农村居民流域生态治理参与意愿的距离效应——以石羊河流域为例

doi:10.18402/resci.2020.07.15

Abstract

Abstract:

Defining the distance effect of rural residents’ willingness to participate in watershed ecological restoration is an important prerequisite for improving the accuracy of restoration benefits evaluation and fully understanding public demands. Taking 390 rural residents in the Shiyang River Basin as the research object and obtaining the ecological restoration willingness by means of the choice experiment method, the distance effect in different reaches of the river basin were tested by group estimation and by including the distance variables in the multinomial logit (MNL) model, respectively. The results show that: (1) The key areas of ecological restoration that are of concern to rural residents in different sections of the river basin differ, showing significant regional effects; (2) Different from the “distance decay” pattern found in previous studies, the willingness to participate in ecological restoration of the rural residents in the middle reaches of the Shiyang River Basin increased with the distance from the river bank and the reservoir, and the willingness to participate in ecological restoration of the downstream rural residents increased with the distance from the reservoir, showing the pattern of “distance increase.” Accordingly, we recommend that: (1) Incorporate the distance effect into the methodological system of benefits evaluation of ecological restoration projects to improve the accuracy of evaluation ; (2) The design of ecological restoration policies should give more consideration to public opinions and obtain public support; (3) The objects of ecological publicity and education can be further subdivided based on the distance effect. The purpose of this study is to provide a more targeted basis for the formulation of relevant policies on ecological restoration of inland river basins.

Key words: rural residents, watershed ecological restoration, willingness to participate, choice experiments(CE), distance effect, Shiyang River Basin

XU Tao, Ni Qi, Qiao Dan, YAO Liuyang, ZHAO Minjuan. Distance effect on the willingness of rural residents to participate in watershed ecological restoration: Evidence from the Shiyang River Basin[J].Resources Science, 2020, 42(7): 1395-1404.

