应用后续确定性问题校正条件价值评估——以福建省鼓山风景名胜区非使用价值评估为例

doi:10.11849/zrzyxb.2012.10.015

PDF(1342 KB)

自然资源学报 ›› 2012 ›› Issue (10) : 1778-1787. DOI: 10.11849/zrzyxb.2012.10.015

资源研究方法

应用后续确定性问题校正条件价值评估——以福建省鼓山风景名胜区非使用价值评估为例

许丽忠, 杨净, 钟满秀, 韩智霞, 胡军, 黄梅芬, 张江山

作者信息 +

Contingent Valuation Calibration Using Follow-up Certainty Question: A Case Study of Non-use Value Assessment of Gushan Scenic Area in Fujian Province

XU Li-zhong, YANG Jing, ZHONG Man-xiu, HAN Zhi-xia, HU Jun, HUANG Mei-fen, ZHANG Jiang-shan

Author information +

文章历史 +

摘要

条件价值(CV)法是评估环境与资源价值的重要手段,后续确定性问题可有效便捷地提高CV结果的有效性。应用10刻度量化表式后续确定性问题对鼓山风景名胜区非使用价值CV评估结果进行校正。问卷采用双边界二分式,面对面调查获得518份有效调查问卷。结果显示:具有正支付意愿的受访者,其付费加入"鼓山保护协会"的确定度呈正态分布,确定度的平均值为6.72;确定度与受访者的收入、受访者对鼓山的熟悉程度呈显著正相关;受访者对起始投标值敏感。当确定度门槛值取7或8时,正支付率从51.5%分别下降至27.8%或23.3%,而平均支付意愿分别从33.24元下降至19.74元或16.36元,采用后续确定性问题校正后CV结果下降了一半左右。

Abstract

Contingent valuation (CV) method is an important method in environment and resource valuation assessment, and follow-up certainty question is just one of the convenient and effective measures to enhance CV validity. We illustrated contingent valuation calibration using follow-up certainty question with a 10-point Likert quantization table by a case study of Gushan scenic area non-use value assessment. We employed double boundary dichotomous choice elicitation. The experiment was conducted face to face, and produced a total of 518 valid questionnaire samples. The action certainty of respondents with positive willingness-to-pay for Gushan Protection Society were normal distribution with mean certainty 6.72. Respondent’s income and his familiarization to Gushan scenic area were significantly positively related to his action certainty, and his action certainty is sensitive to the initial bid. Respondents’ positive willingness-to-pay dropped from 51.5% to 27.8% or 23.3% respectively when certainty threshold value was 7 or 8, and mean willingness-to-pay dropped from 33.24 yuan to 19.74 yuan or 16.36 yuan accordingly. CV result falls by half by follow-up certainty question calibration.

导出引用

许丽忠, 杨净, 钟满秀, 韩智霞, 胡军, 黄梅芬, 张江山. 应用后续确定性问题校正条件价值评估——以福建省鼓山风景名胜区非使用价值评估为例[J]. 自然资源学报, 2012(10): 1778-1787 https://doi.org/10.11849/zrzyxb.2012.10.015

XU Li-zhong, YANG Jing, ZHONG Man-xiu, HAN Zhi-xia, HU Jun, HUANG Mei-fen, ZHANG Jiang-shan. Contingent Valuation Calibration Using Follow-up Certainty Question: A Case Study of Non-use Value Assessment of Gushan Scenic Area in Fujian Province[J]. JOURNAL OF NATURAL RESOURCES, 2012(10): 1778-1787 https://doi.org/10.11849/zrzyxb.2012.10.015

