条件价值评估法的发展与应用

doi:10.11867/j.issn.1001-8166.2003.03.0454

环境物品或生态系统服务的经济价值评估是国际上生态经济学、环境经济学研究的前沿领域。由于绝大多数环境物品或生态系统服务的公共物品特性，其经济价值的评估需要运用非市场的价值评估技术。条件价值评估法（CVM）是非市场价值评估技术中应用最广、影响最大的一种方法。详细介绍了国际上CVM及其发展与应用研究的现状，分析了CVM在环境价值评估技术中的地位及其理论基础，总结了最大支付意愿（WTP）的各种引导技术，全面归纳了CVM研究中可能出现的各种偏差及其相应的解决方法，简要介绍了最大支付意愿的数据统计分析方法。

关键词: 环境物品或服务, 价值评估技术, 非市场价值, 条件价值评估法（CVM）, 支付意愿（WTP）, 受偿意愿（WTA）, 统计分析.

    The proper valuation of non-market environmental commodities has significant policy implications. Environmental valuation is also important in the event of natural disasters, either man-made or naturally occurring. The economic valuation of non-market environmental goods or ecosystem services has been becoming a research frontier and hotspot field of ecological economics and environmental economics. Non-market valuation techniques should be applied to measure their economic value because of the public goods properties of most environmental goods or ecosystem services.
    Non-market valuation techniques can be broadly classified into two categories: revealed preference (RP) approaches and stated (or expressed) preference (SP) approaches. Stated preference methods attempt to elicit environmental values directly from respondents using survey techniques, hence the alternative name of “direct approach”. Stated preference methods can be further classified into two categories: contingent valuation method (CVM), and choice experiment. The CVM is the most significant approach of non-market valuation technique and has been using most widely. 
    CVM is a direct interview approach that can be used to provide acceptable measures of the economic value of environmental goods or ecosystem services. The CVM uses interview techniques ask individuals to place values on environmental goods or ecosystem services. The term “contingent” in CVM suggests that it is contingent on simulating a hypothetical market for the good in question. The most common approach in the CVM is to ask individuals the maximum amount of money they are willingness to pay（WTP）to use or to preserve the given good or service. Alternatively, the respondents could be asked the minimum amount of money they are willingness to accept in compensation (WTA) to forgo the given environmental good or service. Theoretically, these two measures should be equivalent. However, some empirical studies have indicated that WTA estimates exceed WTP estimates, this is maybe due to the feelings that the cost they loss the given good or service is more than the benefit they get the given good or service.
    This paper introduced the concept of CVM and the status of its development and application, analyzed the significance of CVM in environmental evaluation methods and its theoretical underpinning, summarized the available elicitation techniques or the question formats that acquire maximum WTP, assembled together various biases and their solutions, and introduced briefly the statistical analysis methods of contingent valuation (CV) survey data, especially the dichotomous choices data.
    In recent years, increasing attention has been given to the statistical aspects of CV survey design and data analysis. The main reason for the growing interests in statistical issues is the shift in CV practice from using open-ended question to ask about WTP to using a close-ended question format. With the close-ended question format, the CV responses are not money amount but answers of “yes” or “no”, and one obtains a WTP value from these responses by introducing a statistical model that links them to the money amounts that people faced in the survey. 
    The theory and practice research of CVM in China was almost equal to naught. Finally, the urgent research need of CVM in China was pointed out because of the need of green environmental and economic accounting and sustainable development assessment.

Key words: Environmental goods or ecosystem services, Non-market economic value, Non-market valuation techniques, Stated preference technique, Contingent valuation method(CVM), Willingness to pay（WTP）, Willingness to accept compensation(WTA), Statistical analysis.

中图分类号:

X196

[1] Davis R K. Recreation planning as an economic problem [J]. Natural Resources Journal, 1963, (3): 239-249.

[2] Loomis J B, Walsh R G. Recreation Economic Decisions:Comparing Benefits and Costs(2nd)[M]. Venture Publishing Inc,1997.

