基于选择实验法的湿地保护区农户生态补偿偏好分析——以陕西汉中朱鹮国家级自然保护区周边社区为例

doi:10.18402/resci.2017.09.16

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

了解湿地保护区农户生态补偿政策偏好有助于湿地及其周边生态环境的改善。本研究选取陕西汉中朱鹮保护区300份有效农户数据,采用选择实验法分析农户对不同湿地生态补偿方案的偏好及受偿意愿。研究结果表明：①补偿政策设计对于农户参与意愿影响显著,其中方案实施年限、土地参与比例、农药减少比例的影响为负,补偿额度的影响为正;②年龄、受教育程度、保护认知、居住在保护区内、家庭人口数和人均年收入显著影响农户对湿地生态补偿政策属性的偏好,年龄对农户参与生态补偿意愿的影响为负,其他个体特征的影响为正;③在补偿标准制定方面,湿地周边农户年受偿意愿的均值为608.56元/hm²,若延长1年的实施期,需要额外对每公顷土地补偿8.09元;若土地参与比例增加1%,需要额外对每公顷土地补偿58.00元;若农户减少10%的农药使用量,需要额外对每公顷土地补偿45.91元。中国湿地生态补偿标准的制定既要考虑到不同设计对于农户的影响,也要考虑到农户的人口特征,实行动态富有弹性的补偿标准。

关键词: 湿地保护区, 农户意愿, 生态补偿政策, 选择实验法, 朱鹮, 陕西

Abstract:

Understanding preferences for ecological compensation policies around wetland protected areas helps improve the ecological environment of wetlands and surroundings. Here,we selected 300 valid peasant households in the Crested Ibis protected area in Hanzhong,Shaanxi,and used choice experiments to analyze farmer preferences for different ecological compensation schemes and willingness to accept ecological compensation. We found that the design of compensation policy significantly affected farmer willingness to participate,among which the influence of plan implementation period,land participation and pesticide reduction ratio was negative,and the influence of compensation amount was positive. Age,education level,protection awareness,living in the protected area,family population and per capita annual income affected household preference for wetland ecological compensation attributes,the effect of age on farmer willingness to participate in ecological compensation was negative,and the effect of other individual characteristics was positive. In terms of compensation standard,the mean value of farmer annual willingness to accept compensation surrounding wetland is 608.56CNY/hm²;if the implementation period was extended by one year additional compensation of 8.09CNY/hm² was needed. If the area involved in land compensation increased by 10% the need for additional compensation was 58.00CNY/hm². If the farmer reduced the amount of pesticide by 10% additional compensation of 459.09CNY/hm²was needed. Wetland ecological compensation standards in China should not only consider the influence of different household designs but also population characteristics,and carry out dynamic and elastic compensation standards.

Key words: wetland reserve, household preference, ecological compensation policy, choice experiment method, Crested Ibis, Shaanxi

孙博, 段伟, 丁慧敏, 冯彦, 温亚利. 基于选择实验法的湿地保护区农户生态补偿偏好分析——以陕西汉中朱鹮国家级自然保护区周边社区为例[J]. 资源科学, 2017, 39(9): 1792-1800.

Bo SUN, Wei DUAN, Huimin DING, Yan FENG, Yali WEN. Preference analysis of household ecological compensation in Crested Ibis protected area in Hanzhong,Shaanxi based on choice experiments[J]. Resources Science, 2017, 39(9): 1792-1800.

