杭州市空气污染死亡终点环境损害成本估算
|
摘要
随着社会经济的迅速发展,人口的急剧增多,人类在生产和生活过程中促进社会经济的发展、物质生活的丰富和生活福利的提高,同时对环境产生负面影响造成严重的环境污染,并为此付出了巨大的环境成本。大气污染已经成为城市发展中一个不可忽视的环境问题之一,是全世界城市居民生活中一个无法逃避的现实。大气污染的危害是多方面的,特别是对人群健康的影响,造成巨大的经济损失,日益受到人们的重视。对大气污染的危害进行健康损害成本估算,可以从货币的角度反映大气污染对人群健康的影响与危害程度。
本论文在已明确的空气污染对人体健康影响的条件下,选取死亡健康终点为研究对象,采用已在西方发达国家广泛应用的意愿调查价值评估法,调查杭州市居民对改善环境空气质量,降低环境空气污染健康风险的支付意愿,并结合本课题组已往研究的杭州市空气污染人年损失数的成果,计算出杭州市居民统计学意义上的生命价值(value of statistics life,VOSL),结合不同污染物不同污染源导致的死亡人数,进行环境成本转化,最终确定杭州市空气污染的人群死亡终点健康损害成本。然后,将研究结果与国内外已有报道的其他成果进行比较,纵向分析了不同因素对支付意愿的影响效果,同时验证了本研究的准确性。取得的主要成果如下:
(1)调查结果统计表明,有83.26%的被调查者愿意为降低大气环境污染人群健康风险支付一定费用,其支付意愿值为每年76.3元,大气污染死亡健康风险相关WPT货币化值(即VOSL)为221.8万元。
(2)根据2004年杭州市由于空气污染导致的人群死亡数量计算结果,计算得2004年杭州市空气污染死亡健康终点的环境损害成本为1,350,110.8万元,占这年GDP总量的5.37%。
(3)不同大气污染源导致的死亡终点损害成本的比重:工业废气排放是造成人体健康环境损害的主要原因,为1,291,319.6万元,占到总成本的95.65%;其次是机动车尾气,为51,679.4万元,占总成本的3.83%;比重最小的是服务业,有7,097.6万元,占总成本的0.53%。
(4)不同污染物的死亡终点损害成本比重分布:对人群健康的影响最大的是PM_(10),造成的死亡终点健康损害成本为1,099,019.0万元,占总成本的83.72%,其中慢性死亡环境成本是主要的,占97.22%;其次是NO_X的环境成本,为116,445.0万元,占总成本为8.62%;SO_2的环境成本稍低于NO_X,为103,358.8万元,占总成本的7.66%。
(5)不管是在单个研究内部还是与同类研究的统计结果均表明,收入对支付意愿呈正相关性,即收入越高支付意愿值越大,是最大影响因素,其它各因素如家庭规模、年龄、文化程度等都有较大的影响,但是其规律性还有待进一步研究。
Along with the rapid development of social economy, rapid increase of population, improvement of material life and rising of welfare in their production and life course, meanwhile, they also have given rise to negative influence on environment and have paid for the huge environment cost for the serious pollution. Air pollution has become one of the most series problems that cannot be ignored for cities all around the world. The adverse effects resulted from air pollution are comprehensive. The damage to human health attracts specially attention because of its huge economic cost. Evaluating the air pollutants human health costs can quantify the damage human beings suffered from air pollution monetary.
After studied the adverse effects detailed, death end point of air pollution was chosen as research object. Adopting the CVM which has been widely used in western countries, the willingness to pay for improving air quality and reducing the health risk from air pollution of citizens in Hangzhou were investigated. Meanwhile, it also calculated the VOSL of citizens in Hangzhou with reference to our former research in YLL caused by air pollution in Hangzhou, and conducted environmental costs according to the loss number of lives caused by different pollutants and different pollutant sources, and finally determinants of amount of WTP conditional were discussed. By comparing the results of the research with reported conclusions drawn by others both at home and abroad, it analyzed the effects of different factors on the willingness to pay, and at the same time checks the accuracy of this research. The main achievements were as follows:
Firstly, 83.26% of the all 684 informants was willing to pay certain outlay to improve the environment and meliorate their living condition. Their WTP was 76.3RMB per year. So, the VOSL of the death risk reduction of air pollution in Hangzhou was 22.18 million RMB.