[3] Bateman I J, Willis K G, eds. Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing Countries [M]. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.

[4] Asafu-AdJaye J. Environmental Economics for Non-economists [M]. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co Pte Led, 2000.

[5] BJornstad D J, Kahn J R, eds. The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resources: Methodological Issues and Research Needs [M]. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 1999.

[6] Anthony F, Krutilla J. Determination of optimal capacity of resource-based recreation facilities [J]. Natural Resources Journal, 1972, (12): 417- 444.

[7] Randall A, Ives B, Eastman C. Bidding games for valuation of aesthetic environmental improvements [J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 1974,1: 132-149.

[8] Loomis J B. Contingent valuation methodology and the US institutional framework [A]. In: Bateman I J, Willis K G, eds. Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU and Developing Countries[C]. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.613-627.

[9] Mitchell D C, Carson R T. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method [M]. Washington DC: Resources for the Future, 1989.

[10] Arrow K, Solow R, Portney P, et al. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Report to the General Council of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [M]. Washington DC: Resources for the Future, 1993.

[11] Bateman I J, Langford I H, Turner R K, et al. Elicitation and truncation effects in contingent valuation studies[J]. Ecological Economics, 1999, 12:161-179.

[12] Bonnieux F, Rainelli P. Contingent valuation methodology and the EU institutional framework [A]. In: Bateman I J, Willis K G, eds. Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing Countries[C]. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. 585-612.

[13] Carson R T. Valuation of tropical rainforests: Philosophical and practical issues in the use of contingent valuation [J]. Ecological Economics, 1998, 24: 15-29.

[14] Loomis J B, Kent P, Strange L, et al. Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: Results from a contingent valuation survey [J]. Ecological Economics, 2000, 33: 103-117.

[15] Jorgenson B S, Wilson M A, Heberlein T A. Fairness in the contingent valuation of environmental public goods: Attitude toward paying for environmental improvements at two levels of scope [J]. Ecological Economics, 2001, 36(1): 133-148.

[16] Zhang Zhiqiang, Xu Zhongmin, Cheng Guodong. Review of the valuation of ecosystem services and natural capital [J]. Acta Ecologia Sinica, 2001, 21(11): 1 918-1 926 .[张志强,徐中民,程国栋.生态系统服务与自然资本价值评估研究述评 [J].生态学报,2001,21（11）:1 918-1 926.]

[17] Lovett A, Bateman I J. Economic analysis of environmental preferences: Progress and prospects [J]. Computer, Environment and Urban systems, 2001, 25: 131-139.

[18] Smith V K. Non-market valuation of environmental resources: An interpretive appraisal [J]. Land Economics, 1993, 69: 1-26.

[19] Brown T C, Gregory R. Why the WTP-WTA disparity matters [J]. Ecological Economics, 1999, 28: 323-335.

[20] Hanemann W M. The economic theory of WTP and WTA [A]. In: Bateman I J, Willis K G, eds. Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing Countries[C]. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.42-96.

[21] Bishop R C, Heberlein T A. Measuring values of extra-Market goods: Are indirect measures biased? [J]. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1979, 61(5): 926-930.

[22] Hanemann W M. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses [J]. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1984, 66: 332-341.

[23] Hanemann W M,Kanninen B. The statistical analysis of discrete-response CV data [A]. In: Bateman I J, Willis K G, eds. Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing Countries[C]. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.302-441.

[24] Loomis J B. Environment valuation techniques in water resource decision making [J]. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 2000, (12): 339-344.

[25] Loomis J B. Panel estimators to combine revealed and stated preference dichotomous choice data [J]. Journal of Agricultural and Resources Economics, 1997, 22(2): 233-245.

[26] Loomis J B, Gonzalez-Caban A. Comparing the economic value of reducing fire risk to spotted owl habitat in California and Oregon [J]. Forest Science, 1997, 34(4): 473-482.

