我们的网站为什么显示成这样?

可能因为您的浏览器不支持样式,您可以更新您的浏览器到最新版本,以获取对此功能的支持,访问下面的网站,获取关于浏览器的信息:

|Table of Contents|

森林环境价值CVM评估有效性改进的研究进展(PDF)

《南京林业大学学报(自然科学版)》[ISSN:1000-2006/CN:32-1161/S]

Issue:
2013年01期
Page:
153-159
Column:
综合述评
publishdate:
2013-01-15

Article Info:/Info

Title:
Preparation forest environmental services valuation based on improved contingent valuation method
Author(s):
CAI Zhijian12DU Liyong12YANG Jiameng1
1.College of Economics and Management, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing 210037, China; 2.Ecological Economics Institute of Jiangsu College Philosophy and Social Science Research Base, Nanjing 210037, China
Keywords:
forest environmental valuation contingent valuation method(CVM) validity of CVM
Classification number :
F307.2
DOI:
10.3969/j.issn.1000-2006.2013.01.028
Document Code:
A
Abstract:
Recent studies on the invalidity of contingent valuation method(CVM)have mainly focused on two aspects. First, the issue of scalability of the environmental goods’ non-use value due to the survey respondents’ lack of familiarity with the value of those environmental goods, and secondly the biases and errors arising from the respondents’ willingness to pay(WTP)or willingness to accept(WTA)were more likely to be an expression of preference rather than the real intention to purchase in the real market. CVM valuation on forest environmental service could be improved in two ways. Firstly, to improve survey respondents’ familiarity with forest’s environmental value by focusing on the increase in extrinsic information rather than the increase in intrinsic information. The use of photograph showing the background and the description of environmental goods, conducting face to face interview, together with the use of visual-simulation technique to show differential changes in forest ecological system, will increase survey respondents’ degree of perception on the environmental goods to be valued. Secondly, biases and errors resulting from the use of hypothetic market in the CVM survey could be reduced substantially by reducing the bias of difference value of WTA and WTP. The use of dichotomous choice questionnaire(DCQ)in the survey will also be able to elicit more survey respondents’ true preference. It is suggested in this paper that we need to firstly promote various groups’ correct perception on the value of forest environment through the use of core valuation of differential designs, and secondly, to promote the research on typical forestry public goods and the integrated application of the improved and effective method of CVM.

