公众参与城市水环境治理行为的影响因素——基于北上广三地的调查数据

doi:10.18402/resci.2021.11.12

Abstract

Abstract:

Understanding the determinants of public willingness to participate in urban water environmental governance plays a significant role in improving water environmental governance performance. Based on 2051 questionnaires from Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou, this study used a double-hurdle model to analyze the factors that affect the public participation willingness and degree of urban water environmental governance, and conducted an interpretative structural model analysis to explore the mechanism of interaction of participation willingness. The results show that: (1) Of the survey participants, 74.3%are willing to participate in urban water environmental governance, and they are willing to pay around 12.29 Yuan/year for this purpose; (2) There are significant differences in the determinants of public willingness and degree to participate in urban water environmental governance, and disposable income, frequency of visits to urban water environment and duration of stay, cognition of landscape and entertainment value of urban water environment, and perception of the overall ecological condition of urban water environment have significant impact on their degree of participation; (3) The fundamental factors (education level, age, distance between residence and urban water environment) impact the intermediary factors (perception of overall ecological condition of urban water environment, cognition of ecological value of urban water environment), then influence the direct driving factor (environmental responsibility awareness), and ultimately affect the public participation willingness in urban water environmental governance. To conclude, this article suggests that policymakers should enhance the propaganda of environmental protection, design awarding policy for public participation, and further improve the information exchange mechanism between the government and the public.

Key words: urban water environmental governance, public participation, double-hurdle model, interpretative structural modeling, Beijing,Shanghai,and Guangzhou

SHEN Jinyu, WANG Yuqi, ZHAO Zheng. Factors influencing public participation in urban water environmental governance: Based on the survey data in Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou[J].Resources Science, 2021, 43(11): 2289-2302.

Figures/Tables 8

Figure 1

Table 1

Variables of the model

变量类型	代码	变量名称	变量赋值	均值	标准差
参与意愿	Wil	是否愿意为城市水环境治理进行支付	1=愿意;0=不愿意	0.743	0.437
参与程度	Pay	每年最多愿意为城市水环境治理支付的金额	1=10元及以下;2=11~20元;3=21~50元;4=50元以上	2.330	1.130
个人特征	Gen	性别	1=男;0=女	0.494	0.500
	Age	年龄	1=18岁及以下;2=19~29岁;3=30~39岁;4=40~49岁;5=50~59岁;6=60岁及以上	3.149	1.375
	Job	工作是否稳定	1=稳定;0=不稳定	0.675	0.469
	Inc	月均可支配收入	1=4000元及以下;2=4001~8000元;3=8001元~12000元;4=12001~16000元;5=16001~20000元;6=20000元以上	3.008	1.523
	Edu	受教育程度	1=小学及以下;2=初中（中专）;3=高中（大专）;4=本科;5=硕士及以上	3.627	0.973
	Yea	居住时长	1=1年及以内;2=1~5年（含5年）;3=5~10年（含10年）;4=10~15年（含15年）;5=15年以上	3.165	1.549
与环境物品关系	Dis	居住地距最近的城市水环境距离	1=500 m以下;2=500~1000 m;3=1001~1500 m;4=1501~2000 m;5=2000 m以上	2.792	1.364
	Fre	前往城市水环境的频率	1=0次;2=1~3次;3=4~6次;4=7~9次;5=10次及以上	2.104	1.104
	Sta	在城市水环境内停留时间	1=1 h以下;2=1~3 h;3=4~6 h;4=7~9 h;5=10 h及以上	1.827	0.897
环境情境感知	Sat	城市水环境整体生态状况感知	1=非常差;2=比较差;3=一般;4=比较好;5=非常好	3.688	0.794
环境情境感知	Con	居住地附近水环境污染强度感知	1=很弱;2=弱;3=一般;4=强;5=很强	2.658	1.132
环境价值认知	Fun1	城市水环境景观和娱乐价值认知	1=很小;2=较小;3=一般;4=较大;5=很大	3.818	1.039
环境价值认知	Fun2	城市水环境生态价值认知	1=很小;2=较小;3=一般;4=较大;5=很大	3.655	0.939
环境责任意识	Att	对破坏城市水环境问题的关注程度	1=非常不关注;2=不关注;3=一般;4=关注;5=非常关注	3.635	1.164
环境责任意识	Res	制止城市水环境内非环保行为的频率	1=从来没有;2=偶尔制止;3=经常制止;4=只要看到就会去制止	1.982	0.990