图/表 5

表1

表2

表3

表4

表5

参考文献 41

[1]	Daily G C,Söderqvist T,Aniyar S,et al.The value of nature and the nature of value[J]. Science,2000,289(5478):395-396.
[2]	Fisher B,Bradbury R B,Andrews J E.Impacts of species-led conservation on ecosystem services of wetlands:Understanding co-beneﬁts and tradeoffs[J]. Biodiversity Conservation,2011,20(11):2461-2481.
[3]	Turner R K,Bergh J C J M,Söderqvist T,et al. Ecological-economic analysis of wetlands:scientific integration for manage-ment and policy[J]. Ecological Economics,2000,35(1):7-23.
[4]	Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.Ecosystems and Human Well-Being:Wetlands and Water Synthesis[R]. Washington D C:World Resources Institute,2005.
[5]	薛达元,蒋明康. 中国自然保护区对生物多样性保护的贡献[J]. 自然资源学报,1995,(3):286-292.
	[Xue D Y,Jiang M K.Contributions of nature reserves in China to biodiversity con-servation[J]. Journal of Natural Resources,1995,(3):286-292.]
[6]	Barbier E B,Acreman M,Knowler D.Economic Valuation of Wetlands:a Guide for Policy Makers and Planners[R]. England:Ramsar Convention Bureau & University of York,1997.
[7]	Zhao B,Li B,Zhong Y,et al.Estimation of ecological service values of wetlands in Shanghai[J]. Chinese Geographical Science,2005,15(2):151-156.
[8]	Ambastha K,Hussain S A,Badola R.Resource dependence and attitudes of local people toward conservation of Kabartal wetland:a case study from the Indo-Gangetic plains[J]. Wetlands Ecological Management,2007,15(4):287-302.
[9]	WWF. Sacred Himalayan landscape in Nepal:understanding the changes in livelihoods assets with locals:a case study from Kanchenjunga conservation area project[R]. Nepal. World Wildlife Fund,Kathmandu,2007.
[10]	欧阳志云,郑华,岳平. 建立我国生态补偿机制的思路与措施[J]. 生态学报,2013,33(3):686-692.
	[Ouyang Z Y,Zheng H,Yue p. Establishment of ecological compensation mechanisms in China:Perspectives and strategies[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica,2013,33(3):686-692.]
[11]	杨新荣. 湿地生态补偿及其运行机制研究-以洞庭湖区为例[J]. 农业技术经济,2014,(2):103-113.
	[Yang X R.Wetland ecological compensation and its operation mechanism-a case study of Dongting Lake Area[J]. Journal of Agrotechnical Eco-nomics,2014,(2):103-113.]
[12]	Rubec C D A,Hanson A R. Wetland mitigation and compens-ation:Canadian experience[J]. Wetlands Ecology and Manage-ment,2009,17(1):3-14.
[13]	Bendor T,Brozovic N.Determinants of spatial and temporal patterns in compensatory wetland mitigation[J]. Environmental Management,2007,40(3):349-364.
[14]	Petrolia,D.R.,Kim,T. G.Preferences for timing of wetland loss prevention in Louisiana[J]. Wetlands,2011,31(2):295-307.
[15]	Kaplowitz M D,Kerr J.Michigan residents’ perceptions of wetlands and mitigation[J]. Wetlands,2014,23(2):267-277.
[16]	熊鹰,王克林,蓝万炼,等. 洞庭湖区湿地恢复的生态补偿效应评估[J]. 地理学报,2004,59(5):772-780.
	[ Xiong Y,Wang K L,Lan W L,et al.Ecological compensation effect evaluation of Dongting lake wetland restoration[J]. Geographical Research,2004,59(5):772-780.]
[17]	赵斐斐,陈东景,徐敏,等. 基于CVM的潮滩湿地生态补偿意愿研究-以连云港海滨新区为例[J]. 海洋环境科学,2011,30(6):872-876.
	[ Zhao F F,Chen D J,Xu M,et al.Study of the tidal flat wetland ecological compensation willingness based on CVM[J]. Marine Environmental Science,2011,30(6):872-876.]
[18]	王宇,延军平. 自然保护区村民对生态补偿的接受意愿分析-以陕西洋县朱鹮自然保护区为例[J]. 中国农村经济,2010,(1):63-73.
	[Wang Y,Yan J P.Analysis of villagers’ willingness in the nature reserve to accept ecological compensation-the case of Shaanxi crested ibis nature reserve[J]. Chinese Rural Eco-nomy,2010,(1):63-73.]
[19]	徐大伟,常亮,侯铁珊,等. 基于WTP和WTA的流域生态补偿标准测算-以辽河为例[J]. 资源科学,2012,34(7):1354-1361.
	[Xu D W,Chang L,Hou T S,et al.Measure of watershed ecological compensation standard based on WTP and WTA:a case study in Liaohe River Basin[J]. Resources Science,2012,34(7):1354-1361.]
[20]	姚莉萍,彭安明,朱红根. 农户湿地生态补偿政策需求优先序及影响因素-基于鄱阳湖区1009份调查数据的分析[J]. 湖南农业大学学报(社会科学版),2016,17(3):35-42.
	[ Yao L P,Peng A M,Zhu H G.Household demand priority sequence and influencing factors of the wetland ecological compensation policy-based on Poyang Lake Area 1009 survey data analysis[J]. Journal of Hunan Agricultural University (Social Sciences),2016,17(3):35-42.]
[21]	王昌海,崔丽娟,毛旭锋,等.湿地保护区周边农户生态补偿意愿比较.生态学报,2012,32(17):5345-5354.
	[Wang C H,Cui L J,Mao X F,et al.Comparative studies on the farmers' willing-ness to accept eco-compensation in wetlands nature reserve[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica,2012,32(17):5345-5354.]
