城市内河生态系统服务的意愿价值评估
|
摘要
生态资产的经济价值评估是生态环境经济学研究的前沿领域。意愿价值评估法(CVM)作为该领域迄今唯一能获知与环境物品有关的全部使用价值和非使用价值的方法,在西方已有40余年的研究历史,并获得了广泛的成功应用,研究成果在环境公共政策和治理决策的制定过程中发挥着巨大的作用。其独特的假想市场的方法学特征既使其受到研究者和政策制定者的青睐,同时也是该方法有效性和可靠性广受争议的根源。
我国正处于经济转型的特殊发展阶段,生态(环境)与经济发展的矛盾日益凸现。生态环境政策和相关治理决策的科学制定,离不开生态(环境)物品的价值评估。CVM作为重要的评估技术之一,对其在我国应用的理论和实证研究,是增进以此为基础的环境公共政策和治理决策有效性和科学性,促进我国建设资源节约、生态友好社会的重要科学问题。
受经济发展水平和市场成熟度等条件所限,CVM在我国的研究明显滞后。与国际上对其有效性的争议相一致,CVM在我国应用的可行性、结果的有效性和可靠性一直是我国生态经济学领域争议的焦点。而我国与发达国家在社会结构、制度安排、经济水平等方面的差异又增加了其应用的特殊性。那么CVM在我国是否能揭示出人们对生态(环境)物品的偏好?被调查者的真实偏好与CVM模拟的支付意愿之间的差异分布如何?如何有效应用从而减少差异?
对上述问题的思考形成本文的研究动机,本文在借鉴国际、国内相关研究成果基础上,以上海市城市内河—漕河泾为研究对象,构建该河流生态恢复的假想市场,进行意愿价值评估的研究。从2006年2月到2008年3月共进行6次CVM的情景调查,共约2700份调查问卷,以此为基础,采用理论分析、问卷调查与计量分析相结合的方法,探讨CVM有效性可靠性的三个关键性问题:支付意愿的中国特殊影响因素、CVM研究成果的“内容依赖性”和时间稳定性。主要内容如下:
本文在对国际国内CVM有效性与可靠性理论争议的系统输理和应用案例回顾的基础上,开展了以下研究:
首先应用CVM方法评估上海市内河-漕河泾生态恢复的价值,经过预调查,由第一阶段496份支付卡正式调查问卷进行非参数估计:平均支付意愿是168.12元/年·户,3年总价值约21.4×10~6元。
然后在实例分析基础上,进行支付意愿的中国特殊影响因素研究。在理论分析的基础上,创新性选取反映我国经济转型阶段特殊性质和研究区域特征的变量:收入差距、户籍安排、收入与户籍的交互影响、居住期差异、对管理部门的信任度。应用对数线性模型和二值响应的Logit概率模型对支付意愿和支付意愿为正的概率进行回归。回归结果显示:收入的差距加大,总支付意愿降低;非户籍人口支付意愿偏低,而同时随着收入的提高,户籍带来的影响降低;对政府信任程度越低,支付意愿越低;居住年限显著负相关。同时,调查显示居民支付意愿为零的主要原因是“应由政府负责”,低收入、非沪户籍、较长的居住期、对相关管理部门的不信任等因素同样增加零WTP的概率。结果验证了一般经济理论预期和生态(环境)的自然属性,也充分反映了我国和研究区域特殊的社会结构、制度安排和经济发展路径特征。
再者,设计四重方案平行调查,在720份问卷基础上,验证了CVM研究中WTP“范围不敏感”、“顺序效应”“部分一整体效应”、“嵌入效应”等在本案研究中的存在。说明评估物品数量、种类、排列顺序等提供给被访者可以选择的集合不同,支付意愿确实存在显著性差异;在同一份问卷中同时调查居民的受偿意愿与支付意愿,结果显示,差异比例均值为10.4,相比于国际调查结果,平均比值偏大,影响因素呈现中国特殊性;以二分法和支付卡不同诱导技术进行评估,二分法呈现高估,二分法与支付卡法比例为4.69～6.02,与国内研究成果较为相符,在西方文献报道的范围中。
再者,对CVM时间稳定性进行实证研究,以时间间隔为一个月的两次CVM结果比较显示:支付意愿分布相符,均值仅相差0.1元,中位数相同。收入、教育、对政府信任程度对支付意愿及其概率的影响因素重现性较好;混合数据时间虚拟变量统计上不显著。表明本案CVM结果在一个月时间间隔基本保持良好的时间稳定性。
根据实证研究结果,我们得出以下结论:CVM在本案中的研究结果在一定的时间尺度内保持稳定,而WTP的数值随问卷的内容、诱导技术和测度指标的不同,呈现一定差异,同时与西方国家相比,我国经济转型期的特殊阶段性特征将导致CVM的研究成果偏离居民的真实偏好。
因此结合实证研究的结果,对我国CVM的应用提出以下建议:
1)我国经济转型阶段的特殊因素,如户籍、收入差距、发展模式、政府相关管理模式都会使得调查中的支付意愿偏离居民对生态环境物品的真实偏好,故在制定政策或决策时应予以充分考虑以纠正这种扭曲;
2) CVM研究成果呈现显著的“内容依赖性”,因此政策制定者在应用CVM结果时,必须考虑CVM研究的特定方案和实施场景;CVM的时间稳定性检验说明,该方法可以在一定时间尺度上保持结果的稳定性。因此,经济发达地区可以审慎使用CVM的数值结果,经济相对落后地区可以应用CVM研究中获得的对环境物品重要程度的排序信息,支付意愿大于零的定性信息可以用以充分识别公众关注点,为相关公共政策制定和实施提供重要门槛条件;
3) CVM通过个体调查获得消费者对生态(环境)物品的支付意愿和受偿意愿,两个指标互为补充,以揭示消费者的偏好信息。该方法为在消费者微观需求信息和宏观环境政策之间构建了科学的桥梁,是我国研究社会经济系统和生态系统相互之间作用机理,确定政策干预的过程变量和关键因素,实现生态系统有效管理的必要技术手段。
综上所述,与现有文献相比:在以下几个方面做了一点创新性的工作:
第一、在国内结合实例应用,系统地对CVM在我国应用的有效性可靠性的三个关键性问题:支付意愿的中国特殊影响因素分析、CVM“问卷内容依赖性”和CVM时间稳定性进行了研究。与现有文献相比,更为全面和深入。尤其是借鉴国际经验,设计四组平行问卷进行CVM“内容依赖性”的实验性研究,填补国内该领域的文献空白;对时间稳定性检验方面,借鉴国际经验,构造跨时混合数据,设置时间虚拟变量,在国内较好地从统计意义上验证了时间稳定性。
第二、在对支付意愿影响因素的分析中,创新性地引入户籍、收入平方、收入与户籍的交互项、沿河居住期、对政府信任程度等变量,揭示了收入差距、户籍安排、环境污染的发展路径(以沿河居住期表征)、政府相关管理模式等我国经济转型阶段特殊社会结构、制度安排对CVM中居民支付意愿的影响。与现有国内该领域的经验研究相比,更为科学地剖析了我国特殊的影响因素。研究指出这几项特殊影响因素使得支付意愿偏离真实偏好;并且在国内对“零支付意愿”的原因分布和影响因素首次进行了专门的问卷调查。
第三、根据上述实证研究的结果,提出在应用CVM结果时,必须考虑CVM研究的特定方案和实施场景;针对我国地区差异和发展特征提出了CVM绝对数值、相对大小和大于零的信息在经济发达与不发达地区间的应用原则。
Contingent valuation method adopts hypothetical market to measure the efficiency of large-scale change of eco-product or environmental product by investigating consumer's WTP(willingness to pay).It has been extensively used in western developed countries.However,large amount of case studies revealed quite a few economic "anomalies" phenomena,i.e.,WTP is content dependent,which shows that CVM can't reflect the interviewees' stable preferences to environmental product. It is against the core assumption of the neo-classis economics,which dues to the wide questioning of CVM's validity and reliability.China has had case studies using CVM around 2000,but the studies on the validity and reliability are in bad shortage.Based on theoretical expectation and current case results,the empirical research in China has appeared to be much complicated because of sharp distinction of social structures between China and developed countries.
Learning from the related research achievements home and abroad,the dissertation studies Caohejing,the urban inner river in Shanghai,and tends to construct the hypothetical market of its ecological restoration based on CVM.Six CVM situational investigations have been made from Feb.2006 to Mar.2008, collecting 2700 questionnaires.Relied on the questionnaires,theoretical analysis, questionnaire investigation and quantitative analysis are employed to study the issues including China's special influential factors on WTP,the content dependency and temporal reliability of CVM's research results,both from the perspective of the validity and reliability of CVM's application.
Based on the systematic review of the domestic and international case studies and theoretical controversy on the validity and reliability of CVM,the dissertation carries out the following research:
Firstly,CVM was applied to evaluate the ecological restoration value of Caohejing port,a landscape inner river in Shanghai.After the pre-investigation,the non-parameter estimation was made by 496 paying cards' formal questionnaires in the first phase.The average WTP is 168.12 Yuan per household per year,and totals 21.4×10~6 Yuan in three years.
Secondly,Chinese special influential factors of WTP are studied on the basis of case analysis.Founded on theoretical analysis,variables of special features at the stage of economic transformation are innovatively selected.They are income gap, Huji arrangement,interaction of income and Huji,differences of residential period, trust for the management offices.Applying linear logarithm model and probability model of Logit to regress WTP and positive probability of WTP with influential factors,the results indicate that the more the income gap,the lower the WTP;WTP of non-Huji resident is low,but with the growth of the income,the influence of Huji drops;the lower the trust for the government,the lower the WTP;living duration has negative effect to the demand.The study also tells the main reason for zero WTP is that it is considered as a "governmental responsibility",the factors such as low income,non-Shanghai Huji,long residential duration and distrust to the related government departments also add points to the probability.The result proves the expectancy of general economic theories and the nature of ecosystem or environment. It is as well in accordance with the social structure,system arrangement and characteristics of economic development pattern in China,which illustrates that CVM has validity in the present case study.
Thirdly,four optional schemes and parallel questionnaire investigations are designed.Based on 720 questionnaires,the existence of scope insensitivity, sequencing effects,part-whole effect,embedding effect of WTP in CVM studies is proved.WTP differs greatly according to the amount,range and sequence of the public goods provided to the interviewees.The same questionnaire is to investigate their WTP and WTA(willingness to accept) which suggests that average differential ratio is 10.4.Compared to the result of the international investigation,it is higher.The influential factors reveal Chinese particularities.Compared with the results obtained by method of dichotomy and payment-card,the result of dichotomy method is higher than that of payment-card method.The ratio between two methods is about 4.69-6.02, which matches with domestic research achievements and falls within the data reported in western literatures.
Fourthly,the empirical study on the temporal reliability of CVM is carried out by comparing two CVM investigations accomplished in two sequent months.The results indicate that the distributions of the two WTP match with each other,the difference of average value between two investigations is only 0.1Yuan,and the median value is same.The influence of income,education,trust for the government on WTP and its probability of the two investigations repeat well.The pool data is not of statistic significance on the dummy variable of time.It demonstrates that the CVM result of the case primarily keeps good temporal reliability in the one month interval.