Table 1

Table 2

Basic information of the samples

特征	类别	频数/个	比例/%	特征	类别	频数/个	比例/%
性别	男	1013	49.4	工作是否稳定	稳定	1384	67.5
性别	女	1038	50.6	工作是否稳定	不稳定	667	32.5
年龄/岁	≤18	62	3.0	月均可支配收入/（元/月）	≤4000	417	20.3
	19~29	819	39.9		4001~8000	452	22.0
	30~39	516	25.2		8001~12000	396	19.3
	40~49	268	13.1		12001~16000	416	20.3
	50~59	178	8.7		16001~20000	222	10.8
	$≥$ 60	208	10.1		$>$ 200000	148	6.6
受教育程度	小学及以下	45	2.2	居住时长/年	（0, 1]	372	18.1
	初中（中专）	233	11.4		(1, 5]	504	24.6
	高中（大专）	527	25.7		(5, 10]	285	13.9
	本科	884	43.1		(10, 15]	193	9.4
	硕士及以上	362	17.6		$>$ 15	697	34.0

Table 2

Figure 2

Table 3

Results of the double-hurdle (D-H) model estimation

代码	整体		北京		上海		广州
代码	参与意愿	支付水平	参与意愿	支付水平	参与意愿	支付水平	参与意愿	支付水平
Gen	-0.230	0.090	-0.506	0.101	0.005	0.025	0.248	0.042
Gen	(0.082)	(0.060)	(0.126)	(0.089)	(0.160)	(0.103)	(0.179)	(0.124)
Age	-0.184***	-0.022	-0.136***	-0.018	-0.139**	-0.014	-0.281***	-0.164
Age	(0.033)	(0.026)	(0.051)	(0.037)	(0.065)	(0.044)	(0.095)	(0.070)
Job	0.102	-0.021	0.120	-0.107	0.096	-0.067	0.061	0.167
Job	(0.093)	(0.069)	(0.149)	(0.107)	(0.179)	(0.118)	(0.188)	(0.128)
Inc	-0.019	0.023*	-0.025	-0.013	-0.004	0.089**	-0.026	0.084*
Inc	(0.029)	(0.021)	(0.050)	(0.034)	(0.059)	(0.040)	(0.067)	(0.048)
Edu	0.125***	-0.040	0.218***	-0.061	0.069	0.001	0.028	-0.109
Edu	(0.045)	(0.033)	(0.070)	(0.048)	(0.092)	(0.061)	(0.106)	(0.072)
Yea	-0.025	0.029	-0.010	0.082***	-0.070	0.038	-0.040	-0.042
Yea	(0.026)	(0.019)	(0.041)	(0.028)	(0.047)	(0.031)	(0.063)	(0.043)
Dis	-0.080***	0.008	-0.056	-0.001	-0.003	0.057	-0.139**	-0.065
Dis	(0.030)	(0.023)	(0.046)	(0.032)	(0.063)	(0.042)	(0.067)	(0.047)
Fre	-0.015	0.100***	-0.124	0.088**	0.099	0.036	0.100	0.134**
Fre	(0.038)	(0.030)	(0.059)	(0.044)	(0.080)	(0.053)	(0.094)	(0.062)
Sta	-0.002	0.158***	-0.091	0.186***	0.064	0.211***	0.002	0.026
Sta	(0.048)	(0.035)	(0.078)	(0.055)	(0.096)	(0.059)	(0.098)	(0.064)
Sat	0.172***	-0.048	0.369***	-0.186**	0.025	-0.048	0.005	0.015
Sat	(0.055)	(0.042)	(0.093)	(0.059)	(0.104)	(0.072)	(0.119)	(0.081)
Con	0.038	-0.001	0.010	0.062*	0.041	0.041	0.055	0.229***
Con	(0.037)	(0.028)	(0.053)	(0.038)	(0.069)	(0.050)	(0.099)	(0.065)
Fun1	0.044	0.079**	-0.077	0.152***	0.069	0.084	0.134	0.071
Fun1	(0.049)	(0.036)	(0.073)	(0.045)	(0.092)	(0.063)	(0.119)	(0.090)
Fun2	0.116**	0.047	0.175**	-0.017	-0.118	0.097	0.068***	0.035
Fun2	(0.051)	(0.039)	(0.072)	(0.049)	(0.122)	(0.082)	(0.115)	(0.084)
Att	0.118***	-0.016	0.171***	-0.038	0.086**	-0.009	0.007	0.092
Att	(0.035)	(0.028)	(0.052)	(0.040)	(0.072)	(0.051)	(0.087)	(0.057)
Res	0.201***	0.030	0.516***	-0.085	0.100**	0.121	-0.008	0.048
Res	(0.053)	(0.033)	(0.126)	(0.046)	(0.083)	(0.055)	(0.081)	(0.058)
常数	0.160	1.855***	-0.491	2.481***	0.472	1.149**	0.852	2.730***
常数	(0.393)	(0.297)	(0.618)	(0.436)	(0.825)	(0.542)	(0.849)	(0.588)
样本量	2051		1087		535		429
Log Likelihood	-3063.339		-1574.278		-809.071		-597.095
Wald χ²	181.078***		138.747***		82.049***		61.950***

