大气能见度价值评估方法与实证研究
|
摘要
环境经济学将环境资源包括环境质量界定为一种舒适性资源，对于舒适性资源的理论分析及其价值评估的研究，一直是环境经济学领域的重要学术前沿问题。
环境资源包括环境质量除具有为人类提供生产和生活的物质资料和能量、维持生态系统的功能外，良好的环境质量作为一种舒适性资源也是民众生活质量的重要组成部分，且一般而言，随着收入的提高，其重要性会愈加突出。大气能见度是一种典型的舒适性资源，除具有已经可被直观认识到的满足人们物质性的效用（例如适宜的能见度可以保证交通运输正常进行）之外，更重要的是良好的能见度可以为人们提供包括美学和心理等方面的舒适性服务。但目前针对能见度重要性的研究以及能见度下降/改善的损益评估，还基本上局限在直观的物质效用方面，鲜有针对能见度的舒适性价值进行系统研究的范例。
近年来中国特别是大城市民众的生活水平增速加快，基本物质生活得以满足，民众对环境质量的诉求日益提升。与此同时，我国城市和区域大气能见度却呈现持续和普遍下降的趋势，使得环境质量舒适性服务供给与需求的矛盾日渐尖锐，且良好的大气能见度的稀缺性特征逐渐凸显。近年来我国频发的雾霾事件（尤其是2013年1月份全国大范围出现的严重雾霾事件）则更使得能见度这个问题备受广泛的关注。
中国的经济、社会和环境正在并将继续经历快速而巨大的变化，人们对环境质量和生活品质的认识、理解和诉求也在不断地发展和变化。舒适性资源的价值将日益受到关注，对其区别于其它普通物质性资源的需求偏好特征的探索性研究，将对当前和未来环境质量的供求和管理提出新的思路和要求，也是环境经济学研究中的重要领域和前沿。
基于对舒适性资源特征与重要性的认识、现阶段大气能见度与民众生活质量关系的理解、相关方面的学术进展，论文将着重回答如下的学术问题：现阶段，大气能见度的舒适性特征及其重要性是否或者说在何种程度上被民众所认识、了解？其重要性（包括价值赋值）与哪些条件和因素相关？
为回答上述核心学术问题，论文在如下几个重要学术问题上进行研究和探讨：第一，现阶段，民众对大气能见度重要性的认识，以及因何而重要，主要是研究民众的认知及对“重要性”的判别；其次，民众是否在特定条件下愿意为其改善或防止其恶化进行支付，主要是借助价值评估方法，基于条件性设计，识别民众对能见度的价值赋值及其作出权衡的条件；第三，借助问卷和相关数据分析，进一步识别和讨论有哪些条件和因素影响民众的价值赋值/选择偏好。
为对上述学术问题进行分析，论文研究着重探讨和分析了如下的基本理论和方法问题：第一，能见度作为具有舒适性资源特点的载体，其社会-经济价值的分析和解读；第二，主要影响因素对能见度价值赋值的影响机理和方式的分析和讨论；第三，利用相关实证研究方法，定量评估能见度的价值赋值，并识别和分析/验证主要因素及其影响；第四，能见度价值评估具体方法的改进/深化、基于能见度改善或避免能见度恶化的价值赋值的异同及学术探讨、基于支付意愿和受偿意愿的价值赋值的异同及学术探讨等。
本文选题和研究的立意旨在探讨在我国当前社会经济发展阶段，人们对大气能见度这种舒适性资源的认识和选择的偏好特征，并针对环境价值评估中的关键学术问题和研究难点，基于规范的环境经济学理论和前沿，构建大气能见度价值评估的方法，力图识别影响大气能见度价值赋值的影响因素及其影响机理，在理论和实证研究上进行深入的学术探讨，研究的结论以及所揭示的问题，可为决策提供参考。
研究结果表明，（1）大气能见度在我国现阶段对人们的生产和生活造成了直接或间接的影响，对风景欣赏、心理情绪和交通出行等方面的影响都较为显著；（2）能见度作为舒适性资源其重要性已被大部分的民众所认识和了解，现阶段的人们对能见度的舒适性特征具有一定程度的感知和认识，并对大气能见度赋予了显著的价值，支付意愿均值约为363元/人年~576元/人年（中位数为100元/人年~200元/人年），受偿意愿均值约为2942元/人年（中位数为1000人年）；为改善能见度的支付意愿比为避免能见度恶化的支付意愿相对小，而支付意愿显著地小于对接受能见度恶化的补偿意愿；（3）人们对大气能见度的价值赋值主要受到他们对能见度的感知判断、环境意识、日常行为习惯和社会经济条件多方面因素的影响；其中相对较高的收入、男性、能见度年均值、对能见度好坏的深刻印象、主动查找空气质量信息、良好的日常环保行为习惯等因素对支付意愿具有显著的正的影响，而年龄则是显著的负影响；（4）大气能见度作为舒适性资源与物质性资源相比具有独特的需求偏好特征，在我国现阶段，人们对能见度的支付意愿并不是简单地随着收入的增加而增加，而是在一定的收入水平以下其需求偏好并不受收入因素的显著影响，而只有当收入达到较高水平后其需求偏好才受收入的显著影响并随收入增加而显著增加，表现出类似“奢侈品”的特点，可以预计未来随着我国人们收入的进一步增加，能见度这种舒适性资源的需求偏好将随着收入的增加而剧增。
研究结论具有重要的现实意义和政策意义：（1）基于能见度对人们产生的重要影响和人们对能见度赋予的显著价值，在环境质量控制和管理中，尤其是在空气质量政策的成本效益评估和研究中，应充分考虑能见度的影响，并尽可能对能见度的效益进行量化评估；（2）同时需要考虑人们对能见度的感知、判断和认识等方面的差异，考虑不同人群对能见度的偏好和需求特征，从而有助于更具针对性和实效性地制定和实施相关的政策措施；（3）我国舒适性资源的稀缺性日益凸显，而人们对能见度的需求偏好亦将随着收入的增长而急剧增加，未来能见度的重要性将会更加突出，决策者当前应尽早准备未来应对策略，保证大气能见度这类舒适性资源的供求平衡，从而更加全面地提高人们的生活质量。
In environmental economics, environmental resources including environmentalquality are categorized as amenity resources.Due to its importance to humanwelfare,the amenity resources theoretical study and valuation is an ongoing issue atthe academic frontier in the environmental economics area.
Environmental resources provide materials and energy for the production of good andservices that support the life of human beings, and to maintainthe flow of eco-systemservices. Besides to all these benefits, to enjoy a favorable environmental quality asone of the amenity resources.is an important component of people’s quality of life,and generally speaking, this importance will be more prominent as people’s incomeincreases. Atmospheric visibility, one of the representative amenity resources,provides for humans not only the obvious and well-recognized physicalutilities suchas safer transportation due to good visibility conditions, but also with amenity servicesrelated with aesthetics and psychology which are also important to consider. However,most of the studies on visibility,including studies on the importance and thecost-benefit of deterioration or improvement of visibility, are limited to researchaboutbenefits that are obvious and physical,until now onlyfew of them are focus onsystematically study and value the amenity service of atmospheric visibility.
Recently in China, people’s economic situation has been improved significantly,particularly in big cities;hence their demand for environmental quality is increasinggradually. But at the same time, the atmospheric visibility in most cities of China hasbeen continually and widely deterioratedthrough these years, resulting in both,anincreasingly acute contradiction for the supply and demand of amenity servicesfrom the favorable environment and an increasing scarcity of the favorable visibility.These years the atmospheric visibility problem draw the attention of differentstakeholders at different levels on the society especially because of its frequency ofoccurrence and increasing severity, as an example the world reported China’snational-wide haze incident during January2013.
With the fast and dramatic development of the economy, society and environment inChina, which is ongoing and continuing, people are developing and improving theirknowledge, understanding and requirementson high life quality, as it can be noticedthat the value of the amenity resources is an increasing concern. This exploratorystudy on the demand and preferences of the amenity resources instead of otherordinary physical resources puts forward new ideas and requests of environmentalquality managementnow and in the future, which is also an important research fieldand frontier of environmental economics.
Based on the knowledge of the traits and importance of the amenity resources, theunderstanding on the relationship between atmospheric visibility and human welfareinthe current stage of China’s economic development, and the related research progress,this thesis focuses on answering the following academic questions. To wit, whetherthe traits and importance of the amenity resources such as visibility can be analyzeand understood by publics as one of the important components of their quality of lifein the social-economic context of the up-to-date China? And which are the conditionalfactors or determinants of the importance of the visibility and the visibility valuation.