Figures/Tables 6

Figure 1

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

References 40

[1]	王奕淇, 李国平, 延步青. 流域生态服务价值横向补偿分摊研究[J]. 资源科学, 2019,41(6):1013-1023.
	[ Wang Y Q, Li G P, Yan B Q. Sharing of watershed ecosystem service value horizontal compensation burden by downstream cities[J]. Resources Science, 2019,41(6):1013-1023.]
[2]	史恒通, 睢党臣, 吴海霞, 等. 公众对黑河流域生态系统服务消费偏好及支付意愿研究: 基于选择实验法的实证分析[J]. 地理科学, 2019,39(2):342-350.
	[ Shi H T, Sui D C, Wu H X, et al. Public preference and willingness to pay for the Heihe River Watershed ecosystem service: An empirical study on choice experiments[J]. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 2019,39(2):342-350.]
[3]	颜俨, 姚柳杨, 郎亮明, 等. 基于Meta回归方法的中国内陆河流域生态系统服务价值再评估[J]. 地理学报, 2019,74(5):1040-1057.
	[ Yan Y, Yao L Y, Lang L M, et al. Revaluation of ecosystem services in inland river basins of China: Based on Meta-regression analysis[J]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2019,74(5):1040-1057.]
[4]	马宏伟. 石羊河流域蒸散发遥感反演及生态需水研究[D]. 兰州: 兰州大学, 2011.
	[ Ma H W. Estimation of Evapotranspiration Using Remote Sensing Technology and Research on Ecological Water Requirement of Shiyang River Basin[D]. Lanzhou: Lanzhou University, 2011.]
[5]	王云, 潘竟虎. 基于生态系统服务价值重构的干旱内陆河流域生态安全格局优化: 以张掖市甘州区为例[J]. 生态学报, 2019,39(10):3455-3467.
	[ Wang Y, Pan J H. Establishment of ecological security patterns based on ecosystem services value reconstruction in an arid inland basin: A case study of the Ganzhou District, Zhangye City, Gansu Province[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2019,39(10):3455-3467.]
[6]	黎元生, 胡熠. 流域生态环境整体性治理的路径探析: 基于河长制改革的视角[J]. 中国特色社会主义研究, 2017,1(4):73-77.
	[ Li Y S, Hu Y. An analysis on the path of comprehensive control of the basin ecological environment: Based on the reform of the River Chief system[J]. Studies on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, 2017,1(4):73-77.]
[7]	杜建国, 王梦丹, 许玲燕. 集约经营格局下小流域农业面源污染治理模式及其策略比较研究[J]. 系统工程, 2018,36(12):107-118.
	[ Du J G, Wang M D, Xu L Y. Comparative study on governance modes and strategies of agricultural non-point source pollution in small watershed under intensive management pattern[J]. Systems Engineering, 2018,36(12):107-118.]
[8]	朱喜群. 生态治理的多元协同: 太湖流域个案[J]. 改革, 2017, (2):96-107.
	[ Zhu X Q. Multiple coordination of ecological governance: A case study of Taihu River Basin[J]. Reform, 2017, (2):96-107.]
[9]	樊胜岳, 马永欢, 钟方雷. 民勤县生态政策实施的效果在农户中的响应[J]. 中央民族大学学报, 2006,33(1):32-39.
	[ Fan S Y, Ma Y H, Zhong F L. Farmland households’ response to the actualizing effect of eco-policies in Minqin[J]. Journal of The Central University For Nationalities (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), 2006,33(1):32-39.]
[10]	史恒通, 睢党臣, 徐涛, 等. 生态价值认知对农民流域生态治理参与意愿的影响: 以陕西省渭河流域为例[J]. 中国农村观察, 2017, (2):68-80.
	[ Shi H T, Sui D C, Xu T, et al. Influence of ecological value cognition on farmers willingness to participate in ecological management: Based on Weihe Basin in Shaanxi Province[J]. China Rural Survey, 2017, (2):68-80.]
[11]	刘佳. 公众参与流域生态补偿意愿的影响因素研究: 以福建省南平市延平区西塔溪为例[D]. 福州: 福建农林大学, 2015.
	[ Liu J. Study on Factors Influenced Public Participation in Valley Ecological Compensation: Based on Fujian Province Nanping City Yanping District Xi Taxi[D]. Fuzhou: Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, 2015.]
[12]	宾幕容, 覃一枝, 周发明. 湘江流域农户生猪养殖污染治理意愿分析[J]. 经济地理, 2016,36(11):154-160.
	[ Bin M R, Qin Y Z, Zhou F M. Influencing factors and hierarchy of farmers’ willingness on pig breeding pollution control in Xiangjiang River Basin: Based on investigation of 367 pig famers[J]. Economic Geography, 2016,36(11):154-160.]
[13]	赵喜鹏, 郝仕龙, 张彦鹏. 生态敏感区清洁小流域农户施肥行为调查研究[J]. 人民黄河, 2018,40(11):97-101.
	[ Zhao X P, Hao S L, Zhang Y P. Study on farmers’ fertilization behavior in clean small watershed of ecologically sensitive area[J]. Yellow River, 2018,40(11):97-101.]
[14]	王烨冰, 李国志. 农民参与水环境治理的国际经验和模式构建: 以中国浙江省丽水市为例[J]. 世界农业, 2015, (10):55-59.
	[ Wang Y B, Li G Z. International experience and model construction of farmers’ participation in water environment management: A case study of Lishui City, Zhejiang Province, China[J]. World Agriculture, 2015, (10):55-59.]
[15]	史恒通, 睢党臣, 吴海霞, 等. 社会资本对农户参与流域生态治理行为的影响: 以黑河流域为例[J]. 中国农村经济, 2018, (1):34-45.
	[ Shi H T, Sui D C, Wu H X, et al. The influence of social capital on farmer’s participation in watershed ecological management behavior: Evidence from Heihe Basin[J]. Chinese Rural Economy, 2018, (1):34-45.]
[16]	Bateman I J, Day B H, Georgiou S, et al. The aggregation of environmental benefit values: Welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP[J]. Ecological Economics, 2006,60(2):450-460.
[17]	敖长林, 高丹, 毛碧琦, 等. 空间尺度下公众对环境保护的支付意愿度量方法及实证研究[J]. 资源科学, 2015,37(11):2288-2298.
	[ Ao C L, Gao D, Mao B Q, et al. Methods for measuring public willingness to pay for environmental conservation and empirical research under spatial scale[J]. Resources Science, 2015,37(11):2288-2298. ]