Table 3

Figure 3

Figure 4

Table 4

References 67

[1]	胡洪营, 孙迎雪, 陈卓, 等. 城市水环境治理面临的课题与长效治理模式[J]. 环境工程, 2019, 37(10):6-15.
	[ Hu H Y, Sun Y X, Chen Z, et al. Topics and long-term governance model of urban water environment governance[J]. Environmental Engineering, 2019, 37(10):6-15.]
[2]	Thiele J, Haaren C V, Albert C. Are river landscapes outstanding in providing cultural ecosystem services? An indicator-based exploration in Germany[J]. Ecological Indicators, 2019, 101:31-40. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.01.003
[3]	Delibas M, Tezer A. ‘Stream Daylighting’ as an approach for the renaturalization of riverine systems in urban areas: Istanbul-Ayamama Stream case[J]. Ecohydrology & Hydrobiology, 2017, 17(1):18-32.
[4]	李雪松, 孙博文. 基于层次分析的城市水环境治理综合效益评价: 以武汉市为例[J]. 地域研究与开发, 2013, 32(4):171-176.
	[ Li X S, Sun B W. Evaluation on comprehensive benefits of urban water environment governance based on AHP: An example on Wuhan[J]. Areal Research and Development, 2013, 32(4):171-176.]
[5]	中华人民共和国生态环境部. 关于2020年上半年水环境目标任务完成情况的函[EB/OL]. (2020-08-04) [2020-02-19]. http://www.mee.gov.cn/xxgk2018/xxgk/xxgk06/202008/t20200807_793109.html.
	[Ministry of Ecology and Environment of the People’s Republic of China. Letter on the Completion of Water Environment Goals and Tasks in the First Half of 2020[EB/OL]. (2020-08-04) [2020-02-19]. http://www.mee.gov.cn/xxgk2018/xxgk/xxgk06/202008/t20200807_793109.html.]
[6]	屈文波, 李淑玲. 中国环境污染治理中的公众参与问题: 基于动态空间面板模型的实证研究[J]. 北京理工大学学报(社会科学版), 2020, 22(6):1-10.
	[ Qu W B, Li S L. Public participation in pollution control in China: Empirical research based on spatial dynamic panel data model[J]. Journal of Beijing Institute of Technology (Social Sciences Edition), 2020, 22(6):1-10.]
[7]	张洪振, 钊阳. 社会信任提升有益于公众参与环境保护吗? 基于中国综合社会调查(CGSS)数据的实证研究[J]. 经济与管理研究, 2019, 40(5):102-112.
	[ Zhang H Z, Zhao Y. Is social trust enhancement beneficial to the public’s environmental protection? Empirical study based on Chinese general social survey (CGSS) data[J]. Research on Economics and Management, 2019, 40(5):102-112.]
[8]	王浩, 孟现勇, 林晨. 黑臭河道治理关键技术及其应用[J]. 人民长江, 2020, 51(11):1-9.
	[ Wang H, Meng X Y, Lin C. Key technology and practice of black-odor river regulation[J]. Yangtze River, 2020, 51(11):1-9.]
[9]	廖文杰, 胡东滨. 城市水污染治理政策影响研究: 以长沙市为例[J]. 科技进步与对策, 2018, 35(24):155-163.
	[ Liao W J, Hu D B. Study on the impact of urban water pollution control policies: A case study of Changsha City[J]. Science & Technology Progress and Policy, 2018, 35(24):155-163.]
[10]	李守伟, 李光超, 李备友. 农业污染背景下农业补贴政策的作用机理与效应分析[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2019, 29(2):97-105.
	[ Li S W, Li G C, Li B Y. Analysis on impact mechanism and effects of agricultural subsidy policies under the background of agricultural pollution[J]. China Population, Resources and Environment, 2019, 29(2):97-105.]
[11]	吴月. 技术嵌入下的超大城市群水环境协同治理: 实践、困境与展望[J]. 理论月刊, 2020, (6):50-58.
	[ Wu Y. Water environment collaborative governance in megacities based on technology embedded: Practice, dilemma and prospect[J]. Theory Monthly, 2020, (6):50-58.]
[12]	詹国辉, 熊菲. 河长制实践的治理困境与路径选择[J]. 经济体制改革, 2019, (1):188-194.
	[ Zhan G H, Xiong F. Governance dilemma and path selection in the practice of the River Chief System[J]. Reform of Economic System, 2019, (1):188-194.]
[13]	王树义, 赵小姣. 长江流域生态环境协商共治模式初探[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2019, 29(8):31-39.
	[ Wang S Y, Zhao X J. On the deliberative-shared governance mode of ecological environment in the Yangtze River Basin[J]. China Population, Resources and Environment, 2019, 29(8):31-39.]