To answer the key questions, an innovative and exploratory work has been performedin this thesis as follows. First of all, I identifed and analyzed the awareness of theimportance of visibility for the publics and the reasons for that; In addition, I testedwhether people are willing to pay or willing to accept a compensation for changes invisibility in conditional scenarios, that is, I identified the conditional factors of public valuation of visibility and the trade-offs using valuation methods and scenario designs;Finally, I analyzed and discussed the determinants of public valuation andpreferencesfor the atmospheric visibility by using surveysto finally analyze theobtained data.
In respect to the analysis of the academic issues, I focusedthe thesis on the followingbasic theory and methodology. First, using the environmental economic theory Ielaborated and analyzed the socio-economic value of the visibility as a typicalamenity resource; Second, Iidentified and discussed the dominant factors for valuingvisibility and the related mechanisms; Third, I usedempirical methods toquantitatively estimate the value of visibility, and identifiedits main determinants andcorresponding effects; Last, I also contributed with some improvement on the specificmethodology for the valuation of visibility, and further study on other academic issuessuch as the similarities and differences between willingness to pay for visibilityimprovement and deterioration, or between willingness to pay and willingness toaccept for changes in visibility.
The purpose of this thesis study is to explore and study,in the China’s current context,the public awareness and preferencesabout atmospheric visibility as one of the typicalamenity resources. Aiming to include the key issues in the topic and reduce the impactof the research difficulties in environmental valuation and based on the latestadvances on the theory and research of environmental economics, I tried to apply theappropriate method to evaluate the atmospheric visibility in China and analyzed thedeterminants of visibility valuation and the related mechanismsusing a theoretical andempirical study. The results and implications of this thesis are beneficial providing abenchmark for policy analysis or decision making.
The main results are the following,
(1) At present, the majority of Beijing residents are affected to some extent by lowvisibility, these perceptions includereduced high quality scenery sight, moodchanges and unsafe feelings during the use of transportation.
(2) About70percent of the sample can perceived and understood the importance ofvisibility as an amenity resource and showed a positive WTP/WTA for changes in visibility. The mean WTP ranges from363RMB to576per capita year-1(themedian WTP ranges from100RMB to200RMB per capita year-1), and the meanWTA is about2942RBM per capita year-1(the median WTA is1000RMB percapitayear-1). The WTP for improvements in visibility is relatively less than theone for preventing reductions on visibility, while both WTP are significantly lessthan the WTA for reductions on visibility.
(3) People’s valuation on visibility mainly depends on their perception and judgmentof visibility, environmental awareness, habits and customs, and socio-economiccharacteristics. In the model the study used to find the significant drivers tovaluate visibility, the following variable’s coefficients tested significant andpositive: relative high income, gender (male), experience a higher annual visibilityduring their stay in Beijing, impression by good or poor visibility, searching for airquality initiative and environment-friendly life style and behaviors, while thecoefficient of age is significant and negative.
(4) Atmospheric visibility represents one of the typical amenity resources and showsdifferent demand characteristics thanthe ordinary environemental goods. InChina’s present economic development context, public value on visibility showedsimilar characteristics as “luxury goods”, the value is not simply increasing asindividual income increases, but also the significance of the income variable wasobserved in respondents with high income level while low income levelsrespondents showed a notsignificant explanatory value.
The policy implications and practical significance of this study are summarize asfollows,
(1) Basing on the significant effects and the value of the visibility to the public, weshould give sufficient consideration to the effects of visibility on human welfareand estimate quantitatively the benefits of improving the visibility through thecontrol and management of the environmental quality, this estimations can helppolicy makers especially in the cost benefit analysis of the air quality relatedpolicies;
(2) Meanwhile, we should take full account of various public perceptions, judgmentsand understandings of the visibility, and also different preferences anddemand of visibility for different sectors of the society, which may promotetargeted and effective policy making and implementation.
(3) As the scarcity of the amenity resources in China is becoming increasinglyimportant and public preferences and demand for visibility is dramatically risingwith the increase of income, the importance of the visibility will be even moresignificant in the future. So the decision makers should prepare a coping strategyas soon as possible, to keep the balance of the demand and supply of the amenityresources such as visibility, and to improve comprehensively the quality of life ofthe citizens.
环境资源包括环境质量除具有为人类提供生产和生活的物质资料和能量、维持生态系统的功能外，良好的环境质量作为一种舒适性资源也是民众生活质量的重要组成部分，且一般而言，随着收入的提高，其重要性会愈加突出。大气能见度是一种典型的舒适性资源，除具有已经可被直观认识到的满足人们物质性的效用（例如适宜的能见度可以保证交通运输正常进行）之外，更重要的是良好的能见度可以为人们提供包括美学和心理等方面的舒适性服务。但目前针对能见度重要性的研究以及能见度下降/改善的损益评估，还基本上局限在直观的物质效用方面，鲜有针对能见度的舒适性价值进行系统研究的范例。
近年来中国特别是大城市民众的生活水平增速加快，基本物质生活得以满足，民众对环境质量的诉求日益提升。与此同时，我国城市和区域大气能见度却呈现持续和普遍下降的趋势，使得环境质量舒适性服务供给与需求的矛盾日渐尖锐，且良好的大气能见度的稀缺性特征逐渐凸显。近年来我国频发的雾霾事件（尤其是2013年1月份全国大范围出现的严重雾霾事件）则更使得能见度这个问题备受广泛的关注。
中国的经济、社会和环境正在并将继续经历快速而巨大的变化，人们对环境质量和生活品质的认识、理解和诉求也在不断地发展和变化。舒适性资源的价值将日益受到关注，对其区别于其它普通物质性资源的需求偏好特征的探索性研究，将对当前和未来环境质量的供求和管理提出新的思路和要求，也是环境经济学研究中的重要领域和前沿。
基于对舒适性资源特征与重要性的认识、现阶段大气能见度与民众生活质量关系的理解、相关方面的学术进展，论文将着重回答如下的学术问题：现阶段，大气能见度的舒适性特征及其重要性是否或者说在何种程度上被民众所认识、了解？其重要性（包括价值赋值）与哪些条件和因素相关？
为回答上述核心学术问题，论文在如下几个重要学术问题上进行研究和探讨：第一，现阶段，民众对大气能见度重要性的认识，以及因何而重要，主要是研究民众的认知及对“重要性”的判别；其次，民众是否在特定条件下愿意为其改善或防止其恶化进行支付，主要是借助价值评估方法，基于条件性设计，识别民众对能见度的价值赋值及其作出权衡的条件；第三，借助问卷和相关数据分析，进一步识别和讨论有哪些条件和因素影响民众的价值赋值/选择偏好。
为对上述学术问题进行分析，论文研究着重探讨和分析了如下的基本理论和方法问题：第一，能见度作为具有舒适性资源特点的载体，其社会-经济价值的分析和解读；第二，主要影响因素对能见度价值赋值的影响机理和方式的分析和讨论；第三，利用相关实证研究方法，定量评估能见度的价值赋值，并识别和分析/验证主要因素及其影响；第四，能见度价值评估具体方法的改进/深化、基于能见度改善或避免能见度恶化的价值赋值的异同及学术探讨、基于支付意愿和受偿意愿的价值赋值的异同及学术探讨等。
本文选题和研究的立意旨在探讨在我国当前社会经济发展阶段，人们对大气能见度这种舒适性资源的认识和选择的偏好特征，并针对环境价值评估中的关键学术问题和研究难点，基于规范的环境经济学理论和前沿，构建大气能见度价值评估的方法，力图识别影响大气能见度价值赋值的影响因素及其影响机理，在理论和实证研究上进行深入的学术探讨，研究的结论以及所揭示的问题，可为决策提供参考。
研究结果表明，（1）大气能见度在我国现阶段对人们的生产和生活造成了直接或间接的影响，对风景欣赏、心理情绪和交通出行等方面的影响都较为显著；（2）能见度作为舒适性资源其重要性已被大部分的民众所认识和了解，现阶段的人们对能见度的舒适性特征具有一定程度的感知和认识，并对大气能见度赋予了显著的价值，支付意愿均值约为363元/人年~576元/人年（中位数为100元/人年~200元/人年），受偿意愿均值约为2942元/人年（中位数为1000人年）；为改善能见度的支付意愿比为避免能见度恶化的支付意愿相对小，而支付意愿显著地小于对接受能见度恶化的补偿意愿；（3）人们对大气能见度的价值赋值主要受到他们对能见度的感知判断、环境意识、日常行为习惯和社会经济条件多方面因素的影响；其中相对较高的收入、男性、能见度年均值、对能见度好坏的深刻印象、主动查找空气质量信息、良好的日常环保行为习惯等因素对支付意愿具有显著的正的影响，而年龄则是显著的负影响；（4）大气能见度作为舒适性资源与物质性资源相比具有独特的需求偏好特征，在我国现阶段，人们对能见度的支付意愿并不是简单地随着收入的增加而增加，而是在一定的收入水平以下其需求偏好并不受收入因素的显著影响，而只有当收入达到较高水平后其需求偏好才受收入的显著影响并随收入增加而显著增加，表现出类似“奢侈品”的特点，可以预计未来随着我国人们收入的进一步增加，能见度这种舒适性资源的需求偏好将随着收入的增加而剧增。
研究结论具有重要的现实意义和政策意义：（1）基于能见度对人们产生的重要影响和人们对能见度赋予的显著价值，在环境质量控制和管理中，尤其是在空气质量政策的成本效益评估和研究中，应充分考虑能见度的影响，并尽可能对能见度的效益进行量化评估；（2）同时需要考虑人们对能见度的感知、判断和认识等方面的差异，考虑不同人群对能见度的偏好和需求特征，从而有助于更具针对性和实效性地制定和实施相关的政策措施；（3）我国舒适性资源的稀缺性日益凸显，而人们对能见度的需求偏好亦将随着收入的增长而急剧增加，未来能见度的重要性将会更加突出，决策者当前应尽早准备未来应对策略，保证大气能见度这类舒适性资源的供求平衡，从而更加全面地提高人们的生活质量。
In environmental economics, environmental resources including environmentalquality are categorized as amenity resources.Due to its importance to humanwelfare,the amenity resources theoretical study and valuation is an ongoing issue atthe academic frontier in the environmental economics area.