Lastly,the application of CVM in China combined with empirical study has come to conclusions as follows:
The special factors at the economic transformation stage in China makes the statement of WTP badly deviate from the true preference.It should be fully considered to convert such a deviation when making decisions or policies;the apparent CVM's content dependency directs that policy makers should take the CVM study's specific solution and practical situation into consideration when putting its results into application;it should be careful for developed areas to use the data of CVM;less developed areas could apply the sequence information on the significance degree of the environmental goods achieved from CVM.The qualitative information of whose WTP is more than zero could be recognized as focal points of the public, providing important necessities for the correspondent public policy making and applying;the demand information on ecosystem service gained from individual investigation constructs a scientific bridge in realizing micro demand information and macro environmental policy,which a must technical technique to study the interaction between socioeconomic system and ecosystem,define the process variables and key factors in policy intervening,and manage the ecosystem service efficiently.
The dissertation has made initiative discussions on the following aspects.First of all,it systematically studies the key issues of CVM's validity and reliability in China's application,complete with domestic case.Learnt from the overseas experiences,the four parallel questionnaires employed to carry out the pilot study of CVM's "content dependency" is the first of its kind in China.Second,the analysis of influential factors on WTP discovers the apparent influence on CVM sourcing from the social structure elements such as income gap,Huji arrangement,interactions between income and Huji,development pattern of environment pollution(manifested by the riverside residential duration) and the trust for the government,esp.at China's economic transformation phase.Questionnaires are made to expose the reason and influential factors of zero WTP.Third,in terms of temporal reliability,the temporal pool data is constructed,temporal dummy variable is set up,and temporal reliability thus is proved statistically.Lastly,with the consideration of regional differences and development characteristics of China,applicable principles of CVM's absolute value, relative magnitude and data above zero in different regions are proposed.
我国正处于经济转型的特殊发展阶段,生态(环境)与经济发展的矛盾日益凸现。生态环境政策和相关治理决策的科学制定,离不开生态(环境)物品的价值评估。CVM作为重要的评估技术之一,对其在我国应用的理论和实证研究,是增进以此为基础的环境公共政策和治理决策有效性和科学性,促进我国建设资源节约、生态友好社会的重要科学问题。
受经济发展水平和市场成熟度等条件所限,CVM在我国的研究明显滞后。与国际上对其有效性的争议相一致,CVM在我国应用的可行性、结果的有效性和可靠性一直是我国生态经济学领域争议的焦点。而我国与发达国家在社会结构、制度安排、经济水平等方面的差异又增加了其应用的特殊性。那么CVM在我国是否能揭示出人们对生态(环境)物品的偏好?被调查者的真实偏好与CVM模拟的支付意愿之间的差异分布如何?如何有效应用从而减少差异?
对上述问题的思考形成本文的研究动机,本文在借鉴国际、国内相关研究成果基础上,以上海市城市内河—漕河泾为研究对象,构建该河流生态恢复的假想市场,进行意愿价值评估的研究。从2006年2月到2008年3月共进行6次CVM的情景调查,共约2700份调查问卷,以此为基础,采用理论分析、问卷调查与计量分析相结合的方法,探讨CVM有效性可靠性的三个关键性问题:支付意愿的中国特殊影响因素、CVM研究成果的“内容依赖性”和时间稳定性。主要内容如下:
本文在对国际国内CVM有效性与可靠性理论争议的系统输理和应用案例回顾的基础上,开展了以下研究:
首先应用CVM方法评估上海市内河-漕河泾生态恢复的价值,经过预调查,由第一阶段496份支付卡正式调查问卷进行非参数估计:平均支付意愿是168.12元/年·户,3年总价值约21.4×10~6元。
然后在实例分析基础上,进行支付意愿的中国特殊影响因素研究。在理论分析的基础上,创新性选取反映我国经济转型阶段特殊性质和研究区域特征的变量:收入差距、户籍安排、收入与户籍的交互影响、居住期差异、对管理部门的信任度。应用对数线性模型和二值响应的Logit概率模型对支付意愿和支付意愿为正的概率进行回归。回归结果显示:收入的差距加大,总支付意愿降低;非户籍人口支付意愿偏低,而同时随着收入的提高,户籍带来的影响降低;对政府信任程度越低,支付意愿越低;居住年限显著负相关。同时,调查显示居民支付意愿为零的主要原因是“应由政府负责”,低收入、非沪户籍、较长的居住期、对相关管理部门的不信任等因素同样增加零WTP的概率。结果验证了一般经济理论预期和生态(环境)的自然属性,也充分反映了我国和研究区域特殊的社会结构、制度安排和经济发展路径特征。
再者,设计四重方案平行调查,在720份问卷基础上,验证了CVM研究中WTP“范围不敏感”、“顺序效应”“部分一整体效应”、“嵌入效应”等在本案研究中的存在。说明评估物品数量、种类、排列顺序等提供给被访者可以选择的集合不同,支付意愿确实存在显著性差异;在同一份问卷中同时调查居民的受偿意愿与支付意愿,结果显示,差异比例均值为10.4,相比于国际调查结果,平均比值偏大,影响因素呈现中国特殊性;以二分法和支付卡不同诱导技术进行评估,二分法呈现高估,二分法与支付卡法比例为4.69～6.02,与国内研究成果较为相符,在西方文献报道的范围中。
再者,对CVM时间稳定性进行实证研究,以时间间隔为一个月的两次CVM结果比较显示:支付意愿分布相符,均值仅相差0.1元,中位数相同。收入、教育、对政府信任程度对支付意愿及其概率的影响因素重现性较好;混合数据时间虚拟变量统计上不显著。表明本案CVM结果在一个月时间间隔基本保持良好的时间稳定性。
根据实证研究结果,我们得出以下结论:CVM在本案中的研究结果在一定的时间尺度内保持稳定,而WTP的数值随问卷的内容、诱导技术和测度指标的不同,呈现一定差异,同时与西方国家相比,我国经济转型期的特殊阶段性特征将导致CVM的研究成果偏离居民的真实偏好。
因此结合实证研究的结果,对我国CVM的应用提出以下建议:
1)我国经济转型阶段的特殊因素,如户籍、收入差距、发展模式、政府相关管理模式都会使得调查中的支付意愿偏离居民对生态环境物品的真实偏好,故在制定政策或决策时应予以充分考虑以纠正这种扭曲;
2) CVM研究成果呈现显著的“内容依赖性”,因此政策制定者在应用CVM结果时,必须考虑CVM研究的特定方案和实施场景;CVM的时间稳定性检验说明,该方法可以在一定时间尺度上保持结果的稳定性。因此,经济发达地区可以审慎使用CVM的数值结果,经济相对落后地区可以应用CVM研究中获得的对环境物品重要程度的排序信息,支付意愿大于零的定性信息可以用以充分识别公众关注点,为相关公共政策制定和实施提供重要门槛条件;
3) CVM通过个体调查获得消费者对生态(环境)物品的支付意愿和受偿意愿,两个指标互为补充,以揭示消费者的偏好信息。该方法为在消费者微观需求信息和宏观环境政策之间构建了科学的桥梁,是我国研究社会经济系统和生态系统相互之间作用机理,确定政策干预的过程变量和关键因素,实现生态系统有效管理的必要技术手段。
综上所述,与现有文献相比:在以下几个方面做了一点创新性的工作:
第一、在国内结合实例应用,系统地对CVM在我国应用的有效性可靠性的三个关键性问题:支付意愿的中国特殊影响因素分析、CVM“问卷内容依赖性”和CVM时间稳定性进行了研究。与现有文献相比,更为全面和深入。尤其是借鉴国际经验,设计四组平行问卷进行CVM“内容依赖性”的实验性研究,填补国内该领域的文献空白;对时间稳定性检验方面,借鉴国际经验,构造跨时混合数据,设置时间虚拟变量,在国内较好地从统计意义上验证了时间稳定性。
第二、在对支付意愿影响因素的分析中,创新性地引入户籍、收入平方、收入与户籍的交互项、沿河居住期、对政府信任程度等变量,揭示了收入差距、户籍安排、环境污染的发展路径(以沿河居住期表征)、政府相关管理模式等我国经济转型阶段特殊社会结构、制度安排对CVM中居民支付意愿的影响。与现有国内该领域的经验研究相比,更为科学地剖析了我国特殊的影响因素。研究指出这几项特殊影响因素使得支付意愿偏离真实偏好;并且在国内对“零支付意愿”的原因分布和影响因素首次进行了专门的问卷调查。
第三、根据上述实证研究的结果,提出在应用CVM结果时,必须考虑CVM研究的特定方案和实施场景;针对我国地区差异和发展特征提出了CVM绝对数值、相对大小和大于零的信息在经济发达与不发达地区间的应用原则。
Contingent valuation method adopts hypothetical market to measure the efficiency of large-scale change of eco-product or environmental product by investigating consumer's WTP(willingness to pay).It has been extensively used in western developed countries.However,large amount of case studies revealed quite a few economic "anomalies" phenomena,i.e.,WTP is content dependent,which shows that CVM can't reflect the interviewees' stable preferences to environmental product. It is against the core assumption of the neo-classis economics,which dues to the wide questioning of CVM's validity and reliability.China has had case studies using CVM around 2000,but the studies on the validity and reliability are in bad shortage.Based on theoretical expectation and current case results,the empirical research in China has appeared to be much complicated because of sharp distinction of social structures between China and developed countries.
Learning from the related research achievements home and abroad,the dissertation studies Caohejing,the urban inner river in Shanghai,and tends to construct the hypothetical market of its ecological restoration based on CVM.Six CVM situational investigations have been made from Feb.2006 to Mar.2008, collecting 2700 questionnaires.Relied on the questionnaires,theoretical analysis, questionnaire investigation and quantitative analysis are employed to study the issues including China's special influential factors on WTP,the content dependency and temporal reliability of CVM's research results,both from the perspective of the validity and reliability of CVM's application.
Based on the systematic review of the domestic and international case studies and theoretical controversy on the validity and reliability of CVM,the dissertation carries out the following research:
Firstly,CVM was applied to evaluate the ecological restoration value of Caohejing port,a landscape inner river in Shanghai.After the pre-investigation,the non-parameter estimation was made by 496 paying cards' formal questionnaires in the first phase.The average WTP is 168.12 Yuan per household per year,and totals 21.4×10~6 Yuan in three years.
Secondly,Chinese special influential factors of WTP are studied on the basis of case analysis.Founded on theoretical analysis,variables of special features at the stage of economic transformation are innovatively selected.They are income gap, Huji arrangement,interaction of income and Huji,differences of residential period, trust for the management offices.Applying linear logarithm model and probability model of Logit to regress WTP and positive probability of WTP with influential factors,the results indicate that the more the income gap,the lower the WTP;WTP of non-Huji resident is low,but with the growth of the income,the influence of Huji drops;the lower the trust for the government,the lower the WTP;living duration has negative effect to the demand.The study also tells the main reason for zero WTP is that it is considered as a "governmental responsibility",the factors such as low income,non-Shanghai Huji,long residential duration and distrust to the related government departments also add points to the probability.The result proves the expectancy of general economic theories and the nature of ecosystem or environment. It is as well in accordance with the social structure,system arrangement and characteristics of economic development pattern in China,which illustrates that CVM has validity in the present case study.