[22]	Mcvittie A,Moran D.Valuing the non-use benefits of marine conservation zones[J]. Ecological Economics,2010,70(2):413-424.
[23]	Dias V,Belcher K.Value and provision of ecosystem services from prairie wetlands:a choice experiment approach[J]. Eco-system Services,2015,15:35-44.
[24]	石春娜,姚顺波,陈晓楠,等. 基于选择实验法的城市生态系统服务价值评估-以四川温江为例[J]. 自然资源学报,2016,31(5):767-778.
	[Shi C N,Yao S B,Chen X N,et al.Economic valuation of ecosystem services based on choice experiments:a case study of Wenjiang in Sichuan Province[J]. Journal of Natural Resources,2016,31(5):767-778.]
[25]	王尔大,李莉,韦健华. 基于选择实验法的国家森林公园资源和管理属性经济价值评价[J]. 资源科学,2015,37(1):193-200.
	[Wang E D,Li L,Wei J H.Economic value evaluation of resources and management attributes for forest parks using choice experiments[J]. Resources Science,2015,37(1):193-200.]
[26]	李京梅,陈琦,姚海燕. 基于选择实验法的胶州湾湿地围垦生态效益损失评估[J]. 资源科学,2015,37(1):68-75.
	[ Li J M,Chen Q,Yao H Y.Ecological damage assessment of Jiaozhou bay wetland reclamation using choice experiments[J]. Resources Science,2015,37(1):68-75.]
[27]	Smyth R L,Watzin M C,Manning R E.Investigating public preferences for managing Lake Champlain using a choice experi-ment[J]. Journal of Environmental Management,2009,90(1):615-623.
[28]	敖长林,刘芳芳,焦扬,等. 三江平原湿地生态价值属性选择分析[J]. 农业技术经济,2012,(7):87-93.
	[ Ao C L,Liu F F,Jiao Y,et al.Analysis of Sanjiang plain wetland ecological value attribute selection[J]. Journal of Agrotechnical Economics,2012,(7):87-93.]
[29]	苏红岩,李京梅. 基于改进选择实验法的广西红树林湿地修复意愿评估[J]. 资源科学,2016,38(9):1810-1819.
	[ Su H Y,Li J M.Evaluation of mangrove wetland in Guangxi Repair Willin-gness based on improving choice experiment method[J]. Resources Science,2016,38(9):1810-1819.]
[30]	张跃明,张哲邻,丁海华,等. 绿色农业在朱鹮栖息地保护中的应用[J]. 陕西师范大学学报(自然科学版),2006,34(S1):222-227.
	[Zhang Y M,Zhang Z L,Ding H H,et al.Application of the green agriculture in crested ibis habitat protection[J]. Journal of Shaanxi Normal University (Natural Science Edition),2006,34(S1):222-227.]
[31]	段伟,温亚利,王昌海. 朱鹮国家级自然保护区农户对环境和朱鹮保护的态度影响因素分析[J]. 湿地科学,2013,11(1):90-99.
	[Duan W,Wen Y L,Wang C H.Influencing factor analysis of farmers' attitude to the environment and crested ibis pro-tection in the crested ibis national nature reserve[J]. Wetland Science,2013,11(1):90-99.]
[32]	Lancaster K J.A new approach to consumer theory[J]. Journal of Political Economy,1966,74(2):132-157.
[33]	Franzén F,Dinnétz P,Hammer M.Factors affecting farmers' willingness to participate in eutrophication mitigation-a case study of preferences for wetland creation in Sweden[J]. Eco-logical Economics,2016,130(3):8-15.
[34]	Brownstone D,Train K.Forecasting new product penetration with flexible substitution patterns[J]. Journal of Econometrics,1999,89(1-2):109-129.
[35]	周晨,李国平. 流域生态补偿的支付意愿及影响因素-以南水北调中线工程受水区郑州市为例[J]. 经济地理,2015,35(6):41-44.
	[Zhou C,Li G P.The influencing factors for willingness to pay of payment for watershed services:a case of the water receiving area of Zhengzhou City of the middle route project of the south-north water transfer project[J]. Economic Geography,2015,35(6):41-44.]
[36]	龚亚珍,韩炜,Bennett M,等. 基于选择实验法的湿地保护区生态补偿政策研究[J]. 自然资源学报,2016,31(2):241-251.
	[Gong Y Z,Han W,Bennett M,et al.Study on eco-com-pensation policy design for wetland-a choice experiment approach[J]. Journal of Natural Resources,2016,31(2):241-251.]
[37]	Adamowicz W L.Innovative conservation policies for Canada that really integrate the environment and the economy[J]. The Institute for Research on Public Policy,Montreal,2007.
[38]	赵雪雁,李巍,王学良. 生态补偿研究中的几个关键问题[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境,2012,22(2):1-7.
	[Zhao X Y,Li W,Wang X L.Several key issues of ecological compensation research[J]. China Population,Resources And Environment,2012,22(2):1-7.]
[39]	Birol E,Karousakis K,Koundouri P.Using choice experiment to account for preference heterogeneity in wetland attributes:The case of Cheimaditida wetland in Greece[J]. Ecological Eco-nomics,2006,60(1):145-156.
[40]	Cranford M,Mourato S.Credit-based payments for ecosystem services:Evidence from a choice experiment in Ecuador[J]. World Development,2014,64:503-520.
[41]	Wang X,Bennett J,Xie C,et al.Estimating non-market environ-mental benefits of the conversion of cropland to forest and grassland program:a choice modeling approach[J]. Ecological Economics,2007,63(1):114-125.

