基于前景理论的受偿意愿与支付意愿差异性——以青岛市胶州湾围填海造地为例

doi:10.18402/resci.2021.05.15

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

受偿意愿和支付意愿的差异性导致条件价值评估法有所争议。本文基于前景理论参考点与厌恶损失构建效用函数,对受偿和支付意愿差异性的心理来源进行理论模型构建与分析,并在青岛市运用条件价值评估法构建胶州湾围填海造地3项差异化情景进行实证研究,为加强条件价值评估法调查结果的实践应用性提供参考。结果表明：①个体参考点偏离增大时,受偿和支付意愿的差异性增大;个体厌恶损失程度越高,表现出的受偿和支付意愿差异性越强。但两者在影响机理上有所差异,参考点通过正向影响受偿意愿,而厌恶损失通过负向影响支付意愿导致受偿和支付意愿间的差异性增大。②内在动机、融合动机以及教育程度均对支付意愿表现出显著正向影响,并且与受偿和支付意愿之间的差异性表现出显著负相关关系。③政府信任度与收入虽与支付意愿呈现出显著正相关关系,但并未对受偿和支付意愿之间的差异性表现出显著影响。研究揭示了影响受偿和支付意愿之间差异性的重要因素,有助于提高条件价值评估法运用的科学性与可靠性,为推进国内该领域相关研究提供参考。

关键词: 条件价值评估法, 受偿意愿, 支付意愿, 差异性, 前景理论, 青岛市

Abstract:

The wide application of the contingent valuation method is always accompanied by considerable skepticism about the validity due to the disparity between willingness-to-accept (WTA) and willingness-to-pay (WTP). Based on the prospect theory, this study constructed a utility function by introducing the reference point and loss aversion to traditional utility function, and explored the psychological foundation of the difference between WTA and WTP. Furthermore, this study used the contingent valuation method to investigate residents’ WTA and WTP in Qingdao City for three scenarios of marine reclamation in the Jiaozhou Bay to conduct an empirical analysis. The results show that when the deviation of individual reference point in WTA and WTP increased, the difference between WTA and WTP increased. The higher the degree of individual loss aversion, the larger the WTA and WTP disparity. The reference point positively affected WTA, while the loss aversion negatively affected WTP, leading to the increase of the difference between WTA and WTP. Additionally, intrinsic motivation, integration motivation, and education level all showed significant positive effects on WTP, and showed significant negative correlation with the difference between WTA and WTP. Although the trust in the government and income had a remarkable positive correlation with WTA, they had no prominent impact on the disparity between WTA and WTP. The research revealed the influencing factors of WTA and WTP difference, which is helpful for improving the scientific and reliable application of the contingent valuation method and to provide references for further research in this field in China.

Key words: contingent valuation method, willingness-to-accept, willingness-to-pay, disparity, prospect theory, Qingdao City

许志华, 卢静暄, 曾贤刚. 基于前景理论的受偿意愿与支付意愿差异性——以青岛市胶州湾围填海造地为例[J]. 资源科学, 2021, 43(5): 1025-1037.

XU Zhihua, LU Jingxuan, ZENG Xiangang. Disparity between willingness-to-accept and willingness-to-pay based on the prospect theory: A case study of Jiaozhou Bay reclamation in Qingdao City, China[J]. Resources Science, 2021, 43(5): 1025-1037.