Thirdly,four optional schemes and parallel questionnaire investigations are designed.Based on 720 questionnaires,the existence of scope insensitivity, sequencing effects,part-whole effect,embedding effect of WTP in CVM studies is proved.WTP differs greatly according to the amount,range and sequence of the public goods provided to the interviewees.The same questionnaire is to investigate their WTP and WTA(willingness to accept) which suggests that average differential ratio is 10.4.Compared to the result of the international investigation,it is higher.The influential factors reveal Chinese particularities.Compared with the results obtained by method of dichotomy and payment-card,the result of dichotomy method is higher than that of payment-card method.The ratio between two methods is about 4.69-6.02, which matches with domestic research achievements and falls within the data reported in western literatures.
Fourthly,the empirical study on the temporal reliability of CVM is carried out by comparing two CVM investigations accomplished in two sequent months.The results indicate that the distributions of the two WTP match with each other,the difference of average value between two investigations is only 0.1Yuan,and the median value is same.The influence of income,education,trust for the government on WTP and its probability of the two investigations repeat well.The pool data is not of statistic significance on the dummy variable of time.It demonstrates that the CVM result of the case primarily keeps good temporal reliability in the one month interval.
Lastly,the application of CVM in China combined with empirical study has come to conclusions as follows:
The special factors at the economic transformation stage in China makes the statement of WTP badly deviate from the true preference.It should be fully considered to convert such a deviation when making decisions or policies;the apparent CVM's content dependency directs that policy makers should take the CVM study's specific solution and practical situation into consideration when putting its results into application;it should be careful for developed areas to use the data of CVM;less developed areas could apply the sequence information on the significance degree of the environmental goods achieved from CVM.The qualitative information of whose WTP is more than zero could be recognized as focal points of the public, providing important necessities for the correspondent public policy making and applying;the demand information on ecosystem service gained from individual investigation constructs a scientific bridge in realizing micro demand information and macro environmental policy,which a must technical technique to study the interaction between socioeconomic system and ecosystem,define the process variables and key factors in policy intervening,and manage the ecosystem service efficiently.
The dissertation has made initiative discussions on the following aspects.First of all,it systematically studies the key issues of CVM's validity and reliability in China's application,complete with domestic case.Learnt from the overseas experiences,the four parallel questionnaires employed to carry out the pilot study of CVM's "content dependency" is the first of its kind in China.Second,the analysis of influential factors on WTP discovers the apparent influence on CVM sourcing from the social structure elements such as income gap,Huji arrangement,interactions between income and Huji,development pattern of environment pollution(manifested by the riverside residential duration) and the trust for the government,esp.at China's economic transformation phase.Questionnaires are made to expose the reason and influential factors of zero WTP.Third,in terms of temporal reliability,the temporal pool data is constructed,temporal dummy variable is set up,and temporal reliability thus is proved statistically.Lastly,with the consideration of regional differences and development characteristics of China,applicable principles of CVM's absolute value, relative magnitude and data above zero in different regions are proposed.
引文
[1] Adamowicz, W., Louviere, J. J. and Swait, J., 1998, Introduction to attribute-based stated choice methods[R]. Final Report to Resource Valuation Branch, Damage Assessment Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US Department of Commerce. Advanis, Edmonton, Canada, 44.
[2] Ajzen, I., Brown, T.C. and Rosenthal, LH., 1996, Information bias in contingent valuation: effects of personal relevance, quality of information, and motivational orientation [J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 30: 43-57.
[3] Alberini, A., 1995, Testing willingness-to-pay models of discrete choice contingent valuation survey data[J]. Land Economics, 71: 83-95.
[4] Ams, P., 1978, Utility, publicity and manipulation[J]. Ethics, 88 (3): 189-206.
[5] Amigues, J.P., Boulatoff, C., Desigues, B., et al, 2002, The benefits and costs of riparian analysis habitat preservation: A willingness to accept/willingness to pay using contingent valuation approach[J],.Ecological Economics, 43:17-31
[6] Arrow, K.J., Solow, R., Learner, E., Portney, P., Radner, R. and Schuman, H., 1993, Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation[R]. Federal Register, 58: 4601-4614.
[7] Bateman, I.J. and Turner, R. K., 1993, Valuation of environment, methods and techniques: the contingent valuation method [A]. In: Kerry Turner R, editor. Sustainable environmental economics and management: principles and practice[M]. London: Belhaven Press, 120- 191.
[8] Bateman, I.J. and Langford, LH., 1997a, Budget constraint, temporal and ordering effects in contingent valuation studies[J]. Environment and Planning A, 29 (7): 1215-1228.
[9] Bateman, I.J., Munro, A., Rhodes, B., Starmer, C. and Sugden, R., 1997b, Does part-whole bias exist? An experimental investigation[J]. Economic Journal, 107 (441): 322-332.
[10] Bateman, I.J. and Willis, K.G. (eds.), 1999, Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing Countries[C]. Oxford University Press, 645.
[11] Bateman, I.J., Cole, M., Cooper, P., Georgiou, S., Hadley, D. and Poe, G.L., 2001, Visible choice sets and scope sensitivity: An experimental and field test of study design effects upon contingent values. CSERGE Working Paper EDM 01-01, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, University of East Anglia.
[12] Bateman, I.J., Carson, R.T., Day, B, Hanemann, M.W., Hanley, N., Hett, T., et al. 2002, Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: a manual[M]. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
[13] Becker, G.S., 1976, The Economic Approach to Human Behavior[M]. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 330.
[14] Becker, G.S., 1993, Nobel lecture-the economic way of looking at behavior[J]. Journal of Political Economy, 101(3): 385-409.
[15] Bergstrom, J.C., Stoll, J.R. and Randall, A., 1990, The impact of information on environmental commodity valuation decisions[J]. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 72: 614-621.
[16] Bishop, R.G., and Heberlein, T.A., 1979, Measuring values of extra-market goods: are indirect measures biased?[J] American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 61: 926-930.
[17] Boyle, K.J., Welsh, M.P. and Bishop, R.C., 1993, The role of question order and respondent experience in contingent valuation studies[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 95: 80-90.
[18] Boyle, K.J., Desvousges, W.H., Reed Johnson, F., Dunford, R.W. and Hudson, S.P., 1994, An investigation of part-whole biases in contingent-valuation studies[J], Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 27: 64-83.
[19] Boyle, K.J., Johnson, F.R., McCollum, D.W., Desvousges, W.H., Dunford, R. and Hudson, S. 1996, Valuing public goods: discrete versus continuous contingent-valuation responses[J]. Land Economics, 72: 381-396.
[20] Boyle, K.J., Bishop, R., Hellerstein, D., Welsh, M.P., Ahearn, M.C. and Laughland, A., Charbonneau, J., O'Conner, R., 1998, Test of scope in contingent-valuation studies: are the numbers for the birds[R]. In: Paper Presented at The World Congress of Environmental and Resource Economists (AERE/EAERE), Venice, Italy, June 25-27.
[21] Briscoe, J., de Castro, P.F., Griffin, C., North, J. and Olsen, O., 1990, Toward equitable and sustainable rural water supplies: a contingent valuation study in Brazil[J]. The World Bank Economic Review, 4:115-134.
[22] Brookshire, D.S., Thayer, M.A., Schulze, W.P. and d'Arge R.C., 1982, Valuing public goods: a comparison of survey and hedonic approach[J]. American Economic Review, 72: 165-176.
[23] Brookshire, D.S. and Coursey, D.L., 1987, Measuring the value of a public good: an empirical comparison of elicitation procedures[J]. American Economic Review, 77: 554- 566.
[24] Brouwer, R., Bateman, I.J., 2005, The temporal stability and transferability of models of willingness to pay for flood control and wetland conservation[J]. Water Resources Research, 41 (3), W03017.
[25] Brouwer, R., 2006, Do stated p reference methods stand the test of time? A test of the stability of contingent values and models for health risks when facing an extreme event[J]. Ecological Economics, 60: 399-406.
[26] Caldwell, B.J., 1994, Beyond Positivism: Economic Methodology in the 20th Century[M]. Routledge, New York, London.
[27] Carmon, Z., Ariely, D. 2000, Focusing on the foregone: How value can appear so different to buyers and sellers[J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(3): 360-370.
[28] Cameron, T.A. and Quiggin, J., 1994, Estimation using contingent valuation data from a dichotomous choice with follow-up' questionnaire [J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 27: 218-234.
[29] Cameron, T.A., Poe, G.L., Ethier, R.G. and Schulze, W.D., 2002, Alternative non-market value-elicitation methods: are the underlying preferences the same?[J] Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 44: 391-425.
[30] Carson, R.T., Hanemann, W.M., Kopp, R.J., Krosnick, J.A., Mitchell, R.C., Presser, S., Ruud, P.A., Smith, V.K., Conaway, M., Martin, K.,1997. Temporal reliability of estimates from contingent valuation[J]. Land Economics 73 (2): 151-163.
[31] Carson, R.T., 1997, Contingent valuation surveys and tests of insensitivity to scope[A], in Kopp, R.J., Pommerehne, W.W. and Schwarz, N. (eds.), Determining the Value of Non-Marketed Goods: Economic, Psychological, and Policy Relevant Aspects of Contingent Valuation Methods[M]. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston. 127-163.
[32] Carson, R.T., Hanemann, W.M. and Mitchell, R.C., 1987, The use of simulated political markets to value public goods[R]. Discussion Paper 87-7. Department of Economics, University of California, San Diego.
[33] Carson, R.T., Flores, N.E. and Meade, N.F., 2001, Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence[J]. Environmental and Resource Economics, 19:173-210.
[34] Carson, R.T., Flores, N.E. and Hanemann, W.M., 1998, Sequencing and valuing public goods[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 36: 314-323.
[35] Carson, R.T., Flores, N.E., Martin, K.M. and Wright, J.L., 1996, Contingent valuation and revealed preference methodologies: Comparing the estimates for quasi-public goods[J]. Land Economics, 72 (1): 80-99.
[36] Carson, R.T. and Mitchell, R.C., 1994, Sequencing and nesting in contingent valuation surveys[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 28 (2): 155-173.
[37] Carson, R.T., Mitchell, R.C., Hanemann, M., et al, 2003, Contingent Valuation and Lost Passive Use: Damages from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill[J]. Environmental and Resource Economics, 25: 257-286.
[38] Carson, R.T., Mitchell, R.C., 1993, The Value of Clean Water: the Public's Willingness to Pay for Boatable, Fishable and Swimmable Quality Water[J]. Water Resources Research, 29: 2445-2454.
[39] Carson, R.T., Hanemann, W., 2005, Contingent Valuation -Handbook of Environment Economics[M]. Elsevier, 824-826.
[40] Carson, R.T., Mi, Onaway, B.C., Hanemann, M., et al, 2003, Valuing oil Spill Prevention: A Case Study of California's Central Coast[J]. Boston: Kluwer Academic Press.
[41] Carson, R.T, Groves, T., 2007, Incentive and informational properties of preference questions[J]. Environ Resource Econ, 37:181-210.