[14]	邓宏兵, 刘恺雯, 苏攀达. 流域生态文明视角下多元主体协同治理体系研究[J]. 区域经济评论, 2021, (2):146-153.
	[ Deng H B, Liu K W, Su P D. Research on the establishment of the multi-subject collaborative governance system from the perspective of river basin ecological civilization[J]. Regional Economic Review, 2021, (2):146-153.]
[15]	朱靖, 余玉冰, 王淑. 岷沱江流域水环境治理绩效综合评价方法研究[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2020, 29(9):1995-2004.
	[ Zhu J, Yu Y B, Wang S. Research on comprehensive evaluation method of water environmental governance performance in Mintuo River Basin[J]. Resources and Environment in the Yangtze Basin, 2020, 29(9):1995-2004.]
[16]	于鹏. 多元共治下的民间水资源生态保护补偿: 社会意愿与治理模式[J]. 城市发展研究, 2019, 26(11):116-124.
	[ Yu P. Social water resources ecological compensation under multi-agents governance: Social will and governance mode[J]. Urban Development Studies, 2019, 26(11):116-124.]
[17]	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. doi: 10.1007/s10640-019-00370-7
[18]	徐涛, 倪琪, 乔丹, 等. 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[J]. 资源科学, 2020, 42(7):1395-1404.
	[ Xu T, Ni Q, Qiao D, et al. 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.]
[19]	付文凤, 姜海, 房娟娟. 农村水污染治理的农户参与意愿及其影响因素分析[J]. 南京农业大学学报(社会科学版), 2018, 18(4):119-126.
	[ Fu W F, Jiang H, Fang J J. On farmers’ willingness to participate in rural water pollution control and its influence factors[J]. Journal of Nanjing Agricultural University (Social Sciences Edition), 2018, 18(4):119-126.]
[20]	顾海娥. 中国居民环境行为的城乡差异及其影响因素: 基于2013年CGSS数据的分析[J]. 河北学刊, 2021, 41(2):198-204.
	[ Gu H E. Urban-rural differences in environmental behavior of Chinese residents and their influencing factors: Analysis based on CGSS data in 2013[J]. Hebei Academic Journal, 2021, 41(2):198-204.]
[21]	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.]
[22]	余亮. 中国公众参与对环境治理的影响: 基于不同类型环境污染的视角[J]. 技术经济, 2019, 38(3):97-104.
	[ Yu L. Impact of public participation on environmental governance in China: Perspective based on different types of environmental pollution[J]. Journal of Technology Economics, 2019, 38(3):97-104.]
[23]	Garcia X, Benages-Albert M, Buchecker M, et al. River rehabilitation: Preference factors and public participation implications[J]. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 2020, 63(9):1528-1549. doi: 10.1080/09640568.2019.1680353
[24]	郭进, 徐盈之. 公众参与环境治理的逻辑、路径与效应[J]. 资源科学, 2020, 42(7):1372-1383.
	[ Guo J, Xu Y Z. The logics, paths, and effects of public participation in environmental management[J]. Resources Science, 2020, 42(7):1372-1383.]
[25]	Langpap C, Shimshack J P. Private citizen suits and public enforcement: Substitutes or complements?[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 2010, 59(3):235-249. doi: 10.1016/j.jeem.2010.01.001
[26]	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 on willingness to pay and influencing factors of rural residents for water environment treatment: Based on questionnaire survey in Jiangsu Province[J]. Journal of Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, 2015, (4):58-65.]
[27]	贾文龙. 城市生活垃圾分类治理的居民支付意愿与影响因素研究: 基于江苏省的实证分析[J]. 干旱区资源与环境, 2020, 34(4):8-14.
	[ Jia W L. Research on residents’ willingness to pay for municipal domestic waste classification management and the influencing factors[J]. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 2020, 34(4):8-14.]
[28]	周业安, 连洪泉, 陈叶烽, 等. 社会角色、个体异质性和公共品自愿供给[J]. 经济研究, 2013, 48(1):123-136.
	[ Zhou Y A, Lian H Q, Chen Y F, et al. Social role, heterogenous preferences and public goods provision[J]. Economic Research Journal, 2013, 48(1):123-136.]
