空气污染防治的支付意愿影响因素分析:以粤港澳大湾区九城市为例
|
摘要
产业转型升级阶段,公众对环境污染防治的支付意愿是一个亟待深入研究的课题。推动粤港澳大湾区经济绿色发展,需有关各方协同努力,居民主体是一个基本的力量。城市居民对空气污染防治的支付意愿及其影响因素如何作用?以粤港澳大湾区中九个城市的居民调查为样本,将区域经济发展特征和环境质量指标纳入分析框架,通过Ordered Probit回归方法对影响居民空气污染防治支付意愿的不同因素进行探讨。结果表明,人均GDP和人均可支配收入、产业结构布局和升级状况,以及居民的本地居住时间、年龄、个人收入、对空气污染严重程度的认知判断以及性别等显著影响居民支付意愿。本地居住时间越长、年龄越大、认为空气污染越严重、个人月收入越高的男性,越愿意支付空气污染治理费用。但学历、体育锻炼方式、污染致病信息的掌握程度以及空气质量达标天数均没有显著影响。最后提出改善当前空气污染防治效率和提高居民支付意愿的对策建议,包括发展绿色产业、增强居民支付能力、提高环境质量信息透明度、出台普惠性的疾病预防方案与措施等。
Residences' Willingness-to-Pay( WTP) for prevention from environmental pollution is a topic worth intensively researching at the stage of industrial transform and upgrading. Various parties are required to participate in the process of promoting the green economic development in Guangdong-HongKong-Macao Greater Bay Area. Research on basic level of local residence's WTP and those factors behind WTP is of vital importance. By focusing on 1200 questionnaires conducted to residents in nine cities within the Guangdong-HongKong-Macao Greater Bay Area region,this paper employs ordered probit and analyzes various factors behind residents' Willingness-To-Pay( WTP) on mitigating air pollution,and first takes indexes of regional economic development characteristic and environment quality into account. The result shows that some macroeconomic indexes,such as higher per capita GDP and better and more advanced industrial structure,the time of living locally,gender,personal income,age and recognition on the degree to which air is polluted have significant effects. Those who live longer locally,are older,with the perception that air pollution is much more serious,high salary and male will pay more for good air quality. Degree,the way of exercise and proportion of days of air quality reaching the standard don't have significant effects. At last some conclusion and suggestion are given on improving the efficiency of air pollution treatment and raise residents' WTP.
Residences' Willingness-to-Pay( WTP) for prevention from environmental pollution is a topic worth intensively researching at the stage of industrial transform and upgrading. Various parties are required to participate in the process of promoting the green economic development in Guangdong-HongKong-Macao Greater Bay Area. Research on basic level of local residence's WTP and those factors behind WTP is of vital importance. By focusing on 1200 questionnaires conducted to residents in nine cities within the Guangdong-HongKong-Macao Greater Bay Area region,this paper employs ordered probit and analyzes various factors behind residents' Willingness-To-Pay( WTP) on mitigating air pollution,and first takes indexes of regional economic development characteristic and environment quality into account. The result shows that some macroeconomic indexes,such as higher per capita GDP and better and more advanced industrial structure,the time of living locally,gender,personal income,age and recognition on the degree to which air is polluted have significant effects. Those who live longer locally,are older,with the perception that air pollution is much more serious,high salary and male will pay more for good air quality. Degree,the way of exercise and proportion of days of air quality reaching the standard don't have significant effects. At last some conclusion and suggestion are given on improving the efficiency of air pollution treatment and raise residents' WTP.
引文
[1]Adaman,F.,Karali,N.,Kumbarogˇlu,G.,et al..What Determines Urban Households'Willingness to Pay for CO2Emission Reductions in Turkey:A Contingent Valuation Survey[J].Energy Policy,2011,39(2):689-698.
[2]Aklin,M.,Bayer,P.,Harish,P.,et al..Understanding Environmental Policy Preferences:New Evidence from Brazil[J].Ecological Economics,2013,94:28-36.
[3]Borick,C.P.,Lachapelle,E.,Rabe,B.G..Climate Compared:Public Opinion on Climate Change in the United States and Canada[J].Social Science Electronic Publishing,2013,39:1-13.
[4]Lee,J.J.,Cameron,T.A..Popular Support for Climate Change Mitigation:Evidence from a General Population Mail Survey[J].Environmental and Resource Economics,2008,41(2):223-248.
[5]Aldy,J.E.,Kotchen,M.J.,Leiserowitz,A.A..Willingness to Pay and Political Support for a US National Clean Energy Standard[J].Nature Climate Change,2012,2(8):596-599.
[6]De Silva,D.G.,Pownall,A.J..Going Green:Does It Depend on Education,Gender or Income[J].Applied Economics,2014,46(5):573-586.
[7]Carlsson,F.,Kataria,M.,Krupnick,A.,et al..Paying for Mitigation:A Multiple Country Study[J].Land Economics,2012,88(2):326-340.
[8]Dienes,C..Actions and Intentions to Pay for Climate Change Mitigation:Environmental Concern and the Role of Economic Factors[J].Ecological Economics,2015,109(1):122-129.