[42] Champ, P.A., Bishop, R.C., Brown, T.C. and McCollum, D.W., 1997, Using donation mechanisms to value nonuse benefits from public goods[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 33:151 - 162.
[43] Champ, P.A. and Bishop, R.C., 2001, Donation payment mechanisms and contingent valuation: an empirical study of hypothetical bias[J]. Environmental and Resource Economics, 19 (4): 383-402.
[44] Choe K.A., Whittington, D. and Lauria, D.T. 1996, The economic benefits of surface water quality improvements in developing countries: a case study of Davao[J], Philippines. Land Economics, 72:107-126.
[45] Costanza R, d Arge R, de-Groot R, et ai, 1997, The value of the worlds ecosystem services and natural capital[J]. Nature, 386(6630): 253-260
[46] Cummings, R.G. and Harrison, G.W., 1994, Was the Ohio court well informed in its assessment of the accuracy of the contingent valuation method?[J] Natural Resource Journal, 34:1-36.
[47] Cummings, R.G. and Harrison, G.W., 1995a, The measurement and decomposition of nonuse values: a critical review[J]. Environmental and Resource Economics, 5: 225-247.
[48] Cummings, R.G., Harrison, G.W. and Rutstr¨om, E.E., 1995b, Homegrown values and hypothetical surveys: is the dichotomous choice approach incentive compatible?[J] American Economic Review, 85: 260-266.
[49] Davis, R., 1963, The value of outdoor recreation: an economic study of the marine woods. [D] Ph.D. Thesis.Boston: Harvard University.
[50] Day, B. and Mourato, S., 1998, Willingness to pay for Water Quality Improvements in Chinese Rivers: Evidence from a Contingent Valuation Survey in the Beijing Area -CSERGE Working Paper 98-01[R]. London: Center for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, University of East Anglia and University College London, 1-78.
[51] Desvousges, W.H., Hudson, S.P. and Ruby, M.C., 1996, Evaluating CV performance: Separating the light from the heat[A]. In: Bjornstad, J., Kahn, J.R. (Eds.), The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resources: Methodological Issues and Research Needs[M]. Brookfield, Vt. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.
[52] Desvousges, W.H., Johnson, F.R., Dunford, R.W., Boyle, K.J., Hudson, S.P. and Wilson, N., 1993, Measuring natural resource damages with contingent valuation: tests of validity and reliability[A]. In: Hausman JA, editor. Contingent valuation: a critical assessment[M]. Amsterdam: North Holland, 91-159.
[53] Diamond, P.A. and Hausman, J.A., 1994, Contingent valuation: Is some number better than no number? [J] Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8 (4): 45-64.
[54] Dong, H., Kouyateb, B., Cairnsc, J., Sauerborna, R., 2003, A comparison of the reliability of the take-it-or-leave-it and the bidding game approaches to estimating willingness-to-pay in a rural population in West Africa[J]. Social Science &Medicine, 56: 2181-2189.
[55] Douglas, M., 2006, Contingent valuation: Environmental polling or preference engine?[J] Ecological Economics, 60 (1): 299-307.
[56] Downing, M. and Ozuna, J.T., 1996, Testing the reliability of the benefit function transfer approach[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 30: 316-322.
[57] Duffield, J.W. and Patterson, D.A., 1991, Field testing existence values: an instream flow trust fund for Montana rivers[R]. In: Paper Presented at the AERE Contributed Paper Session: Valuing Environmental Goods with Contingent Valuation, Allied Social Science Association Annual Meeting, New Orleans, January 4.
[58] Faber, M., Petersen, T. and Schiller, J., 2002, Homo economics and homo politics in ecological economics[J]. Ecological Economics, 40: 323-333.
[59] Freeman, M.A. III, 1993, The measurement of environmental and resource values[M]. Washington, DC: Resource for the Future.
[60] Green, D., Jacowitz, K.E. , Kahneman, D., et al, 1998 ,Referendum contingent valuation, anchoring and willingness to pay for public goods[J]. Resource and Energy Economics, 20 : 85-116.
[61] Gregory, R., Lichtenstein, S. and Slovic, P., 1993, Valuing environmental resources: A constructive approach[J]. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 7:177-197.
[62] Griffin, C.C., Briscoe, J., Singh, B., Ramasubban, R. and Bhatia, R., 1995, Contingent valuation and actual behavior: predicting connections to new water systems in the state of Kerala, India[J]. The World Bank Economic Review, 9: 373-395.
[63] Gyldmark, M. and Gwendolyn, M.C., 2001, Demand for health care in Denmark: results of a national sample survey using contingent valuation [J]. Social Science & Medicine, 53: 1023-1036.
[64] Hammack J, Brown G. 1976. Waterfowl and Wetlands: Toward Bioeconomic Analysis[M ]. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press
[65] Hammitt, J.K. and Graham, J.D., 1999, Willingness to pay for health protection: inadequate sensitivity to probability?[J] Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 18: 33-62.
[66] Hanemann, W.M., 1984, Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses[J]. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66(3): 332-341.
[67] Hanemann, W.M., 1991, Willingness to pay and willingness to accept: how much can they differ?[J] American Economic Review, 81: 635-647.
[68] Hanemann, W.M., 1994, Valuing the Environment Through Contingent Valuation[J]. Journal of Economic Perspectives , 8 (4): 19-25.
[69] Hanemann, M.W. and Kanninen, B., 1999, The statistical analysis of discrete-response CV data[A]. In: Bateman, I.J., Willis, K.G., editors. Valuing environmental preferences[M]. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press; 302-441.
[70] Hanley, N. and Milne, J., 1996, Ethical beliefs and behavior in contingent valuation surveys[J]. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 39 (2): 255-272.
[71] Hanley, N., MacMillan, D., Wright, R.E., Bullock, C., Simpson, I., Parisson, D. and Crabtree, B., 1998, Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: estimating the benefits of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland[J]. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 49 (1): 1-15.
[72] Hanley, N. and Munro, A., 1991, Design Bias in Contingent Valuation Studies: The Impact of Information[J]. Department of Economics, University of Stirling, Mimeo, Scotland.
[73] Hanley, N., Spash, C. and Walker, L., 1995, Problems in valuing the benefits of biodiversity protection[J]. Environmental and Resource Economics, 5: 249-272.
[74] Harrison, G. W., 1992, Valuing public goods with the contingent valuation method: a critique of Kahneman and Knetsch[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 23: 248-257.
[75] Hausman, J.A., editor, 1993, Contingent valuation: a critical assessment[M]. Amsterdam: North Holland.
[76] Hicks, J.R., (1941). The rehabilitation of consumer's surplus[J]. Review of economics Studies, 8:108-116.
[77] Hicks, J.R., 1943. The four consumers' surplus[J]. Review of Economics Studies, 11:31- 41.
[78] Hoehn, J.P. and Randall, A., 1987, A satisfactory benefit cost indicator from contingent valuation[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 14: 226-247.
[79] Hoehn, J.P. and Randall, A., 1989, Too many proposals pass the benefit cost test[J]. American Economic Review, 79: 544-551.
[80] Hoehn, J.P., 1991, Valuing the multidimensional impacts of environmental policy: theory and methods[J]. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 73: 289-299.
[81] Horowitz J K, McConnell ICE., 2002, A review of WTA/WTP studies[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 44: 426-447.
[82] Johansson, P.O., 1992, Altruism in cost-benefit analysis[J]. Environmental and Resource Economics, 2: 605-613.
[83] Johannesson, M., Liljas, B. and Johansson, P.O., 1998, An experimental comparison of dichotomous choice contingent valuation and real purchase decisions[J]. Applied Economics, 30: 643-647.
[84] John, K.H., Walsh, R.G. and Moore, C.G., 1992, Comparison of alternative nonmarket valuation methods for an economic assessment of a public program[J]. Ecological Economics, 5:179-196.
[85] Kahneman, D. and Knestch, J.L., 1992, Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 22: 57-70.
[86] Kanninen, B.J., 1993, Optimal experimental design for double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation[J]. Land Economics, 69:138-146.
[87] Kahneman, D., 1986, The review panel assessment: comment[A]. In: Cummings, R.G., Brookshire, D.S. and Schulze, W.D.(Eds.), Valuing Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method[M]. Rowman & Allanheld, Totowa, NJ.
[88] Kealy, M.J., Turner, R.W., 1993, A test of the equality of closed-ended and open-ended contingent valuations[J]. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 75: 321-331.
[89] Kirchhoff, S., Colby, B.G. and LaFrance, J.T., 1997, Evaluating performance of benefit transfer: an empirical enquiry[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 33: 75-93.
[90] Kopp, R.J., 1992, Why existence value should be included in cost-benefit analysis[J]. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 11 (1): 123-130.
[91] Kristrom, B., 1997, Spike models in contingent valuation[J]. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 79 (3): 1013-1023.
[92] Lockwood, M., 1996, Non-compensatory preference structures in non-market valuation of natural area policy[J]. Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 40: 85-101.
[93] Lockwood, M., 1999, Preference structures, property rights, and paired comparisons[J]. Environmental and Resource Economics, 13:107-122.
[94] Loomis, J.B., 1990, Comparative reliability of the dichotomous choice and open-ended contingent valuation techniques[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 18: 78-85.
[95] Loomis, J.B., Gonzalez-Caban, A. and Gregory, R., 1994, Do remainders of substitutes and budget constraints influence contingent valuation estimates? [J] Land Economics, 70: 499- 506.
[96] Loomis J., 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[J], Ecological Economics 2000,33:103-117
[97] McConnell, K.E., Strand, I.E. and Valdes, S., 1998, Testing temporal reliability and carryover effect: the role of correlated responses in test - retest reliability studies[J]. Environmental and Resource Economics, 12, 357-374.
[98] Milgrom, P.R., 1993, Is sympathy an economic value? Philosophy, economics, and the contingent valuation method[A]. In: Hausman, J.A. (Ed.), Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment. North-Holland[M] / Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, 417-442.
[99] Mitchell, R.C. and Carson, R.T., 1984, A contingent valuation estimate of national freshwater benefits: technical report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency[M]. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
[100] Mitchell, R.C. and Carson, R.T., 1989, Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method[M]. Resources for Future, Washington, DC, 85-102.
[101] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1993, Report of the NOAA Panel on contingent valuation[R]. Federal Register, 58: 4602-4614.
[102] Ng, Y.K., 2003, From preference to happiness: towards a more complete welfare economics[J]. Social Choice and Welfare, 20 (2): 307-350.
[103] Nyborg, K., 2000, Homo economics and homo politics: interpretation and aggregation of environmental values[J]. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 42:305-322.
[104] Poe, G.L., Clark, J.E., Rondeau, D. and Schulze, W.D., 2002, Provision point mechanisms and field validity tests of contingent valuation[J]. Environmental and Resource Economics, 23:105-131.
[105] Randall, A. and Stoll, J.R., 1980, Consumer's surplus in commodity space[J]. American Economic Review, 70: 449-457.
[106] Randall, A. and Hoehn, J.P., 1996, Embedding in market demand system[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 30: 369-380.
[107] Randall,A., Hoehn, J.P. and Tolley, G.S., 1981, the structure of contingent markets: some empirical results[R], paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association, Washington DC.