[29]	Fischbacher U, Gächte S, Fehr E. Are people conditionally cooperative? Evidence from a public goods experiment[J]. Economics Letters, 2001, 71(3):397-404. doi: 10.1016/S0165-1765(01)00394-9
[30]	郭清卉, 李昊, 李世平, 等. 个人规范对农户亲环境行为的影响分析: 基于拓展的规范激活理论框架[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2019, 28(5):1176-1184.
	[ Guo Q H, Li H, Li S P, et al. Analysis of the influence of Personal Norms on farmers’ pro-environmental behavior: Based on the Extended Theory of Norm-activation[J]. Resources and Environment in the Yangtze Basin, 2019, 28(5):1176-1184.]
[31]	Khanal Y, Devkota B P. Farmers’ responsibilization in payment for environmental services: Lessons from community forestry in Nepal[J]. Forest Policy and Economics, 2020, DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102237 doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102237
[32]	高建宇, 张程宏, 杨庆利, 等. 四川省沿江城市水环境治理工程[J]. 城市道桥与防洪, 2004, (6):1-5.
	[ Gao J Y, Zhang C H, Yang Q L, et al. Treatment project of water environment of cities along rivers in Sichuan Province[J]. Urban Roads Bridges & Flood Control, 2004, (6):1-5.]
[33]	吴兆丹, 王晓霞, 吴兆磊, 等. 科技支撑水环境治理作用机制研究[J]. 水利经济, 2019, 37(4):42-47.
	[ Wu Z D, Wang X X, Wu Z L, et al. Mechanism of science and technology supporting water environment governance[J]. Journal of Economics of Water Resources, 2019, 37(4):42-47.]
[34]	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. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.002
[35]	唐洪松. 农村人居环境整治中居民垃圾分类行为研究: 基于四川省的调查数据[J]. 西南大学学报(自然科学版), 2020, 42(11):1-8.
	[ Tang H S. Research on the garbage classification behavior in the improvement of rural habitat environment: Based on the survey data from Sichuan Province[J]. Journal of Southwest University (Natural Science Edition), 2020, 42(11):1-8.]
[36]	吴璟, 昝梦莹, 王征兵. 感知价值对农户参与耕地质量保护意愿的影响: 以陕西省为例[J]. 中国土地科学, 2020, 34(6):66-74.
	[ Wu J, Zan M Y, Wang Z B. Impacts of perceived value on farmers’ willingness of participation in cultivated land quality protection: A case study of Shaanxi Province[J]. China Land Science, 2020, 34(6):66-74.]
[37]	曹和平, 奚剑明, 陈玥卓. 城镇居民对环境治理的边际支付意愿[J]. 资源科学, 2020, 42(5):801-811.
	[ Cao H P, Xi J M, Chen Y Z. Urban residents’ marginal willingness to pay for environmental pollution control[J]. Resources Science, 2020, 42(5):801-811.]
[38]	肖哲, 魏姝. 单位制视角下中国城镇居民的环保公众参与行为差异分析[J]. 中南大学学报(社会科学版), 2019, 25(5):125-135.
	[ Xiao Z, Wei S. Analyzing the impact of the work-unit system on citizen participation in China’s environment protection[J]. Journal of Central South University (Social Sciences), 2019, 25(5):125-135.]
[39]	史恒通, 睢党臣, 徐涛, 等. 环境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. The influence mechanism of ecological value cognition on farmers’ willingness to participate in ecological management: An example from Weihe Basin in Shaanxi Province[J]. China Rural Survey, 2017, (2):68-80.]
[40]	苏淑仪, 周玉玺, 蔡威熙. 农村生活污水治理中农户参与意愿及其影响因素分析: 基于山东16地市的调研数据[J]. 干旱区资源与环境, 2020, 34(10):71-77.
	[ Su S Y, Zhou Y X, Cai W X. Analysis of farmers’ willingness of involvement in rural domestic sewage treatment[J]. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 2020, 34(10):71-77.]
[41]	Odonkor S T, Adom P K. Environment and health nexus in Ghana: A study on perceived relationship and willingness-to-participate (WTP) in environmental policy design[J]. Urban Climate, 2020, DOI: 10.1016/j.uclim.2020.100689. doi: 10.1016/j.uclim.2020.100689
[42]	刘晓, 徐建华. 公众对电力来源清洁化的支付意愿[J]. 资源科学, 2020, 42(12):2328-2340.
