基于廉价磋商的CVM假想偏差修正研究----以松花江流域为例

doi:10.18402/resci.2016.03.13

Abstract

Abstract:

The Contingent Valuation Method (CVM)is one of the most widely used methods to estimate values,especially the non-use values of natural resources and environmental goods. As the hypothetical properties of elicitation,CVM has been disputed by the academic community for years. The purpose of this paper is to test the effect of cheap talk (CT)with promoting reminding scripts,to examine whether the reminder of substitutes is appropriate as an assistant means and to explore how ecological awareness and cognitive attitudes impact on respondents' willingness to pay(WTP). To do so,we took the Songhua River Basin as our research object and designed questionnaires into three treatments classified by different reminding scripts. By contrast,the reminder of substitutes was not suitable for estimating non-use values of environmental goods in that the concept of substitutes made the respondents confused and resulted in biased WTP. Instead,the CT assisted by content of budget constraints worked better and relieved the hypothetical bias. The WTP per capita evaluated with CT was between 248.71CNY/a and 258.81CNY/a and the non-use values of the Songhua River Basin were between 13.62billion and 14.17billion in 2012. The hypothetical bias cause by traditional survey methods accounted for 3.8% to 5.5% of total non-use value. Ecological awareness and cognitive attitudes influenced respondent WTP to different extents and this should be considered by decision-makers. These findings will be helpful in furthering research into CT and provides useful references for governmental environmental policy-making in China.

Key words: CVM, cheap talk, reminding scripts, willingness to pay, evaluation of non-use values, the Songhua River Basin

TONG Rui,AO Changlin,JIAO Yang,GAO Qin. A correction study of CVM hypothetical bias based on cheap talk for the Songhua River Basin[J].Resources Science, 2016, 38(3): 501-511.

Figures/Tables 4

Table 1

Table 2

Statistical description of the socio-economic attribute variables of respondents"

变量/预测方向	变量解释	人数	支付率 /%	交叉表分析	变量/预测方向	变量解释	人数	支付率 /%	交叉表分析
性别	女性 sex=1	519	89.8	0.466	是否愿意为较远的生态资源捐款保护	任何捐款都不愿意 far=1	58	56.9	0.365
sex/-	男性 sex=2	597	86.9		far/+	仅近处愿意 far=2	223	83.0
年龄	<18 age=1	62	95.2	0.675		没有想法 far=3	178	82.0
age/-	18~25 age=2	385	93.2			愿意 far=4	657	94.5
	36~35 age=3	254	86.2		对松花江流域保护现状的评价	保护不佳,生态资源退化 com=1	194	87.6	0.622
	36~45 age=4	204	86.8		com/-	保护一般,面临污染和破坏 com=2	502	90.4
	46~55 age=5	115	82.6			不了解不评价 com=3	184	85.9
	≥56 age=6	96	79.2			景观及物种保护较好 com=4	173	87.3
教育程度	小学以下 edu=1	42	73.8	0.417		景观及物种保护非常好 com=5	63	82.5
edu/+	初中 edu=2	183	84.7		松花江生态保护和经济发展哪个重要	经济社会发展更重要 att=4	45	68.9	0.758
	高中(包括中专) edu=3	295	88.5		att/-	保护的前提是不影响发展 att=3	231	82.7
	大学 edu=4	491	90.8			可付出一定经济代价来保护生态 att=2	652	91.9
	研究生及以上 edu=5	105	87.6			生态保护更重要 att=1	188	87.2
年收入 /万元	<0.3 inc=1	432	89.8	0.302	是否愿意为保护松花江流域生态环境降低自身生活标准	不愿意 sac=1	277	76.9	0.739
inc/+	0.3~0.6 inc=2	109	85.3		sac/+	不知道 sac=2	169	88.8
	0.6~1.2 inc=3	115	85.2			愿意 sac=3	670	92.8
	1.2~2.4 inc=4	158	88.0		生态意识水平 eco/+	连续变量,得分越高,生态意识水平越高	-	-	-
	2.4~3.6 inc=5	133	89.5		含有替代物品提示的CT问卷	A组问卷 LCT=1	373	87.1	-
	3.6~4.8 inc=6	78	85.9		LCT/+	其余问卷 LCT=0	743	88.8	-
	4.8~6.0 inc=7	33	84.8		不含替代物品提示的CT问卷	B组问卷 SCT=1	375	89.9
	6.0~12.0 inc=8	41	92.7		SCT/-	其余问卷 SCT=0	741	87.4	-
	≥12 inc=9	17	88.2		对比问卷	C组问卷	368	87.8
						其余问卷	748	88.5