[108] Rondeau, D., Schulze, W.D. and Poe, G.L., 1999, Voluntary revelation of the demand for public goods using a provision point mechanism[J]. Journal of Public Economics, 72 (3): 455-470.
[109] Ready, R.C., Buzby, J.C. and Hu, D., 1996, Differences between continuous and discrete contingent value estimates[J]. Land Economics, 72: 397-411.
[110] Rollins, K.S. and Lyke, A.J., 1998, The case for diminishing marginal existence values[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 36: 324-344.
[111] Rose, S.K., Clark, J., Poe, G.L., Rondeau, D., Schulze, W.D., 2002, Field and laboratory tests of a provision point mechanism[J]. Resource and Energy Economics, 24:131-155.
[112] Samuelson, P., 1948, Consumption theory in terms of revealed preference[J]. Economica, 15: 243-253.
[113] Sen, A., 1979, Personal utilities and public judgements: or what's wrong with welfare economics[J]. Economic Journal, 89: 537-558.
[114] Schulze, W.D., d'Arge, R.C. and Brookshire, D.S., 1981, Valuing environmental commodities: some recent experiments[J]. Land Economics, 57:151-169.
[115] Schulze, W.D., McClelland, G., Waldman, D. and Lazo, J., 1996, Sources of bias in contingent valuation[A]. In: Bjornstad DJ, Kahn JR, editors. The contingent valuation of environmental resources: methodological issues and research needs[M]. Brookfield: Edward Elgar, 97-116.
[116] Shogren, J.F., Shin, S.Y., Hayes, D.J. and Klieberstein, J.B., 1994, Resolving difference in willingness to pay and willingness to accept[J]. American Economic Review, 84: 255-270.
[117] Smith, V.K., 1993, Nonmarket valuation of environmental resources: an interpretative appraisal[J]. Land Economics, 69:1-26.
[118] Solow, R.M., 1997, How did economics get that way and what way did it get? [J] Daedalus, 126 (1): 39-58.
[119] Spash, C.L. and Hanley, N., 1995, Preferences, information and biodiversity preservation[J]. Ecological Economics, 12:191 - 208.
[120] Spash, C.L., 2000, Ethical motives and charitable contributions in contingent valuation: empirical evidence from social psychology and economics[J]. Environmental Values, 9: 453-479.
[121] Stevens, T.H., Echeverr'ia, J., Glass, R.J., Hager, T. and More, T.A., 1991, Measuring the existence value of wildlife: what do CVM estimates really show? [J] Land Economics, 67 (4): 390-400.
[122] Svedsater, H., 2000, Contingent valuation of global environmental resources: test of perfect and regular embedding[J]. Journal of Economic Psychology, 21: 605-623.
[123] Thomas C. B. 2005, Loss aversion without the endowment effect, and other explanations for the WTA-WTP disparity[J]. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 57: 367- 379.
[124] Varian, H.R., 1992, Microeconomic Analysis[M], 3rd ed. Norton and Company Inc., New York.
[125] Vatn, A. and Bromley, D.W., 1994, Choices without prices without apologies[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 26:129-148.
[126] Vatn, A., 2004, Environmental valuation and rationality [J]. Land Economics, 80 (1): 1-18.
[127] Veisten, K., Hoen, H.F., Navrud, S. and Strand, J., 2004, Scope insensitivity in contingent valuation of complex environmental amenities[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 73 (4): 317-331.
[128] Veisten, K., 2007, Contingent valuation controversies: Philosophic debates about economic theory[J]. Journal of Socio-Economics, 36(2):204-232.
[129] Venkatachalam, L., 2004, The contingent valuation method: a review[J]. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24: 89-124.
[130] Whitehead, J.C. and Blomquist, G.C., 1990, Measuring contingent values for wetlands: effects of information about related environmental goods[R]. A Research Report.
[131] Whittington, D., Briscoe, J., Mu, X. and Barron, W., 1990, Estimating the willingness to pay for water services in developing countries: a case study of the contingent valuation in Southern Hait[J]i. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 38: 293-312.
[132] Whittington, D., Smith, V.K., Okorafor, A., Okore, A., Jin, Liu, L. and McPhail, A., 1992, Giving respondents time to think in contingent valuation studies: a developing country application[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 22: 205-225.
[133] Willig, R.D., 1976, Consumer's surplus without apology[J]. American Economic Review, 66: 589-597.
[134] Zhang Y.F., Meng W.H. and Zhang, L., 2007, Analysis of Effects on Residents' Demand for Urban Public Eco-System Services based on A Case Study[A]. In:The Proceeding of 2007 International Conference on wireless communications, Networking and Mobile Computing,WiCOM2007[C].2007,09:5040-5044.
[135]Zhang,Y.Q.and Li,Y.Q.,2005,Valuing or pricing natural and environmental resources[J]?Environmental Science and policy,8:179-186.
[1]曹建华,郭小鹏.意愿调查法在评价森林资源环境价值上的运用[J].江西农业大学学报(自然科学版),2002,24(5):645-648.
[2]曹辉,陈平留.森林景观资产评估CVM研究[J].福建林学院学报,2003,23(1):48-52.
[3]陈琳,欧阳志云,等.条件价值评估法在非市场价值评估中的应用[J].生态学报,2006,26(2):610-619.
[4]陈琳,欧阳志云,段晓男,等.中国野生动物资源保护的经济价值评估--以北京市居民的支付意愿研究为例[J].资源科学,2006,28(4):131-137.
[5]崔丽娟.潘阳湖湿地生态系统服务功能价值评估研究[J].生态学杂志,2004,23(4):47-51.
[6]杜亚平.改善东湖水质的经济分析.生态经济[J],1996,(6):15-21.
[7]戴星翼,俞厚未,董梅.生态服务的价值实现[M].北京:科学出版社,2005.
[8]郭剑英,王乃昂.敦煌旅游资源非使用价值评估[J],资源科学.2005,27(5):187-192.
[9]郭淑敏,刘光栋,陈印军,等.都市型农业土地利用面源污染环保意识和支付意愿研究.生态环境[J].2005,14(4):514-517
[10]国务院人口普查办公室、国家统计局人口和社会科技统计司:《2000人口普查分县资料》.中国统计出版社,2003.
[11]伍德里奇.计量经济学导论:现代观点[M].2003,中国人民大学出版社:396-400.
[12]金建君,王志石.澳门固体废物管理的经济价值评估--选择试验模型法和条件价值法的比较[J].中国环境科学,2005,25(6):751-755.
[13]金建君,王志石.澳门改善固体废弃物管理的总经济价值评估[J].中国人口资源环境,2005,15(6):122-125.
[14]Kevin Chen,等.对中国消费者非转基因菜油支付意愿的研究[J].浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),2004,34(3):53-61.
[15]李喜霞吕杰.辽东地区公益林保护的公众支付意愿调查及影响因素分析.沈阳农业大学学报(社会科学版).2006,8(2):190-192.
[16]李金平,王志石.空气污染损害价值的WTP、WTA对比研究[J].地球科学进展.2006,21(3):250-255.
[17]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[J],中国农村经济,2005,05:55-60.
[18]梁勇,成升魁,闵庆文,马冬梅.居民对改善城市水环境支付意愿的研究[J],水利学报,2005,36(5):613-618.
[19]李莹,白墨,张巍,等.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[J]. 中国人口资源与环境,2002,12(6):123-126
[20]刘岩,张大柱,陈吉宁,等.滇池流域农业非点源污染治理的收费政策研究[J].厦门大学学报(自然科学版),2003,42(6):787-790.
[21]林逢春,陈静.条件价值评估法在上海城市轨道交通社会效益评估中的应用研究[J].华东师范大学学报,37(1):48-53.
[22]鲁春霞,谢高地,成升魁.河流生态系统的休闲娱乐及其价值评估[J].资源科学,2001,23(5):77-80.
[23]马中.环境与白然资源经济学概论[M].北京:高等教育出版社,1999.
[24]牛军让,刘仓,侯军岐.用意愿调查法评估都市农业游憩价值--以杨凌国家农业高新产业园区都市农业建设为例[J].中国农业科技导报,2005,7(6):72-76
[25]欧阳志云,王如松,赵景柱.生态系统服务功能及其生态经济价值评价[J].应用生态学报,1999a,10(5):635-640.
[26]欧阳志云,王效科,苗鸿.中国陆地生态系统服务功能及其生态经济价值的初步研究[J].生态学报,1999b,19(5):607-613.
[27]上海市统计局.上海统计年鉴-2006[M].北京:中国统计出版社,2007.
[28]王寿兵,王平建,胡泽原,等.用意愿评估法评价生态系统景观服务价值--以上海苏州河为实例[J].复旦大学学报.2003,42(3):463-467.
[29]谢高地,张钇锂,鲁春霞,等.中国自然草地生态系统服务价值[J].自然资源学报,2001,16(1):47-53.
[30]辛琨,肖笃宁.盘锦地区湿地生态系统服务功能价值估算[J].生态学报,2002,22(8):1345-1349.
[31]徐慧,蒋明康,钱谊,等.鹞落坪自然保护区非使用价值的评估[J].农村生态环境,2004,20(4):1-5.
[32]徐中民,张志强,程国栋,等.额济纳旗生态系统服务的总经济价值评估[J].地理学报,2002,57(1):107-116.
[33]徐中民,张志强,龙爱华,等.额济纳旗生态系统服务恢复价值评估方法的比较和应用[J].生态学报,2003,23(9):1841-1850.
[34]徐中民,张志强,苏志勇,等.恢复额济纳旗生态系统的总经济价值--条件估值非参数估计方法的应用[J].冰川冻土,2002,24(2):160-167.
[35]徐中民,张志强,程国栋.生态经济学:理论方法与应用[M].郑州:黄河水利出版社,2003.172-195.
[36]徐中民,张志强,程国栋,等.运用信息熵理论研究条件估值调查中的抽样问题[J].系统工程理论与实践,2003,3:129-132.
[37]徐中民,张志强,龙爱华,等.额济纳旗生态系统服务恢复价值评估方法的比较与应用.生态学报,2003,23(9):1841-1850.
[38]薛达元,包浩生,李文华.长白山自然保护区森林生态系统非使用价值评估[J]中国环境科学,1999,19(3):247-252.
[39]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): 141-143.
[40]杨开忠,白墨,李莹,等.关于意愿调查价值评估法在我国环境领域应用的可行性探讨--以北京市居民支付意愿研究为例[J].地球科学进展,2002,17(3):420-425.
[41]赵军,杨凯.上海城市内河生态系统服务的条件价值评估[J].环境科学研究,2004,17(2):49-52.
[42]赵军,杨凯,邰俊,等.上海城市河流生态系统服务的支付意愿[J].环境科学,2005,26(2):5-10.
[43]赵军.生态系统服务的条件价值评估:理论、方法与应用[D].上海:华东师范大学,2005,35-37.64-66.
[44]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.
[45]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.
[46]张俊杰,张悦,等.居民对再生水的支付意愿及其影响因素[J].中国给水排水,2003,19:96-98.