[27] Loomis J B. Measuring the economic benefits of removing dams and restoring the Elwha river: Results of a contingent valuation survey [J]. Water Resources Research, 1996, 32(2): 441-447.

[28] Hanemann W M, Loomis J B, Kanninen B. Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation [J]. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1991, 73: 1 255-1 263.

[29] Ready R C, Whitehead J C, Blomquist G C. Contingent valuation when respondents are ambivalent [J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 1995, 29: 181-196.

[30] Bateman I J, Langford I H, Jones A P, et al. Bound and path effects in double and triple bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation [J]. Resources and Energy Economics, 2001, 23:191-213.

[31] Hoehn J P, Randall A. A satisfactory benefit cost indicator from contingent valuation [J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 1987, 14(3): 1 226-1 247.

[32] Bateman I J, Munro A, Rhodes B, et al. Does part-whole bias exit: An experimental investigation [J]. The Economics Journal, 1997, 107: 322-332.

[33] Mackenzie. A comparison of contingent preferences models [J]. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1993, 20: 350-367.

[34] Hanemann W M. Welfare evaluation in contingent valuation experiments with discrete response data: Reply [J]. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1989, 71(4): 1 057-1 061.

[35] Park T, Loomis J, Creel M. Confidence interval for evaluating benefit estimates from dichotomous choice contingent valuation studies [J]. Land Economics, 1991, 67(1): 64-73.

[36] Xu Zhongmin, Zhang Zhiqiang, Cheng Guodong, et al. Measuring the total economic value of restoring Ejina banner's ecosystem services [J]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2002,57（1）:107-116.[徐中民,张志强,程国栋.额济纳旗生态系统恢复的总经济价值评估 [J].地理学报,2002,57（1）:107-116.]

[37] Zhang Zhiqiang, Xu Zhongmin, Cheng Guodong, et al. Contingent valuation of the economic benefits of restoring ecosystem services of Zhangye prefecture of Heihe river basin [J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2002,22（6）:885-893.[张志强,徐中民,程国栋.黑河流域张掖地区生态系统服务恢复的条件价值评估 [J].生态学报,2002,22（6）:885-893.]

[38] Xu Zhongmin, Zhang Zhiqiang, Su Zhiyong, et al. Meauring the total economic value of restoring Ejina banner's ecosystem services —Application of non-parametric estimation methods[J]. Journal of Glaciology and Geocryology, 2002,24（2）:160-167.[徐中民,张志强,苏志勇,等.恢复额济纳旗生态系统的总经济价值——条件估值非参数估计方法的应用 [J].冰川冻土,2002,24（2）:160-167.]

[39] Xue Dayuan. Economic Valuation of Biodiversity—A Case Study on Changbaishan Mountain Biosphere Reserve in Northeast China[M]. Beijing: China Environmental Science Press, 1997. [薛达元. 生物多样性经济价值评估——长白山自然保护区案例研究 [M]. 北京:中国环境科学出版社, 1997.]

[40] Yang Kaizhong, Bai Mo, Li Ying, et al. The feasibility of contingent valuation method in economic valuation of environment in China: A case study of the residents’ willingness to pay in Beijing[J]. Advances in Earth Sciences, 2002,17(3):420-425.[杨开忠,白墨,李莹,等.关于意愿调查价值评估法在我国环境领域应用的可行性探讨——以北京市居民支付意愿研究为例[J].地球科学进展,2002,17（3）:420-425.]

[1]	李金平,王志石. 澳门噪音污染损害价值的条件估值研究[J]. 地球科学进展, 2006, 21(6): 599-604.
[2]	金建君,王志石. 条件价值法在澳门固体废弃物管理经济价值评估中的比较研究[J]. 地球科学进展, 2006, 21(6): 605-609.
[3]	李金平,王志石. 空气污染损害价值的WTP、WTA对比研究[J]. 地球科学进展, 2006, 21(03): 250-255.

阅读次数

全文

摘要

THE UPDATED DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION OF CONTINGENT VALUATION METHOD (CVM)