Table 2

Table 3

Figure1

References 48

[1]	Mitchell R C,Carson R T.Using surveys to value public goods:The contingent valuation method[J]. Computers,Environment and Urban Systems,1990,14(1):77-79.
[2]	陈琳,欧阳志云,王效科,等. 条件价值评估法在非市场价值评估中的应用[J]. 生态学报,2006,26(2):610-619.
	[Chen L,Ouyang Z Y,Wang X K,et al.Applications of contingent valuation method in evaluation of non-market values[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica,2006,26(2):610-619.]
[3]	Ciriacy-Wantrup S V. Capital returns from soil conservation practices[J]. Journal of Farm Economics,1947,29(4):1181-1202.
[4]	Davis R K.Recreation planning as an economic problem[J]. Nat.resources J,1963,3(2):239-249.
[5]	Morey E R.The demand for site-specific recreational activities:A characteristics approach[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics & Management,1981,8(4):345-371.
[6]	Randall A,Ives B,Eastman C.Bidding games for valuation of aesthetic environmental improvements[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics & Management,1974,1(2):132-149.
[7]	Carson R T,Hanemann W.Contingent Valuation-Handbook of Environment Economics[M]. Amsterdam:Elsevier,2005.
[8]	Diamond P A,Hausman J A.Contingent valuation:Is some number better than no number?[J]. Journal of Economic Per-spectives,1994,8(4):45-64.
[9]	Hanneman W M.Valuing the environment through contingent valuation[J]. Journal of Economic Perspectives,1994,8(4):19-43.
[10]	Cummings R G,Brookshire D S,Schulze W D,et al.Valuing Environmental Goods:An Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method[M]. Totowa:Rowman & Allanheld,1986.
[11]	Duffield J W,Patterson D A.Inference and optimal design for a welfare measure in dichotomous choice contingent valuation[J]. Land Economics,1991,67(2):225-239.
[12]	Seip K,Strand J.Willingness to pay for environmental goods in Norway:A contingent valuation study with real payment[J]. Environmental & Resource Economics,1992,2(1):91-106.
[13]	董雪旺,张捷,刘传华,等. 条件价值法中的偏差分析及信度和效度检验-以九寨沟游憩价值评估为例[J]. 地理学报,2011,66(2):267-278.
	[Dong X W,Zhang J,Liu C H,et al.Bias analysis and reliability and validity test in contingent valuation method:A case study of assessment of Jiuzhaigou's recreational value[J]. Acta Geographica Sinica,2011,66(2):267-278.]
[14]	杨凯,赵军. 城市河流生态系统服务的CVM估值及其偏差分析[J]. 生态学报,2005,25(6):1391-1396.
	[Yang K,Zhao J.Study on the ecosystem services value of urban river using contingent valuation method and bias analysis of the results[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica,2005,25(6):1391-1396.]
[15]	Blomquist G C,Blumenschein K,Johannesson M.Eliciting willingness to pay without bias using follow-up certainty statements:Comparisons between probably/definitely and a 10-point certainty scale[J]. Environmental & Resource Economics,2009,43(4):473-502.
[16]	Morrison M,Brown T C.Testing the effectiveness of certainty scales,cheap talk,and dissonance-minimization in reducing hypothetical bias in contingent valuation studies[J]. Environmental & Resource Economics,2009,44(3):307-326.
[17]	Arrow K,Solow R,Portney P R,et al.Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation[J]. Federal Register,1993,58(10):4601-4644.
[18]	Jacquemet N,Joule R V,Luchini S,et al.Eliciting Preferences under Oath[R]. Paris:CES Working Paper,2009.
[19]	Jacquemet N,James A G,Luchini S,et al.Referendum Under Oath[R].Beijing:Social Science Electronic Publishing,2010.
[20]	Jacquemet N,Joule R,Luchini S,et al.Preference elicitation under oath[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,2013,65(1):110-132.
[21]	Stevens T H,Tabatabaei M,Lass D.Oaths and hypothetical bias[J]. Journal of Environmental Management,2013,127(2):135-141.
[22]	Cummings R G,Taylor L O.Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods:A cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method[J]. American Economic Review,1999,89(3):649-665.
[23]	Venkatachalam L.The contingent valuation method:A review[J]. Environmental Impact Assessment Review,2004,24(3):89-124.
[24]	许丽忠,钟满秀,韩智霞,等. 环境与资源价值CV评估预测有效性研究进展[J]. 自然资源学报,2012,27(8):1421-1430.
	[Xu L Z,Zhong M X,Han Z X,et al.Predictive validity of contingent valuation on environment and resource programs:A review[J]. Journal of Natural Resources,2012,27(8):1421-1430.]
[25]	Aadland D,Caplan A J.Cheap talk reconsidered:New evidence from CVM[J]. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,2006,60(4):562-578.
[26]	Poe G L,Clark J E,Rondeau D,et al.Provision point mechanisms and field validity tests of contingent valuation[J]. Environmental & Resource Economics,2002,23(1):105-131.