Environmental resources provide materials and energy for the production of good andservices that support the life of human beings, and to maintainthe flow of eco-systemservices. Besides to all these benefits, to enjoy a favorable environmental quality asone of the amenity resources.is an important component of people’s quality of life,and generally speaking, this importance will be more prominent as people’s incomeincreases. Atmospheric visibility, one of the representative amenity resources,provides for humans not only the obvious and well-recognized physicalutilities suchas safer transportation due to good visibility conditions, but also with amenity servicesrelated with aesthetics and psychology which are also important to consider. However,most of the studies on visibility,including studies on the importance and thecost-benefit of deterioration or improvement of visibility, are limited to researchaboutbenefits that are obvious and physical,until now onlyfew of them are focus onsystematically study and value the amenity service of atmospheric visibility.
Recently in China, people’s economic situation has been improved significantly,particularly in big cities;hence their demand for environmental quality is increasinggradually. But at the same time, the atmospheric visibility in most cities of China hasbeen continually and widely deterioratedthrough these years, resulting in both,anincreasingly acute contradiction for the supply and demand of amenity servicesfrom the favorable environment and an increasing scarcity of the favorable visibility.These years the atmospheric visibility problem draw the attention of differentstakeholders at different levels on the society especially because of its frequency ofoccurrence and increasing severity, as an example the world reported China’snational-wide haze incident during January2013.
With the fast and dramatic development of the economy, society and environment inChina, which is ongoing and continuing, people are developing and improving theirknowledge, understanding and requirementson high life quality, as it can be noticedthat the value of the amenity resources is an increasing concern. This exploratorystudy on the demand and preferences of the amenity resources instead of otherordinary physical resources puts forward new ideas and requests of environmentalquality managementnow and in the future, which is also an important research fieldand frontier of environmental economics.
Based on the knowledge of the traits and importance of the amenity resources, theunderstanding on the relationship between atmospheric visibility and human welfareinthe current stage of China’s economic development, and the related research progress,this thesis focuses on answering the following academic questions. To wit, whetherthe traits and importance of the amenity resources such as visibility can be analyzeand understood by publics as one of the important components of their quality of lifein the social-economic context of the up-to-date China? And which are the conditionalfactors or determinants of the importance of the visibility and the visibility valuation.
To answer the key questions, an innovative and exploratory work has been performedin this thesis as follows. First of all, I identifed and analyzed the awareness of theimportance of visibility for the publics and the reasons for that; In addition, I testedwhether people are willing to pay or willing to accept a compensation for changes invisibility in conditional scenarios, that is, I identified the conditional factors of public valuation of visibility and the trade-offs using valuation methods and scenario designs;Finally, I analyzed and discussed the determinants of public valuation andpreferencesfor the atmospheric visibility by using surveysto finally analyze theobtained data.
In respect to the analysis of the academic issues, I focusedthe thesis on the followingbasic theory and methodology. First, using the environmental economic theory Ielaborated and analyzed the socio-economic value of the visibility as a typicalamenity resource; Second, Iidentified and discussed the dominant factors for valuingvisibility and the related mechanisms; Third, I usedempirical methods toquantitatively estimate the value of visibility, and identifiedits main determinants andcorresponding effects; Last, I also contributed with some improvement on the specificmethodology for the valuation of visibility, and further study on other academic issuessuch as the similarities and differences between willingness to pay for visibilityimprovement and deterioration, or between willingness to pay and willingness toaccept for changes in visibility.
The purpose of this thesis study is to explore and study,in the China’s current context,the public awareness and preferencesabout atmospheric visibility as one of the typicalamenity resources. Aiming to include the key issues in the topic and reduce the impactof the research difficulties in environmental valuation and based on the latestadvances on the theory and research of environmental economics, I tried to apply theappropriate method to evaluate the atmospheric visibility in China and analyzed thedeterminants of visibility valuation and the related mechanismsusing a theoretical andempirical study. The results and implications of this thesis are beneficial providing abenchmark for policy analysis or decision making.
The main results are the following,
(1) At present, the majority of Beijing residents are affected to some extent by lowvisibility, these perceptions includereduced high quality scenery sight, moodchanges and unsafe feelings during the use of transportation.
(2) About70percent of the sample can perceived and understood the importance ofvisibility as an amenity resource and showed a positive WTP/WTA for changes in visibility. The mean WTP ranges from363RMB to576per capita year-1(themedian WTP ranges from100RMB to200RMB per capita year-1), and the meanWTA is about2942RBM per capita year-1(the median WTA is1000RMB percapitayear-1). The WTP for improvements in visibility is relatively less than theone for preventing reductions on visibility, while both WTP are significantly lessthan the WTA for reductions on visibility.
(3) People’s valuation on visibility mainly depends on their perception and judgmentof visibility, environmental awareness, habits and customs, and socio-economiccharacteristics. In the model the study used to find the significant drivers tovaluate visibility, the following variable’s coefficients tested significant andpositive: relative high income, gender (male), experience a higher annual visibilityduring their stay in Beijing, impression by good or poor visibility, searching for airquality initiative and environment-friendly life style and behaviors, while thecoefficient of age is significant and negative.
(4) Atmospheric visibility represents one of the typical amenity resources and showsdifferent demand characteristics thanthe ordinary environemental goods. InChina’s present economic development context, public value on visibility showedsimilar characteristics as “luxury goods”, the value is not simply increasing asindividual income increases, but also the significance of the income variable wasobserved in respondents with high income level while low income levelsrespondents showed a notsignificant explanatory value.
The policy implications and practical significance of this study are summarize asfollows,
(1) Basing on the significant effects and the value of the visibility to the public, weshould give sufficient consideration to the effects of visibility on human welfareand estimate quantitatively the benefits of improving the visibility through thecontrol and management of the environmental quality, this estimations can helppolicy makers especially in the cost benefit analysis of the air quality relatedpolicies;
(2) Meanwhile, we should take full account of various public perceptions, judgmentsand understandings of the visibility, and also different preferences anddemand of visibility for different sectors of the society, which may promotetargeted and effective policy making and implementation.
(3) As the scarcity of the amenity resources in China is becoming increasinglyimportant and public preferences and demand for visibility is dramatically risingwith the increase of income, the importance of the visibility will be even moresignificant in the future. So the decision makers should prepare a coping strategyas soon as possible, to keep the balance of the demand and supply of the amenityresources such as visibility, and to improve comprehensively the quality of life ofthe citizens.