[18]	焦扬, 敖长林, 佟锐, 等. 支付意愿距离衰减效应一次趋势面构建与实证[J]. 系统工程理论与实践, 2016,36(7):1879-1889.
	[ Jiao Y, Ao C L, Tong R, et al. Construction of trend surface and distance decay effect of willingness to pay[J]. Systems Engineering-Theory & Practice, 2016,36(7):1879-1889.]
[19]	Olsen S B, Jensen C U, Panduro T E, et al. Modelling strategies for discontinuous distance decay in willingness to pay for ecosystem services[J]. Environmental and Resource Economics, 2020,75(2):351-386.
[20]	Liu W P, Chen W J, Dong C L, et al. Spatial decay of recreational services of urban parks: Characteristics and influencing factors[J]. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 2017,25:130-138.
[21]	Sutherland R J, Walsh R G. Effect of distance on the preservation value of water quality[J]. Land Economics, 1985,64(3):281-291.
[22]	Hanink D M. The economic geography in environmental issues: A spatial-analytic approach[J]. Progress in Human Geography, 1995,19(3):372-387.
[23]	Schaafsma M, Brouwer R, Rose J. Directional heterogeneity in WTP models for environmental valuation[J]. Ecological Economics, 2012,79:21-31.
[24]	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.]
[25]	Kim J H, Kim S N, Doh S. The distance decay of willingness to pay and the spatial distribution of benefits and costs for the ecological restoration of an urban branch stream in Ulsan, South Korea[J]. The Annals of Regional Science, 2015,54(3):835-853.
[26]	Hanley N, Schläpfer F, Spurgeon J. Aggregating the benefits of environmental improvements: Distance-decay functions for use and non-use values[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2003,68(3):297-304. doi: 10.1016/s0301-4797(03)00084-7 pmid: 12837258
[27]	Choi A S. Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay[J]. Ecological Economics, 2013,88:97-107.
[28]	佟锐. 基于廉价磋商方法的CVM假想偏差修正与实证研究[D]. 哈尔滨: 东北农业大学, 2016.
	[ Tong R. Correction and Empirical Study on CVM Hypothetical Bias Based on Cheap Talk[D]. Harbin: Northeast Agricultural University, 2016.]
[29]	杨卫兵, 丰景春, 张可. 农村居民水环境治理支付意愿及影响因素研究: 基于江苏省的问卷调查[J]. 中南财经政法大学学报, 2015, (4):58-65.
	[ Yang W B, Feng J C, Zhang K. Study of payment willingness and influence factors of water environment governance of rural residents: Based on the survey data of Jiangsu Province[J]. Journal of Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, 2015, (4):58-65.]
[30]	Torres-Miralles M, Grammatikopoulou I, Rescia A J. Employing contingent and inferred valuation methods to evaluate the conservation of olive groves and associated ecosystem services in Andalusia (Spain)[J]. Ecosystem Services, 2017,26:258-269.
[31]	徐涛, 姚柳杨, 乔丹, 等. 节水灌溉技术社会生态效益评估: 以石羊河下游民勤县为例[J]. 资源科学, 2016,38(10):1925-1934.
	[ Xu T, Yao L Y, Qiao D, et al. Social and ecological benefits evaluation of water-saving irrigation technology adoption in Minqin County[J]. Resources Science, 2016,38(10):1925-1934.]
[32]	姚柳杨, 赵敏娟, 徐涛. 耕地保护政策的社会福利分析: 基于选择实验的非市场价值评估[J]. 农业经济问题, 2017,38(2):32-40.
	[ Yao L Y, Zhao M J, Xu T. Social benefits under land conservation policy: A choice experiment for non-market valuation[J]. Issues in Agricultural Economy, 2017,38(2):32-40.]
[33]	Johnston R J, Abdulrahman A S. Systematic non-response in discrete choice experiments: Implications for the valuation of climate risk reductions[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 2017,6(3):246-267.
[34]	Hensher D, Shore N, Train K. Households’ willingness to pay for water service attributes[J]. Environmental and Resource Economics, 2005,32(4):509-531.
[35]	Hensher D, Greene W H. The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice[J]. Transportation, 2003,30(2):133-176.
[36]	徐涛, 赵敏娟, 乔丹. 内陆河生态系统恢复效益评估: 以黑河流域为例[J]. 南京农业大学学报(社会科学版), 2018,18(4):127-136.
	[ Xu T, Zhao M J, Qiao D. Ecological system restoration benefits evaluation of the continental river system in northwestern China: Based on the Heihe River Basin[J]. Journal of Nanjing Agricultural University (Social Sciences Edition), 2018,18(4):127-136.]
[37]	Yao L Y, Deng J F, Johnston R J, et al. Evaluating willingness to pay for the temporal distribution of different air quality improvements: Is China’s clean air target adequate to ensure welfare maximization?[J]. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 2018,67(2):1-18.
[38]	Duke J M, Borchers A M, Johnston R J. Sustainable agricultural management contracts: Using choice experiments to estimate the benefits of land preservation and conservation practices[J]. Ecological Economics, 2012,74:95-103.
[39]	Balli H O, Sørensen B E. Interaction effects in econometrics[J]. Empirical Economics, 2013,45(1):583-603.
[40]	Brambor T, Clark W R, Golder M. Understanding interaction models: Improving empirical analyses[J]. Political Analysis, 2006,14(1):63-82.