[47]张明军,范建峰,虎陈霞,等.兰州市改替大气环境质量的总经济价值评估[J].干早区资源与环境,2004,18(3):28-32.
[48]张茵.自然保护区生态旅游资源的价值评估-以九寨沟自然保护区为例[D].北京:北京大学,2004.
[49]张琦,陈兴宝.条件价值法在菌痢疫苗支付意愿研究中的应用[J].中国药房,2004,15(3):161-163.
[50]张志强,徐中民,程国栋.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.
[51]张志强,徐中民,龙爱华,等.黑河流域张掖市生态系统服务恢复价值评估研究--连续型和离散型条件价值评估方法的比较应用[J].自然资源学报,2004,19(2):230-239.
[52]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.2007,24(10):4301-4309.
[53]张翼飞.居民对生态环境改善的支付意愿与受偿意愿差异分析[J].西北人口,2008(4).(收录,刊期已定).
[54]张翼飞,刘宇辉.城市景观河流生态修复的产出研究及有效性可靠性检验[J].中国地质大学学报(社会科学版),2007a,7(2):39-44.
[55]张翼飞.居民对城市景观河流生态服务的支付意愿与有效需求研究--基于CVM应用的有效性实证分析[J].中国人口、资源与环境,2007b,17(1):66-69.
[56]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研究综述与实例设计研究[J].地球科学进展.2007c,11:1141-1149.
[57]张翼飞.城市地表水生态服务的居民需求研究与影响因素偏效应测度[J].城市问题,2008(3):72-77.
[58]张翼飞.CVM评估生态服务价值的经济有效性可靠性理论述评[J].生态经济.2007d, (6):34-37.
[59]赵敏华,李国平.效益转移法评估石油开发中跨区域环境价值损失的实证研究[J].系统工程,.2006,24(10):78-81.
[2] Ajzen, I., Brown, T.C. and Rosenthal, LH., 1996, Information bias in contingent valuation: effects of personal relevance, quality of information, and motivational orientation [J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 30: 43-57.
[3] Alberini, A., 1995, Testing willingness-to-pay models of discrete choice contingent valuation survey data[J]. Land Economics, 71: 83-95.
[4] Ams, P., 1978, Utility, publicity and manipulation[J]. Ethics, 88 (3): 189-206.
[5] Amigues, J.P., Boulatoff, C., Desigues, B., et al, 2002, The benefits and costs of riparian analysis habitat preservation: A willingness to accept/willingness to pay using contingent valuation approach[J],.Ecological Economics, 43:17-31
[6] Arrow, K.J., Solow, R., Learner, E., Portney, P., Radner, R. and Schuman, H., 1993, Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation[R]. Federal Register, 58: 4601-4614.
[7] Bateman, I.J. and Turner, R. K., 1993, Valuation of environment, methods and techniques: the contingent valuation method [A]. In: Kerry Turner R, editor. Sustainable environmental economics and management: principles and practice[M]. London: Belhaven Press, 120- 191.
[8] Bateman, I.J. and Langford, LH., 1997a, Budget constraint, temporal and ordering effects in contingent valuation studies[J]. Environment and Planning A, 29 (7): 1215-1228.
[9] Bateman, I.J., Munro, A., Rhodes, B., Starmer, C. and Sugden, R., 1997b, Does part-whole bias exist? An experimental investigation[J]. Economic Journal, 107 (441): 322-332.
[10] Bateman, I.J. and Willis, K.G. (eds.), 1999, Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing Countries[C]. Oxford University Press, 645.
[11] Bateman, I.J., Cole, M., Cooper, P., Georgiou, S., Hadley, D. and Poe, G.L., 2001, Visible choice sets and scope sensitivity: An experimental and field test of study design effects upon contingent values. CSERGE Working Paper EDM 01-01, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, University of East Anglia.
[12] Bateman, I.J., Carson, R.T., Day, B, Hanemann, M.W., Hanley, N., Hett, T., et al. 2002, Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: a manual[M]. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
[13] Becker, G.S., 1976, The Economic Approach to Human Behavior[M]. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 330.
[14] Becker, G.S., 1993, Nobel lecture-the economic way of looking at behavior[J]. Journal of Political Economy, 101(3): 385-409.
[15] Bergstrom, J.C., Stoll, J.R. and Randall, A., 1990, The impact of information on environmental commodity valuation decisions[J]. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 72: 614-621.
[16] Bishop, R.G., and Heberlein, T.A., 1979, Measuring values of extra-market goods: are indirect measures biased?[J] American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 61: 926-930.
[17] Boyle, K.J., Welsh, M.P. and Bishop, R.C., 1993, The role of question order and respondent experience in contingent valuation studies[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 95: 80-90.
[18] Boyle, K.J., Desvousges, W.H., Reed Johnson, F., Dunford, R.W. and Hudson, S.P., 1994, An investigation of part-whole biases in contingent-valuation studies[J], Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 27: 64-83.
[19] Boyle, K.J., Johnson, F.R., McCollum, D.W., Desvousges, W.H., Dunford, R. and Hudson, S. 1996, Valuing public goods: discrete versus continuous contingent-valuation responses[J]. Land Economics, 72: 381-396.
[20] Boyle, K.J., Bishop, R., Hellerstein, D., Welsh, M.P., Ahearn, M.C. and Laughland, A., Charbonneau, J., O'Conner, R., 1998, Test of scope in contingent-valuation studies: are the numbers for the birds[R]. In: Paper Presented at The World Congress of Environmental and Resource Economists (AERE/EAERE), Venice, Italy, June 25-27.
[21] Briscoe, J., de Castro, P.F., Griffin, C., North, J. and Olsen, O., 1990, Toward equitable and sustainable rural water supplies: a contingent valuation study in Brazil[J]. The World Bank Economic Review, 4:115-134.
[22] Brookshire, D.S., Thayer, M.A., Schulze, W.P. and d'Arge R.C., 1982, Valuing public goods: a comparison of survey and hedonic approach[J]. American Economic Review, 72: 165-176.
[23] Brookshire, D.S. and Coursey, D.L., 1987, Measuring the value of a public good: an empirical comparison of elicitation procedures[J]. American Economic Review, 77: 554- 566.
[24] Brouwer, R., Bateman, I.J., 2005, The temporal stability and transferability of models of willingness to pay for flood control and wetland conservation[J]. Water Resources Research, 41 (3), W03017.
[25] Brouwer, R., 2006, Do stated p reference methods stand the test of time? A test of the stability of contingent values and models for health risks when facing an extreme event[J]. Ecological Economics, 60: 399-406.
[26] Caldwell, B.J., 1994, Beyond Positivism: Economic Methodology in the 20th Century[M]. Routledge, New York, London.
[27] Carmon, Z., Ariely, D. 2000, Focusing on the foregone: How value can appear so different to buyers and sellers[J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(3): 360-370.
[28] Cameron, T.A. and Quiggin, J., 1994, Estimation using contingent valuation data from a dichotomous choice with follow-up' questionnaire [J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 27: 218-234.
[29] Cameron, T.A., Poe, G.L., Ethier, R.G. and Schulze, W.D., 2002, Alternative non-market value-elicitation methods: are the underlying preferences the same?[J] Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 44: 391-425.
[30] Carson, R.T., Hanemann, W.M., Kopp, R.J., Krosnick, J.A., Mitchell, R.C., Presser, S., Ruud, P.A., Smith, V.K., Conaway, M., Martin, K.,1997. Temporal reliability of estimates from contingent valuation[J]. Land Economics 73 (2): 151-163.
[31] Carson, R.T., 1997, Contingent valuation surveys and tests of insensitivity to scope[A], in Kopp, R.J., Pommerehne, W.W. and Schwarz, N. (eds.), Determining the Value of Non-Marketed Goods: Economic, Psychological, and Policy Relevant Aspects of Contingent Valuation Methods[M]. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston. 127-163.
[32] Carson, R.T., Hanemann, W.M. and Mitchell, R.C., 1987, The use of simulated political markets to value public goods[R]. Discussion Paper 87-7. Department of Economics, University of California, San Diego.
[33] Carson, R.T., Flores, N.E. and Meade, N.F., 2001, Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence[J]. Environmental and Resource Economics, 19:173-210.
[34] Carson, R.T., Flores, N.E. and Hanemann, W.M., 1998, Sequencing and valuing public goods[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 36: 314-323.
[35] Carson, R.T., Flores, N.E., Martin, K.M. and Wright, J.L., 1996, Contingent valuation and revealed preference methodologies: Comparing the estimates for quasi-public goods[J]. Land Economics, 72 (1): 80-99.
[36] Carson, R.T. and Mitchell, R.C., 1994, Sequencing and nesting in contingent valuation surveys[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 28 (2): 155-173.
[37] Carson, R.T., Mitchell, R.C., Hanemann, M., et al, 2003, Contingent Valuation and Lost Passive Use: Damages from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill[J]. Environmental and Resource Economics, 25: 257-286.
[38] Carson, R.T., Mitchell, R.C., 1993, The Value of Clean Water: the Public's Willingness to Pay for Boatable, Fishable and Swimmable Quality Water[J]. Water Resources Research, 29: 2445-2454.
[39] Carson, R.T., Hanemann, W., 2005, Contingent Valuation -Handbook of Environment Economics[M]. Elsevier, 824-826.
[40] Carson, R.T., Mi, Onaway, B.C., Hanemann, M., et al, 2003, Valuing oil Spill Prevention: A Case Study of California's Central Coast[J]. Boston: Kluwer Academic Press.
[41] Carson, R.T, Groves, T., 2007, Incentive and informational properties of preference questions[J]. Environ Resource Econ, 37:181-210.
[42] Champ, P.A., Bishop, R.C., Brown, T.C. and McCollum, D.W., 1997, Using donation mechanisms to value nonuse benefits from public goods[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 33:151 - 162.
[43] Champ, P.A. and Bishop, R.C., 2001, Donation payment mechanisms and contingent valuation: an empirical study of hypothetical bias[J]. Environmental and Resource Economics, 19 (4): 383-402.
[44] Choe K.A., Whittington, D. and Lauria, D.T. 1996, The economic benefits of surface water quality improvements in developing countries: a case study of Davao[J], Philippines. Land Economics, 72:107-126.
[45] Costanza R, d Arge R, de-Groot R, et ai, 1997, The value of the worlds ecosystem services and natural capital[J]. Nature, 386(6630): 253-260
[46] Cummings, R.G. and Harrison, G.W., 1994, Was the Ohio court well informed in its assessment of the accuracy of the contingent valuation method?[J] Natural Resource Journal, 34:1-36.
[47] Cummings, R.G. and Harrison, G.W., 1995a, The measurement and decomposition of nonuse values: a critical review[J]. Environmental and Resource Economics, 5: 225-247.
[48] Cummings, R.G., Harrison, G.W. and Rutstr¨om, E.E., 1995b, Homegrown values and hypothetical surveys: is the dichotomous choice approach incentive compatible?[J] American Economic Review, 85: 260-266.
[49] Davis, R., 1963, The value of outdoor recreation: an economic study of the marine woods. [D] Ph.D. Thesis.Boston: Harvard University.