Secondly, the total environmental cost of air pollution death end point was 13.50 billion RMB in 2004, accounting for 5.37% of the GDP of the city.
Thirdly, industrial emission whose environmental cost reached 12.91 billion RMB was still the main cause of human health damage from air pollution, accounting for 95.65% of the total environmental cost. The next was vehicle emission, about 5,167.94 million RMB, accounting for 3.83%. The last was the services, about 709.76 million RMB, accounting for only 0.53%.
Fourthly, PM_(10) was the primary air pollutant that harms human health among the three main air pollutants. Its environment cost was 10.99 billion RMB, accounting for 83.72% of the total environmental cost. The next was NO_X whose contribution was 11,644.5 million RMB. The last was the SO_2, accounting for 7.66% of the total environmental cost.
Fifthly, iacome display positive relationships with WTP not only among the informants in a same investigation or investigations organized in different areas, which means higher income people were more willing to contribute for air pollution reduction. Other factors such as family size, age and education also had great influence on WTP. However, their disciplinarian needs to be proved in the future research.
本论文在已明确的空气污染对人体健康影响的条件下,选取死亡健康终点为研究对象,采用已在西方发达国家广泛应用的意愿调查价值评估法,调查杭州市居民对改善环境空气质量,降低环境空气污染健康风险的支付意愿,并结合本课题组已往研究的杭州市空气污染人年损失数的成果,计算出杭州市居民统计学意义上的生命价值(value of statistics life,VOSL),结合不同污染物不同污染源导致的死亡人数,进行环境成本转化,最终确定杭州市空气污染的人群死亡终点健康损害成本。然后,将研究结果与国内外已有报道的其他成果进行比较,纵向分析了不同因素对支付意愿的影响效果,同时验证了本研究的准确性。取得的主要成果如下:
(1)调查结果统计表明,有83.26%的被调查者愿意为降低大气环境污染人群健康风险支付一定费用,其支付意愿值为每年76.3元,大气污染死亡健康风险相关WPT货币化值(即VOSL)为221.8万元。
(2)根据2004年杭州市由于空气污染导致的人群死亡数量计算结果,计算得2004年杭州市空气污染死亡健康终点的环境损害成本为1,350,110.8万元,占这年GDP总量的5.37%。
(3)不同大气污染源导致的死亡终点损害成本的比重:工业废气排放是造成人体健康环境损害的主要原因,为1,291,319.6万元,占到总成本的95.65%;其次是机动车尾气,为51,679.4万元,占总成本的3.83%;比重最小的是服务业,有7,097.6万元,占总成本的0.53%。
(4)不同污染物的死亡终点损害成本比重分布:对人群健康的影响最大的是PM_(10),造成的死亡终点健康损害成本为1,099,019.0万元,占总成本的83.72%,其中慢性死亡环境成本是主要的,占97.22%;其次是NO_X的环境成本,为116,445.0万元,占总成本为8.62%;SO_2的环境成本稍低于NO_X,为103,358.8万元,占总成本的7.66%。
(5)不管是在单个研究内部还是与同类研究的统计结果均表明,收入对支付意愿呈正相关性,即收入越高支付意愿值越大,是最大影响因素,其它各因素如家庭规模、年龄、文化程度等都有较大的影响,但是其规律性还有待进一步研究。
Along with the rapid development of social economy, rapid increase of population, improvement of material life and rising of welfare in their production and life course, meanwhile, they also have given rise to negative influence on environment and have paid for the huge environment cost for the serious pollution. Air pollution has become one of the most series problems that cannot be ignored for cities all around the world. The adverse effects resulted from air pollution are comprehensive. The damage to human health attracts specially attention because of its huge economic cost. Evaluating the air pollutants human health costs can quantify the damage human beings suffered from air pollution monetary.
After studied the adverse effects detailed, death end point of air pollution was chosen as research object. Adopting the CVM which has been widely used in western countries, the willingness to pay for improving air quality and reducing the health risk from air pollution of citizens in Hangzhou were investigated. Meanwhile, it also calculated the VOSL of citizens in Hangzhou with reference to our former research in YLL caused by air pollution in Hangzhou, and conducted environmental costs according to the loss number of lives caused by different pollutants and different pollutant sources, and finally determinants of amount of WTP conditional were discussed. By comparing the results of the research with reported conclusions drawn by others both at home and abroad, it analyzed the effects of different factors on the willingness to pay, and at the same time checks the accuracy of this research. The main achievements were as follows:
Firstly, 83.26% of the all 684 informants was willing to pay certain outlay to improve the environment and meliorate their living condition. Their WTP was 76.3RMB per year. So, the VOSL of the death risk reduction of air pollution in Hangzhou was 22.18 million RMB.