图/表 5

图1

表1

表2

表3

表4

参考文献 44

[1]	Venkatachalam L. The contingent valuation method: A review[J]. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 2004, 24(1): 89-124. doi: 10.1016/S0195-9255(03)00138-0
[2]	Whitehead J C, Wicker P. Valuing nonmarket benefits of participatory sport events using willingness to travel: Payment card versus random selection with mitigation of hypothetical bias[J]. International Journal of Tourism Research, 2019, 21(2): 180-186. doi: 10.1002/jtr.v21.2
[3]	Ana B. Mitigating hypothetical bias in willingness to pay studies: Post-estimation uncertainty and anchoring on irrelevant information[J]. The European Journal of Health Economics, 2018, 20(1): 75-82. doi: 10.1007/s10198-018-0983-1
[4]	Pu S S, Shao Z J, Yang L, et al. How much will the Chinese public pay for air pollution mitigation? A nationwide empirical study based on a willingness-to-pay scenario and air purifier costs[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2019, 218:51-60. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.270
[5]	李京梅, 单菁竹, 邓云成, 等. 海洋生物多样性价值评估的不确定性偏差修正: 以福建平潭为例[J]. 资源科学, 2020, 42(7): 1338-1347.
	[Li J M, Shan J Z, Deng Y C, et al. Uncertainty bias and its correction in contingent valuation method: A case study of marine biodiversity valuation in Pingtan County[J]. Resources Science, 2020, 42(7): 1338-1347.]
[6]	苏红岩, 王华. 意愿调查法中的偏好不确定性研究综述[J]. 资源科学, 2019, 41(12): 2327-2341.
	[Su H Y, Wang H. A review of preference uncertainty in contingent valuation method[J]. Resources Science, 2019, 41(12): 2327-2341.]
[7]	Drichoutis A C, Lusk J L, Pappa V. Elicitation formats and the WTA/WTP gap: A study of climate neutral foods[J]. Food Policy, 2016, 61:141-155. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.03.001
[8]	Gong C M, Lizieri C, Bao H. “Smarter information, smarter consumers”? Insights into the housing market[J]. Journal of Business Research, 2019, 97:51-64. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.12.036
[9]	Vassilopoulos A, Avgeraki N, Klonaris S. Social desirability and the WTP-WTA disparity in common goods[J]. Environment Development and Sustainability, 2020, 22(10): 6425-6444. doi: 10.1007/s10668-019-00490-6
[10]	Müller A, Olschewski R, Unterberger C, et al. The valuation of forest ecosystem services as a tool for management planning: A choice experiment[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2020, DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111008. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111008
[11]	Horowitz J K, Mcconnell K E. A review of WTA/WTP studies[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 2002, 44(3): 426-447. doi: 10.1006/jeem.2001.1215
[12]	Tienhaara A, Haltia E, Pouta E, et al. Demand and supply of agricultural ES: Towards benefit-based policy[J]. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 2020, 47(3): 1223-1249. doi: 10.1093/erae/jbz044
[13]	Willig R. Consumers’ surplus without apology[J]. American Economic Review, 1976, 66(4): 589-597.
[14]	Horowitz J, List J, McConnell K E. A test of diminishing marginal value[J]. Economica, 2007, 74(296): 650-663. doi: 10.1111/ecca.2007.74.issue-296
[15]	Hanemann W M. Willingness to pay and willingness to accept: How much can they differ?[J]. The American Economic Review, 1991, 81(3): 635-647.
[16]	Hamed E D, Hossein N, Omid M G, et al. Evaluating rural participation in wetland management: A contingent valuation analysis of the set-aside policy in Iran[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2020, DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141127. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141127
