周清波1,,,
甘寿文1,
祖君鸣2,
杜艳芹2
1.中国农业科学院农业资源与农业区划研究所 北京 100081
2.河北省保定市徐水区农业局 徐水 072550
基金项目: 中央级公益性科研院所专项资金项目720-32
详细信息
作者简介:周颖, 主要研究方向为农业生态经济与农业生态补偿。E-mail: zhouying@caas.cn
通讯作者:周清波, 主要研究方向为农业遥感与土地资源评价。E-mail: zhouqingbo@caas.cn
中图分类号:F3计量
文章访问数:783
HTML全文浏览量:5
PDF下载量:1146
被引次数:0
出版历程
收稿日期:2017-09-04
录用日期:2017-11-20
刊出日期:2018-05-01
Disparity between willingness to pay/accept for corn straw counter-field technology: A case study of farmer survey in Xushui District of Baoding City
ZHOU Ying1,,ZHOU Qingbo1,,,
GAN Shouwen1,
ZU Junming2,
DU Yanqin2
1. Institute of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100081, China
2. Xushui Agriculture Bureau in Baoding, Heibei Province, Xushui 072550, China
Funds: Fundamental Research Funds for Central Non-profit Scientific Institution of China720-32
More Information
Corresponding author:ZHOU Qingbo E-mail: zhouqingbo@caas.cn
摘要
HTML全文
图
参考文献
相关文章
施引文献
资源附件
访问统计
摘要
摘要:如何揭示秸秆还田技术实践中利益相关者生态补偿的真实意愿，不但是技术外部性测度研究的难点问题，也是提高农业补偿政策准确性与效能的有效途径。以往的研究较多地采用农田生态系统的生态服务价值量估算技术产生的外部性价值，由于未充分考虑环境利益双方量价关系的均衡，评估结果的准确性往往受到质疑。鉴于此，本研究首先厘清主体关系，农户是生产技术的实践者和环境保护参与者，理应成为技术进步的受益者。因而，技术外部性测度应充分尊重农民的意愿和利益。其次，确定研究方法。本研究采用国际通用的意愿价值评估法（CVM），引导获取河北省保定市徐水区502户受访者采纳秸秆还田技术的支付意愿（WTP）和受偿意愿（WTA）；结合多元对数线性模型估计法，估算受访者应用秸秆还田技术主要机械成本（包括秸秆粉碎及旋耕费用）的最大WTP值和最小WTA值。结果表明：WTP的期望值为38.23元·户-1·a-1，WTA的期望值为137.52元·户-1·a-1，WTA/WTP的比值为3.6倍。本文进一步剖析WTP与WTA差异性原因，运用回归模型分析两者差异性影响因素，其中：机械成本对差异性有显著正向影响，已成为影响玉米秸秆还田推广的重要决定因素；劳动力比率、信息来源、灌溉成本和收割方式等4个因素与差异性均产生负向关联。可见，在大力推广玉米生产全程机械化进程中，机械成本上涨部分抵消了国家惠农政策补贴的效果，导致农户参与秸秆还田积极性并不高。因此，决策部门及时跟进技术价值评估工作，建立针对农户的直接补偿机制，是从根源上解决技术外部性内部化问题的有效途径。
关键词:秸秆还田技术/
意愿价值评估法/
支付意愿/
受偿意愿/
差异性
Abstract:How to reveal the real willingness of stakeholders for eco-compensation of technological practices has not only been a difficult research issue in measuring technological externalities, but also a key question in improving the accuracy and effectiveness of agricultural compensation policy. A number of studies have used ecological services value of farmland ecosystems to estimate the value of technological externality. The accuracy of the assessment results have been questioned on the basis of lacking adequate consideration of equilibrium of the relationship between participant parties. In view of this, this study first clarified the relationship between the main parties, where farmers were practitioners of production technology and environmental protection and therefore the beneficiaries of technological advancement. Therefore, the measure of technological externalities fully respected the wishes and interests of farmers. The second objective of the study was to determine research methods used in assessing the willingness of farmers. The paper used Contingent Valuation Method (CVM), which is a general intention value assessment used to determine the willingness to pay (WTP) and the willingness to accept (WTA), to determine the adoption of straw-return technology across 502 respondents. Then it estimated the maximum WTP and minimum WTA values of the mechanical costs (including:straw pulverization and rotational tillage) based on multivariate log-linear model estimation method. Based on the findings of the study, the expectancy values of WTP and WTA were respectively 38.23 ￥ and 137.52 ￥ per household per year for shredding and spinning costs of straw-return to the field, with WTA/WTP ratio of 3.6. The paper further analyzed the differences