Secondly, the total environmental cost of air pollution death end point was 13.50 billion RMB in 2004, accounting for 5.37% of the GDP of the city.
Thirdly, industrial emission whose environmental cost reached 12.91 billion RMB was still the main cause of human health damage from air pollution, accounting for 95.65% of the total environmental cost. The next was vehicle emission, about 5,167.94 million RMB, accounting for 3.83%. The last was the services, about 709.76 million RMB, accounting for only 0.53%.
Fourthly, PM_(10) was the primary air pollutant that harms human health among the three main air pollutants. Its environment cost was 10.99 billion RMB, accounting for 83.72% of the total environmental cost. The next was NO_X whose contribution was 11,644.5 million RMB. The last was the SO_2, accounting for 7.66% of the total environmental cost.
Fifthly, iacome display positive relationships with WTP not only among the informants in a same investigation or investigations organized in different areas, which means higher income people were more willing to contribute for air pollution reduction. Other factors such as family size, age and education also had great influence on WTP. However, their disciplinarian needs to be proved in the future research.
引文
[1]美国健康效应研究所(HEI).亚洲地区发展中国家大气污染对人体健康的影响,2004.http://pubs.healtheffects.org/getfile.php?u=15
[2]Sarath K.Guttikunda,Gregory R.Carmichael,Giuseppe Calori,Christina Eck,Jung-Hun Woo.The contribution of megacities to regional sulfur pollution in Asia.Atmospheric Environment,2003,37(1):11-22
[3]N Kunzli,R Kaiser,S Medina,M Studnicka,O Chanel,P Filliger,M Herry,F Horak Jr,V Puybonnieux-Texier,P Quenel,J Schneider,R Seethaler,J-C Vergnaud,H Sommer.Public-health impact of outdoor and traffic-related air pollution:a European assessment.The Lancet,2000,356(9232):795-801
[4]Shuxiao Wang,Yu Zhao,Gangcai Chen,Fei Wang,Kristin Aunan,Jiming Hao.Assessment of population exposure to particulate matter pollution in Chongqing,China.Environmental Pollution,2008,153(1):247-256
[5]Pope C A 3rd,Bumett R T,Thun M J.Lung cancer,cardiopulmonary mortality,and long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution.JAMA,2002,287(9):1132-1141
[6]H Marike Boezen,Saskia C van der Zee,Dirkje S Postma,Judith M Vonk,Jorrit Gerritsen,Gerard Hoek,Bert Brunekreef,Bert Rijcken,Jan P Schouten.Effects of ambient air pollution on upper and lower respiratory symptoms and peak expiratory flow in children.The Lancet,1999,353(9156):874-878
[7]A.Chaloulakou,I.Mavroidis,I.Gavriil.Compliance with the annual NO2 air quality standard in Athens.Required NOx levels and expected health implications.Atmospheric Environment,2008,42(3):454-465
[8]中华人民共和国统计局.2005中国统计年鉴,2006
[9]He,J.W.,Kuijs,L.World Bank China research Paper No.7,Rebalancing China's Economy-Modeling a Policy Package,Sep.2007,http://www.scribd.com/full/500176?access_key=46exds72hnp6h
[10]陆华,周浩.发电厂的环境成本分析.环境保护,2004,11(4):51-54
[11]P.Rafaj and S.Kypreos.Intemalisation of external cost in the power generation sector:Analysis with Global Multi-regional MARKAL Model.2003,6:24-26
[12]WHO,Health Costs due to Road Traffic-related Air Pollution,An impact assessment project of Austria,France and Switzerland,The WHO Ministerial Conference on Environment and Health,1999
[13]M.Vrhovcak,Z.Tomsic,N.Debrecin.External costs of electricity production:case study Croatia.Energy Policy,2005,33:1385-1395
[14]H.Inamul,S.Kumar,S.P.Chakrabarti.Cost-benefit analysis of control measures in cement industry in India.Environment International,1996,23:33-45
[15]李瑞华,宋香荣.环境成本的估价方法研究.商业时代,2006,23:99