[17]	Georgantzís N, Navarro-Martínez D. Understanding the WTA-WTP gap: Attitudes, feelings, uncertainty and personality[J]. Journal of Economic Psychology, 2010, 31(6): 895-907. doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2010.07.004
[18]	Biel A, Johansson-Stenman O, Nilsson A. The willingness to pay-willingness to accept gap revisited: The role of emotions and moral satisfaction[J]. Journal of Economic Psychology, 2011, 32(6): 908-917. doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2011.07.010
[19]	Boyce R R, Brown T C, McClelland G H, et al. An experimental examination of intrinsic values as a source of the WTA-WTP disparity[J]. The American Economic Review, 1992, 82(5): 1366-1373.
[20]	Anderson J, Vadnjal D, Uhlin H E. Moral dimensions of the WTA-WTP disparity: An experimental examination[J]. Ecological Economics, 2000, 32(1): 153-162. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00074-9
[21]	Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk[J]. Econometrica, 1979, 47(2): 263-291. doi: 10.2307/1914185
[22]	Lewandowski M. Buying and selling price for risky lotteries and expected utility theory with gambling wealth[J]. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 2014, 48(3): 252-283.
[23]	Merkle C, Schreiber P, Weber M. Framing and retirement age: The gap between willingness-to-accept and willingness-to-pay[J]. Economic Policy, 2017, 32(92): 757-809. doi: 10.1093/epolic/eix014
[24]	Pan X F, Zuo Z. Investigating travelers’ heterogeneous attitudes toward losses: Insights from a stated preference experiment[J]. Transportation Letters, 2020, 12(8): 559-569. doi: 10.1080/19427867.2019.1669000
[25]	Koetse M J, Brouwer R. Reference dependence effects on WTA and WTP value functions and their disparity[J]. Environmental & Resource Economics, 2016, 65(4): 723-745.
[26]	徐大伟, 刘春燕, 常亮. 流域生态补偿意愿的WTP与WTA差异性研究: 基于辽河中游地区居民的CVM调查[J]. 自然资源学报, 2013, 28(3): 402-409.
	[Xu D W, Liu C Y, Chang L. A Study on the disparity of WTP and WTA of the basin’ s willingness to compensate: Based on the residents’ CVM investigation in the middle Liaohe Drainage Basin[J]. Journal of Natural Resources, 2013, 28(3): 402-409.]
[27]	国常宁, 杨建州. 基于双边界二分式CVM法的森林生物多样性生态价值评估[J]. 统计与决策, 2019, 35(24): 24-28.
	[Guo C N, Yang J Z. Evaluation on ecological value of forest biodiversity resource based on double-bounded contingent valuation methods[J]. Statistics and Decision, 2019, 35(24): 24-28.]
[28]	郭江, 铁卫, 李国平. 运用CVM评估煤炭矿区生态环境外部成本的测算尺度选择研究: 基于有效性和可靠性分析视角[J]. 生态经济, 2018, 34(8): 163-168.
	[Guo J, Tie W, Li G P. A Study on the selection of measurement scale using CVM to evaluate the external cost of ecological environment in coal mining area based on validity and reliability analysis[J]. Ecological Economy, 2018, 34(8): 163-168.]
[29]	黄文彬, 陈风波, 谭莹. 种粮目的对农地流转中农户意愿价格差异的影响[J]. 资源科学, 2017, 39(10): 1844-1857.
	[Huang W B, Chen F B, Tan Y. The effect of grain production purpose on the disparity of farmers’ land transferring willingness price[J]. Resources Science, 2017, 39(10): 1844-1857.]
[30]	崔卫华. CVM在工业遗产资源价值评价中测度指标差异及其选择的实证研究[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2013, 23(9): 149-155.
	[Cui W H. Empirical research on CVM measuring index discrepancies and its choice in value assessment of heritage resources[J]. China Population, Resources and Environment, 2013, 23(9): 149-155.]
[31]	刘亚萍, 金建湘, 周武生, 等. 环境价值评估中的WTP值和WTA值测算与非对称性: 以广西北部湾经济区滨海生态环境保护为例[J]. 生态学报, 2015, 35(9): 2870-2879.