[27]	List J A,Gallet C A.What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values?[J]. Environmental & Resource Economics,2001,20(3):241-254.
[28]	Ajzen I,Brown T C,Carvajal F.Explaining the discrepancy between intentions and actions:The case of hypothetical bias in contingent valuation[J]. Journal of Public Economic Theory,2004,30(5):1108-1121.
[29]	Whitehead J C,Cherry T L.Willingness to pay for a Green Energy program:A comparison of ex-ante and ex-post hypothetical bias mitigation approaches[J]. Resource & Energy Economics,2007,29(4):247-261.
[30]	Bulte E,Gerking S,List J A,et al.The effect of varying the causes of environmental problems on stated WTP values:Evidence from a field study[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics & Management,2005,49(2):330-342.
[31]	Murphy J J,Stevens T,Weatherhead D,et al.An Empirical Study of Hypothetical Bias in Voluntary Contribution Contingent Valuation:Does Cheap Talk Matter?[R]. Monterey:World Congress of Environmental and Resource Economists,2002.
[32]	杜亚平. 改善东湖水质的经济分析[J]. 生态经济,1996,(6):15-21.
	[Du Y P.Economic analysis of water quality improvement in East Lake,Wuhan[J]. Ecological Economy,1996,(6):15-21.]
[33]	赵菊勤. 条件价值评估法的有效性和可靠性研究-以评估兰州市四城区大气污染总经济价值为例[D]. 兰州:西北师范大学,2009.
	[Zhao J Q.Study on Validity and Reliability of Contingent Valuation Method:A Case of Willing Investigation of Improving Air Quality in the Four District of Lanzhou[D]. Lanzhou:Northwest Normal University,2009.]
[34]	张翼飞. CVM评估生态服务价值的经济有效性和可靠性理论述评[J]. 生态经济,2007,(6):34-37.
	[Zhang Y F.Theoretical analyses on the validity and reliability study of CVM applying in ecosystem service valuation[J]. Ecological Economy,2007,(6):34-37.]
[35]	韩智霞. 初探WTA/WTP不对称的动力机制-兼评CVM实施框架[D]. 福州:福建师范大学,2010.
	[Han Z X.Initially Explored WTA/WTP Asymmetry Dynamic Mechanism:Comment on the Implementation Framework of CVM [D]. Fuzhou:Fujian Normal University,2010.]
[36]	林贤彪,颜燕燕,闵庆文,等. 农业文化遗产非使用价值评估及其影响因素分析-以福州茉莉花种植与茶文化遗产为例[J]. 资源科学,2014,35(5):1089-1097.
	[Lin X B,Yan Y Y,Min Q W,et al.Evaluating the non-use value of agricultural heritage across jasmine planted and tea cultural systems in Fuzhou[J]. Resource Science,2014,35(5):1089-1097.]
[37]	游巍斌,何东进,洪伟,等. 基于条件价值法的武夷山风景名胜区遗产资源非使用价值评估[J]. 资源科学,2014,36(9):1880-1888.
	[You W B,He D J,Hong W,et al.The non-use value of heritage resources in Wuyishan scenery district using the contingent valuation method[J]. Resource Science,2014,36(9):1880-1888.]
[38]	Bloomfield R,Kadiyali V.How verifiable cheap-talk can communicate unverifiable information[J]. Quantitative Marketing & Economics,2005,3(4):337-363.
[39]	Murphy J J,Stevens T,Weatherhead D.Is cheap talk effective at eliminating hypothetical bias in a provision point mechanism?[J]. Environmental & Resource Economics,2005,30(3):327-343.
[40]	Morrison M,Brown T C.Testing the effectiveness of certainty scales,cheap talk,and dissonance-minimization in reducing hypothetical bias in contingent valuation studies[J]. Environ-mental & Resource Economics,2009,44(3):307-326.
[41]	Hanemann W M.Willingness to pay and willingness to accept compensation for changes in urban water customer service standards[J]. American Economic Review,1991,81(3):635-647.
[42]	Cameron T A,James M D.Estimating willingness to pay from survey data:An alternative pre-test-market evaluation procedure[J]. Journal of Marketing Research,1987,24(4):389-395.
[43]	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.The attributes choice analysis of Sanjiang Plain ecological values[J]. Journal of Agrotechnical Economics,2012,(7):87-93.]
[44]	敖长林,陈瑾婷,焦扬,等. 生态保护价值的距离衰减性-以三江平原湿地为例[J]. 生态学报,2013,33(16):5109-5117.
	[Ao C L,Chen J T,Jiao Y,et al.The effect of distance on the ecological conservation value:A case study of Sanjiang Plain Wetland[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica,2013,33(16):5109-5117.]
[45]	高琴,敖长林,陈红光,等. 基于居民生态认知的非使用价值支付意愿空间分异研究-以三江平原湿地为例[J]. 生态学报,2014,34(7):1851-1859.
	[Gao Q,Ao C L,Chen H G,et al.Spatial differentiation research of non-use value WTP based on the residents' ecological cognition:Taking the Sanjiang Plain as a case[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica,2014,34(7):1851-1859.]
[46]	Stern P C,Dietz T,Guagnano G A.The new ecological paradigm in social-psychological context[J]. Environment & Behavior,1995,27(6):723-743.
[47]	Neill H R.The context for substitutes in CVM studies:Some empirical observations[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,1995,29(3):393-397.
[48]	Loomis J B,Caban A,Gregory R.Substitutes and budget constraints in contingent valuation[J]. Land Economics,1994,70(4):499-506.