	[ Liu X, Xu J H. Public willingness to pay for cleaner power sources[J]. Resources Science, 2020, 42(12):2328-2340.]
[43]	魏同洋, 朱宁, 李玉新, 等. 魏农村生活污水治理受益农户付费行为分析: 基于东江源水源地的农户调查[J/OL]. 中国农业资源与区划, (2021-09-28) [2021-11-03]. http://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/11.3513.s.20210927.2037.006.html.
	[ Wei T Y, Zhu N, Li Y X, et al. Analysis on payment behavior of domestic sewage treatment beneficiary farmers: A survey of farmers based on the water source of Dongjiang River[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning, (2021-09-28) [2021-11-03]. http://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/11.3513.s.20210927.2037.006.html.]
[44]	史兴民, 雷贤. 居民对PM2. 5的感知与降低风险的行为选择、支付意愿[J]. 科学决策, 2018, (6):63-77.
	[ Shi X M, Lei X. Local residents’ perception of PM2.5, behavior selection and willingness to pay of reducing health risks in Xi’an[J]. Scientific Decision Making, 2018, (6):63-77.]
[45]	Jin T Y, Li M. Does education increase pro-environmental willingness to pay? Evidence from Chinese household survey[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2020, DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122713. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122713
[46]	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
[47]	郑怡林, 陆铭. 大城市更不环保吗? 基于规模效应与同群效应的分析[J]. 复旦学报(社会科学版), 2018, 60(1):133-144.
	[ Zheng Y L, Lu M. Are large cities less green? An analysis based on Scale Effect and Peer Effect[J]. Fudan Journal (Social Sciences Edition), 2018, 60(1):133-144.]
[48]	李芬妮, 张俊飚, 何可, 等. 归属感对农户参与村域环境治理的影响分析: 基于湖北省1007个农户调研数据[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2020, 29(4):1027-1039.
	[ Li F N, Zhang J B, He K, et al. Effect of sense of belonging on farmers’ participation in rural environmental governance: Based on the survey data of 1007 farmers in Hubei Province[J]. Resources and Environment in the Yangtze Basin, 2020, 29(4):1027-1039.]
[49]	张翼飞, 张真, 王丽, 等. 长江三角洲城市内河环境治理的居民支付意愿比较研究: 上海、南京与杭州实例调查[J]. 中国环境科学, 2012, 32(11):2103-2112.
	[ Zhang Y F, Zhang Z, Wang L, et al. Comparison study on willingness to pay for urban river restoration in Yangtze Delta: Cases study in Shanghai, Nanjing and Hangzhou, China[J]. China Environmental Science, 2012, 32(11):2103-2112.]
[50]	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.]
[51]	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.
[52]	Chen Y Y. Practice of environmentally significant behaviors in rural China: From being motivated by economic gains to being motivated by environmental considerations[J]. Behavioral Sciences, 2017, 7(3):59. doi: 10.3390/bs7030059
[53]	贾亚娟, 赵敏娟. 生活垃圾污染感知、社会资本对农户垃圾分类水平的影响: 基于陕西1374份农户调查数据[J]. 资源科学, 2020, 42(12):2370-2381.
	[ Jia Y J, Zhao M J. Impact of domestic waste pollution perception and social capital on the farming households’ sorting of waste: Based on the survey of 1374 farming households in Shaanxi Province[J]. Resources Science, 2020, 42(12):2370-2381.]
[54]	Tran H T, Nguyen H D M, Le T Q A, et al. Using contingent valuation method to estimate the WTP for mangrove restoration under the context of climate change: A case study of Thi Nai lagoon, Quy Nhon city, Vietnam[J]. Ocean and Coastal Management, 2014, 95:198-212. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.04.008
[55]	史雨星, 李超琼, 赵敏娟. 非市场价值认知、社会资本对农户耕地保护合作意愿的影响[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2019, 29(4):94-103.
	[ Shi Y X, Li C Q, Zhao M J. The impact of non-market value cognition and social capital on farmers’ willingness in farmland protection cooperation[J]. China Population, Resources and Environment, 2019, 29(4):94-103.]