	[Liu Y P, Jin J X, Zhou W S, et al. Measurement and analysis of asymmetry between WTP and WTA values in the evaluation of environmental value: The case of coastal environmental protection in the Guangxi Beibu Gulf Economic Zone[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2015, 35(9): 2870-2879.]
[32]	Schmidt U, Starmer C, Sugden R. Third-generation prospect theory[J]. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 2008, 36(3): 203-223. doi: 10.1007/s11166-008-9040-2
[33]	宋金明, 袁华茂, 李学刚, 等. 胶州湾的生态环境演变与营养盐变化的关系[J]. 海洋科学, 2020, 44(8): 106-117.
	[Song J M, Yuan H M, Li X G, et al. Ecological environment evolution and nutrient variations in Jiaozhou Bay[J]. Marine Sciences, 2020, 44(8): 106-117.]
[34]	王志成, 高志强. 基于土地利用变化的1987-2017年胶州湾潮滩湿地时空特征及成因分析[J]. 水土保持研究, 2020, 27(6): 196-201.
	[Wang Z C, Gao Z Q. Analysis on spatiotemporal characteristics and causes of tidal flat wetland in Jiaozhou Bay from 1987 to 2017 based on land use change[J]. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 2020, 27(6): 196-201.]
[35]	于格, 张军岩, 鲁春霞, 等. 围海造地的生态环境影响分析[J]. 资源科学, 2009, 31(2): 265-270.
	[Yu G, Zhang J Y, Lu C X, et al. Study on the impacts of marine reclamation on eco-environment[J]. Resources Science, 2009, 31(2): 265-270.]
[36]	庞立华, 孔范龙, 郗敏, 等. 胶州湾海岸带生态脆弱性时空变化分析[J]. 华东师范大学学报(自然科学版), 2018, (3): 222-233.
	[Pang L H, Kong F L, Xi M, et al. Spatio-temporal changes of ecological vulnerability in the Jiaozhou Bay coastal zone[J]. Journal of East China Normal University (Natural Science), 2018, (3): 222-233.]
[37]	郑洋, 于格, 钟萍丽, 等. 基于土地利用变化和生态系统服务的海岸带生态安全综合评价: 以胶州湾为例[J]. 应用生态学报, 2018, 29(12): 4097-4105.
	[Zheng Y, Yu G, Zhong P L, et al. Integrated assessment of coastal ecological security based on land use change and ecosystem services in the Jiaozhou Bay, Shandong Peninsula, China[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2018, 29(12): 4097-4105.]
[38]	Geng J C, Long R Y, Chen H, et al. Exploring the motivation-behavior gap in urban residents’ green travel behavior: A theoretical and empirical study[J]. Resources Conservation and Recycling, 2017, 125:282-292. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.06.025
[39]	Wang S Y, Wang J, Li J, et al. Do motivations contribute to local residents’ engagement in pro-environmental behaviors? Resident-destination relationship and pro-environmental climate perspective[J]. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 2020, 28(6): 834-852. doi: 10.1080/09669582.2019.1707215
[40]	Deci E L, Ryan R M. The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the Self-Determination of behavior[J]. Psychological Inquiry, 2000, 11(4): 227-268. doi: 10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
[41]	Ryan R M, Deci E L. Self-determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness[M]. New York: Guilford Press, 2017.
[42]	Tagkaloglou S, Kasser T. Increasing collaborative, pro-environmental activism: The roles of motivational interviewing, self-determined motivation, and self-efficacy[J]. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2018, 58:86-92. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.06.004
[43]	Liu R F, Gao Z F, Nayga R M, et al. Consumers’ valuation for food traceability in China: Does trust matter?[J]. Food Policy, 2019, 88: DOI: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2019.101768. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2019.101768
[44]	Ouyang X L, Zhuang W X, Sun C W. Haze, health, and income: An integrated model for willingness to pay for haze mitigation in Shanghai, China[J]. Energy Economics, 2019, DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2019.104535. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2019.104535