References

[1] OECD. Saving Biological Diversity-Economic Incentives[M].Paris:OECD,1996.
[2] 曹建华,杨秋林,王红.两种评价森林资源生态环境效益计量方法的比较[J].农村生态环境,2002,18(2):58-61. Cao J H, Yang Q L, Wang H. Comparison of two methods for quantitative evaluation of eco-environmental benefit of forest resources[J]. Rural Eco-Environment, 2002,18(2):58-61.
[3] 车克钧,傅辉恩,贺红元.祁连山水源涵养林效益的研究[J].林业科学,1998,34(5):29-37. Che K J, Fu H E, He H Y. The structure and function of the water conservation forest ecosystems in Qilian Mountains[J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 1998,34(5):29-37.
[4] Jens A, Niels S. The option value of non-contaminated forest watersheds[J].Forest Policy and Economics, 2000,1(2):115-125.
[5] 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 Y, Cai Y L. Using contingent valuation method to value environmental resources: A review[J]. Acta Scientiarum Naturalism, Universitatis Pekinensis,2005,41(2):317-328.
[6] Knut V. Contingent valuation controversies:Philosophic debates about economic theory[J].Journal of Socio-Economics, 2007,36(2):204-232.
[7] 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[J].中国人口:资源与环境,2011, 21(1):127-134. Cai Z J, Du L Y, Jiang Z. Contingent valuation of the economic benefits of restoring basin ecosystem with validity improvement: A case study for Yangtz River ecosystem[J]. China Population, Resources and Environment, 2011, 21(1):127-134.
[8] Hanemann W M. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with Discrete responses[J].American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1984,66(2):332-341.
[9] Ian J B, Diane B W, George H, et al. Learning design contingent valuation(LDCV):NOAA guidelines, preference learning and coherent arbitrariness[J].Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 2008,55(2):127-141.
[10] Melina B, Maria L. A meta-analysis of contingent valuation forest studies[J]. Ecological Economics, 2010, 69:1023-1030.
[11] Serge G, Patrice H, Claire M, et al. Models for sample selection bias in contingent valuation: Application to forest biodiversity[J].Journal of Forest Economics, 2009,15(1-2):59-78.
[12] Miroslav V, Renata S. An econometric analysis of willingness-to-pay for sustainable development: A case study of the Vol ji Potok landscape area[J]. Ecological Economics, 2009,68:1316-1328.
[13] 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):1206-1211. Zhang Y, Cai Y L. Measuring recreational value of Jiuzhaigou Nature Reserve with contingent valuation method[J]. Economic Geography, 2010,30(7):1206-1211.
[14] Thomas K. Why and how much are firms willing to invest ecosystem services from tropical forest? A comparison of international and Costa Rican firms[J].Ecological Economics, 2010,69:2127-2139.
[15] Diamond P A, Hausman J A. On contingent valuation measurement of nonuse values[G]//Hausman J A. Contingent Valuation: a Critical Assessment. North-Holland,1993.
[16] Cummings R G, Brookshire D S, Schulze W D. Valuing environmental goods: a state of the arts assessment of the contingent valuation method[M].Totowa, NJ: Roweman and Allanheld,1986.
[17] Bateman I J, Turner R K. Valuation of environment, methods and techniques: the contingent valuation method[G]// Kerry Turner R. Sustainable environmental economics and management: principles and practice. London: Belhaven Press,1993.
[18] NOAA Panel.National oceanic and atmospheric administration. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation[J]. Federal Register, 1993,58: 4602-4614.
[19] Melina B, Maria L. A meta-analysis of contingent valuation forest studies[J]. Ecological Economics, 2010,69:1023-1030.
[20] Carson R T, Jeon Y. On overcoming informational deficiencies in estimating willingness to pay distributions[R]. San Diego: Department of Economics, University of California, 2000.
[21] Lívia M, Luis C N, José G B, et al. Assessing forest management strategies using a contingent valuation approach and advanced visualization techniques: A Portuguese case study[J]. Journal of Forest Economics, 2011, 17(4):399-414.
[22] Carson R T, Flores N E, Meade N F. Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence[J]. Environmental and Resource Economics, 2001,19(3):173-210.
[23] Carson R T, Hanemann W M. Contingent valuation[G]// Karl GM, Vincent J. Handbook of Environmental Economics. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 2005.
[24] Boyle K J, Welsh M P, Bishop R C. The role of question order and respondent experience in contingent valuation studies[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 1993,95(1):80-90.
[25] Whitehead J C, Hoban T J. Testing for temporal reliability in contingent valuation with time for changes in factors affecting demand[J]. Land Economics, 1993,75(3):453-465.
[26] Cameron T A, Quiggin J. Estimation using contingent valuation data from a “dichotomous choice with follow-up” questionnaire[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 1994,27:218-234.
[27] Mattias B. To pay or not to pay for biodiversity in forests-what scale determines responses to willingness to pay questions with uncertain response options?[J].Journal of Forest Economics, 2009,15: 79-91.
[28] Thomas K. Why and how much are firms willing to invest ecosystem services from tropical forest? A comparison of international and costa rican firms[J].Ecological Economics, 2010,69:2127-2139.
[29] Kahneman D,Tversky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decisions under risk[J].Econometrica, 1979,47(2):263-291.
[30] Shogren J F, Shin S Y, Hayes D J, et al. Resolving differences in willingness to pay and willingness to accept[J].American Economic Review, 1994,84(1):255-269.
[31] Sonia A, Jeff B, Sanzida A. Preference uncertainty in contingent valuation[J].Ecological Economics, 2008, 67(3):345-351.