中图分类号： X196

参考文献

[1] 张茵, 蔡运龙. 条件估值法评估环境资源价值的研究进展[J]. 北京大学学报: 自然科学版, 2005, 41(2): 317-328. [ZHANG Yin, CAI Yun-long. Using contingent valuation method to value environmental resources: A review. Acta Scicentiarum Naturalum Universitis Pekinesis, 2005, 41(2): 317-328.]
[2] 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.
[3] Weimer D, Vining A, Thomas R. Cost-benefit analysis involving addictive goods: Contingent valuation to estimate willingness-to-pay for smoking cessation [J]. Health Economics, 2009, 18: 181-202.
[4] 蔡春光, 陈功, 乔晓春, 等. 单边界、双边界二分式条件价值评估方法的比较——以北京市空气污染对健康危害问卷调查为例[J]. 中国环境科学, 2007, 27(1): 39-43. [CAI Chun-guang, CHEN Gong, QIAO Xiao-chun, et al. Comparison of single bound and double bound dichotomous contingent valuation technique-A case of estimate health economic loss by air pollution of Beijing. China Environmental Science, 2007, 27(1): 39-43.]
[5] Samuel Kim, Kevin Wong, Min Cho. Assessing the economic value of a world heritage site and willingness -to-pay determinants: A case of Changdeok Palace [J]. Tourism Management, 2007, 28: 317-322.
[6] 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. [LIU Ya-ping, PAN Xiao-fang, ZHONG Qiu-ping et al. Analyzing about the assessment of the recreational value of the natural spaces in ecotourism districts. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2006, 26(11): 3765-3774.]
[7] Ekin Birol, Katia Karousakis, Phoebe Koundouri. Using economic valuation techniques to inform water resources management: A survey and critical appraisal of available techniques and an application [J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2006, 365: 105- 122.
[8] 杨凯, 赵军. 城市河流生态系统服务的CVM 估值及其偏差分析[J]. 生态学报, 2005, 25(6): 1391-1396 [YANG Kai, ZHAO Jun. Study on the ecosystem services value of urban river using contingent valuation method and bias analysis of the results. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2005, 25 (6): 1391-1396.]
[9] Carson R T, Robert Mitchell, Michael Hanemann, et al. Contingent valuation and lost passive use: Damages from the Exxon Valdez oil spill [J]. Environmental and Resource Economics, 2003, 25: 257-286.
[10] 李金平, 王志石. 澳门噪音污染损害价值的条件估值研究[J]. 地球科学进展, 2006, 21(6): 599-604. [LI Jin-ping, WANG Zhi-shi. Evaluation of the loses of noise pollution in macao with contingent valuation method. Advances in Earth Science, 2006, 21(6): 599-604.]
[11] Susan Chilton, Diane Burgess, George Hutchinson. The relative value of farm animal welfare [J]. Ecological Economics, 2006, 59: 353-363.
[12] 宗雪, 崔国发, 袁婧. 基于条件价值法的大熊猫(Ailuropoda melanoleuca)存在价值评估[J]. 生态学报, 2008, 28(5): 2090-2098. [ZONG Xue, CUI Guo-fa, YUAN Jing. Contingent valuation of the existent economic of Giant Panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca ). Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2008, 28(5): 2090-2098.]
[13] Diwakar Poudel, Fred H Johnsen. Valuation of crop genetic resources in Kaski, Nepal: Farmers’ willingness to pay for rice landraces conservation [J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2009, 90: 483-491.
[14] 蔡银莺, 张安录. 武汉市农地非市场价值评估[J]. 生态学报, 2007, 27(2): 763-773. [CAI Yin-ying, ZHANG An-lu. The assessment of non-market value of agricultural land resource in Wuhan. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2007, 27(2): 763-773.]
[15] Serkan Gürlük. The estimation of ecosystem services’ value in the region of Misi Rural Development Project: Results from a contingent valuation survey [J]. Policy and Economics, 2006(9): 209-218.
[16] Paul Mcnamee, Laura Ternent, Adjima Gbangou, et al. A game of two halves? Incentive incompatibility, starting point bias and the bidding game contingent valuation method [J]. Health Economics, 2009, doi: 10.1002/Hec.1448.
[17] Venkatachalam L. The contingent valuation method: A review [J]. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 2004, 24: 89-124.
[18] Carson R, Nicholas Flores, Norman Meade. Contingent valuation: Controversies and evidence [J]. Environmental and Resource Economics, 2001, 19: 173-210.
[19] List John, Craig Gallet. What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values? [J] Environmental and Resource Economics, 2001, 20: 241-254.
[20] Joseph Little, Robert Berrens. Explaining disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values: Further investigation using meta-analysis [J]. Economics Bulletin, 2004, 3(6): 1-13.
[21] Murphy J, Allen Geoffrey, Stevens Thomas, et al. A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation [J]. Environmental and Resource Economics, 2005, 30: 313-325.
[22] 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.
[23] Morrison Mark, 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.
[24] Richard C Ready, John C Whitehead, Glenn C Blomquist. Contingent valuation when respondents are ambivalent [J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 1995, 29: 181-196.
[25] Wang H. Treatment of don’t-know responses in contingent valuation surveys: A random valuation model [J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 1997, 32: 219-232.