变量	海域被破坏或修复的面积/km²	零值比例/%	均值	中位数	标准差
受偿意愿	50	15.43	312.335	100.0	372.383
	100	14.86	338.935	160.0	376.692
	150	14.86	370.165	180.0	393.182
支付意愿	50	24.00	127.310	40.0	228.325
	100	20.86	160.634	50.0	260.281
	150	20.29	182.795	75.0	277.727
d	50	25.00	185.026	27.5	377.570
	100	25.28	178.301	22.5	390.476
	150	26.99	187.369	10.0	414.526

变量	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)
参考点	0.216	0.429*	0.420*	0.433*	0.375
参考点	(0.245)	(0.240)	(0.238)	(0.236)	(0.238)
厌恶损失	0.269***	0.269***	0.192*	0.223**	0.218**
厌恶损失	(0.102)	(0.096)	(0.099)	(0.098)	(0.099)
内在动机		-0.468***	-0.473***	-0.502***	-0.546***
内在动机		(0.170)	(0.168)	(0.168)	(0.169)
识别动机		0.229	0.253	0.275*	0.296*
识别动机		(0.167)	(0.165)	(0.164)	(0.166)
融合动机		-0.477***	-0.481***	-0.432***	-0.421***
融合动机		(0.129)	(0.127)	(0.127)	(0.128)
政府信任度		-0.120	-0.096	-0.134	-0.140
政府信任度		(0.101)	(0.100)	(0.099)	(0.100)
性别			-0.384	-0.224	-0.304
性别			(0.261)	(0.258)	(0.261)
年龄			-0.046	-0.048	-0.053
年龄			(0.072)	(0.073)	(0.073)
教育程度			-0.344***	-0.375***	-0.361***
教育程度			(0.124)	(0.123)	(0.124)
收入			-0.058	-0.215*	-0.212
收入			(0.130)	(0.129)	(0.130)
居住地			0.405	0.608*	0.696**
居住地			(0.327)	(0.325)	(0.328)
常数项	0.675	2.766***	4.506***	5.789***	5.792***
常数项	(0.487)	(0.795)	(1.670)	(1.658)	(1.673)

	受偿意愿			支付意愿
	50 km²	100 km²	150 km²	50 km²	100 km²	150 km²
参考点	0.380*	0.419*	0.428*	-0.079	0.020	0.104
参考点	(0.230)	(0.230)	(0.233)	(0.187)	(0.190)	(0.191)
厌恶损失	-0.033	-0.036	-0.023	-0.208***	-0.212***	-0.194**
厌恶损失	(0.091)	(0.091)	(0.092)	(0.075)	(0.075)	(0.076)
内在动机	0.038	-0.034	-0.079	0.523***	0.496***	0.513***
内在动机	(0.164)	(0.164)	(0.166)	(0.133)	(0.135)	(0.137)
识别动机	0.212	0.305*	0.351**	-0.018	0.055	0.074
识别动机	(0.162)	(0.162)	(0.164)	(0.127)	(0.128)	(0.129)
融合动机	-0.082	-0.094	-0.07	0.418***	0.364***	0.348***
融合动机	(0.120)	(0.120)	(0.121)	(0.100)	(0.101)	(0.102)
政府信任度	0.137	0.105	0.090	0.161**	0.154**	0.151*
政府信任度	(0.091)	(0.091)	(0.092)	(0.077)	(0.078)	(0.078)
性别	-0.329	-0.255	-0.243	0.046	-0.059	0.032
性别	(0.245)	(0.245)	(0.247)	(0.204)	(0.208)	(0.210)
年龄	-0.091	-0.129	-0.153	-0.161	-0.128	-0.141
年龄	(0.141)	(0.141)	(0.143)	(0.120)	(0.123)	(0.124)
教育程度	-0.058	-0.077	-0.066	0.230**	0.252**	0.236**
教育程度	(0.134)	(0.134)	(0.135)	(0.111)	(0.113)	(0.114)
收入	0.297	0.184	0.213	0.425***	0.503***	0.491***
收入	(0.182)	(0.182)	(0.184)	(0.151)	(0.154)	(0.156)
居住地	0.186	0.114	0.076	-0.219	-0.518*	-0.631**
居住地	(0.325)	(0.326)	(0.329)	(0.266)	(0.271)	(0.274)
常数项	-0.409	-0.228	-0.257	0.075	-0.104	0.002
常数项	(0.578)	(0.579)	(0.584)	(0.468)	(0.474)	(0.478)

变量	（1）	（2）	（3）
类型	210.222***	212.389***	291.405*
类型	(45.437)	(45.147)	(169.345)
参考点	-52.857	-46.971	-26.522
参考点	(43.844)	(43.640)	(68.757)
厌恶损失	9.298	-25.217	8.877
厌恶损失	(16.805)	(23.111)	(16.849)
类型∙厌恶损失		72.181**
类型∙厌恶损失		(33.423)
类型∙参考点			-44.471
类型∙参考点			(89.354)
常数项	358.877***	345.776***	310.705**
常数项	(86.766)	(86.405)	(130.068)