问卷类型	T	T ^U	T ^L	YY		YN		NY		NN		抗议支付		合计
问卷类型	T	T ^U	T ^L	人数	比例/%	人数	比例/%	人数	比例/%	人数	比例/%	人数	比例/%	人数	比例/%
1	5	10	3	152	85.4	11	6.2	6	3.4	1	0.6	8	4.5	178	100
2	10	20	5	148	76.3	23	11.9	6	3.1	0	0.0	17	8.8	194	100
3	20	30	10	154	77.4	14	7.0	12	6.0	1	0.5	18	9.0	199	100
4	50	100	30	116	63.0	23	12.5	15	8.2	5	2.7	25	13.6	184	100
5	100	200	50	76	42.7	31	17.4	23	12.9	12	6.7	36	20.2	178	100
6	200	500	100	63	34.4	43	23.5	33	18.0	17	9.3	27	14.8	183	100
合计				709	63.5	145	13.0	95	8.5	36	3.2	131	11.7	1 116	100

变量	实验分组
变量	总体	A组	B组	C组
intercept	-7.770 85***	-8.660 62	-7.250 63	-9.248 13*
intercept	(-0.009 4)	(-0.124 4)	(-0.181 2)	(-0.078 8)
sex	0.294 54*	0.243 89	0.493 90*	0.238 24
sex	(-0.072 3)	(-0.412 0)	(-0.092 7)	(-0.437 3)
age	-0.074 92	-0.026 61	-0.168 89	-0.070 97
age	(-0.242 5)	(-0.813 8)	(-0.161 4)	(-0.509 9)
edu	0.284 35***	0.336 54**	0.287 92*	0.074 87
edu	(-0.001 3)	(-0.032 9)	(-0.062 1)	(-0.644 1)
inc	0.151 98***	0.161 29**	0.223 44***	0.156 93*
inc	(-0.000 8)	(-0.042 6)	(-0.007 7)	(-0.054 5)
far	0.276 62***	0.135 12	0.311 05**	0.406 17**
far	(-0.001 6)	(-0.419 4)	(-0.041 8)	(-0.012 3)
com	-0.107 81	0.009 33	0.082 98	-0.343 07**
com	(-0.131 7)	(-0.949 1)	(-0.514 1)	(-0.011 9)
att	-0.021 76	0.299 78	-0.452 60**	0.165 36
att	(-0.850 0)	(-0.207 8)	(-0.027 3)	(-0.402 0)
sac	0.478 11***	0.203 82	0.596 04***	0.645 65***
sac	(-0.000 1)	(-0.259 2)	(-0.000 8)	(-0.000 2)
lneco	2.628 24***	2.581 28*	2.673 55**	3.140 53**
lneco	(-0.000 3)	(-0.059 5)	(-0.049 4)	(-0.011 7)
LCT	0.056 35	-	-	-
LCT	(-0.774 6)	-	-	-
SCT	-0.062 53	-	-	-
SCT	(-0.760 7)	-	-	-
lnT	-1.160 28***	-0.996 42***	-1.286 29***	-1.292 67***
lnT	(-0.000 1)	(-0.000 1)	(-0.000 1)	(-0.000 1)
log likelihood	-778.811 0	-270.654 0	-253.032 0	-242.613 0
AIC	1 583.621 0	563.308 4	528.063 2	507.225 9
WTP/(元/a)	274.460 0	296.450 0	258.810 0	268.280 0
WTP'/(元/a)	269.930 0	278.840 0	248.710 0	262.970 0