指标	指标含意	等级
上游生态配水量/百万m³	上游水源涵养林、草地基本用水和沙漠边缘地区人工防护林体系灌溉用水。目前,上游年度生态配水量为700万m³。	7（+0） 11（+4） 15（+8）
中游生态配水量/百万m³	中游天然林木、草地基本用水、人工防护林体系灌溉用水,及地下水回补。目前,中游年度生态配水量为9500万m³。	95（+0） 115（+20） 135（+40）
下游生态配水量/百万m³	下游天然旱生植被（沙枣、红柳、梭梭等）基本用水、人工绿洲防护林体系灌溉用水、地下水回补,及末端青土湖生态注水。目前,下游年度生态配水量为10000万m³（其中青土湖注水量为3100万m³）。	100（+0） 130（+40） 160（+60）
红崖山水库水质	红崖山水库水质等级。清洁的水源是居民生活和动植物生存的基础,同时也能够提供休闲、娱乐等功能。目前,水质级别为Ⅳ类。	Ⅳ类（保持） Ⅲ类（改善）
支付意愿/元	为了流域生态环境的改善,未来10年,您家每年愿意支付的费用。	0;50;100;200;300

评估指标	方案0	方案1	方案2
上游生态配水量/百万m³	不增加保持7	+4 达到11	+4 达到11
中游生态配水量/百万m³	不增加保持95	不增加保持95	+40 达到135
下游生态配水量/百万m³	不增加保持100	+60 达到160	不增加保持100
红崖山水库水质	Ⅳ类不可养鱼,不可游泳	Ⅳ类不可养鱼,不可游泳	Ⅲ类可养鱼,可游泳
支付意愿/元	0	100	200
请选择其中一项：	□	□	□

变量	变量描述（赋值）
上游生态配水量/百万m3	上游生态配水量的增加量
中游生态配水量/百万m3	中游生态配水量的增加量
下游生态配水量/百万m3	下游生态配水量的增加量
红崖山水库水质	红崖山水库水质级别（Ⅳ类水质=4;Ⅲ类水质=3）
支付意愿/元	受访者家庭愿意为流域生态治理支付的费用
河岸距离/km	受访者距离石羊河河岸的距离
水库距离/km	受访者距离红崖山水库的距离
性别	受访者的性别（男性=1;女性=0）
年龄/岁	受访者的年龄
受教育年限/年	受访者接受教育的年限
抚养比	受访者家庭中非劳动年龄人口与劳动年龄人口数之比
农业收入占比	受访者家庭农业收入占总收入的比重
生态治理认知	生态改善对于受访者家庭的重要程度（重要程度0~10：一点也不重要=0;一般重要=5;非常重要=10）

变量	上游		中游		下游
变量	均值	标准差	均值	标准差	均值	标准差
上游生态配水量	3.564	3.325	3.439	3.335	2.974	3.240
中游生态配水量	16.788	16.715	20.760	16.696	15.156	16.404
下游生态配水量	25.545	25.247	23.302	24.159	27.770	25.728
红崖山水库水质	3.397	0.489	3.447	0.497	3.434	0.496
支付意愿	133.788	104.094	126.841	97.859	116.787	100.030
河岸距离	20.878	4.017	3.958	2.401	15.061	18.840
水库距离	83.860	7.579	58.360	13.823	41.818	19.195
性别	0.627	0.484	0.723	0.447	0.719	0.449
年龄	45.900	13.318	43.865	11.284	51.281	10.767
受教育年限	7.823	4.258	9.021	3.338	8.460	3.283
抚养比	1.114	1.051	1.065	1.030	0.793	0.827
农业收入占比	0.705	1.366	0.481	0.644	0.458	0.299
生态治理认知	8.791	1.849	8.135	2.081	8.388	2.147