引文
北京大学环境经济学与政策小组(EEPS),2010.大气复合污染的区域调控和决策支持技术.(863课题,编号2006AA06A307)
北京大学环境经济学与政策小组(EEPS),2011. Economic Analysis on Ambient AirQuality Standard for PM2.5.(能源基金会课题,编号G-1004-12416)
蔡春光,郑晓瑛,2007.北京市空气污染健康损失的支付意愿研究.经济科学,(1):107-115.
曾贤刚,蒋妍,2010.空气污染健康损失中统计生命价值评估研究.中国环境科学,30(2):284-288.
陈军,成金华,付宏,2004.环境资源经济价值评估理论延续与方法的改进.资源·产业,6(5):61-64.
董照辉,毛永,2007.舒适性资源内涵的发展及其与自然资源和旅游资源关系的辨析.兰州学刊,(5):90-91.
范引琪,李春强,2008.1980—2003年京津冀地区大气能见度变化趋势研究.高原气象,27(6):1392-1400.
弗里曼(Freeman A.M.),环境与资源价值评估——理论与方法.曾贤刚,译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2002.
黄德生,张世秋,2013.京津冀地区控制PM2.5污染的健康效益评估.中国环境科学,33(1):166-174.
靳乐山,郭建卿,2011.农村居民对环境保护的认知程度及支付意愿研究——以纳板河自然保护区居民为例.资源科学,33(1):50-55.
科克伦(CochranW.G.).抽样技术.张尧庭,吴辉,译.北京:中国统计出版社,1985.
克鲁蒂拉(Krutilla J. V.),费舍尔(Fisher A. C.).自然环境经济学——商品性和舒适性资源价值研究.汤川龙,等,译.北京:中国展望出版社,1989.
李莹,白墨,张巍,等,2002.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,12(6):125-128.
李智,2007.条件价值评估中的偏好不确定性研究.北京大学硕士学位论文.
梁爽,姜楠,谷树忠,2005.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,(2):55-60.
刘炳杰,2010.环渤海低能见度分析及短期预报方法研究.兰州大学硕士学位论文.
马中,2006.环境与自然资源经济学概论.北京:高等教育出版社.
穆泉,张世秋,2013.2013年1月中国大面积雾霾事件直接社会经济损失评估.中国环境科学(编辑核对中,稿号为201303078)
皮尔思(PearceD. W.),沃福德(Warford J. J.).世界无末日:经济学、环境与可持续发展.张世秋,等,译.北京:中国财政经济出版社,1996.
王淑英,张小玲,徐晓峰,2003.北京地区大气能见度变化规律及影响因子统计分析.气象科技,31(2):109-114.
王艳,张宜升,刘斌,2008.青岛市居民减少空气污染致病的支付意愿调查.环境与健康,25(4):326-330.
吴兑,毕雪岩,邓雪娇,等,2006.珠江三角洲大气灰霾导致能见度下降问题研究.气象学报,64(4):510-517.
吴兑,吴晓京,李菲,等,2010.1951—2005年中国大陆霾的时空变化.气象学报,68(5):680-688.
吴兑,2012.近十年中国灰霾天气研究综述.环境科学学报,32(2):257-269.
谢旭轩,2011.健康的价值：环境效益评估方法与城市空气污染控制策略.北京大学博士学位论文.
张世秋,段彦新,张辉,1998.环境影响价值评估及程序化设计——以广东燃煤电厂为例.环境科学,19(S1):62-65.
张翼飞,2008.居民对生态环境改善的支付意愿与受偿意愿差异分析——理论探讨与上海的实证.西北人口,29(4):63-68.
张翼飞,2012. CVM研究中支付意愿问卷“内容依赖性”的实证研究——以上海城市内河生态恢复CVM评估为例.中国人口·资源与环境,22(6):170-176.
张翼飞,刘宇辉,2007.城市景观河流生态修复的产出研究及有效性可靠性检验——基于上海城市内河水质改善价值评估的实证分析.中国地质大学学报(社会科学版),7(2):39-44.
张懿,2002.北京市环境经济评估的意愿调查评估法研究.北京大学硕士学位论文.
张勇,2008.样本量并非“多多益善”——谈抽样调查中科学确定样本量.中国统计,(5):45-47.
章铮.环境与自然资源经济学.北京:高等教育出版社,2008.
赵普生,徐晓峰,孟伟,等,2012.京津冀区域霾天气特征.中国环境科学,32(1):31-36.
邹文博,2009.空气质量条件价值评估法理论与案例研究.北京大学硕士学位论文.
Amalia M.,2010. Designing a Choice Modelling Survey to Value the Health andEnvironmental Impacts of Air Pollution From the Transport Sector in the JakartaMetropolitan Area. Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia(EEPSEA).
Anderson R. J. and Crocker T. D.,1971. Air Pollution and Residential PropertyValues. Urban Studies,8(3):171.
Arrow K. and Solow R.,1993. Report of the Noaa Panel On Contingent Valuation.National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Washington, DC.
Atkisson A. A. and Robinson I. M.,1969. Amenity Resources for Urban Living.
Barker A., Hawton K. and Fagg J. et al.,1994. Seasonal and Weather Factors inParasuicide. The British Journal of Psychiatry,165(3):375-380.
Bartlett J. E., Kotrlik I. I. J. W. and Higgins C. C.,2001. Organizational Research:Determining Appropriate Sample Size in Survey Research. InformationTechnology, Learning, and Performance Journal,19(1):43.
Bergstrom J. C. and Ready R. C.,2009. What Have we Learned From Over20Yearsof Farmland Amenity Valuation Research in North America? Applied EconomicPerspectives and Policy,31(1):21-49.
Beron K., Murdoch J. and Thayer M.,2001. The Benefits of Visibility Improvement:New Evidence From the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area. The Journal of RealEstate Finance and Economics,22(2):319-337.
Boxall P. C., Adamowicz W. L. and Swait J. et al.,1996. A Comparison of StatedPreference Methods for Environmental Valuation. Ecological Economics,18(3):243-253.
Brookshire D. S., Thayer M. A. and Schulze W. D. et al.,1982. Valuing Public Goods:A Comparison of Survey and Hedonic Approaches. The American EconomicReview:165-177.
Brookshire D., D Arge R. and Schulze W. D. et al.,1979. Experiments in ValuingNon-Market Goods: A Case Study of Alternative Benefit Measures of AirPollution Control in the South Coast Air Basin of Southern California.Washington: Environmental Protection Agency.
Carlsson F. and Johansson-Stenman O.,2000. Willingness to Pay for Improved AirQuality in Sweden. Applied Economics,32(6):661-669.
Carson R. T., Conaway M. B. and Hanemann W. M. et al.,2004. Valuing Oil SpillPrevention: A Case Study of California's Central Coast.5. Springer.
Carson R. T., Flores N. E. and Martin K. M. et al.,1996. Contingent Valuation andRevealed Preference Methodologies: Comparing the Estimates for Quasi-PublicGoods. Land Economics:80-99.
Carson R. T., Mitchell R. C. and Ruud P. A.,1990. Valuing Air QualityImprovements: Simulating a Hedonic Pricing Equation in the Context of aContingent Valuation Scenario. Visibility and Fine Particles.
Chang D., Song Y. and Liu B.,2009. Visibility Trends in Six Megacities in China1973–2007. Atmospheric Research,94(2):161-167.
Chestnut L. G. and Dennis R. L.,1997. Economic Benefits of Improvements inVisibility: Acid Rain Provisions of the1990Clean Air Act Amendments. Journalof the Air&Waste Management Association,47(3):395-402.
Chestnut L. G. and Rowe R. D.,1990. Preservation Values for Visibility Protection atthe National Parks. Cooperative Agreement#CR-813-686. Research TrianglePark, NC: US Environmental Protection Agency.
Cuddington J. T., Johnson F. R. and Knetsch J. L.,1981. Valuing Amenity Resourcesin the Presence of Substitutes. Land Economics,57(4):526-535.
Delucchi M. A., Murphy J. J. and McCubbin D. R.,2002. The Health and VisibilityCost of Air Pollution: A Comparison of Estimation Methods. Journal ofEnvironmental Management,64(2):139-152.
Deng X., Tie X., Wu D., Zhou X., Bi X., Tan H., Li F., Jiang C.,2008. Long-termtrend of visibility and its characterizations in the Pearl River Delta (PRD) region,China. Atmospheric Environment42,1424-1435.