between WTP and WTA based on multiple logarithmic regression models and noted that the influencing factors of WTP and WTA asymmetry were labor force, information source, irrigation cost, mechanical cost and harvest mode. In addition, mechanical cost had a significant positive effect on the differences between WTA and WTP, while all other factors had a negative correlation. It was noted that on the one hand of the process of promoting whole-process mechanization of maize production, the increase in mechanical cost partially neutralized the beneficial effects of subsidies on farmers in the country. As a result, farmers had a low enthusiasm to return straw to the soil. On the other hand, since most corn farmers used to adopt traditional mode of production (including low labor and irrigation inputs, use of artificial harvesting and lack of information sources), the WTP of farmers for straw counter-field was also low. In fact, farmer households were even looking forward more to the government to speedily implement a reasonable subsidy policy. Thus, subsides were to be used by policy-makers to induce further adoption and reduce premiums costs on production practices. Empirical studies have confirmed that compensation standard of straw mulching technology in the northern arid area of China was 87.88 ￥ per household per year, which was reasonable and effective. In summary, the government should pay more attention on three issues in decision-making:1) establishment of a fair and effective compensation policy mechanism for farmers to work together and share the fruits of technological advancement; 2) strengthening of research on the methodology of technical-value assessment and establishment of a technical-value assessment based system for CVM and econometric models; 3) improvement of monitoring mechanism of promotion of agricultural technology and setting up information resource sharing platforms.
Key words:Straw counter-field technology/
Contingent Valuation Method/
Willingness to pay/
Willingness to accept/
Disparity
HTML全文
图1研究区玉米各项生产成本占总成本比例的年度变化
Figure1.Annual change of each single cost proportion of the total cost of maize production in the study area from 2010 to 2014
下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片
图2研究区2014年玉米生产中机械服务各项成本占机械总成本的比例
Figure2.Proportions of various costs of mechanical services in the total cost of machinery maize production in the study area in 2014
下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片
图3受访者对玉米秸秆还田费用的支付意愿(WTP)和受偿意愿(WTA)累积频率分布曲线
Figure3.Cumulative frequency distribution curves of willingness to pay (WTP) and willingness to accept (WTA) of respondents for corn stalk returning fees
下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片
图4受访者对玉米秸秆还田费用的受偿意愿(WTA)与支付意愿(WTP)比值的样本频率分布
Figure4.Proportions of each intervals of ratio of willingness to accept (WTA) to willingness to pay (WTP) of respondents for corn stalk returning fees
下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片表1玉米秸秆还田技术支付与受偿意愿的解释变量定义赋值及描述统计
Table1.Definition, assignment and descriptive statistics of explanatory variables of willingness to pay/accept for corn straw counters-field technology
| 变量 Variable | 变量赋值1) Variable definition and assignment1) | 平均值 Average | 标准差 SD | 预期判断 Expected | |
| 个体属性 Individual characteristics | 教育年限 Education (EDUC) | 文盲=0, 小学=6, 初中=9, 高中=12, 大专及以上=16 Illiteracy = 0, primary school = 6, junior middle school = 9, senior high school = 12, college above = 16 | 7.54 | 3.120 | + |