[32] Mattias B. To pay or not to pay for biodiversity in forests-what scale determines responses to willingness to pay questions with uncertain response options?[J]. Journal of Forest Economics, 2009,15:79-91.
[33] Jean P A, Catherine B, Brigitte D, et al. The benefits and costs of riparian analysis habitat preservation: a willingness to accept/willingness to pay contingent valuation approach[J].Ecological Economics, 2002,43:17-31.
[34] Salvador D S, Francesc H S, Ramón S G. The social benefits of restoring water quality in the context of the water framework directive: A comparison of willingness to pay and willingness to accept[J].Science of the Total Environment, 2009,16(9):4574-4583.
[35] Christopher C M, Thomas P H, Kathleen P B. An attribute-based approach to contingent valuation of forest protection programs[J].Journal of Forest Economics, 2011,17:35-52.
[36] Andrea B, Anne K F, David H. Tropical forest conservation: attitude and preference[J]. Forest Policy and Economics, 2010,12:370-376.
[37] Baron J. Biases in the quantitative measurement of values for public decision[J].Psychological Bulletin, 1997,122(1):72-88.
[38] Richard T C. Valuation of tropical rainforests: philosophical and practical issues in the use of contingent valuation[J].Ecological Economics, 1998,24(1):15-29.
[39] Philip C, Gregory L P, Ian J B. The structure of motivation for contingent values: a case study of lake water quality improvement[J].Ecological Economics, 2004,50(1):69-82.
[40] Loomis J,Lockwood M, DeLacy T. Some empirical evidence on embedding effects in contingent valuation of forest protection[J].Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 1993,24(2)45-55.
[41] Walsh R G, Ward F A, Olienyk J P. Recreational demand for trees in national forests[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 1989,28(4):255-268.
[42] Walsh R D, Bjonback R D,Aiken R A, et al. Estimating the public benefits of protecting forest quality[J].Journal of Environmental Management,2009,30(7):75-189.
[43] Mattsson L, Li C Z. How do different forest management practices affect the non-timber value of forest? An economic analysis[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 1994,41(1):79-88.
[44] Daniel T, Brown T, King D, et al. Perceived scenic beauty and contingent valuation of forest campgrounds[J]. Forest Science, 1989,35(1):76-90.
[45] Eija P. Sensitivity to scope of environmental regulation in contingent valuation of forest cutting practices in Finland[J]. Forest Policy and Economics, 2005,7:539-550.
[46] John B L, Trong H, Armande G C. Willingness to pay function for two fuel treatments to reduce wildfire acreage burned: A scope test and comparison of white and hispanic households[J].Forest Policy and Economics, 2009,11:155-160.
[47] Giraud K L, Loomis J B, Johnson RL. Internal and external scope in willingness-to-pay estimates for threatened and endangered wildlife[J].Journal of Environmental Management, 1999,56:221-229.
[48] Neill H R, Cummings R G, Gandeton P T, et al. Hypothetical surveys and real economic commitments[J].Land Economics, 1994,70(1):145-154.
[49] Seip K, Strand J. Willingness to pay for environmental goods in Norway: a contingent valuation study with real payment[J]. Environmental and Resource Economics, 1992,67(2):91-106.
[50] Bishop R C, Heberlein T A. Measuring values of extra market goods[J]. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1979,61(3):926-930.
[51] Eva H, Erik H, Erich K. Preconditions of voluntary tax compliance: knowledge and evaluation of taxation, norms, fairness, and motivation to cooperate[J]. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 2008,216(4):209-217.
[52] Jayson L, Bailey N. Bridging the gap between laboratory experiments and naturally occurring markets: An inferred valuation method[J].Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,2009,58(2):236-250.
[53] Mitchell R C, Carson R T. Using surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method[M].Washington, DC: Resource for the Future, 1989.
[54] Felix S. Contingent valuation: a new perspective[J]. Ecological Economics, 2008,64:729-740.
[55] Baron J. Biases in the quantitative measurement of values for public decision[J].Psychological Bulletin, 1997,122(1):72-88.
[56] Boyle K J, Welsh M P, Bishop R C. The role of question order and respondent experience in contingent valuation studies[J].Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,1993,95(1):80-90.
[57] 吴永波,郝奇林,薛建辉,等.岷江上游主要森林群落枯落物量及其持水特性[J].中国水土保持科学,2009,7(3):67-72. Wu Y B, Hao Q L, Xue J H. Litter amount and its water-holding properties of the main types of forest communities in the upper reaches of Minjiang river[J]. Science of Soil and Water Conservation, 2009,7(3):67-72.
[58] 薛建辉,吴永波,郝奇林,等.岷江上游两种亚高山林分枯落物层水文特征研究[J].水土保持学报,2009(3):168-173. Xue J H, Wu Y B, Hao Q L, He Changqing. Hydrological characteristics of two typical subalpine forests in the upper reaches of Minjiang river[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2009,23(3):168-173.
[59] 姜文来.森林涵养水源的价值核算研究[J].水土保持学报,2003,17(2):34-40. Jiang W L. Theory and method to accounting value of forest water conservative[J]. Journal of Soil Water Conservation, 2003,17(2):34-40.
[60] Mattias B. To pay or not to pay for biodiversity in forests-what scale determines responses to willingness to pay questions with uncertain response options[J]. Journal of Forest Economics, 2009(5): 79-91.
[61] Sonia A, Jeff B, Sanzida A. Preference uncertainty in contingent valuation[J]. Ecological Economics, 2008,67(3):345-351
[62] 蔡志坚,杜丽永,蒋瞻.条件价值评估的有效性与可靠性改进:理论、方法与应用[J].生态学报,2011,32(10):2915-2923. 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, 2011,32(10): 2915-2923.

Last Update: 2013-01-15