[16]夏光,赵毅红.中国环境污染损失的经济损失估算.管理世界,1995,6:198-205
[17]王舜钦,张金良.我国儿童血铅水平分析研究.环境与健康杂志,2004,21(6):355-360
[18]郑易生,钱蕙红,王世汶.中国环境污染经济损失:1993年.生态经济,1997,6:6-14
[19]刘利.中国环境污染经济损失估算研究:[学位论文].北京:北京大学,2001
[20]Lei jonhufvud,D.China:heavily polluted air steel city.Acid News,1994,2:11
[21]张清宇.大气污染环境成本估算方法及应用的研究:[学位论文].杭州:浙江大学,2007
[22]Cropper,M.L.,Krupnick,A.J.The social costs of chronic heart and lung disease.Resource for the future discussion paper QE89-16-REV,1990
[23]王金南.环境经济学:理论.方法.政策.清华大学出版社,1994
[24]马中.环境与资源经济学概论.高等教育出版社,1999
[25](美)迪克逊等著.何雪炀等译.环境影响的经济分析.中国环境科学出版社,2001
[26]过孝民,张慧勤.我国环境污染造成经济损失估算.中国环境科学,1990,10(1):51-59
[27]Tolley,George,Donald Kenkel et al.Valuating Health for Policy.An Econoimic Approach.The University of Chicago Press,1994
[28] Murray, Christopher, J.L., Alan, D. The Global Burden of Disease. Harvard School of Public Health on behalf of the World Health Organization and the World Bank, 1996
[29] Klaus Moeltner, Kevin J. Boyle, Robert W. Paterson. Meta-analysis and benefit transfer for resource valuation-addressing classical challenges with Bayesian modeling. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 2007, 53(2):250-269
[30] World Bank. Clear Water, Blue skies: China's Environment in the New Century. World Bank, 1996
[31] Valav Smil. Environmental Problems in China: Estimates of Economic Costs. East-West Center Special
[32] Salvador Parra, Fernando J. Aguilar, Javier Calatrava. Decision modelling for environmental protection: The contingent valuation method applied to greenhouse waste management. Biosystems Engineering, 2008,99(4):469-477
[33] Mitchell, R. C. & Carson, R. T. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, 1989:pp3
[34] Richard, C. B, Patricia, A. C. & Daniel, J. M. Contingent V aluation (C) .In: Daniel, W. B. ( ed ) The Handbook of Environmental Economics. U. S.: Blackwell Publishers L td, 1995, pp629-654
[35] Davis, R.K. Recreation planning as an economic problem. Natural Resources Journal, 1963,3: 239-249
[36] Anthony F, Krutilla J. Determination of optimal capacity of resource-based recreation facilities. Natural Resources Journal, 1972, 12:417- 444
[37] Randall A, Ives B, Eastman C. Bidding games for valuation of aesthetic environmental improvements. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 1974,1:132-149
[38] Loomis J B. Contingent valuation methodology and the US institutional framework. In: Bateman I J, Willis K G, eds. Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU and Developing Countries. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. 613-627
[39] Mitchell D C, Carson R T. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Washington DC: Resources for the Future, 1989
[40] Arrow K, SolowR, PortneyP, et al. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Report to the General Council of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Washington DC: Resources for the Future, 1993
[41] Bateman I J, Langford I H, Turner R K, et al. Elicitation and truncation effects in contingent valuation studies. Ecological Economics, 1999,12:161-179
[42] Bonnieux F, Rainelli P. Contingent valuation methodology and the EU institutional framework. In: Bateman I.J., Willis K.G., eds. Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing Countries. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999, 585-612
[43] Knut Veisten. Contingent valuation controversies: Philosophic debates about economic theory. Journal of Socio-Economics, 2007,36(2):204-232
[44] Carson R T. Valuation of tropical rainforests: Philosophical and practical issues in the use of contingent valuation. Ecological Economics, 1998,24:15-29