Freeman III A. M.,1979. Hedonic Prices, Property Values and MeasuringEnvironmental Benefits: A Survey of the Issues. The Scandinavian Journal ofEconomics:154-173.
Gan C. E. C. and Luzar E. J.,1993. A Conjoint Analysis of Waterfowl Hunting inLouisiana. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics,25(02):36-45.
Glover D. J. and Jessup T.,1999. Indonesia's Fires and Haze: The Cost of Catastrophe.Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore.
Gottmann J.,1996. The Rising Demand for an Urban Society, in Sam BassWarner,Jr.(ed.), Planning for a Nation of Cities (M.I.T Press,1966)
Green D., Jacowitz K. E. and Kahneman D. et al.,1998. Referendum ContingentValuation, Anchoring, and Willingness to Pay for Public Goods. Resource andEnergy Economics,20(2):85-116.
Green G. P.,2001. Amenities and Community Economic Development: Strategies forSustainability. Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy,31(2):61-76.
Green G. P., Deller S. C. and Marcouiller D. W.,2005. Amenities and RuralDevelopment: Theory, Methods and Public Policy. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Gunderson R. J. and Ng P. T.,2006. Summarizing the Effect of a Wide Array ofAmenity Measures Into Simple Components. Social indicators research,79(2):313-335.
Gupta V. and Mythili G.,2010. Valuation of Urban Environmental Amenities: A CaseStudy. International Journal of Ecological Economics and Statistics,19(F10):20-31.
Haider W., Moore J. and Knoweler D. et al.,2002. Estimating Visibility AestheticsDamages for Aqvm. Report for the Environmental Economics Branch,Environment Canada.
Hanemann W. M.,1991. Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept: How MuchCan they Differ? The American Economic Review:635-647.
Harrison D.,1978. Hedonic Housing Prices and the Demand for Clean Air*1. Journalof Environmental Economics and Management,5(1):81-102.
Hill L. B., Harper W. and Halstead J. M. et al.,2000. Visitor Perceptions andValuation of Visibility in the Great Gulf Wilderness, New Hampshire. Cole, et al.Proceedings: Wilderness Science in a Time of Change. Proc., RMRS-P-000.Ogden, VT: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.
Holland M., Hunt A. and Hurley F. et al.,2004. Methodology for the Cost-BenefitAnalysis for Cafe: Consultation-Issue3-July2004. Draft for Consultation andPeer Review. AEAT/ED51014/Methodology Paper Issue,3.
Horowitz J. K. and McConnell K. E.,2002. A Review of Wta/Wtp Studies. Journal ofEnvironmental Economics and Management,44(3):426-447.
Horowitz J. K. and McConnell K. E.,2003. Willingness to Accept, Willingness to Payand the Income Effect. Journal of Economic Behavior&Organization,51(4):537-545.
Huang D., Xu J. and Zhang S.,2012. Valuing the Health Risks of Particulate AirPollution in the Pearl River Delta, China. Environmental Science&Policy,15(1):38-47.
HuangW., Tan J. G., Kan H. D., Zhao N., Song W. M., Song G. X., Chen G. H., JiangL. L.,Jiang C., Chen R. J.,2009. Visibility, air quality and daily mortality inShanghai, China. Science of The Total Environment407,3295-3300.
Hyslop N.P.,2009. Impaired visibility: the air pollution people see. AtmosphericEnvironment43,182-195.
Johnston R. J., Swallow S. K. and Tyrrell T. J. et al.,2003. Rural Amenity Values andLength of Residency. American Journal of Agricultural Economics,85(4):1000-1015.
Kahneman D. and Tversky A.,1979. Prospect Theory: An Analysis of DecisionUnder Risk. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society:263-291.
Kahneman D., Knetsch J. L. and Thaler R. H.,1990. Experimental Tests of theEndowment Effect and the Coase Theorem. Journal of political Economy:1325-1348.
Krejcie R. V. and Morgan D. W.,1970. Determining Sample Size for ResearchActivities. Educational and Psychological Measurement,30:607-610.
Krutilla J. V.,1967. Conservation Reconsidered. The American Economic Review,57(4):777-786.
Kumar N. and Shaw S. L.,2009. Comments On the Particulate Matter NationalAmbient Air Quality Standards: Scope and Methods Plan for Urban VisibilityImpactAssessment.http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/SABPRODUCT.NSF/291FD8CA0E23A944852575840064613A/$File/EPRI+Comments+on+UVA+for+CASAC+PM+Rev+Panel+4_1-2_2009+Meeting.pdf.
le Clue S.,2004. Evaluating the Economic Cost of Visibility Impairment. Publishedby the Civic Exchange Limited, Hong Kong.
Liu X., Shao M.,2004. The analysis of sources of ambient light extinction coefficientin summer time of Beijing city [J]. Acta Scientiae Circumstantiae2.
Loehman E. T., Park S. and Boldt D.,1994. Willingness to Pay for Gains and Lossesin Visibility and Health. Land Economics:478-498.
Louviere J. J.,1988. Conjoint Analysis Modelling of Stated Preferences: A Review ofTheory, Methods, Recent Developments and External Validity. Journal oftransport economics and policy:93-119.
Magat W. A., Kip Viscusi W. and Huber J.,1988. Paired Comparison and ContingentValuation Approaches to Morbidity Risk Valuation. Journal of EnvironmentalEconomics and Management,15(4):395-411.
Malm W.C.,1999. Introduction to visibility. Cooperative Institute for Research in theAtmosphere, NPS Visibility Program, Colorado State University. May.
McClelland G., Schulze W. and Waldman D. et al.,1991. Valuing Eastern Visibility:A Field Test of the Contingent Valuation Method. Prepared for USEnvironmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation.June.
Murdoch J. C. and Thayer M. A.,1988. Hedonic Price Estimation of Variable UrbanAir Quality. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,15(2):143-146.
Porras I. T.,1999. Off-Site Value of Visability: New Hampshire's White MountainsCase Study.
Poudyal N. C., Hodges D. G. and Merrett C. D.,2009. A Hedonic Analysis of theDemand for and Benefits of Urban Recreation Parks. Land Use Policy,26(4):975-983.
Rae D. A.,1982. Benefits of Visual Air Quality in Cincinnati. Report to the ElectricPower Research Institute by Charles River Associates, Boston.
Randall A. and Stoll J. R.,1980. Consumer's Surplus in Commodity Space. TheAmerican Economic Review,70(3):449-455.
Randall A., Ives B. and Eastman C.,1974. Bidding Games for Valuation of AestheticEnvironmental Improvements. Journal of Environmental Economics andManagement,1(2):132-149.
Ready R. C., Berger M. C. and Blomquist G. C.,1997. Measuring Amenity BenefitsFrom Farmland: Hedonic Pricing Vs. Contingent Valuation. Growth and Change,28(4):438-458.
Ridker R. G. and Henning J. A.,1967. The Determinants of Residential PropertyValues with Special Reference to Air Pollution. The Review of Economics andStatistics,49(2):246-257.
Roe B., Boyle K. J. and Teisl M. F.,1996. Using Conjoint Analysis to DeriveEstimates of Compensating Variation. Journal of Environmental Economics andManagement,31(2):145-159.
Rosen S.,1974. Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in PureCompetition. The Journal of Political Economy,82(1):34-55.
Rotton J. and Frey J.,1985. Air Pollution, Weather, and Violent Crimes: ConcomitantTime-Series Analysis of Archival Data. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology,49(5):1207.
Rowe R. D., D'Arge R. C. and Brookshire D. S.,1980. An Experiment On theEconomic Value of Visibility. Journal of Environmental Economics andManagement,7(1):1-19.
Schultze W. D., Brookshire D. S. and Walther E. G. et al.,1983. Economic Benefitsof Preserving Visibility in the National Parklands of the Southwest, the. Nat.Resources J.,23:149.
Shafer E. L., Carline R. and Guldin R. W. et al.,1993. Economic Amenity Values ofWildlife: Six Case Studies in Pennsylvania. Environmental Management,17(5):669-682.
Simpson S. N. and Hanna B. G.,2010. Willingness to Pay for a Clear Night Sky: Useof the Contingent Valuation Method. Applied Economics Letters,17(11):1095-1103.
Smith A. E., Kemp M. A. and Savage T. H. et al.,2005. Methods and Results From aNew Survey of Values for Eastern Regional Haze Improvements. Journal of theAir&Waste Management Association,55(11):1767-1779.
Smith V. K.,1990. Can we Measure the Economic Value of Environmental Amenities?Southern Economic Journal:865-878.
