云, 张杰, 张萌萌, 曹润珊, 曹馨悦. 黄土高原沟壑区小流域土壤养分空间变异特征及其影响因素[J]. 自然资源学报, 2020, 35(3): 743-754.
[15]	丛丽, 于佳平, 王灵恩. 我国半资源消费型野生动物旅游景区时空演变特征及其驱动因素分析[J]. 自然资源学报, 2020, 35(12): 2831-2847.