[45] E.J. Sattout, S.N. Talhouk, P.D.S. Caligari. Economic value of cedar relics in Lebanon: An application of contingent valuation method for conservation. Ecological Economics, 2007,61(2-3):315-322
[46] Loomis J B, Kent P, Strange L, et al. Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: Results from a contingent valuation survey. Ecological Economics, 2000, 33:103-117
[47] Jorgenson B S, Wilson M A, Heberlein T A. Fairness in the contingent valuation of environmental public goods : Attitude toward paying for environmental improvements at two levels of scope. Ecological Economics, 2001,36(1): 133-148
[48] Bateman I.J., Willis K.G., eds. Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US,EU,and Developing Countries.New York:Oxford University Press,1999
[49]Pradeep Chaudhry,Bilas Singh,Vindhya P.Tewari.Non-market economic valuation in developing countries:Role of participant observation method in CVM analysis.Journal of Forest Economics,2007,13(4-5):259-275
[50]徐嵩龄.中国环境破坏的经济损失的计量研究:它的意义、方法、成果及研究建议(Ⅰ).中国软科学,1997,11:1152-127
[51]靳乐山.环境质量价值若干评估技术研究:(学位论文).北京:中国农业大学,1997
[52]薛达元,Clem Tisdell.环境物品的经济价值评估方法:条件价值法.农村生态环境,1999,15(3):39-43
[53]Day B,Mourato S.Willingness to pay for water quality improvements in Chinese rivers:Evidence from a contingent valuation survey in the Beijing Area.In:United Nations CSERGE Working Paper 98201,Center for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment,1998
[54]李莹,白墨,张巍,杨开忠,王学军.改善北京市大气环境质量中居民支付意愿的影响因素分析.中国人口 资源与环境,2002,12(6):123-126
[55]蔡春光,郑晓瑛.北京市空气污染健康损失的支付意愿研究.经济科学,2007,1:107-115
[56]蔡宴朋,杨志峰,徐琳瑜.天津市乡镇工业企业大气污染健康损失估算.安全与环境学报,2003,3(1):33-36
[57]张明军,范剑锋,虎陈霞,张勃.兰州市改善大气环境质量的总经济价值评估.干旱区资源与环境,2004,18(3):28-32
[58]Hong Wang,John Mullahy.Willingness to pay for reducing fatal risk by improving air quality:A contingent valuation study in Chongqing,China.Science of the Total Environment,2006,367:50-57
[59]彭希哲,田文华.上海市空气污染疾病经济损失的意愿支付研究.世界经济文汇,2003,2:32-44
[60]李莹.意愿调查价值评估法的问卷设计技术.环境保护科学,2001,27 (108):25-27
[61]Arrow,K.,So low,R.& Portney,P.Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation.U.S.Federal Register,Vol.10,1993,pp4601-4614
[62]梁爽,姜楠,谷树忠。城市水源地农户环境保护支付意愿及其影响因素分析——以首都水源地密云为例.中国农村经济,2005,55-60
[63]张兵,周彬.欠发达地区农户农业科技投入的支付意愿及影响因素分析——基于江苏省灌南县农户的实证研究.农业经济问题,2006,40-44
[64]赵军,杨凯,邰俊,吴阿娜.上海城市河流生态系统服务的支付意愿.环境科学,2005,5-10
[65]Kirkpatrick,Lee A.A simple guide to SPSS for Windows.Australia;Belmont,CA:Thomson/Wadsworth,c2007
[2]Sarath K.Guttikunda,Gregory R.Carmichael,Giuseppe Calori,Christina Eck,Jung-Hun Woo.The contribution of megacities to regional sulfur pollution in Asia.Atmospheric Environment,2003,37(1):11-22
[3]N Kunzli,R Kaiser,S Medina,M Studnicka,O Chanel,P Filliger,M Herry,F Horak Jr,V Puybonnieux-Texier,P Quenel,J Schneider,R Seethaler,J-C Vergnaud,H Sommer.Public-health impact of outdoor and traffic-related air pollution:a European assessment.The Lancet,2000,356(9232):795-801
[4]Shuxiao Wang,Yu Zhao,Gangcai Chen,Fei Wang,Kristin Aunan,Jiming Hao.Assessment of population exposure to particulate matter pollution in Chongqing,China.Environmental Pollution,2008,153(1):247-256
[5]Pope C A 3rd,Bumett R T,Thun M J.Lung cancer,cardiopulmonary mortality,and long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution.JAMA,2002,287(9):1132-1141
[6]H Marike Boezen,Saskia C van der Zee,Dirkje S Postma,Judith M Vonk,Jorrit Gerritsen,Gerard Hoek,Bert Brunekreef,Bert Rijcken,Jan P Schouten.Effects of ambient air pollution on upper and lower respiratory symptoms and peak expiratory flow in children.The Lancet,1999,353(9156):874-878