Smith V. K.,2004. Krutilla's Legacy: Twenty-First-Century Challenges forEnvironmental Economics. American Journal of Agricultural Economics,86(5):1167-1178.
Smith V. K. and Huang J. C.,1993. Hedonic Models and Air Pollution: Twenty-FiveYears and Counting. Environmental and Resource Economics,3(4):381-394.
Smith V. K. and Huang J. C.,1995. Can Markets Value Air Quality? AMeta-Analysis of Hedonic Property Value Models. Journal of political economy:209-227.
Song Y., Tang X. Y., Fang C.,2003. Relationship between the visibility degradationand particle pollution in Beijing. Acta Scientiae Circumstantiae23,468-471.
Stevens T. H., Belkner R. and Dennis D. et al.,2000. Comparison of ContingentValuation and Conjoint Analysis in Ecosystem Management. EcologicalEconomics,32(1):63-74.
Tao J., Ho K.F., Chen L., Zhu L., Han J., Xu Z.,2009. Effect of chemical compositionof PM2.5on visibility in Guangzhou, China,2007spring. Particuology7,68-75.
Tarrant M. A. and Cordell H. K.,2002. Amenity Values of Public and Private Forests:Examining the Value–Attitude Relationship. Environmental Management,30(5):692-703.
Trijonis J., Thayer M. and Murdoch J. et al.,1985. Air Quality Benefit Analysis forLos Angeles and San Francisco Based On Housing Values and Visibility. NTIS,SPRINGFIELD, VA(USA).
USEPA,1997. The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act,1970to1990. Preparedfor USCongress by USEPA.
USEPA,1999a. The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act,1990to2010. EPAReport toCongress.
USEPA,1999b. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Regional Haze Rule.
USEPA,2003. Technical Addendum: Methodologies for the Benefit Analysis of theClearSkies Act of2003.
Veisten K.,2007. Contingent Valuation Controversies: Philosophic Debates AboutEconomic Theory. The Journal of Socio-Economics,36(2):204-232.
Wan J.M., Lin M., Chan C.Y., Zhang Z.S., Engling G., Wang X.M., Chan I.N., LiS.Y.,2011. Change of air quality and its impact on atmospheric visibility incentral-western Pearl River Delta. Environmental Monitoring And Assessment172,339-351.
Wang C., Thill J. C. and Meentemeyer R. K.,2011. Estimating the Demand for PublicOpen Space: Evidence From North Carolina Municipalities. Papers in RegionalScience,91(1):219-232.
Wang J., Zhang Y., Shao M., Liu X., Zeng L., Cheng C., Xu X.,2006. Quantitativerelationship between visibility and mass concentration of PM2.5in Beijing.Journal of Environmental Sciences18,475-481.
Wang K., Dickinson R.E., Liang S.,2009. Clear sky visibility has decreased over landglobally from1973to2007. Science323,1468.
Wang X. J., Zhang W. and Li Y. et al.,2006. Air Quality Improvement Estimationand Assessment Using Contingent Valuation Method, a Case Study in Beijing.Environmental Monitoring and Assessment,120(1):153-168.
Wang Y. and Zhang Y.,2009. Air Quality Assessment by Contingent Valuation inJi'nan, China. Journal of Environmental Management,90(2):1022-1029.
Whittington D.,2010. What Have we Learned From20Years of Stated PreferenceResearch in Less-Developed Countries? Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ.,2(1):209-236.
Willig R. D.,1976. Consumer's Surplus without Apology. The American EconomicReview:589-597.
Yoo S. H., Kwak S. J. and Lee J. S.,2008. Using a Choice Experiment to Measure theEnvironmental Costs of Air Pollution Impacts in Seoul. Journal ofEnvironmental Management,86(1):308-318.
Young M. A., Meaden P. M. and Fogg L. F. et al.,1997. Which EnvironmentalVariables are Related to the Onset of Seasonal Affective Disorder? Journal ofAbnormal Psychology,106(4):554.
Zhang Q.H., Zhang J.P., Xue H.W.,2010. The challenge of improving visibility in
Beijing. Atmos. Chem. Phys10,7821-7827.
Zou W. B.,Zhang S. Q.,2010. Economic Valuation of Health Impact ofPM10Pollution in Beijing From2001to2006. Chinese Journal of PopulationResources and Environment,(2):68-74.
北京大学环境经济学与政策小组(EEPS),2011. Economic Analysis on Ambient AirQuality Standard for PM2.5.(能源基金会课题,编号G-1004-12416)
蔡春光,郑晓瑛,2007.北京市空气污染健康损失的支付意愿研究.经济科学,(1):107-115.
曾贤刚,蒋妍,2010.空气污染健康损失中统计生命价值评估研究.中国环境科学,30(2):284-288.
陈军,成金华,付宏,2004.环境资源经济价值评估理论延续与方法的改进.资源·产业,6(5):61-64.
董照辉,毛永,2007.舒适性资源内涵的发展及其与自然资源和旅游资源关系的辨析.兰州学刊,(5):90-91.
范引琪,李春强,2008.1980—2003年京津冀地区大气能见度变化趋势研究.高原气象,27(6):1392-1400.
弗里曼(Freeman A.M.),环境与资源价值评估——理论与方法.曾贤刚,译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2002.
黄德生,张世秋,2013.京津冀地区控制PM2.5污染的健康效益评估.中国环境科学,33(1):166-174.
靳乐山,郭建卿,2011.农村居民对环境保护的认知程度及支付意愿研究——以纳板河自然保护区居民为例.资源科学,33(1):50-55.
科克伦(CochranW.G.).抽样技术.张尧庭,吴辉,译.北京:中国统计出版社,1985.
克鲁蒂拉(Krutilla J. V.),费舍尔(Fisher A. C.).自然环境经济学——商品性和舒适性资源价值研究.汤川龙,等,译.北京:中国展望出版社,1989.
李莹,白墨,张巍,等,2002.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,12(6):125-128.
李智,2007.条件价值评估中的偏好不确定性研究.北京大学硕士学位论文.
梁爽,姜楠,谷树忠,2005.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,(2):55-60.
刘炳杰,2010.环渤海低能见度分析及短期预报方法研究.兰州大学硕士学位论文.
马中,2006.环境与自然资源经济学概论.北京:高等教育出版社.
穆泉,张世秋,2013.2013年1月中国大面积雾霾事件直接社会经济损失评估.中国环境科学(编辑核对中,稿号为201303078)
皮尔思(PearceD. W.),沃福德(Warford J. J.).世界无末日:经济学、环境与可持续发展.张世秋,等,译.北京:中国财政经济出版社,1996.
王淑英,张小玲,徐晓峰,2003.北京地区大气能见度变化规律及影响因子统计分析.气象科技,31(2):109-114.
王艳,张宜升,刘斌,2008.青岛市居民减少空气污染致病的支付意愿调查.环境与健康,25(4):326-330.
吴兑,毕雪岩,邓雪娇,等,2006.珠江三角洲大气灰霾导致能见度下降问题研究.气象学报,64(4):510-517.
吴兑,吴晓京,李菲,等,2010.1951—2005年中国大陆霾的时空变化.气象学报,68(5):680-688.
吴兑,2012.近十年中国灰霾天气研究综述.环境科学学报,32(2):257-269.
谢旭轩,2011.健康的价值：环境效益评估方法与城市空气污染控制策略.北京大学博士学位论文.
张世秋,段彦新,张辉,1998.环境影响价值评估及程序化设计——以广东燃煤电厂为例.环境科学,19(S1):62-65.
张翼飞,2008.居民对生态环境改善的支付意愿与受偿意愿差异分析——理论探讨与上海的实证.西北人口,29(4):63-68.
张翼飞,2012. CVM研究中支付意愿问卷“内容依赖性”的实证研究——以上海城市内河生态恢复CVM评估为例.中国人口·资源与环境,22(6):170-176.
张翼飞,刘宇辉,2007.城市景观河流生态修复的产出研究及有效性可靠性检验——基于上海城市内河水质改善价值评估的实证分析.中国地质大学学报(社会科学版),7(2):39-44.
张懿,2002.北京市环境经济评估的意愿调查评估法研究.北京大学硕士学位论文.
张勇,2008.样本量并非“多多益善”——谈抽样调查中科学确定样本量.中国统计,(5):45-47.
章铮.环境与自然资源经济学.北京:高等教育出版社,2008.
赵普生,徐晓峰,孟伟,等,2012.京津冀区域霾天气特征.中国环境科学,32(1):31-36.