[50] Day, B. and Mourato, S., 1998, Willingness to pay for Water Quality Improvements in Chinese Rivers: Evidence from a Contingent Valuation Survey in the Beijing Area -CSERGE Working Paper 98-01[R]. London: Center for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, University of East Anglia and University College London, 1-78.
[51] Desvousges, W.H., Hudson, S.P. and Ruby, M.C., 1996, Evaluating CV performance: Separating the light from the heat[A]. In: Bjornstad, J., Kahn, J.R. (Eds.), The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resources: Methodological Issues and Research Needs[M]. Brookfield, Vt. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.
[52] Desvousges, W.H., Johnson, F.R., Dunford, R.W., Boyle, K.J., Hudson, S.P. and Wilson, N., 1993, Measuring natural resource damages with contingent valuation: tests of validity and reliability[A]. In: Hausman JA, editor. Contingent valuation: a critical assessment[M]. Amsterdam: North Holland, 91-159.
[53] Diamond, P.A. and Hausman, J.A., 1994, Contingent valuation: Is some number better than no number? [J] Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8 (4): 45-64.
[54] Dong, H., Kouyateb, B., Cairnsc, J., Sauerborna, R., 2003, A comparison of the reliability of the take-it-or-leave-it and the bidding game approaches to estimating willingness-to-pay in a rural population in West Africa[J]. Social Science &Medicine, 56: 2181-2189.
[55] Douglas, M., 2006, Contingent valuation: Environmental polling or preference engine?[J] Ecological Economics, 60 (1): 299-307.
[56] Downing, M. and Ozuna, J.T., 1996, Testing the reliability of the benefit function transfer approach[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 30: 316-322.
[57] Duffield, J.W. and Patterson, D.A., 1991, Field testing existence values: an instream flow trust fund for Montana rivers[R]. In: Paper Presented at the AERE Contributed Paper Session: Valuing Environmental Goods with Contingent Valuation, Allied Social Science Association Annual Meeting, New Orleans, January 4.
[58] Faber, M., Petersen, T. and Schiller, J., 2002, Homo economics and homo politics in ecological economics[J]. Ecological Economics, 40: 323-333.
[59] Freeman, M.A. III, 1993, The measurement of environmental and resource values[M]. Washington, DC: Resource for the Future.
[60] Green, D., Jacowitz, K.E. , Kahneman, D., et al, 1998 ,Referendum contingent valuation, anchoring and willingness to pay for public goods[J]. Resource and Energy Economics, 20 : 85-116.
[61] Gregory, R., Lichtenstein, S. and Slovic, P., 1993, Valuing environmental resources: A constructive approach[J]. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 7:177-197.
[62] Griffin, C.C., Briscoe, J., Singh, B., Ramasubban, R. and Bhatia, R., 1995, Contingent valuation and actual behavior: predicting connections to new water systems in the state of Kerala, India[J]. The World Bank Economic Review, 9: 373-395.
[63] Gyldmark, M. and Gwendolyn, M.C., 2001, Demand for health care in Denmark: results of a national sample survey using contingent valuation [J]. Social Science & Medicine, 53: 1023-1036.
[64] Hammack J, Brown G. 1976. Waterfowl and Wetlands: Toward Bioeconomic Analysis[M ]. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press
[65] Hammitt, J.K. and Graham, J.D., 1999, Willingness to pay for health protection: inadequate sensitivity to probability?[J] Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 18: 33-62.
[66] Hanemann, W.M., 1984, Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses[J]. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66(3): 332-341.
[67] Hanemann, W.M., 1991, Willingness to pay and willingness to accept: how much can they differ?[J] American Economic Review, 81: 635-647.
[68] Hanemann, W.M., 1994, Valuing the Environment Through Contingent Valuation[J]. Journal of Economic Perspectives , 8 (4): 19-25.
[69] Hanemann, M.W. and Kanninen, B., 1999, The statistical analysis of discrete-response CV data[A]. In: Bateman, I.J., Willis, K.G., editors. Valuing environmental preferences[M]. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press; 302-441.
[70] Hanley, N. and Milne, J., 1996, Ethical beliefs and behavior in contingent valuation surveys[J]. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 39 (2): 255-272.
[71] Hanley, N., MacMillan, D., Wright, R.E., Bullock, C., Simpson, I., Parisson, D. and Crabtree, B., 1998, Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: estimating the benefits of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland[J]. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 49 (1): 1-15.
[72] Hanley, N. and Munro, A., 1991, Design Bias in Contingent Valuation Studies: The Impact of Information[J]. Department of Economics, University of Stirling, Mimeo, Scotland.
[73] Hanley, N., Spash, C. and Walker, L., 1995, Problems in valuing the benefits of biodiversity protection[J]. Environmental and Resource Economics, 5: 249-272.
[74] Harrison, G. W., 1992, Valuing public goods with the contingent valuation method: a critique of Kahneman and Knetsch[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 23: 248-257.
[75] Hausman, J.A., editor, 1993, Contingent valuation: a critical assessment[M]. Amsterdam: North Holland.
[76] Hicks, J.R., (1941). The rehabilitation of consumer's surplus[J]. Review of economics Studies, 8:108-116.
[77] Hicks, J.R., 1943. The four consumers' surplus[J]. Review of Economics Studies, 11:31- 41.
[78] Hoehn, J.P. and Randall, A., 1987, A satisfactory benefit cost indicator from contingent valuation[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 14: 226-247.
[79] Hoehn, J.P. and Randall, A., 1989, Too many proposals pass the benefit cost test[J]. American Economic Review, 79: 544-551.
[80] Hoehn, J.P., 1991, Valuing the multidimensional impacts of environmental policy: theory and methods[J]. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 73: 289-299.
[81] Horowitz J K, McConnell ICE., 2002, A review of WTA/WTP studies[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 44: 426-447.
[82] Johansson, P.O., 1992, Altruism in cost-benefit analysis[J]. Environmental and Resource Economics, 2: 605-613.
[83] Johannesson, M., Liljas, B. and Johansson, P.O., 1998, An experimental comparison of dichotomous choice contingent valuation and real purchase decisions[J]. Applied Economics, 30: 643-647.
[84] John, K.H., Walsh, R.G. and Moore, C.G., 1992, Comparison of alternative nonmarket valuation methods for an economic assessment of a public program[J]. Ecological Economics, 5:179-196.
[85] Kahneman, D. and Knestch, J.L., 1992, Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 22: 57-70.
[86] Kanninen, B.J., 1993, Optimal experimental design for double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation[J]. Land Economics, 69:138-146.
[87] Kahneman, D., 1986, The review panel assessment: comment[A]. In: Cummings, R.G., Brookshire, D.S. and Schulze, W.D.(Eds.), Valuing Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method[M]. Rowman & Allanheld, Totowa, NJ.
[88] Kealy, M.J., Turner, R.W., 1993, A test of the equality of closed-ended and open-ended contingent valuations[J]. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 75: 321-331.
[89] Kirchhoff, S., Colby, B.G. and LaFrance, J.T., 1997, Evaluating performance of benefit transfer: an empirical enquiry[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 33: 75-93.
[90] Kopp, R.J., 1992, Why existence value should be included in cost-benefit analysis[J]. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 11 (1): 123-130.
[91] Kristrom, B., 1997, Spike models in contingent valuation[J]. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 79 (3): 1013-1023.
[92] Lockwood, M., 1996, Non-compensatory preference structures in non-market valuation of natural area policy[J]. Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 40: 85-101.
[93] Lockwood, M., 1999, Preference structures, property rights, and paired comparisons[J]. Environmental and Resource Economics, 13:107-122.
[94] Loomis, J.B., 1990, Comparative reliability of the dichotomous choice and open-ended contingent valuation techniques[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 18: 78-85.
[95] Loomis, J.B., Gonzalez-Caban, A. and Gregory, R., 1994, Do remainders of substitutes and budget constraints influence contingent valuation estimates? [J] Land Economics, 70: 499- 506.
[96] Loomis J., 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[J], Ecological Economics 2000,33:103-117
[97] McConnell, K.E., Strand, I.E. and Valdes, S., 1998, Testing temporal reliability and carryover effect: the role of correlated responses in test - retest reliability studies[J]. Environmental and Resource Economics, 12, 357-374.
[98] Milgrom, P.R., 1993, Is sympathy an economic value? Philosophy, economics, and the contingent valuation method[A]. In: Hausman, J.A. (Ed.), Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment. North-Holland[M] / Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, 417-442.
[99] Mitchell, R.C. and Carson, R.T., 1984, A contingent valuation estimate of national freshwater benefits: technical report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency[M]. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
[100] Mitchell, R.C. and Carson, R.T., 1989, Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method[M]. Resources for Future, Washington, DC, 85-102.
[101] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1993, Report of the NOAA Panel on contingent valuation[R]. Federal Register, 58: 4602-4614.
[102] Ng, Y.K., 2003, From preference to happiness: towards a more complete welfare economics[J]. Social Choice and Welfare, 20 (2): 307-350.
[103] Nyborg, K., 2000, Homo economics and homo politics: interpretation and aggregation of environmental values[J]. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 42:305-322.
[104] Poe, G.L., Clark, J.E., Rondeau, D. and Schulze, W.D., 2002, Provision point mechanisms and field validity tests of contingent valuation[J]. Environmental and Resource Economics, 23:105-131.
[105] Randall, A. and Stoll, J.R., 1980, Consumer's surplus in commodity space[J]. American Economic Review, 70: 449-457.
[106] Randall, A. and Hoehn, J.P., 1996, Embedding in market demand system[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 30: 369-380.
[107] Randall,A., Hoehn, J.P. and Tolley, G.S., 1981, the structure of contingent markets: some empirical results[R], paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association, Washington DC.
[108] Rondeau, D., Schulze, W.D. and Poe, G.L., 1999, Voluntary revelation of the demand for public goods using a provision point mechanism[J]. Journal of Public Economics, 72 (3): 455-470.
[109] Ready, R.C., Buzby, J.C. and Hu, D., 1996, Differences between continuous and discrete contingent value estimates[J]. Land Economics, 72: 397-411.
[110] Rollins, K.S. and Lyke, A.J., 1998, The case for diminishing marginal existence values[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 36: 324-344.
[111] Rose, S.K., Clark, J., Poe, G.L., Rondeau, D., Schulze, W.D., 2002, Field and laboratory tests of a provision point mechanism[J]. Resource and Energy Economics, 24:131-155.
[112] Samuelson, P., 1948, Consumption theory in terms of revealed preference[J]. Economica, 15: 243-253.
[113] Sen, A., 1979, Personal utilities and public judgements: or what's wrong with welfare economics[J]. Economic Journal, 89: 537-558.
[114] Schulze, W.D., d'Arge, R.C. and Brookshire, D.S., 1981, Valuing environmental commodities: some recent experiments[J]. Land Economics, 57:151-169.
[115] Schulze, W.D., McClelland, G., Waldman, D. and Lazo, J., 1996, Sources of bias in contingent valuation[A]. In: Bjornstad DJ, Kahn JR, editors. The contingent valuation of environmental resources: methodological issues and research needs[M]. Brookfield: Edward Elgar, 97-116.
[116] Shogren, J.F., Shin, S.Y., Hayes, D.J. and Klieberstein, J.B., 1994, Resolving difference in willingness to pay and willingness to accept[J]. American Economic Review, 84: 255-270.