[56]	刘耀彬, 蔡潇, 姚成胜. 城市河湖水域生态服务功能价值评价的研究现状与进展[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2010, 38(25):13936-13939.
	[ Liu Y B, Cai X, Yao C S. Summary of evaluation on urban freshwater ecosystem services[J]. Journal of Anhui Agricultural Sciences, 2010, 38(25):13936-13939.]
[57]	盛光华, 葛万达, 汤立. 消费者环境责任感对绿色产品购买行为的影响: 以节能家电产品为例[J]. 统计与信息论坛, 2018, 33(5):114-120.
	[ Sheng G H, Ge W D, Tang L. Effects of environmental responsibility on the purchase behavior of green products: A case study of energy-saving household appliances[J]. Journal of Statistics & Information Forum, 2018, 33(5):114-120.]
[58]	Luo W B, Tang P, Jiang L, et al. Influencing mechanism of tourist social responsibility awareness on environmentally responsible behavior[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2020, DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122565. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122565
[59]	葛万达, 盛光华. 环境影响评价的公众参与特征及影响因素研究[J]. 干旱区资源与环境, 2020, 34(8):43-51.
	[ Ge W D, Sheng G H. Characteristics of public participation in environmental impact assessment[J]. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 2020, 34(8):43-51.]
[60]	Gupta M. Willingness to pay for carbon tax: A study of Indian road passenger transport[J]. Transport Policy, 2016, 45:46-54. doi: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2015.09.001
[61]	敖长林, 袁伟, 王锦茜, 等. 零支付对条件价值法评估结果的影响: 以三江平原湿地生态保护价值为例[J]. 干旱区资源与环境, 2019, 33(8):42-48.
	[ Ao C L, Yuan W, Wang J X, et al. The impact of zero observations on welfare measurement-evidence from the ecological value evaluation of the Sanjiang Plain Wetland[J]. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 2019, 33(8):42-48.]
[62]	余威震, 罗小锋, 李容容, 等. 绿色认知视角下农户绿色技术采纳意愿与行为悖离研究[J]. 资源科学, 2017, 39(8):1573-1583.
	[ Yu W Z, Luo X F, Li R R, et al. The paradox between farmer willingness and their adoption of green technology from the perspective of green cognition[J]. Resources Science, 2017, 39(8):1573-1583.]
[63]	樊慧丽, 付文阁. 基于Logit-ISM模型的肉羊养殖户全面质量控制行为实施意愿分析[J]. 干旱区资源与环境, 2020, 34(8):66-73.
	[ Fan H L, Fu W G. Analysis on the implementation intention of total quality control behavior of mutton sheep farmers based on logit ISM model[J]. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 2020, 34(8):66-73.]
[64]	许罗丹, 黄安平. 水环境改善的非市场价值评估: 基于西江流域居民条件价值调查的实证分析[J]. 中国农村经济, 2014, (2):69-81.
	[ Xu L D, Huang A P. Non market value assessment of water environment improvement: An empirical analysis based on residents’ conditional value survey in Xijiang River Basin[J]. Chinese Rural Economy, 2014, (2):69-81.]
[65]	Enriquez-Acevedo T, Botero C M, Cantero-Rodelo R, et al. Willingness to pay for Beach Ecosystem Services: The case study of three Colombian beaches[J]. Ocean and Coastal Management, 2018, 161:96-104. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.04.025
[66]	Aseres S A, Sira R K. Estimating visitors’ willingness to pay for a conservation fund: Sustainable financing approach in protected areas in Ethiopia[J]. Heliyon, 2020, DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04500. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04500
[67]	单菁竹, 李京梅, 许志华. CVM中的抗议性响应: 动机与影响: 以胶州湾浒苔治理支付意愿为例[J]. 自然资源学报, 2020, 35(3):626-638.
	[ Shan J Z, Li J M, Xu Z H. The protest response in contingent valuation method: Motivation and impact: A case study of willingness to pay for the governance of green tides in Jiaozhou Bay[J]. Journal of Natural Resources, 2020, 35(3):626-638.]