邹文博,2009.空气质量条件价值评估法理论与案例研究.北京大学硕士学位论文.
Amalia M.,2010. Designing a Choice Modelling Survey to Value the Health andEnvironmental Impacts of Air Pollution From the Transport Sector in the JakartaMetropolitan Area. Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia(EEPSEA).
Anderson R. J. and Crocker T. D.,1971. Air Pollution and Residential PropertyValues. Urban Studies,8(3):171.
Arrow K. and Solow R.,1993. Report of the Noaa Panel On Contingent Valuation.National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Washington, DC.
Atkisson A. A. and Robinson I. M.,1969. Amenity Resources for Urban Living.
Barker A., Hawton K. and Fagg J. et al.,1994. Seasonal and Weather Factors inParasuicide. The British Journal of Psychiatry,165(3):375-380.
Bartlett J. E., Kotrlik I. I. J. W. and Higgins C. C.,2001. Organizational Research:Determining Appropriate Sample Size in Survey Research. InformationTechnology, Learning, and Performance Journal,19(1):43.
Bergstrom J. C. and Ready R. C.,2009. What Have we Learned From Over20Yearsof Farmland Amenity Valuation Research in North America? Applied EconomicPerspectives and Policy,31(1):21-49.
Beron K., Murdoch J. and Thayer M.,2001. The Benefits of Visibility Improvement:New Evidence From the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area. The Journal of RealEstate Finance and Economics,22(2):319-337.
Boxall P. C., Adamowicz W. L. and Swait J. et al.,1996. A Comparison of StatedPreference Methods for Environmental Valuation. Ecological Economics,18(3):243-253.
Brookshire D. S., Thayer M. A. and Schulze W. D. et al.,1982. Valuing Public Goods:A Comparison of Survey and Hedonic Approaches. The American EconomicReview:165-177.
Brookshire D., D Arge R. and Schulze W. D. et al.,1979. Experiments in ValuingNon-Market Goods: A Case Study of Alternative Benefit Measures of AirPollution Control in the South Coast Air Basin of Southern California.Washington: Environmental Protection Agency.
Carlsson F. and Johansson-Stenman O.,2000. Willingness to Pay for Improved AirQuality in Sweden. Applied Economics,32(6):661-669.
Carson R. T., Conaway M. B. and Hanemann W. M. et al.,2004. Valuing Oil SpillPrevention: A Case Study of California's Central Coast.5. Springer.
Carson R. T., Flores N. E. and Martin K. M. et al.,1996. Contingent Valuation andRevealed Preference Methodologies: Comparing the Estimates for Quasi-PublicGoods. Land Economics:80-99.
Carson R. T., Mitchell R. C. and Ruud P. A.,1990. Valuing Air QualityImprovements: Simulating a Hedonic Pricing Equation in the Context of aContingent Valuation Scenario. Visibility and Fine Particles.
Chang D., Song Y. and Liu B.,2009. Visibility Trends in Six Megacities in China1973–2007. Atmospheric Research,94(2):161-167.
Chestnut L. G. and Dennis R. L.,1997. Economic Benefits of Improvements inVisibility: Acid Rain Provisions of the1990Clean Air Act Amendments. Journalof the Air&Waste Management Association,47(3):395-402.
Chestnut L. G. and Rowe R. D.,1990. Preservation Values for Visibility Protection atthe National Parks. Cooperative Agreement#CR-813-686. Research TrianglePark, NC: US Environmental Protection Agency.
Cuddington J. T., Johnson F. R. and Knetsch J. L.,1981. Valuing Amenity Resourcesin the Presence of Substitutes. Land Economics,57(4):526-535.
Delucchi M. A., Murphy J. J. and McCubbin D. R.,2002. The Health and VisibilityCost of Air Pollution: A Comparison of Estimation Methods. Journal ofEnvironmental Management,64(2):139-152.
Deng X., Tie X., Wu D., Zhou X., Bi X., Tan H., Li F., Jiang C.,2008. Long-termtrend of visibility and its characterizations in the Pearl River Delta (PRD) region,China. Atmospheric Environment42,1424-1435.
Freeman III A. M.,1979. Hedonic Prices, Property Values and MeasuringEnvironmental Benefits: A Survey of the Issues. The Scandinavian Journal ofEconomics:154-173.
Gan C. E. C. and Luzar E. J.,1993. A Conjoint Analysis of Waterfowl Hunting inLouisiana. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics,25(02):36-45.
Glover D. J. and Jessup T.,1999. Indonesia's Fires and Haze: The Cost of Catastrophe.Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore.
Gottmann J.,1996. The Rising Demand for an Urban Society, in Sam BassWarner,Jr.(ed.), Planning for a Nation of Cities (M.I.T Press,1966)
Green D., Jacowitz K. E. and Kahneman D. et al.,1998. Referendum ContingentValuation, Anchoring, and Willingness to Pay for Public Goods. Resource andEnergy Economics,20(2):85-116.
Green G. P.,2001. Amenities and Community Economic Development: Strategies forSustainability. Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy,31(2):61-76.
Green G. P., Deller S. C. and Marcouiller D. W.,2005. Amenities and RuralDevelopment: Theory, Methods and Public Policy. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Gunderson R. J. and Ng P. T.,2006. Summarizing the Effect of a Wide Array ofAmenity Measures Into Simple Components. Social indicators research,79(2):313-335.
Gupta V. and Mythili G.,2010. Valuation of Urban Environmental Amenities: A CaseStudy. International Journal of Ecological Economics and Statistics,19(F10):20-31.
Haider W., Moore J. and Knoweler D. et al.,2002. Estimating Visibility AestheticsDamages for Aqvm. Report for the Environmental Economics Branch,Environment Canada.
Hanemann W. M.,1991. Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept: How MuchCan they Differ? The American Economic Review:635-647.
Harrison D.,1978. Hedonic Housing Prices and the Demand for Clean Air*1. Journalof Environmental Economics and Management,5(1):81-102.
Hill L. B., Harper W. and Halstead J. M. et al.,2000. Visitor Perceptions andValuation of Visibility in the Great Gulf Wilderness, New Hampshire. Cole, et al.Proceedings: Wilderness Science in a Time of Change. Proc., RMRS-P-000.Ogden, VT: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.
Holland M., Hunt A. and Hurley F. et al.,2004. Methodology for the Cost-BenefitAnalysis for Cafe: Consultation-Issue3-July2004. Draft for Consultation andPeer Review. AEAT/ED51014/Methodology Paper Issue,3.
Horowitz J. K. and McConnell K. E.,2002. A Review of Wta/Wtp Studies. Journal ofEnvironmental Economics and Management,44(3):426-447.
Horowitz J. K. and McConnell K. E.,2003. Willingness to Accept, Willingness to Payand the Income Effect. Journal of Economic Behavior&Organization,51(4):537-545.
Huang D., Xu J. and Zhang S.,2012. Valuing the Health Risks of Particulate AirPollution in the Pearl River Delta, China. Environmental Science&Policy,15(1):38-47.
HuangW., Tan J. G., Kan H. D., Zhao N., Song W. M., Song G. X., Chen G. H., JiangL. L.,Jiang C., Chen R. J.,2009. Visibility, air quality and daily mortality inShanghai, China. Science of The Total Environment407,3295-3300.
Hyslop N.P.,2009. Impaired visibility: the air pollution people see. AtmosphericEnvironment43,182-195.
Johnston R. J., Swallow S. K. and Tyrrell T. J. et al.,2003. Rural Amenity Values andLength of Residency. American Journal of Agricultural Economics,85(4):1000-1015.
Kahneman D. and Tversky A.,1979. Prospect Theory: An Analysis of DecisionUnder Risk. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society:263-291.
Kahneman D., Knetsch J. L. and Thaler R. H.,1990. Experimental Tests of theEndowment Effect and the Coase Theorem. Journal of political Economy:1325-1348.
Krejcie R. V. and Morgan D. W.,1970. Determining Sample Size for ResearchActivities. Educational and Psychological Measurement,30:607-610.
Krutilla J. V.,1967. Conservation Reconsidered. The American Economic Review,57(4):777-786.
Kumar N. and Shaw S. L.,2009. Comments On the Particulate Matter NationalAmbient Air Quality Standards: Scope and Methods Plan for Urban VisibilityImpactAssessment.http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/SABPRODUCT.NSF/291FD8CA0E23A944852575840064613A/$File/EPRI+Comments+on+UVA+for+CASAC+PM+Rev+Panel+4_1-2_2009+Meeting.pdf.
le Clue S.,2004. Evaluating the Economic Cost of Visibility Impairment. Publishedby the Civic Exchange Limited, Hong Kong.