[7]A.Chaloulakou,I.Mavroidis,I.Gavriil.Compliance with the annual NO2 air quality standard in Athens.Required NOx levels and expected health implications.Atmospheric Environment,2008,42(3):454-465
[8]中华人民共和国统计局.2005中国统计年鉴,2006
[9]He,J.W.,Kuijs,L.World Bank China research Paper No.7,Rebalancing China's Economy-Modeling a Policy Package,Sep.2007,http://www.scribd.com/full/500176?access_key=46exds72hnp6h
[10]陆华,周浩.发电厂的环境成本分析.环境保护,2004,11(4):51-54
[11]P.Rafaj and S.Kypreos.Intemalisation of external cost in the power generation sector:Analysis with Global Multi-regional MARKAL Model.2003,6:24-26
[12]WHO,Health Costs due to Road Traffic-related Air Pollution,An impact assessment project of Austria,France and Switzerland,The WHO Ministerial Conference on Environment and Health,1999
[13]M.Vrhovcak,Z.Tomsic,N.Debrecin.External costs of electricity production:case study Croatia.Energy Policy,2005,33:1385-1395
[14]H.Inamul,S.Kumar,S.P.Chakrabarti.Cost-benefit analysis of control measures in cement industry in India.Environment International,1996,23:33-45
[15]李瑞华,宋香荣.环境成本的估价方法研究.商业时代,2006,23:99
[16]夏光,赵毅红.中国环境污染损失的经济损失估算.管理世界,1995,6:198-205
[17]王舜钦,张金良.我国儿童血铅水平分析研究.环境与健康杂志,2004,21(6):355-360
[18]郑易生,钱蕙红,王世汶.中国环境污染经济损失:1993年.生态经济,1997,6:6-14
[19]刘利.中国环境污染经济损失估算研究:[学位论文].北京:北京大学,2001
[20]Lei jonhufvud,D.China:heavily polluted air steel city.Acid News,1994,2:11
[21]张清宇.大气污染环境成本估算方法及应用的研究:[学位论文].杭州:浙江大学,2007
[22]Cropper,M.L.,Krupnick,A.J.The social costs of chronic heart and lung disease.Resource for the future discussion paper QE89-16-REV,1990
[23]王金南.环境经济学:理论.方法.政策.清华大学出版社,1994
[24]马中.环境与资源经济学概论.高等教育出版社,1999
[25](美)迪克逊等著.何雪炀等译.环境影响的经济分析.中国环境科学出版社,2001
[26]过孝民,张慧勤.我国环境污染造成经济损失估算.中国环境科学,1990,10(1):51-59
[27]Tolley,George,Donald Kenkel et al.Valuating Health for Policy.An Econoimic Approach.The University of Chicago Press,1994
[28] Murray, Christopher, J.L., Alan, D. The Global Burden of Disease. Harvard School of Public Health on behalf of the World Health Organization and the World Bank, 1996
[29] Klaus Moeltner, Kevin J. Boyle, Robert W. Paterson. Meta-analysis and benefit transfer for resource valuation-addressing classical challenges with Bayesian modeling. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 2007, 53(2):250-269
[30] World Bank. Clear Water, Blue skies: China's Environment in the New Century. World Bank, 1996
[31] Valav Smil. Environmental Problems in China: Estimates of Economic Costs. East-West Center Special
[32] Salvador Parra, Fernando J. Aguilar, Javier Calatrava. Decision modelling for environmental protection: The contingent valuation method applied to greenhouse waste management. Biosystems Engineering, 2008,99(4):469-477
[33] Mitchell, R. C. & Carson, R. T. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, 1989:pp3
[34] Richard, C. B, Patricia, A. C. & Daniel, J. M. Contingent V aluation (C) .In: Daniel, W. B. ( ed ) The Handbook of Environmental Economics. U. S.: Blackwell Publishers L td, 1995, pp629-654
[35] Davis, R.K. Recreation planning as an economic problem. Natural Resources Journal, 1963,3: 239-249
[36] Anthony F, Krutilla J. Determination of optimal capacity of resource-based recreation facilities. Natural Resources Journal, 1972, 12:417- 444
[37] Randall A, Ives B, Eastman C. Bidding games for valuation of aesthetic environmental improvements. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 1974,1:132-149
[38] Loomis J B. Contingent valuation methodology and the US institutional framework. In: Bateman I J, Willis K G, eds. Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU and Developing Countries. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. 613-627