[9]Winden,M.,Jamelske,E.,Tvinnereim,E..A Contingent Valuation Study Comparing Citizen's Willingness-to-pay for Climate Change Mitigation in China and the United States[J].Environmental Economics and Policy Studies,2018,20(2):451-475.
[10]Hammitt,J.K.,Zhou,Y..The Economic Value of Air-pollution-related Health Risks in China:A Contingent Valuation Study[J].Environmental and Resource Economics,2006,33(3):399-423.
[11]Wang,H.,He,J..The Value of Statistical Life:A Contingent Investigation in China[EB/OL].(2010-10-19)[2018-10-30].World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No.5421,2010.Available at SSRN:https://ssrn.com/abstract=1678350.
[12]曾贤刚.我国城镇居民对CO2减排的支付意愿调查研究[J].中国环境科学,2011,31(2):346-352.
[13]曾贤刚,谢芳,宗佺.降低PM2.5健康风险的行为选择及支付意愿---以北京市居民为例[J].中国人口·资源与环境,2015,25(1):127-133.
[14]Duan,H.X.,Lu,Y.L.,Li,Y..Chinese Public's Willingness to Pay for CO2Emissions Reductions:A Case Study from Four Provinces/Cities[J].Advances in Climate Change Research,2014,5(2):100-110.
[15]Yang,J.,Zou,L.P.,Lin,T.S.,et al..Public Willingness to Pay for CO2Mitigation and the Determinants Under Climate Change:A Case Study of Suzhou,China[J].Journal of Environmental Management,2014,146(15):1-8.
[16]Li,Y.J.,Mu,X.Y.,Schiller,A.R.,et al..Willingness-to-pay for Climate Change Mitigation:Evidence from China[J].Energy Journal,2015,37(1).
[17]吴磊,郑君瑜.粤港区域大气环境管理创新机制研究[J].资源开发与市场,2016,(10):1172-1177.
[18]王玉明.粤港澳大湾区环境治理合作的回顾与展望[J].哈尔滨工业大学学报(社会科学版),2018,(1):117-126.
[19]干春晖,郑若谷,余典范.中国产业结构变迁对经济增长和波动的影响[J].经济研究,2011,(5):4-16.
[20]李逢春.对外直接投资的母国产业升级效应---来自中国省际面板的实证研究[J].国际贸易问题,2012,(6):124-134.
(1)本文的研究对象是空气污染造成的居民健康损害。
(1)Li et al(2015)[16]的研究关注到了区域差异可能对居民支付意愿产生影响,但研究结果表明区域差异并不显著。
(2)先在东莞地区进行预调研(预调研时间跨度较长,历时2个月左右),然后对预调研进行分析总结后(去除春节放假影响,中间间断1个月),再在其余8个城市进行大规模调研(正式大规模调研2018年3月份开始)。
(3)“请问您在本地居住了多长时间”和“请问您或您的户籍状况”。
(1)问卷中设定的收入类别为:1000元以下、1000至1999元、2000至2999元、3000至3999元、4000至4999元、5000至5999元、6000至6999元、7000至7999元、8000至9999元、10000至11999元、12000至13999元、14000至15999元、16000至17999元、18000至19999元、20000至24999元、25000至29999元、30000至39999元、40000元或以上等18个,分别赋值1-18。
(2)这里的本地居民实际上包含户籍的概念,3年和3年(含)以上意指外来居民以及城市务工人员。
(1)备选答案分别为“非常严重、比较严重、一般、不怎么严重、根本不严重、不知道/说不清”和“完全了解、基本了解、部分了解、完全不了解”,并赋予从1到6不等的值。
(2)在问卷中已明确标识假设支付的费用将会完全用于环保治理和疾病防控。
(1)已有的研究表明,人均GDP并不必然与人均可支配收入成正比,本文虽然对两者的反向影响给出一定的解释说明,但它们的影响路径比较复杂,可能与文章采用的方法或样本数据有关。这一问题值得进一步深入研究思考。
(2)生命存续的时间相对年轻人更短,因此享受的益处更少。
(3)由于赋值是从1到6,故表现出负向符号。与Aklin et al.(2013)[2]、Yang et al.(2014)[15]
(4)研究结论不同。
(5)例如政府披露的污染信息。
(6)掌握的空气污染严重性程度的信息。
(1)如选择100-500元,则回归因变量为300。
(2)从30岁增加到31-45岁,依次类推。
[2]Aklin,M.,Bayer,P.,Harish,P.,et al..Understanding Environmental Policy Preferences:New Evidence from Brazil[J].Ecological Economics,2013,94:28-36.
[3]Borick,C.P.,Lachapelle,E.,Rabe,B.G..Climate Compared:Public Opinion on Climate Change in the United States and Canada[J].Social Science Electronic Publishing,2013,39:1-13.
[4]Lee,J.J.,Cameron,T.A..Popular Support for Climate Change Mitigation:Evidence from a General Population Mail Survey[J].Environmental and Resource Economics,2008,41(2):223-248.