Liu X., Shao M.,2004. The analysis of sources of ambient light extinction coefficientin summer time of Beijing city [J]. Acta Scientiae Circumstantiae2.
Loehman E. T., Park S. and Boldt D.,1994. Willingness to Pay for Gains and Lossesin Visibility and Health. Land Economics:478-498.
Louviere J. J.,1988. Conjoint Analysis Modelling of Stated Preferences: A Review ofTheory, Methods, Recent Developments and External Validity. Journal oftransport economics and policy:93-119.
Magat W. A., Kip Viscusi W. and Huber J.,1988. Paired Comparison and ContingentValuation Approaches to Morbidity Risk Valuation. Journal of EnvironmentalEconomics and Management,15(4):395-411.
Malm W.C.,1999. Introduction to visibility. Cooperative Institute for Research in theAtmosphere, NPS Visibility Program, Colorado State University. May.
McClelland G., Schulze W. and Waldman D. et al.,1991. Valuing Eastern Visibility:A Field Test of the Contingent Valuation Method. Prepared for USEnvironmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation.June.
Murdoch J. C. and Thayer M. A.,1988. Hedonic Price Estimation of Variable UrbanAir Quality. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,15(2):143-146.
Porras I. T.,1999. Off-Site Value of Visability: New Hampshire's White MountainsCase Study.
Poudyal N. C., Hodges D. G. and Merrett C. D.,2009. A Hedonic Analysis of theDemand for and Benefits of Urban Recreation Parks. Land Use Policy,26(4):975-983.
Rae D. A.,1982. Benefits of Visual Air Quality in Cincinnati. Report to the ElectricPower Research Institute by Charles River Associates, Boston.
Randall A. and Stoll J. R.,1980. Consumer's Surplus in Commodity Space. TheAmerican Economic Review,70(3):449-455.
Randall A., Ives B. and Eastman C.,1974. Bidding Games for Valuation of AestheticEnvironmental Improvements. Journal of Environmental Economics andManagement,1(2):132-149.
Ready R. C., Berger M. C. and Blomquist G. C.,1997. Measuring Amenity BenefitsFrom Farmland: Hedonic Pricing Vs. Contingent Valuation. Growth and Change,28(4):438-458.
Ridker R. G. and Henning J. A.,1967. The Determinants of Residential PropertyValues with Special Reference to Air Pollution. The Review of Economics andStatistics,49(2):246-257.
Roe B., Boyle K. J. and Teisl M. F.,1996. Using Conjoint Analysis to DeriveEstimates of Compensating Variation. Journal of Environmental Economics andManagement,31(2):145-159.
Rosen S.,1974. Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in PureCompetition. The Journal of Political Economy,82(1):34-55.
Rotton J. and Frey J.,1985. Air Pollution, Weather, and Violent Crimes: ConcomitantTime-Series Analysis of Archival Data. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology,49(5):1207.
Rowe R. D., D'Arge R. C. and Brookshire D. S.,1980. An Experiment On theEconomic Value of Visibility. Journal of Environmental Economics andManagement,7(1):1-19.
Schultze W. D., Brookshire D. S. and Walther E. G. et al.,1983. Economic Benefitsof Preserving Visibility in the National Parklands of the Southwest, the. Nat.Resources J.,23:149.
Shafer E. L., Carline R. and Guldin R. W. et al.,1993. Economic Amenity Values ofWildlife: Six Case Studies in Pennsylvania. Environmental Management,17(5):669-682.
Simpson S. N. and Hanna B. G.,2010. Willingness to Pay for a Clear Night Sky: Useof the Contingent Valuation Method. Applied Economics Letters,17(11):1095-1103.
Smith A. E., Kemp M. A. and Savage T. H. et al.,2005. Methods and Results From aNew Survey of Values for Eastern Regional Haze Improvements. Journal of theAir&Waste Management Association,55(11):1767-1779.
Smith V. K.,1990. Can we Measure the Economic Value of Environmental Amenities?Southern Economic Journal:865-878.
Smith V. K.,2004. Krutilla's Legacy: Twenty-First-Century Challenges forEnvironmental Economics. American Journal of Agricultural Economics,86(5):1167-1178.
Smith V. K. and Huang J. C.,1993. Hedonic Models and Air Pollution: Twenty-FiveYears and Counting. Environmental and Resource Economics,3(4):381-394.
Smith V. K. and Huang J. C.,1995. Can Markets Value Air Quality? AMeta-Analysis of Hedonic Property Value Models. Journal of political economy:209-227.
Song Y., Tang X. Y., Fang C.,2003. Relationship between the visibility degradationand particle pollution in Beijing. Acta Scientiae Circumstantiae23,468-471.
Stevens T. H., Belkner R. and Dennis D. et al.,2000. Comparison of ContingentValuation and Conjoint Analysis in Ecosystem Management. EcologicalEconomics,32(1):63-74.
Tao J., Ho K.F., Chen L., Zhu L., Han J., Xu Z.,2009. Effect of chemical compositionof PM2.5on visibility in Guangzhou, China,2007spring. Particuology7,68-75.
Tarrant M. A. and Cordell H. K.,2002. Amenity Values of Public and Private Forests:Examining the Value–Attitude Relationship. Environmental Management,30(5):692-703.
Trijonis J., Thayer M. and Murdoch J. et al.,1985. Air Quality Benefit Analysis forLos Angeles and San Francisco Based On Housing Values and Visibility. NTIS,SPRINGFIELD, VA(USA).
USEPA,1997. The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act,1970to1990. Preparedfor USCongress by USEPA.
USEPA,1999a. The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act,1990to2010. EPAReport toCongress.
USEPA,1999b. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Regional Haze Rule.
USEPA,2003. Technical Addendum: Methodologies for the Benefit Analysis of theClearSkies Act of2003.
Veisten K.,2007. Contingent Valuation Controversies: Philosophic Debates AboutEconomic Theory. The Journal of Socio-Economics,36(2):204-232.
Wan J.M., Lin M., Chan C.Y., Zhang Z.S., Engling G., Wang X.M., Chan I.N., LiS.Y.,2011. Change of air quality and its impact on atmospheric visibility incentral-western Pearl River Delta. Environmental Monitoring And Assessment172,339-351.
Wang C., Thill J. C. and Meentemeyer R. K.,2011. Estimating the Demand for PublicOpen Space: Evidence From North Carolina Municipalities. Papers in RegionalScience,91(1):219-232.
Wang J., Zhang Y., Shao M., Liu X., Zeng L., Cheng C., Xu X.,2006. Quantitativerelationship between visibility and mass concentration of PM2.5in Beijing.Journal of Environmental Sciences18,475-481.
Wang K., Dickinson R.E., Liang S.,2009. Clear sky visibility has decreased over landglobally from1973to2007. Science323,1468.
Wang X. J., Zhang W. and Li Y. et al.,2006. Air Quality Improvement Estimationand Assessment Using Contingent Valuation Method, a Case Study in Beijing.Environmental Monitoring and Assessment,120(1):153-168.
Wang Y. and Zhang Y.,2009. Air Quality Assessment by Contingent Valuation inJi'nan, China. Journal of Environmental Management,90(2):1022-1029.
Whittington D.,2010. What Have we Learned From20Years of Stated PreferenceResearch in Less-Developed Countries? Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ.,2(1):209-236.
Willig R. D.,1976. Consumer's Surplus without Apology. The American EconomicReview:589-597.
Yoo S. H., Kwak S. J. and Lee J. S.,2008. Using a Choice Experiment to Measure theEnvironmental Costs of Air Pollution Impacts in Seoul. Journal ofEnvironmental Management,86(1):308-318.
Young M. A., Meaden P. M. and Fogg L. F. et al.,1997. Which EnvironmentalVariables are Related to the Onset of Seasonal Affective Disorder? Journal ofAbnormal Psychology,106(4):554.
Zhang Q.H., Zhang J.P., Xue H.W.,2010. The challenge of improving visibility in
Beijing. Atmos. Chem. Phys10,7821-7827.
Zou W. B.,Zhang S. Q.,2010. Economic Valuation of Health Impact ofPM10Pollution in Beijing From2001to2006. Chinese Journal of PopulationResources and Environment,(2):68-74.
© 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 |