A correction study of CVM hypothetical bias based on cheap talk for the Songhua River Basin

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Like

Knowledge

Cited

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 4

References 48

Related Articles 15

Metrics

Comments

Recommended 0

[1]	LI Jingmei, SHAN Jingzhu, DENG Yuncheng, XU Handuo. 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.
[2]	HE Siyuan, LI Heyao, MIN Qingwen. Value and conservation actors of Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (IAHS) from the perspective of rural households [J]. Resources Science, 2020, 42(5): 870-880.
[3]	LI Jingmei, DING Zhongxian, XU Wanting, XU Zhihua, SHAN Jingzhu. National park ticket pricing based on double-bounded dichotomous contingent valuation method for the Jiaozhou Bay National Marine Park [J]. Resources Science, 2020, 42(2): 232-241.
[4]	LIU Xiao, XU Jianhua. Public willingness to pay for cleaner power sources [J]. Resources Science, 2020, 42(12): 2328-2340.
[5]	Yajuan JIA,Minjuan ZHAO. The influence of environmental concern and institutional trust on farmers’ willingness to participate in rural domestic waste treatment [J]. Resources Science, 2019, 41(8): 1500-1512.
[6]	Jia LIU, Ning LIU. Evaluating the environmental value loss of coastal tourism and influencing infactors under the influence of Enteromorpha prolifera disasters at the bathing beaches in Qingdao [J]. Resources Science, 2018, 40(2): 392-403.
[7]	Jingzhu SHAN, Jingmei LI, Yufei LIN, Guoshan WANG. Application of the choice experiment to the evaluation of willingness to manage Enteromorpha prolifera disasters from the perspective of attribute cut-offs [J]. Resources Science, 2018, 40(10): 1943-1953.
[8]	Haipeng NIU, Kunpeng WANG. Measurement and analysis of cultivated land protection externalities under different sample schemes based on the single-bounded dichotomous choice CVM：a case study of Jiaozuo [J]. Resources Science, 2017, 39(7): 1227-1237.
[9]	Zhongke WANG, Luan GUO, Jie ZHANG. Non-use value composition ratio and influencing factors in different attributes of resources based on cross-cases perspective [J]. Resources Science, 2017, 39(4): 723-736.
[10]	Xingxing HU, Qingwen MIN, Geying LAI, Qing WU, Taojin CHEN, Siyi PAN. Regional differences in the willingness to pay for non-use value of agriculture heritage：Chongyi Hakka Terrace system in Jiangxi [J]. Resources Science, 2017, 39(4): 737-751.
[11]	SU Hongyan,LI Jingmei. Valuing the willingness to restore mangrove wetlands in Guangxi based on improved choice experiments [J]. Resources Science, 2016, 38(9): 1810-1819.
[12]	AO Changlin,DONG Yuning,JIAO Yang,ZHANG Kun,DONG Lina. Ecological value evaluation of the Sanjiang Plain Wetland based on the Double-Hurdle Model [J]. Resources Science, 2016, 38(5): 929-938.
[13]	SHI Hengtong,ZHAO Minjuan. Willingness to pay differences across ecosystem services and total economic valuation based on choice experiments approach [J]. Resources Science, 2015, 37(2): 351-359.
[14]	AO Changlin,GAO Dan,MAO Biqi,FAN Zijuan. Methods for measuring public willingness to pay for environmental conservation and empirical research under spatial scale [J]. Resources Science, 2015, 37(11): 2288-2298.
[15]	LI Jingmei,CHEN Qi,YAO Haiyan. Valuing the loss of ecological benefits from wetland reclamation in Jiaozhou Bay based on choice experiments [J]. Resources Science, 2015, 37(1): 68-75.