变量	属性	备注	状态水平
X₁	方案实施年限	方案持续的年份	①1年;②5年;③10年
X₂	土地参与比例	参与补偿的土地总比例	①20%;②50%;③100%
X₃	农药减少比例	每年减少农药使用的比例	①10%;②20%;③30%
X₄	补偿标准	希望达到的补偿标准	①150元;②750元;③1500元

方案	方案实施年限	土地参与比例	农药减少比例	补偿标准	您的选择
方案1	1年	20%	10%	150元	□
方案2	1年	50%	20%	750元	□
方案3	1年	100%	30%	1500元	□
	以上三种方案均不参加				□

变量名称	均值	标准差	最小值	最大值
性别（男=1）	0.75	0.43	0	1
年龄/岁	53.15	10.68	20	80
受教育程度/年	7.24	3.25	0	15
是否为村干部（是=1）	0.16	0.29	0	1
工作类型（兼业=1）	0.51	0.50	0	1
家庭土地面积/hm²	0.40	0.34	0	2.67
居住位置（保护区内=1）	0.73	0.43	0	1
家庭人口数/人	3.48	1.50	1	9
家庭人均年收入/元	10 952.04	9 787.51	0	66 740

变量	模型1		模型2
变量	系数	标准差	系数	标准差
选择属性变量
常数项（ASC）	0.250***	0.040	0.069***	0.015
方案实施年限	-0.075*	0.054	-0.089	0.110
土地参与比例	-0.460**	0.172	-0.638***	0.152
农药减少比例	-3.518**	1.837	-5.050**	2.549
补偿标准	0.010***	0.002	0.011***	0.002
非选择属性变量
ASC×性别	-	-	0.208	0.863
ASC×年龄	-	-	-0.016*	0.014
ASC×教育水平	-	-	0.091**	0.036
ASC×保护认知	-	-	0.289*	0.137
ASC×居住位置	-	-	0.102***	0.038
ASC×家庭人口数	-	-	0.125**	0.054
ASC×家庭人均年收入	-	-	0.134***	0.032
Log likelihood	-296.356***		-291.247***
Pseudo R²	0.133		0.229