变量	上游		中游		下游
变量	模型Ⅰ	模型Ⅱ	模型Ⅰ	模型Ⅱ	模型Ⅰ	模型Ⅱ
上游生态配水量	0.038*	0.039*	0.005	0.005	-0.018	-0.019
中游生态配水量	0.004	0.004	0.019***	0.019***	0.001	0.001
下游生态配水量	0.005*	0.005	0.0001	0.0001	0.014***	0.014***
红崖山水库水质	-0.996***	-0.994***	-0.671***	-0.673***	-1.092***	-1.088***
支付意愿	-0.002**	-0.002**	-0.003***	-0.003***	-0.004***	-0.004***
ASC	-0.358	-4.261	-1.001***	0.621	-0.493**	1.628
ASC×河岸距离	—	0.045	—	-0.405***	—	0.006
ASC×水库距离	—	-0.013	—	-0.033*	—	-0.021***
ASC×性别	—	-1.182***	—	-0.560	—	-0.220
ASC×年龄	—	0.083***	—	0.075***	—	0.015
ASC×受教育年限	—	0.073	—	-0.056	—	-0.074
ASC×抚养比	—	0.190	—	0.449***	—	0.242
ASC×农业收入占比	—	-2.691***	—	-1.327**	—	-0.969*
ASC×生态治理认知	—	-0.173*	—	-0.144*	—	-0.142**
Log likelihood	-303.706	-277.271	-373.005	-341.103	-378.269	-366.046
LR χ²(n)	117.670***	170.540***	179.020***	242.83***	159.71***	184.150***
Pseudo R²	0.162	0.235	0.194	0.263	0.174	0.201

Distance effect on the willingness of rural residents to participate in watershed ecological restoration: Evidence from the Shiyang River Basin

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Like

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 6

References 40

Related Articles 10

Metrics

Comments

Recommended 0

[1]	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.
[2]	WANG Qing, CHEN Zhigang. Impact of urban-rural gap on illegal farmland conversion in China [J]. Resources Science, 2019, 41(12): 2274-2283.
[3]	GUO Lingxia, GUO Yugang, KANG Shuyuan, WANG Xingmei, ZHANG Bo. Changes of Sunshine Duration over the Shiyang River Basin during the Last 50 Years [J]. , 2011, 33(3): 483-488.
[4]	GUO Jianqing, JIN Leshan. Rural Residents’ Awareness of Environmental Protection and Willingness to Pay for Environmental Protection: A Case Study of the Nabanhe Nature Reserve [J]. , 2011, 33(1): 50-55.
[5]	DONG Suocheng, LI Zehong. Impacts of Agricultural Development in the Wuwei Oasis on Water Resources in the Minqin Oasis in the Lower Reaches :Based on Water Footprint [J]. , 2011, 33(1): 86-91.
[6]	MA Guo-xia, SHI Min-jun, ZHAO Xue-tao. Initial Water Rights and Northwest Inland River Basin Water Allocation Adjustments：A Case Study in Shiyang River Basin [J]. , 2008, 30(8): 1147-1154.
[7]	FENG Qi, GUO Rui, ZHAI Lu-xin, ZHANG Yong-ming. Changes of Hydrologic Cycle Components in the Wuwei Basin, Shiyang River [J]. , 2008, 30(10): 1463-1470.
[8]	DING Zhen-yu, MA Jin-zhu. The Characteristics of Runoff from Mountainous Watershed and Its Correlation of Climatic Change in Shiyang River Basin [J]. , 2007, 29(3): 53-58.
[9]	. Chemical Evolution and Recharge Characteristics of Water Resources in the Shiyang River Basin [J]. , 2005, 27(3): 117-122.
[10]	DU Qun. REGIONAL POLICIES FOR SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF WATER RESOURCES TO COMBAT LAND DEGRADATION IN NORTH-WEST CHINA [J]. , 2004, 26(6): 77-82.