| 劳动时间 Work time (WORT) (months·a-1) | 分组等级数的平方(1=1, 2=1.1~3, 3=3.1~6, 4=6.1~9, 5=9.1~12) Group level squared (1 = 1, 2 = 1.1-3, 3 = 3.1-6, 4 =6.1-9, 5 = 9.1-12) | 4.45 | 2.787 | - | |
| 劳动力比率 Labor ratio (LABO) | 劳动力占家庭总人口的比例 Proportion of labor of family population | 0.89 | 0.531 | - | |
| 种植面积 Planting area (AREA) (hm2) | 分组等级数的平方(1≤0.2, 2=0.21~0.4, 3=0.41~0.6, 4=0.61~0.8, 5=0.81~1.33, 6≥1.34 Group level squared (1 ≤ 0.2, 2 = 0.21-0.4, 3 = 0.41-0.6, 4 = 0.61-0.8, 5 = 0.81-1.33, 6≥1.34 | 5.16 | 4.364 | + | |
| 家庭总收入 Family income (FAMI) (×104 ￥a-1) | 1≤1, 2=1-2, 3=2-3, 4=3-4, 5=4-5, 6=5-7, 7≥8, 8=不一定 1 ≤ 1, 2 = 1-2, 3 = 2-3, 4 = 3-4, 5 = 4-5, 6 = 5-7, 7 ≥ 8, 8 = not necessarily | 3.34 | 1.681 | + | |
| 社会资源 Social resources | 信息来源 Information sources (INFO) | 信息来源是否丰富(0=不丰富, 1=丰富) Not rich = 0, rich = 1 | 0.18 | 0.387 | + |
| 生产经营 Production and operation | 种子成本 Seeds cost (SEED) (￥·hm-2) | 单位面积种子成本 Seeding costs per unit area | 693.015 | 205.755 | +/- |
| 化肥成本 Fertilizer cost (FERT) (￥·hm-2) | 单位面积化肥成本 Fertilizer costs per unit area | 2 383.875 | 668.31 | +/- | |
| 农药成本 Pesticides cost (PEST) (￥·hm-2) | 单位面积农药成本 Pesticides costs per unit area | 331.275 | 218.865 | +/- | |
| 灌溉成本 Irrigation cost (IRRI) (￥·hm-2) | 单位面积灌溉成本 Irrigation costs per unit area | 544.935 | 337.725 | +/- | |
| 机械成本 Mechanical cost (MECH) (￥·hm-2) | 单位面积机械成本 Mechanical costs per unit area | 3 030.075 | 784.95 | +/- | |
| 农业纯收入 Agricultural net income (AGRI)(￥·a-1) | 农业纯收入=小麦纯收入+玉米纯收入Agricultural net income = wheat net income + corn net income | 3 752.209 | 4 662.515 | + | |
| 灌溉次数 Irrigation times (IRRT) (times·a-1) | 玉米种植灌溉次数 Irrigation times | 1.48 | 0.668 | _ | |
| 秸秆用途 Straw use (STRA) | 秸秆是否还田: 0, 不还田; 1, 还田。 Straw use: 0, noreturning; 1, returning. | 0.81 | 0.394 | + | |
| 收割方式 Harvesting (HARV) | 是否机械收割: 0, 否; 1, 是。 Mechanical harvesting: 0, no; 1, yes. | 0.74 | 0.437 | + | |
| 政策认知 Policy cognitive | 政策认知 Policy cognitive (POLI) | 是否知道秸秆还田补贴政策: 0, 不知道; 1, 知道。 Policy understanding: 0, unknown; 1, know. | 0.13 | 0.334 | + |
| 1)变量赋值参照实地调研及《徐水县国民经济统计资料(2011—2013年)》相关数据。1) Variable definition and assignment refers to field survey and the Statistics of Economy of Xushui County 2011-2013. | |||||
下载: 导出CSV表2受访者对玉米秸秆还田费用的支付意愿和受偿意愿频率分布
Table2.Frequency distributions of willingness to pay (WTP) and willingness to accept (WTA) of respondents for corn stalk returning fees
| 投标数额 Bidding (￥·household-1) | WTP (n = 502) | WTA (n = 502) | |||||
| 人数 Number | 有效频率 Effective frequency (%) | 累积频率 Cumulative frequency (%) | 人数 Number | 有效频率 Effective frequency (%) | 累积频率 Cumulative frequency (%) | ||
| 0 | 45 | 8.96 | 8.96 | 44 | 8.76 | 8.76 | |
| 1~9 | 28 | 5.58 | 14.54 | 2 | 0.40 | 9.16 | |
| 10~20 | 40 | 7.97 | 22.51 | 10 | 2.00 | 11.16 | |
| 21~30 | 69 | 13.75 | 36.25 | 22 | 4.38 | 15.54 | |
| 31~40 | 49 | 9.76 | 46.02 | 36 | 7.17 | 22.71 | |
| 41~50 | 36 | 7.17 | 53.19 | 35 | 6.97 | 29.68 | |
| 51~60 | 92 | 18.33 | 71.51 | 90 | 17.93 | 47.61 | |
| 61~70 | 48 | 9.56 | 81.08 | 46 | 9.16 | 56.77 | |
| 71~80 | 44 | 8.76 | 89.84 | 54 | 10.76 | 67.53 | |
| 81~90 | 27 | 5.38 | 95.22 | 35 | 6.97 | 74.50 | |
| 91~110 | 8 | 1.59 | 96.81 | 55 | 10.96 | 85.46 | |
| 111~130 | 11 | 2.19 | 99.00 | 44 | 8.76 | 94.22 | |
| 131~150 | 1 | 0.20 | 99.20 | 15 | 2.99 | 97.21 | |
| 151~170 | 2 | 0.40 | 99.60 | 9 | 1.79 | 99.01 | |
| 171~190 | 0 | 0 | 99.60 | 3 | 0.60 | 99.60 | |
| ≥191 | 2 | 0.40 | 100.00 | 2 | 0.40 | 100.00 | |
下载: 导出CSV表3受访者对玉米秸秆还田费用的受偿意愿(WTA)与支付意愿(WTP)估计值与其解释变量的多元线性对数回归分析(n=298)
Table3.Logarithm regression model analyzing results about willingness to pay (WTP) and willingness to accept (WTA) of respondents for corn stalk returning fees with the explanatory variables (n = 298)
| WTP | WTA | |||||||
| 变量 Variable | 系数估计 Coefficient | t-统计值 t-statistic | 概率 Prob. | 变量 Variable | 系数估计 Coefficient | t-统计值 t-Statistic | 概率 Prob. | |
| C | 0.551 9 | 0.573 5 | 0.566 8 | C | -1.225 8 | -1.647 6 | 0.100 5 | |
| X1 | 0.024 5 | 0.573 5 | 0.566 8 | X1 | -0.252 6 | -1.936 7 | 0.053 7 | |
| X2 | 0.021 2 | 0.221 6 | 0.824 8 | X2 | 0.026 0 | 1.806 5 | 0.071 8 | |
| X3 | -0.068 7 | 1.391 0 | 0.165 3 | X3 | -0.231 2* | -2.036 7 | 0.042 6 | |
| X4 | -0.026 4 | -0.669 4 | 0.503 8 | X4 | 0.048 6 | 1.841 4 | 0.066 5 | |
| X5 | 0.055 4 | -1.165 1 | 0.245 0 | X5 | -0.2397** | -4.404 0 | 0.000 0 | |
| X6 | -0.010 6 | 1.054 2 | 0.292 7 | X6 | 0.086 1 | 1.378 2 | 0.169 1 | |
| X7 | -0.051 9 | -0.602 0 | 0.547 7 | X7 | 0.026 0 | 0.356 7 | 0.721 5 | |
| X8 | -0.216 8** | -7.661 0 | 0.000 0 | X8 | 0.059 1 | 1.698 4 | 0.090 5 | |
| X9 | 0.213 1** | 3.985 3 | 0.000 1 | X9 | -0.108 0* | -2.327 5 | 0.020 6 | |
| X10 | 0.748 3** | 4.971 4 | 0.000 0 | X10 | 1.150 5** | 10.899 4 | 0.000 0 | |
| X11 | -0.027 3 | -1.357 9 | 0.175 6 | X11 | -0.037 5 | -1.962 9 | 0.050 6 | |
| X12 | -0.079 4* | -2.317 6 | 0.021 2 | X12 | -0.025 5 | -0.731 9 | 0.464 8 | |
| X13 | -0.034 3 | -0.470 9 | 0.638 1 | X13 | 0.103 8 | 1.636 8 | 0.102 7 | |
| X14 | 0.079 8 | 1.367 0 | 0.172 7 | X14 | 0.066 8 | 1.338 7 | 0.181 7 | |
| X15 | -0.399 9** | -5.354 5 | 0.000 0 | X15 | -0.438 8** | -5.885 2 | 0.000 0 | |
| X16 | 0.138 8** | 3.517 8 | 0.000 5 | X16 | -0.022 0 | -0.483 6 | 0.629 0 | |
| Weighted statistics (WTP) | Weighted statistics (WTA) | |||||||
| R2 | 0.615 4 | F统计量F-statistic | 28.097 0 | R2 | 0.413 2 | F统计量F-statistic | 13.333 5 | |
| 调整R2 Adjusted R2 | 0.593 5 | D-W统计量D. W. | 1.738 5 | 调整R2 Adjusted R2 | 0.382 2 | D-W统计量D. W. | 2.067 9 | |
| 概率值P (F-statistic) | 0.000 0 | 沃尔德概率值P (Wald F-statistic) | 0.000 0 | 概率值P (F-statistic) | 0.000 0 | 沃尔德概率值P (Wald F-statistic) | 0.000 0 | |
| **、*分别表示在1%和5%显著性水平上通过检验。为了便于统计分析, 表 3中家庭总收入变量置于农业纯收入变量之后, 其他变量顺序不变。** and * respectively mean passing the test at 1% and 5% significance levels. In order to facilitate statistical analysis, the family income (FAMI) variable in table 3 is placed after the agricultural net income (AGRI) variable, and the order of other variables remains unchanged compared to table 1. C: constant; X1: lnEDUC; X2: WORT; X3: lnLABO; X4: lnAREA; X5: INFO; X6: lnSEED; X7: lnFERT; X8: lnPEST; X9: lnIRRI; X10: lnMECH; X11: lnAGRI; X12: lnFAMI; X13: lnIRRT; X14: STRA; X15: HARV; X16: POLI. | ||||||||
下载: 导出CSV表4受访者对玉米秸秆还田费用的受偿意愿(WTA)与支付意愿(WTP)差异性决定因素的多元对数回归模型分析(n=419)
Table4.Logarithm regression model analyzing results about the determinants of difference between willingness to pay (WTP) and willingness to accept (WTA) of respondents for corn stalk returning fees (n = 419)
| 变量 Variable | 系数估计 Coefficient | 标准误 Std. error | t-统计量 t-statistic | 概率 Prob. |
| C | -2.172 9 | 0.629 8 | -3.450 2 | 0.000 6 |
| X3 | -0.268 8** | 0.042 3 | -6.349 2 | 0.000 0 |
| X5 | -0.264 2** | 0.058 1 | -4.545 6 | 0.000 0 |
| X8 | 0.041 2 | 0.039 8 | 1.036 6 | 0.300 6 |
| X9 | -0.135 5** | 0.039 5 | -3.426 0 | 0.000 7 |
| X10 | 1.254 0** | 0.123 0 | 10.192 4 | 0.000 0 |
| X12 | 0.022 7 | 0.039 0 | 0.581 6 | 0.561 2 |
| X15 | -0.518 5** | 0.066 2 | -7.827 9 | 0.000 0 |
| X16 | 0.053 2 | 0.057 0 | 0.933 1 | 0.351 4 |
| R2 | 0.337 1 | F统计量F-statistic | 22.306 9 | |
| 调整R2 Adjusted R2 | 0.321 9 | 概率值Prob. (F-statistic) | 0.000 0 | |
| **、*分别表示在1%和5%显著性水平上通过检验。** and * respectively pass the test at the 1% and 5% significance levels. C: constant; X3: lnLABO; X5: INFO; X8: lnPEST; X9: lnIRRI; X10: lnMECH; X12: lnFAMI; X15: HWAY; X16: POLI. | ||||
下载: 导出CSV参考文献
| [1] | 李曼, 崔和瑞.发展保护性耕作技术促进农业可持续发展[J].中国农机化, 2005, (5):51-53 http://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical_zgnjh200505019.aspx LI M, CUI H R. Developing protective farming technique, promoting agricultural sustainable development[J]. Chinese Agricultural Mechanization, 2005, (5):51-53 http://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical_zgnjh200505019.aspx |
| [2] | 赵亚丽, 薛志伟, 郭海斌, 等.耕作方式与秸秆还田对土壤呼吸的影响及机理[J].农业工程学报, 2014, 30(19):155-165 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-6819.2014.19.019 ZHAO Y L, XUE Z W, GUO H B, et al. Effects of tillage and crop residue management on soil respiration and its mechanism[J]. Transactions of the CSAE, 2014, 30(19):155-165 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-6819.2014.19.019 |
| [3] | 高旺盛.论保护性耕作技术的基本原理与发展趋势[J].中国农业科学, 2007, 40(12):2702-2708 doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0578-1752.2007.12.006 GAO W S. Development trends and basic principles of conservation tillage[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2007, 40(12):2702-2708 doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0578-1752.2007.12.006 |
| [4] | 刘宪, 范学民, 李洪文.保护性耕作推广应用问题研究[J].农业技术与装备, 2010, (1):15-18 http://www.cqvip.com/QK/87754A/201001/33031312.html LIU X, FAN X M, LI H W. Research on the application of conservation tillage[J]. Agricultural Technology & Equipment, 2010, (1):15-18 http://www.cqvip.com/QK/87754A/201001/33031312.html |
| [5] | 王长生, 王遵义, 苏成贵, 等.保护性耕作技术的发展现状[J].农业机械学报, 2004, 35(1):167-169 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-1298.2004.01.043 WANG C S, WANG Z Y, SU C G, et al. Development and application of protective farming technique[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Machinery, 2004, 35(1):167-169 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-1298.2004.01.043 |
| [6] | 宋志伟, 杨超.农作物秸秆综合利用技术[M].北京:中国农业科学技术出版社, 2011:9 SONG Z W, YANG C. Comprehensive Utilization Technology of Crop Straws[M]. Beijing:China Agricultural Science and Technology Press, 2011:9 |
| [7] | BESCANSA P, IMAZ M J, VIRTO I, et al. Soil water retention as affected by tillage and residue management in semiarid Spain[J]. Soil and Tillage Research, 2006, 87(1):19-27 doi: 10.1016/j.still.2005.02.028 |
| [8] | 于晓蕾, 吴普特, 汪有科, 等.不同秸秆覆盖量对冬小麦生理及土壤温、湿状况的影响[J].灌溉排水学报, 2007, 26(4):41-44 http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=ggps200704010 YU X L, WU P T, WANG Y K, et al. Effects of different quantity of straw mulching on physiological character of winter wheat and soil moisture and temperature[J]. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage, 2007, 26(4):41-44 http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=ggps200704010 |
| [9] | 芦文龙. 技术的外部性探讨[C]//中国自然辩证法研究会. 第三届全国科技哲学暨交叉学科研究生论坛文集. 北京: 中国自然辩证法研究会, 2010: 105-108 http://cpfd.cnki.com.cn/Article/CPFDTOTAL-CSDN201001002021.htm LU W L. On the externalities of technology[C]//The Chinese Society of Dialectics of Nature. The Third National Graduate Forum of Science and Technology Philosophy and Cross-Discipline. Beijing: The Chinese Society of Dialectics of Nature, 2010: 105-108 http://cpfd.cnki.com.cn/Article/CPFDTOTAL-CSDN201001002021.htm |
| [10] | 杨壬飞, 吴方卫.农业外部效应内部化及其路径选择[J].农业技术经济, 2003, (1):6-12 http://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?filename=nyjs200301001&dbname=CJFD&dbcode=CJFQ YANG R F, WU F W. Agricultural external effect internalization and route choosing[J]. Journal of Agrotechnical Economics, 2003, (1):6-12 http://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?filename=nyjs200301001&dbname=CJFD&dbcode=CJFQ |
| [11] | 张旭东.论农业的外部性与市场失灵[J].生产力研究, 2013, (3):43-45 http://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?filename=scly201303013&dbname=CJFD&dbcode=CJFQ ZHANG X D. On externality of agriculture and market failure[J]. Productivity Research, 2013, (3):43-45 http://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?filename=scly201303013&dbname=CJFD&dbcode=CJFQ |
| [12] | MITCHELL R C, CARSON R T. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods:The Contingent Valuation Method[M]. Washington DC:Resource for the Future, 1989:17-52 |
| [13] | HANEMANN W M. Valuing the environment through contingent valuation[J]. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 1994, 8(4):19-43 doi: 10.1257/jep.8.4.19 |
| [14] | 管仪庆, 魏建辉, 张丹蓉, 等.基于CVM方法的青岛地区节水灌溉系统服务价值评估[J].节水灌溉, 2009, (12):41-44 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-4929.2009.12.013 GUAN Y Q, WEI J H, ZHANG D R, et al. Value evaluation of water-saving irrigation system services in Qingdao area based on contingent valuation method[J]. Water Saving Irrigation, 2009, (12):41-44 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-4929.2009.12.013 |
| [15] | 唐学玉, 张海鹏, 李世平.农业面源污染防控的经济价值——基于安全农产品生产户视角的支付意愿分析[J].中国农村经济, 2012, (3):53-67 https://www.wenkuxiazai.com/doc/06e9f9acb14e852458fb57b1.html TANG X Y, ZHANG H P, LI S P. The economic value of the prevention and control of agricultural pollution-based on the analysis of payment intention based on the perspective of safety agricultural products[J]. Chinese Rural Economy, 2012, (3):53-67 https://www.wenkuxiazai.com/doc/06e9f9acb14e852458fb57b1.html |
| [16] | 何可, 张俊飚, 丰军辉.基于条件价值评估法(CVM)的农业废弃物污染防控非市场价值研究[J].长江流域资源与环境, 2014, 23(2):213-219 https://www.wenkuxiazai.com/doc/94a4ed3e561252d380eb6ea4-2.html HE K, ZHANG J B, FENG J H. Non-market value of prevention and control of agricultural waste pollution based on contingent valuation method[J]. Resources and Environment in the Yangtze Basin, 2014, 23(2):213-219 https://www.wenkuxiazai.com/doc/94a4ed3e561252d380eb6ea4-2.html |
| [17] | 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 http://www.oalib.com/paper/4345220 ZHAO J, YANG K, LIU L L, et al. The WTA/WTP disparity in environmental and ecosystem services valuation[J]. Acta Scientiae Circumstantiae, 2007, 27(5):854-860 http://www.oalib.com/paper/4345220 |
| [18] | 刘亚萍, 李罡, 陈训, 等.运用WTP值与WTA值对游憩资源非使用价值的货币估价——以黄果树风景区为例进行实证分析[J].资源科学, 2008, 30(3):431-439 http://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical_zykx200803016.aspx LIU Y P, LI G, CHEN X, et al. Monetary valuation of the non-use value of recreational resources in Huangguoshu Scenical Resort based on WTP and WTA methods[J]. Resources Science, 2008, 30(3):431-439 http://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical_zykx200803016.aspx |
| [19] | 徐大伟, 刘春燕, 常亮.流域生态补偿意愿的WTP与WTA差异性研究:基于辽河中游地区居民的CVM调查[J].自然资源学报, 2013, 28(3):402-409 doi: 10.11849/zrzyxb.2013.03.005 XU D W, LIU C Y, CHANG L. A study on the disparity of WTP and WTA of the Basin's willingness to compensate:Based on the residents' CVM investigation in the Middle Liaohe Drainage Basin[J]. Journal of Natural Resources, 2013, 28(3):402-409 doi: 10.11849/zrzyxb.2013.03.005 |
| [20] | 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 http://med.wanfangdata.com.cn/Paper/Detail?id=PeriodicalPaper_stxb201110029 CAI Z J, DU L Y, JIANG Z. Improving validity and reliability of contingent valuation method through reducing biases and errors:Theory, method and application[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2011, 31(10):2915-2923 http://med.wanfangdata.com.cn/Paper/Detail?id=PeriodicalPaper_stxb201110029 |
| [21] | 宋科, 李梦娜, 蔡惠文, 等.条件价值评估法理论基础、引导技术及数据处理[J].可持续发展, 2012, 2(2):74-79 https://www.hanspub.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=627 SONG K, LI M N, CAI H W, et al. The current status & application of contingent value method in China[J]. Sustainable Development, 2012, 2(2):74-79 https://www.hanspub.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=627 |
| [22] | 张志强, 徐中民, 程国栋.条件价值评估法的发展与应用[J].地球科学进展, 2003, 18(3):454-463 http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-DXJZ200303019.htm ZHANG Z Q, XU Z M, CHENG G D. The updated development and application of contingent valuation method (CVM)[J]. Advance in Earth Sciences, 2003, 18(3):454-463 http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-DXJZ200303019.htm |
| [23] | 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 http://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?filename=bjdz200502020&dbname=CJFD&dbcode=CJFQ ZHANG Y, CAI Y L. Using contingent valuation method to value environmental resources:A review[J]. Acta Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Pekinensis, 2005, 41(2):317-328 http://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?filename=bjdz200502020&dbname=CJFD&dbcode=CJFQ |
| [24] | PORTNEY P R. The contingent valuation debate:Why economists should care[J]. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 1994, 8(4):3-17 doi: 10.1257/jep.8.4.3 |
| [25] | BJORNSTAD D J, KAHN J R. Structuring a research agenda to estimate environmental values[M]. Bjornstad D J, Kahn J R. The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resources: Methodological Issues and Research Needs. Cheltenham, UK; Brookfield, US: Edward Elgar, 1996: 263-274 |
| [26] | 谢贤政, 马中, 李进华.意愿调查法评估环境资源价值的思考[J].安徽大学学报:哲学社会科学版, 2006, 30(5):144-148 http://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?filename=adzs200605025&dbname=CJFD&dbcode=CJFQ XIE X Z, MA Z, LI J H. Consideration on evaluating the environmental and natural resources with contingent valuation method[J]. Journal of Anhui University:Philosophy and Social Sciences, 2006, 30(5):144-148 http://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?filename=adzs200605025&dbname=CJFD&dbcode=CJFQ |
| [27] | 张翼飞, 赵敏.意愿价值法评估生态服务价值的有效性与可靠性及实例设计研究[J].地球科学进展, 2007, 22(11):1141-1149 doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1001-8166.2007.11.006 ZHANG Y F, ZHAO M. Review on the validity and reliability of CVM in evaluation of ecosystem service and a case design study[J]. Advances in Earth Science, 2007, 22(11):1141-1149 doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1001-8166.2007.11.006 |
| [28] | 刘治国, 刘宣会, 李国平.意愿价值评估法在我国资源环境测度中的应用及其发展[J].经济经纬, 2008, (1):67-69 http://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?filename=jjjw200801019&dbname=CJFD&dbcode=CJFQ LIU Z G, LIU X H, LI G P. The application of contingent valuation method in the measurement of resource environment of our country and its development[J]. Economic Survey, 2008, (1):67-69 http://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?filename=jjjw200801019&dbname=CJFD&dbcode=CJFQ |
| [29] | 周颖, 周清波, 周旭英, 等.意愿价值评估法应用于农业生态补偿研究进展[J].生态学报, 2015, 35(24):7955-7964 http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=stxb201524003 ZHOU Y, ZHOU Q B, ZHOU X Y, et al. Research progress of contingent valuation method for application to agricultural ecological compensation[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2015, 35(24):7955-7964 http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=stxb201524003 |
| [30] | CAMERON T A, HUPPERT D D. OLS versus ML estimation of non-market resource values with payment card interval data[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 1989, 17(3):230-246 doi: 10.1016/0095-0696(89)90018-1 |
| [31] | 李子奈, 潘文卿.计量经济学[M].第3版.北京:高等教育出版社, 2010:3 LI Z N, PAN W Q. Econometrics[M]. 3rd ed. Beijing:Higher Education Press, 2010:3 |
| [32] | HANEMANN W M. Willingness to pay and willingness to accept:How much can they differ?[J]. The American Economic Review, 1991, 81(3):635-647 http://www.academicroom.com/article/willingness-pay-and-willingness-accept-how-much-can-they-differ |
| [33] | HOROWITZ J K, MCCONNELL K E. A review of WTA/WTP studies[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 2002, 44(3):426-447 doi: 10.1006/jeem.2001.1215 |
| [34] | BACCHIEGA E, MINNITI A. The quality-income effect and the selection of location[J]. Journal of Urban Economics, 2009, 65(2):209-215 doi: 10.1016/j.jue.2008.12.002 |
| [35] | LO A Y. Negative income effect on perception of long-term environmental risk[J]. Ecological Economics, 2014, 107:51-58 doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.08.009 |
| [36] | CARTWRIGHT E. Behavioral Economics[M]. 2nd ed. New York:Routledge, 2014:143-149 |
| [37] | TURBE-ORMAETXE I, PONTI G, TOMáS J, et al. Framing effects in public goods:Prospect Theory and experimental evidence[J]. Games and Economic Behavior, 2011, 72(2):439-447 doi: 10.1016/j.geb.2010.10.004 |
| [38] | 施俊琦, 李峥, 王垒, 等.沉没成本效应中的心理学问题[J].心理科学, 2005, 28(6):1309-1313 https://www.wenkuxiazai.com/doc/1957ac73f46527d3240ce0c7-3.html SHI J Q, LI Z, WANG L, et al. Psychological Issues in the sunk cost effect[J]. Psychological Science, 2005, 28(6):1309-1313 https://www.wenkuxiazai.com/doc/1957ac73f46527d3240ce0c7-3.html |
| [39] | 相鹏, 徐富明, 史燕伟, 等.行为沉没成本效应研究述评[J].心理研究, 2015, 8(1):3-7 http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-OXLY201501001.htm XIANG P, XU F M, SHI Y W, et al. Virtual reality technology:New technology for post-disaster trauma intervention[J]. Psychological Research, 2015, 8(1):3-7 http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-OXLY201501001.htm |