	零支付值的原因	频数/ 个	相对频率/%
真实零支付	经济收入较低	178	30.6
	城市水环境治理对您没有用处	41	7.0
抗议零支付	没有合适的支付方式和渠道	127	21.8
	城市水环境治理是政府职责,与个人无关	189	32.5
	已缴纳税费	46	7.9

Factors influencing public participation in urban water environmental governance: Based on the survey data in Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Like

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 8

References 67

Related Articles 9

Metrics

Comments

Recommended 0

[1]	CHEN Liuyan, ZHAO Xin, ZHU Yuchun. Impact of public participation in the River Chief System on river governance: An empirical study in Jiangsu and Hubei provinces [J]. Resources Science, 2021, 43(6): 1077-1087.
[2]	Abudureheman· Abudikeranmu, SHI Xiaoping, RAO Fangping, ZHOU Yuepeng, MA Xianlei. Tenure integrity, security, and farmland transfer under the background of “three rights separation”: Based on farmers’ perception of land tenure [J]. Resources Science, 2020, 42(9): 1643-1656.
[3]	GUO Jin, XU Yingzhi. The logics, paths, and effects of public participation in environmental management [J]. Resources Science, 2020, 42(7): 1372-1383.
[4]	Yongliang BAI,Aoxing CHENG,Jinhua CHENG. Willingness of public participation in water ecological civilization construction:Based on questionnaire surveys from five pilot cities [J]. Resources Science, 2019, 41(8): 1427-1437.
[5]	Xianxiong XIE, Xiaoping LI, Minjuan ZHAO, Hengtong SHI. How does capital endowment affect herdsman to reduce livestock? ——an empirical analysis based on 372 herdsmen in Inner Mongolia [J]. Resources Science, 2018, 40(9): 1730-1741.
[6]	Jing LAN, Weifeng XIA, Li LIU, Weixin OU. Public preferences for biological resource conservation based on choice experiment methods [J]. Resources Science, 2017, 39(3): 577-584.
[7]	CHEN Qi,HAN Limin. Analysis of factors influencing high seas fisheries development in China based on Interpretative Structural Modeling [J]. Resources Science, 2016, 38(6): 1088-1098.
[8]	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.
[9]	CHEN Xi-wei, SONG Wei, ZHANG Feng-rong. Public Participation in Village Relocation and Annexation in Land Use Planning:A Case Study of Northern Haidian District of Beijing Municipality [J]. , 2008, 30(11): 1694-1699.