[5]Aldy,J.E.,Kotchen,M.J.,Leiserowitz,A.A..Willingness to Pay and Political Support for a US National Clean Energy Standard[J].Nature Climate Change,2012,2(8):596-599.
[6]De Silva,D.G.,Pownall,A.J..Going Green:Does It Depend on Education,Gender or Income[J].Applied Economics,2014,46(5):573-586.
[7]Carlsson,F.,Kataria,M.,Krupnick,A.,et al..Paying for Mitigation:A Multiple Country Study[J].Land Economics,2012,88(2):326-340.
[8]Dienes,C..Actions and Intentions to Pay for Climate Change Mitigation:Environmental Concern and the Role of Economic Factors[J].Ecological Economics,2015,109(1):122-129.
[9]Winden,M.,Jamelske,E.,Tvinnereim,E..A Contingent Valuation Study Comparing Citizen's Willingness-to-pay for Climate Change Mitigation in China and the United States[J].Environmental Economics and Policy Studies,2018,20(2):451-475.
[10]Hammitt,J.K.,Zhou,Y..The Economic Value of Air-pollution-related Health Risks in China:A Contingent Valuation Study[J].Environmental and Resource Economics,2006,33(3):399-423.
[11]Wang,H.,He,J..The Value of Statistical Life:A Contingent Investigation in China[EB/OL].(2010-10-19)[2018-10-30].World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No.5421,2010.Available at SSRN:https://ssrn.com/abstract=1678350.
[12]曾贤刚.我国城镇居民对CO2减排的支付意愿调查研究[J].中国环境科学,2011,31(2):346-352.
[13]曾贤刚,谢芳,宗佺.降低PM2.5健康风险的行为选择及支付意愿---以北京市居民为例[J].中国人口·资源与环境,2015,25(1):127-133.
[14]Duan,H.X.,Lu,Y.L.,Li,Y..Chinese Public's Willingness to Pay for CO2Emissions Reductions:A Case Study from Four Provinces/Cities[J].Advances in Climate Change Research,2014,5(2):100-110.
[15]Yang,J.,Zou,L.P.,Lin,T.S.,et al..Public Willingness to Pay for CO2Mitigation and the Determinants Under Climate Change:A Case Study of Suzhou,China[J].Journal of Environmental Management,2014,146(15):1-8.
[16]Li,Y.J.,Mu,X.Y.,Schiller,A.R.,et al..Willingness-to-pay for Climate Change Mitigation:Evidence from China[J].Energy Journal,2015,37(1).
[17]吴磊,郑君瑜.粤港区域大气环境管理创新机制研究[J].资源开发与市场,2016,(10):1172-1177.
[18]王玉明.粤港澳大湾区环境治理合作的回顾与展望[J].哈尔滨工业大学学报(社会科学版),2018,(1):117-126.
[19]干春晖,郑若谷,余典范.中国产业结构变迁对经济增长和波动的影响[J].经济研究,2011,(5):4-16.
[20]李逢春.对外直接投资的母国产业升级效应---来自中国省际面板的实证研究[J].国际贸易问题,2012,(6):124-134.
(1)本文的研究对象是空气污染造成的居民健康损害。
(1)Li et al(2015)[16]的研究关注到了区域差异可能对居民支付意愿产生影响,但研究结果表明区域差异并不显著。
(2)先在东莞地区进行预调研(预调研时间跨度较长,历时2个月左右),然后对预调研进行分析总结后(去除春节放假影响,中间间断1个月),再在其余8个城市进行大规模调研(正式大规模调研2018年3月份开始)。
(3)“请问您在本地居住了多长时间”和“请问您或您的户籍状况”。
(1)问卷中设定的收入类别为:1000元以下、1000至1999元、2000至2999元、3000至3999元、4000至4999元、5000至5999元、6000至6999元、7000至7999元、8000至9999元、10000至11999元、12000至13999元、14000至15999元、16000至17999元、18000至19999元、20000至24999元、25000至29999元、30000至39999元、40000元或以上等18个,分别赋值1-18。
(2)这里的本地居民实际上包含户籍的概念,3年和3年(含)以上意指外来居民以及城市务工人员。
(1)备选答案分别为“非常严重、比较严重、一般、不怎么严重、根本不严重、不知道/说不清”和“完全了解、基本了解、部分了解、完全不了解”,并赋予从1到6不等的值。
(2)在问卷中已明确标识假设支付的费用将会完全用于环保治理和疾病防控。
(1)已有的研究表明,人均GDP并不必然与人均可支配收入成正比,本文虽然对两者的反向影响给出一定的解释说明,但它们的影响路径比较复杂,可能与文章采用的方法或样本数据有关。这一问题值得进一步深入研究思考。
(2)生命存续的时间相对年轻人更短,因此享受的益处更少。
(3)由于赋值是从1到6,故表现出负向符号。与Aklin et al.(2013)[2]、Yang et al.(2014)[15]
(4)研究结论不同。
(5)例如政府披露的污染信息。
(6)掌握的空气污染严重性程度的信息。
(1)如选择100-500元,则回归因变量为300。
(2)从30岁增加到31-45岁,依次类推。
© 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 |