[39] Mitchell D C, Carson R T. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Washington DC: Resources for the Future, 1989
[40] Arrow K, SolowR, PortneyP, et al. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Report to the General Council of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Washington DC: Resources for the Future, 1993
[41] Bateman I J, Langford I H, Turner R K, et al. Elicitation and truncation effects in contingent valuation studies. Ecological Economics, 1999,12:161-179
[42] Bonnieux F, Rainelli P. Contingent valuation methodology and the EU institutional framework. In: Bateman I.J., Willis K.G., eds. Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing Countries. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999, 585-612
[43] Knut Veisten. Contingent valuation controversies: Philosophic debates about economic theory. Journal of Socio-Economics, 2007,36(2):204-232
[44] Carson R T. Valuation of tropical rainforests: Philosophical and practical issues in the use of contingent valuation. Ecological Economics, 1998,24:15-29
[45] E.J. Sattout, S.N. Talhouk, P.D.S. Caligari. Economic value of cedar relics in Lebanon: An application of contingent valuation method for conservation. Ecological Economics, 2007,61(2-3):315-322
[46] Loomis J B, Kent P, Strange L, et al. Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: Results from a contingent valuation survey. Ecological Economics, 2000, 33:103-117
[47] Jorgenson B S, Wilson M A, Heberlein T A. Fairness in the contingent valuation of environmental public goods : Attitude toward paying for environmental improvements at two levels of scope. Ecological Economics, 2001,36(1): 133-148
[48] Bateman I.J., Willis K.G., eds. Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US,EU,and Developing Countries.New York:Oxford University Press,1999
[49]Pradeep Chaudhry,Bilas Singh,Vindhya P.Tewari.Non-market economic valuation in developing countries:Role of participant observation method in CVM analysis.Journal of Forest Economics,2007,13(4-5):259-275
[50]徐嵩龄.中国环境破坏的经济损失的计量研究:它的意义、方法、成果及研究建议(Ⅰ).中国软科学,1997,11:1152-127
[51]靳乐山.环境质量价值若干评估技术研究:(学位论文).北京:中国农业大学,1997
[52]薛达元,Clem Tisdell.环境物品的经济价值评估方法:条件价值法.农村生态环境,1999,15(3):39-43
[53]Day B,Mourato S.Willingness to pay for water quality improvements in Chinese rivers:Evidence from a contingent valuation survey in the Beijing Area.In:United Nations CSERGE Working Paper 98201,Center for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment,1998
[54]李莹,白墨,张巍,杨开忠,王学军.改善北京市大气环境质量中居民支付意愿的影响因素分析.中国人口 资源与环境,2002,12(6):123-126
[55]蔡春光,郑晓瑛.北京市空气污染健康损失的支付意愿研究.经济科学,2007,1:107-115
[56]蔡宴朋,杨志峰,徐琳瑜.天津市乡镇工业企业大气污染健康损失估算.安全与环境学报,2003,3(1):33-36
[57]张明军,范剑锋,虎陈霞,张勃.兰州市改善大气环境质量的总经济价值评估.干旱区资源与环境,2004,18(3):28-32
[58]Hong Wang,John Mullahy.Willingness to pay for reducing fatal risk by improving air quality:A contingent valuation study in Chongqing,China.Science of the Total Environment,2006,367:50-57
[59]彭希哲,田文华.上海市空气污染疾病经济损失的意愿支付研究.世界经济文汇,2003,2:32-44
[60]李莹.意愿调查价值评估法的问卷设计技术.环境保护科学,2001,27 (108):25-27
[61]Arrow,K.,So low,R.& Portney,P.Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation.U.S.Federal Register,Vol.10,1993,pp4601-4614
[62]梁爽,姜楠,谷树忠。城市水源地农户环境保护支付意愿及其影响因素分析——以首都水源地密云为例.中国农村经济,2005,55-60
[63]张兵,周彬.欠发达地区农户农业科技投入的支付意愿及影响因素分析——基于江苏省灌南县农户的实证研究.农业经济问题,2006,40-44
[64]赵军,杨凯,邰俊,吴阿娜.上海城市河流生态系统服务的支付意愿.环境科学,2005,5-10
[65]Kirkpatrick,Lee A.A simple guide to SPSS for Windows.Australia;Belmont,CA:Thomson/Wadsworth,c2007