[26] 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.
[27] 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.
[28] 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.
[29] Poe G L, Clark J E, Rondeau D, et al. Provision point mechanisms and field validity tests of contingent valuation [J]. Environmental and Resource Economics, 2002, 23: 105-131.
[30] Blumenschein K, Johannesson M, Blomquist G C, et al. Experimental results on expressed uncertainty and hypothetical bias in contingent valuation [J]. Southern Economic Journal, 1998, 65(1): 169-177.
[31] Blumenschein K, Blomquist G C, Johannesson M, et al. Eliciting willingness to pay without bias: Evidence from a field experiment [J]. The Economic Journal, 2008, 118(525): 114-137.
[32] Johannesson M, Liljas B, Johansson P O. An experimental comparison of dichotomous choice contingent valuation questions and real purchase decisions [J]. Applied Economics, 1998, 30: 643-647.
[33] Johannesson M, Blomquist G C, Blumenschein K, et al. Calibrating hypothetical willingness to pay responses [J]. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1999, 8: 21-32.
[34] 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.
[35] Vossler C A, Kerkvliet J, Polasky S, et al. Externally validating contingent valuation: An open-space survey and referendum in Corvallis, Oregon [J]. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 2003, 51: 261-277.
[36] 薛达元. 长白山自然保护区生物多样性非使用价值评估[J]. 中国环境科学, 2000, 20(2): 141-145. [XUE Da-yuan. Valuation on non-use values of biodiversity by contingent valuation method in Changbai Mountain Biosphere Reserve in China. China Environmental Science, 2000, 20(2): 141-145.]
[37] 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. [XU Zhong-min, ZHANG Zhi-qiang, CHENG Guo-dong, et al. Measuring the total economic value of restoring Ejina Banner’s ecosystem services. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2002, 57(1): 107-116.]
[38] 曹建军, 任正炜, 杨勇, 等. 玛曲草地生态系统恢复成本条件价值评估[J]. 生态学报, 2008, 28(4): 1872-1880. [CAO Jian-jun, REN Zheng-wei, YANG Yong, et al. Using CVM to estimate the restoring cost of Maqu grassland. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2008, 28(4): 1872-1880.]
[39] 王凤珍, 周志翔, 郑忠明. 武汉市典型城市湖泊湿地资源非使用价值评价[J]. 生态学报, 2010, 30(12): 3261-3269. [WANG Feng-zhen, ZHOU Zhi-xiang, ZHENG Zhong-ming. Evaluation on non-use values of typical lake wetlands in Wuhan. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2010, 30(12): 3261-3269.]
[40] 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. [ZHANG Yin, CAI Yun-long. Measuring the recreational value of Jiuzhaigou Nature Reserve with contingent valuation method. Economic Geography, 2010, 30(7): 1205-1211.]
[41] 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. [XU Li-zhong, ZHU Yu, ZHANG Jiang-shan, et al. Can PC format CV reveal true value of environmental resource in developing countries? A laboratory experiment in China. Chinese Science Bulletin, 2009, 54(22): 3574-3581.]
[42] 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. [ZHAO Jun, YANG Kai, LIU Lan-lan, et al. The WTA/WTP disparity in environmental and ecosystem services valuation. Acta Scientiae Circumstantiae, 2007, 27(5): 854-860.]
[43] 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. [XU Li-zhong, WU Chun-shan, WANG Fei-feng, et al. Testing reliability of contingent valuation method: A case study on the tourism attraction non-use value. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2007, 27(10): 4301-4309.]
[44] 董雪旺, 张捷, 刘传华, 等. 条件价值法中的偏差分析及信度和效度检验——以九寨沟游憩价值评估为例[J]. 地理学报, 2011, 66(2): 267-278. [DONG Xue-wang, ZHANG Jie, LIU Chuan-hua, et al. Bias analysis and reliability and validity test in contingent valuation method: A case study of assessment of Jiuzhaigou’s recreational value. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2011, 66(2): 267-278.]
[45] 蔡志坚, 杜丽永, 蒋瞻. 条件价值评估的有效性与可靠性改善——理论、方法与应用[J]. 生态学报, 2011, 31(10): 2915-2923. [CAI Zhi-jian, DU Li-yong, JIANG Zhan. Improving validity and reliability of contingent valuation method through reducing biases and errors: Theory, method and application. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2011, 31(10): 2915-2923.]
[46] 蔡志坚, 杜丽永, 蒋瞻. 基于有效性改进的流域生态系统恢复条件价值评估——以长江流域生态系统恢复为例[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2011, 21(1): 127-134. [CAI Zhi-jian, DU Li-yong, JIANG Zhan. Contingent valuation of the economic benefits of restoring basin ecosystem with validity improvement: A case study for Yangtze River ecosystem. China Population, Resources and Environment, 2011, 21(1): 127-134.]
[47] 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. [ZHANG Ming-jun, SUN Mei-ping, YAO Xiao-jun, et al. Parameter estimation of average willingness to pay under uncertainty effect. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2007, 27(9): 3852-3859.]
[48] Whittington D. Improving the performance of contingent valuation studies in developing countries [J]. Environmental and Resource Economics, 2002, 22: 323-367.