[117] Smith, V.K., 1993, Nonmarket valuation of environmental resources: an interpretative appraisal[J]. Land Economics, 69:1-26.
[118] Solow, R.M., 1997, How did economics get that way and what way did it get? [J] Daedalus, 126 (1): 39-58.
[119] Spash, C.L. and Hanley, N., 1995, Preferences, information and biodiversity preservation[J]. Ecological Economics, 12:191 - 208.
[120] Spash, C.L., 2000, Ethical motives and charitable contributions in contingent valuation: empirical evidence from social psychology and economics[J]. Environmental Values, 9: 453-479.
[121] Stevens, T.H., Echeverr'ia, J., Glass, R.J., Hager, T. and More, T.A., 1991, Measuring the existence value of wildlife: what do CVM estimates really show? [J] Land Economics, 67 (4): 390-400.
[122] Svedsater, H., 2000, Contingent valuation of global environmental resources: test of perfect and regular embedding[J]. Journal of Economic Psychology, 21: 605-623.
[123] Thomas C. B. 2005, Loss aversion without the endowment effect, and other explanations for the WTA-WTP disparity[J]. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 57: 367- 379.
[124] Varian, H.R., 1992, Microeconomic Analysis[M], 3rd ed. Norton and Company Inc., New York.
[125] Vatn, A. and Bromley, D.W., 1994, Choices without prices without apologies[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 26:129-148.
[126] Vatn, A., 2004, Environmental valuation and rationality [J]. Land Economics, 80 (1): 1-18.
[127] Veisten, K., Hoen, H.F., Navrud, S. and Strand, J., 2004, Scope insensitivity in contingent valuation of complex environmental amenities[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 73 (4): 317-331.
[128] Veisten, K., 2007, Contingent valuation controversies: Philosophic debates about economic theory[J]. Journal of Socio-Economics, 36(2):204-232.
[129] Venkatachalam, L., 2004, The contingent valuation method: a review[J]. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24: 89-124.
[130] Whitehead, J.C. and Blomquist, G.C., 1990, Measuring contingent values for wetlands: effects of information about related environmental goods[R]. A Research Report.
[131] Whittington, D., Briscoe, J., Mu, X. and Barron, W., 1990, Estimating the willingness to pay for water services in developing countries: a case study of the contingent valuation in Southern Hait[J]i. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 38: 293-312.
[132] Whittington, D., Smith, V.K., Okorafor, A., Okore, A., Jin, Liu, L. and McPhail, A., 1992, Giving respondents time to think in contingent valuation studies: a developing country application[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 22: 205-225.
[133] Willig, R.D., 1976, Consumer's surplus without apology[J]. American Economic Review, 66: 589-597.
[134] Zhang Y.F., Meng W.H. and Zhang, L., 2007, Analysis of Effects on Residents' Demand for Urban Public Eco-System Services based on A Case Study[A]. In:The Proceeding of 2007 International Conference on wireless communications, Networking and Mobile Computing,WiCOM2007[C].2007,09:5040-5044.
[135]Zhang,Y.Q.and Li,Y.Q.,2005,Valuing or pricing natural and environmental resources[J]?Environmental Science and policy,8:179-186.
[1]曹建华,郭小鹏.意愿调查法在评价森林资源环境价值上的运用[J].江西农业大学学报(自然科学版),2002,24(5):645-648.
[2]曹辉,陈平留.森林景观资产评估CVM研究[J].福建林学院学报,2003,23(1):48-52.
[3]陈琳,欧阳志云,等.条件价值评估法在非市场价值评估中的应用[J].生态学报,2006,26(2):610-619.
[4]陈琳,欧阳志云,段晓男,等.中国野生动物资源保护的经济价值评估--以北京市居民的支付意愿研究为例[J].资源科学,2006,28(4):131-137.
[5]崔丽娟.潘阳湖湿地生态系统服务功能价值评估研究[J].生态学杂志,2004,23(4):47-51.
[6]杜亚平.改善东湖水质的经济分析.生态经济[J],1996,(6):15-21.
[7]戴星翼,俞厚未,董梅.生态服务的价值实现[M].北京:科学出版社,2005.
[8]郭剑英,王乃昂.敦煌旅游资源非使用价值评估[J],资源科学.2005,27(5):187-192.
[9]郭淑敏,刘光栋,陈印军,等.都市型农业土地利用面源污染环保意识和支付意愿研究.生态环境[J].2005,14(4):514-517
[10]国务院人口普查办公室、国家统计局人口和社会科技统计司:《2000人口普查分县资料》.中国统计出版社,2003.
[11]伍德里奇.计量经济学导论:现代观点[M].2003,中国人民大学出版社:396-400.
[12]金建君,王志石.澳门固体废物管理的经济价值评估--选择试验模型法和条件价值法的比较[J].中国环境科学,2005,25(6):751-755.
[13]金建君,王志石.澳门改善固体废弃物管理的总经济价值评估[J].中国人口资源环境,2005,15(6):122-125.
[14]Kevin Chen,等.对中国消费者非转基因菜油支付意愿的研究[J].浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),2004,34(3):53-61.
[15]李喜霞吕杰.辽东地区公益林保护的公众支付意愿调查及影响因素分析.沈阳农业大学学报(社会科学版).2006,8(2):190-192.
[16]李金平,王志石.空气污染损害价值的WTP、WTA对比研究[J].地球科学进展.2006,21(3):250-255.
[17]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[J],中国农村经济,2005,05:55-60.
[18]梁勇,成升魁,闵庆文,马冬梅.居民对改善城市水环境支付意愿的研究[J],水利学报,2005,36(5):613-618.
[19]李莹,白墨,张巍,等.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[J]. 中国人口资源与环境,2002,12(6):123-126
[20]刘岩,张大柱,陈吉宁,等.滇池流域农业非点源污染治理的收费政策研究[J].厦门大学学报(自然科学版),2003,42(6):787-790.
[21]林逢春,陈静.条件价值评估法在上海城市轨道交通社会效益评估中的应用研究[J].华东师范大学学报,37(1):48-53.
[22]鲁春霞,谢高地,成升魁.河流生态系统的休闲娱乐及其价值评估[J].资源科学,2001,23(5):77-80.
[23]马中.环境与白然资源经济学概论[M].北京:高等教育出版社,1999.
[24]牛军让,刘仓,侯军岐.用意愿调查法评估都市农业游憩价值--以杨凌国家农业高新产业园区都市农业建设为例[J].中国农业科技导报,2005,7(6):72-76
[25]欧阳志云,王如松,赵景柱.生态系统服务功能及其生态经济价值评价[J].应用生态学报,1999a,10(5):635-640.
[26]欧阳志云,王效科,苗鸿.中国陆地生态系统服务功能及其生态经济价值的初步研究[J].生态学报,1999b,19(5):607-613.
[27]上海市统计局.上海统计年鉴-2006[M].北京:中国统计出版社,2007.
[28]王寿兵,王平建,胡泽原,等.用意愿评估法评价生态系统景观服务价值--以上海苏州河为实例[J].复旦大学学报.2003,42(3):463-467.
[29]谢高地,张钇锂,鲁春霞,等.中国自然草地生态系统服务价值[J].自然资源学报,2001,16(1):47-53.
[30]辛琨,肖笃宁.盘锦地区湿地生态系统服务功能价值估算[J].生态学报,2002,22(8):1345-1349.
[31]徐慧,蒋明康,钱谊,等.鹞落坪自然保护区非使用价值的评估[J].农村生态环境,2004,20(4):1-5.
[32]徐中民,张志强,程国栋,等.额济纳旗生态系统服务的总经济价值评估[J].地理学报,2002,57(1):107-116.
[33]徐中民,张志强,龙爱华,等.额济纳旗生态系统服务恢复价值评估方法的比较和应用[J].生态学报,2003,23(9):1841-1850.
[34]徐中民,张志强,苏志勇,等.恢复额济纳旗生态系统的总经济价值--条件估值非参数估计方法的应用[J].冰川冻土,2002,24(2):160-167.
[35]徐中民,张志强,程国栋.生态经济学:理论方法与应用[M].郑州:黄河水利出版社,2003.172-195.
[36]徐中民,张志强,程国栋,等.运用信息熵理论研究条件估值调查中的抽样问题[J].系统工程理论与实践,2003,3:129-132.
[37]徐中民,张志强,龙爱华,等.额济纳旗生态系统服务恢复价值评估方法的比较与应用.生态学报,2003,23(9):1841-1850.
[38]薛达元,包浩生,李文华.长白山自然保护区森林生态系统非使用价值评估[J]中国环境科学,1999,19(3):247-252.
[39]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): 141-143.
[40]杨开忠,白墨,李莹,等.关于意愿调查价值评估法在我国环境领域应用的可行性探讨--以北京市居民支付意愿研究为例[J].地球科学进展,2002,17(3):420-425.
[41]赵军,杨凯.上海城市内河生态系统服务的条件价值评估[J].环境科学研究,2004,17(2):49-52.
[42]赵军,杨凯,邰俊,等.上海城市河流生态系统服务的支付意愿[J].环境科学,2005,26(2):5-10.
[43]赵军.生态系统服务的条件价值评估:理论、方法与应用[D].上海:华东师范大学,2005,35-37.64-66.
[44]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.
[45]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.
[46]张俊杰,张悦,等.居民对再生水的支付意愿及其影响因素[J].中国给水排水,2003,19:96-98.
[47]张明军,范建峰,虎陈霞,等.兰州市改替大气环境质量的总经济价值评估[J].干早区资源与环境,2004,18(3):28-32.
[48]张茵.自然保护区生态旅游资源的价值评估-以九寨沟自然保护区为例[D].北京:北京大学,2004.
[49]张琦,陈兴宝.条件价值法在菌痢疫苗支付意愿研究中的应用[J].中国药房,2004,15(3):161-163.
[50]张志强,徐中民,程国栋.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.
[51]张志强,徐中民,龙爱华,等.黑河流域张掖市生态系统服务恢复价值评估研究--连续型和离散型条件价值评估方法的比较应用[J].自然资源学报,2004,19(2):230-239.
[52]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.2007,24(10):4301-4309.
[53]张翼飞.居民对生态环境改善的支付意愿与受偿意愿差异分析[J].西北人口,2008(4).(收录,刊期已定).
[54]张翼飞,刘宇辉.城市景观河流生态修复的产出研究及有效性可靠性检验[J].中国地质大学学报(社会科学版),2007a,7(2):39-44.
[55]张翼飞.居民对城市景观河流生态服务的支付意愿与有效需求研究--基于CVM应用的有效性实证分析[J].中国人口、资源与环境,2007b,17(1):66-69.
[56]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研究综述与实例设计研究[J].地球科学进展.2007c,11:1141-1149.
[57]张翼飞.城市地表水生态服务的居民需求研究与影响因素偏效应测度[J].城市问题,2008(3):72-77.
[58]张翼飞.CVM评估生态服务价值的经济有效性可靠性理论述评[J].生态经济.2007d, (6):34-37.
[59]赵敏华,李国平.效益转移法评估石油开发中跨区域环境价值损失的实证研究[J].系统工程,.2006,24(10):78-81.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |