基于意愿调查评估法的东苕溪水质改善的社会效益评估

doi:10.13249/j.cnki.sgs.2018.07.020

地理科学 ›› 2018, Vol. 38 ›› Issue (7): 1183-1188.doi: 10.13249/j.cnki.sgs.2018.07.020

基于意愿调查评估法的东苕溪水质改善的社会效益评估

袁瑞娟^1,²(), 李凯琳³

1.上海社会科学院,上海 200235
2.浙江理工大学,浙江杭州 310018
3.中国石化财务有限责任公司武汉分公司,湖北武汉 430018

收稿日期:2017-08-20 修回日期:2017-12-20 出版日期:2018-07-20 发布日期:2018-07-20
作者简介:
作者简介:袁瑞娟(1974-),女,湖南新化人,副教授,博士研究生。主要从事资源环境经济与政策研究。E-mail: yuanruijuan@163.com
基金资助:
教育部人文社会科学研究项目（14YJCZH194）、浙江理工大学哲学社会科学科研攀登计划（13096051-Y）项目资助

Estimating Social Benefits of Water Quality Improvement for a Case Study in East Tiaoxi River in China: A Contingent Valuation Approach

Ruijuan Yuan^1,²(), Kailin Li³

1.Shanghai Academy of Social Science, Shanghai 200235, China
2. Zhejiang Sci-Tec University, Hangzhou 310018, Zhejiang, China
3. Wuhan Branch, Sinopec Finance Company Limited, Wuhan 430018, Hubei, China

Received:2017-08-20 Revised:2017-12-20 Online:2018-07-20 Published:2018-07-20
Supported by:
Funding Project of Education Ministry for the Development of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences(14YJCZH194), Philosophy and Social Science Project of Zhejiang Sci-Tec University(13096051-Y)

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

以流经浙江北部的重要河流东苕溪流域为研究区域,从社会效益的视角,遵循意愿调查评估法的思想和技术,估算东苕溪流域居民对水质改善的支付意愿金额,分析影响支付意愿的主要因素。结果发现：357份有支付意愿,占问卷的65.9%,支付意愿范围为104.01~128.54元,中位数的支付意愿为115.63元/（a·户）; 185份零支付愿意,占问卷的34.1%。其中影响流域居民支付意愿度的主要因素为：水质改善应为政府或企业的责任,流域居民不应是水质改善的承担者。同时,家庭人口数、文化程度、是否知道其饮用水源来自东苕溪与支付愿意度成正相关,对自家自来水状况的评价与支付意愿成负相关。基于此,研究提出适当增加水费用于水质改善;建立水环境信息制度,引导广大居民参与决策;严格执行环保标准,减少企业污染物排放等建议。

关键词: 支付意愿, 条件价值法, 水质改善, 东苕溪

Abstract:

The East Tiaoxi River(ETR) is one of the dominant branch of Tai Lake Watershed where is one of the most developed area in China. In recent years, water pollution in the ETR has become so serious that the current water quality of some drinking water destrict can’t meet the drinking water district standard grade. This article aims to assess the benefits of water quality improvements in the ETR and adopt the Binary Logistic Model to make empirical researches towards affective factors of the ETR, which is based on contingent valuation method(CVM) questionnaire investigation. Results on a contingent valuation study are shown: 1) 357 of 534 residents have willingness to pay for water quality improvements in the ETR, willingness payment is from 104.01 to 128.54 yuan/(a·home) or 115.63 yuan/(a·home) . 2) 34.1% of the residents have zero willingness to pay for improvement of the water quality in the ETR,the first cause is that they think it is not their duty but government or enterprises’s duty. 3) By using Binary Logistic Model, it shows that resident population, degree of education, knowingness of their drinking water comes from the ETR or not have the positive effects on willingness payment, but satisfaction or not with their own tap-water quality has negative effect. Suggestions are as follows: Increasing water fee to improve the water quality; Founding water environment information system to make residents to know; Executing serious environmental standard to push industries to decrease pollutants.

Key words: willingness to pay, contingent valuation method, water quality improvement, the East Tiaoxi River

中图分类号:

F129

袁瑞娟, 李凯琳. 基于意愿调查评估法的东苕溪水质改善的社会效益评估[J]. 地理科学, 2018, 38(7): 1183-1188.

Ruijuan Yuan, Kailin Li. Estimating Social Benefits of Water Quality Improvement for a Case Study in East Tiaoxi River in China: A Contingent Valuation Approach[J]. SCIENTIA GEOGRAPHICA SINICA, 2018, 38(7): 1183-1188.

图/表 3

表 1

表 2

表3

参考文献 16

[1]	中国生态补偿机制与政策研究课题组.中国生态补偿机制与政策研究[M].北京:科学出版社,2007.
	[Research Group.Study on ecological compensation mechanism and policy in China.Beijing:Science Press,2007.]
[2]	沈满洪. 水权交易与政府创新——以东阳义乌水权交易案为例[J].管理世界,2005(6):45-56.
	[Shen Manhong.Water right trading and government innovation—A case of Yiwu and Dongyang water rights trading. Management World, 2005 (6):45-56.]
[3]	张帆, 夏丹.环境与自然资源经济学第三版[M].上海:格致出版社,2016.
	[Zhang Fan, Xia Dan.Environmental and natural resource economics. Shanghai:Truth & Wisdom Press, 2016.]
[4]	尹珂, 肖轶.三峡库区消落带农户生态休耕经济补偿意愿及影响因素研究[J].地理科学,2015,35(9):1123-1129. doi: 10.11820/dlkxjz.2010.01.004
	[Yin Ke,Xiao Yi.Empirical research on household willing and its caused factors for economic compensation of Eeo-fallow in the water-level fluctuation zone of the Three Gorges Reseivoir Area.Scientia Geographica Sinica,2015,35(9):1123-1129.] doi: 10.11820/dlkxjz.2010.01.004
[5]	孙发平, 曾贤刚, 苏海红, 等. 中国三江源区生态价值及补偿机制研究[M].北京:中国环境科学出版社,2008.
	[Sun Faping, Zeng Xiangang, Su Haihong et al. Economic evaluation of Sanjiangyuan Region ecosystem in China and ecological compensation mechanism. Beijing: China Environmental Science Press, 2008.]
[6]	Julia Martin Ortega,Julio Berbel.Using multi-criteria analysis to explore non-market monetary values of water quality changes in the context of Water Framework Directive[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2010, 408:3990-3997. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.03.048
[7]	张志强, 徐中民, 程国栋, 等.黑河流域张掖地区生态系统服务恢复的条件价值评估[J].生态学报,2002,22(6):885-893. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-0933.2002.06.013
	[Zhang Zhiqiang, Xu Zhongmin, Chen Guodong et al. Contingent valuation of the economic benefits of restoring ecosystem services of Zhangye Prefecture of Heihe River Basin. Acta Ecologica Sinica,2002,22(6):885-893.] doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-0933.2002.06.013
[8]	郑海霞. 中国流域生态服务补偿机制与政策研究——基于典型案例的实证分析[M].北京:中国经济出版社,2010.
	[Zheng Haixia.Study on the compensation mechanism and policy of ecological services in China—an empirical analysis based on typical case. Beijing: Chinese Economic Press, 2010.]
[9]	张落成, 李青, 武清华.天目湖流域生态补偿标准核算探讨[J].自然资源学报,2011,26(3):412-418. doi: 10.11849/zrzyxb.2011.03.007
	[Zhang Luocheng, Li Qing, Wu Qinghua.Evaluation on the ecological compensation in Tianmu Lake.Journal of Natural Resoures,2011,26(3):412-418.] doi: 10.11849/zrzyxb.2011.03.007
[10]	乔旭宁, 杨永菊, 杨德刚, 等.流域生态补偿标准的确定——以渭干河为例[J].自然资源学报,2012,27(10):1666-1676.
	[Qiao Xuning, Yang Yongju, Yang Degang et al. Standards of payments for ecosystem services in watershed: Taking Weigan River Basin as an example. Journal of Natural Resoures, 2012, 27(10):1666-1676.]
[11]	张盼盼, 李青, 薛珍. 塔里木河流域居民生态补偿支付意愿和受偿意愿的差异性比较[J].资源开发与市场,2017, 33(4):423-429.
	[Zhang Panpan,Li Qing,Xue Zhen.Research on Tarim River Basin residents’ willingness to pay and willingness to accept differences. Resource Development & Market,2017, 33(4):423-429.]
[12]	赵玉, 张玉, 熊国保.基于随机效用理论的赣江流域生态补偿支付意愿研究[J].长江流域资源与环境,2017,26(7):1049-1056. doi: 10.11870/cjlyzyyhj201707011
	[Zhao Yu, Zhang Yu, Xiong Guobao. Analysis of the people’s willingness to pay for ecological compensation in the Ganjiang river basin based on the random utility theory, 2017, 26(7):1049-1056.] doi: 10.11870/cjlyzyyhj201707011
[13]	乔旭宁, 杨永菊, 杨德刚.流域生态补偿研究现状及关键问题剖析[J].地理科学进展,2012,31(4):395-402. doi: 10.11820/dlkxjz.2012.04.001
	[Qiao Xuning,Yang Yongju,Yang Degang.Review of payments for ecosystem services and the key issue in a waterland. Progress in Geography,2012, 31(4):395-402.] doi: 10.11820/dlkxjz.2012.04.001
[14]	Meyerhoff J, Liebe U.Ptotest belief in contigent valuation: explaining their motivation[J].Ecological Economics, 2006, 57: 583-594. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.04.021
[15]	Salvador D S, Francesc H S, Ramon S G.The social benefits of restoring water quality in the context of the Water Framework Directive:A comparison of willingness to pay and the willingness to accept[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2009,407: 4754-4583.
[16]	Julian R H, Salvador D S.Estimating the non-market benefit of water quality improvement for a case study in Spain: A contingent valuation approach[J]. Environmental Science＆Policy, 2012,22: 47-59.

原因	占比	百分比1(%)	百分比2(%)
水质改善应该是政府的责任,应由政府出钱	101	54.90	26.10
应该由污染企业等破坏者出钱治理	97	52.70	25.10
不相信政府或机构能合理地管理和使用所筹集到的经费	78	42.40	20.20
经济收入较低,没有能力支付	42	22.80	10.90
水库恢复和保护工程不能取得预期的效果	34	18.50	8.80
不能直接从河流与库区的保护和恢复中得到什么好处	19	10.30	4.90
其他原因	10	5.40	2.60
河流保护应该是上游的事情	6	3.30	1.60
总计	387	210.30	100.00

自变量	单位或赋值
工作状况（X₁)	1=没有工作;2=临时/兼职工作;3=全职工作
家庭人数（X₂)	1=“3人以下”;2=“3人”;3=“4人”;4=“5人”;5=“5人以上”
实际年龄（X₃)	1=“20岁以下”;2=“21~30岁”;3=“31~40岁”;4=“41~50岁”;5=“51岁及以上”
文化程度(X₄)	1=“没有受过正式教育”;2=“小学”;3=“初中”;4=“高中”;5=“大专或大学非本科”;6=“大学本科或以上”
年收入(X₅)	1=“没有收入”;2=“10000元以下”;3=“10001~20000元”;4=“20001~30000元”;5=“30001~40000元”;6=“40001~50000元”;………17=“160000元以上”
对东苕溪的了解程度(X₆)	1=“没听说过”;2=“不太了解”;3=“比较了解”;4=“非常了解”
是否知道饮用水源来自东苕溪(X₇)	0=“不知道”;1=“知道”
是否经历过水污染等危害性事件(X₈)	0=“否”;1=“是”
对于自家自来水的评价(X₉)	1=“不太好,有时有问题”;2=“还可以,偶尔有点小问题” 3=“很好”
相比于经济发展,对于环境问题重要性的看法(X₁₀)	1=“不知道”;2=“不重要”;3=“不太重要”;4=“同样重要”;5=“很重要”
是否清楚水质差会造成疾病(X₁₁)	0=“否”;1=“是”
是否为改善饮用水质而购买瓶装水或净水设备(X₁₂)	0=“否”;1=“是”

解释变量	回归系数B	显著度Sig.
工作状况（X₁）	0.400	0.776
家庭人数(X₂)	0.149	0.086
实际年龄(X₃)	-0.182	0.130
文化程度(X₄)	0.161	0.089
年收入(X₅)	-0.006	0.135
对东苕溪的了解程度(X₆)	0.004	0.977
是否知道饮用水源地为东苕溪(X₇)	0.633	0.016
是否经历过水污染等危害性事件(X₈)	0.243	0.256
对于自家自来水的评价(X₉)	-0.355	0.059
与经济发展相比,对于环境问题重要性的看法（X₁₀）	0.070	0.673
是否清楚水质差会造成疾病(X₁₁)	0.344	0.120
是否为改善饮用水质而购买瓶装水或净水设备（X₁₂）	0.350	0.101
常量	0.279	0.793

基于意愿调查评估法的东苕溪水质改善的社会效益评估

Estimating Social Benefits of Water Quality Improvement for a Case Study in East Tiaoxi River in China: A Contingent Valuation Approach

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

赞

可视化

被引次数

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 3

参考文献 16

相关文章 3

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 0

[1]	史恒通, 睢党臣, 吴海霞, 赵敏娟. 公众对黑河流域生态系统服务消费偏好及支付意愿研究——基于选择实验法的实证分析[J]. 地理科学, 2019, 39(2): 342-350.
[2]	潘丽丽, 孙玉勤. 旅游景区门票价格支付意愿研究——以西溪国家湿地公园为例[J]. 地理科学, 2015, 35(4): 440-447.
[3]	李华生, 徐慧, 彭补拙. 两种统计分析模型在CVM应用中的比较研究[J]. 地理科学, 2007, 27(1): 115-120.