生态旅游区自然环境的游憩价值——运用条件价值评价法和旅行费用法对武陵源风景区进行实证分析

Analyzing about the assessment of the recreational value of the natural spaces in ecotourism districts:——applying contingent valuation method and travel cost method to analyze the recreational value of Wulingyuan Scenic Resort

运用条件价值评价法和旅行费用法对生态旅游区———武陵源风景区自然环境的游憩价值进行评价,并将评价结果进行比较。结果表明:以2004年的旅游人数180万人为基准,当年武陵源风景区自然生态环境的总游憩价值应为294594.9万元。CVM法评价当年武陵源风景区自然生态环境的消费者剩余价值为11844.72万元,利用TCM法两个回归模型计算得到的消费者剩余价值分别为109049.25万元和103593.73万元,分别高出CVM法评价结果的8.75倍和9.21倍。因此,在我国仅用CVM法的支付意愿来评价其自然生态环境的经济价值,其结果会偏低。建议在我国评价生态旅游区自然生态环境的经济价值时,需将CVM法中的支付意愿、赔偿意愿和旅行费用法综合起来进行评估,使评价结果更具有可靠性,更接近于自然生态环境的真实价值。

This article discussed how to apply Contingent Valuation Method （CVM） and Travel Cost Method （TCM） to estimate the Recreational Value of the natural space in Wulingyuan Scenic Resort, and also compared the results estimated by using the two methods, The results show： When we take 1.8 million tourists for the statistics in 2004, the result estimated by using CVM is 1. 184472 × 10^8￥ , The results of the consumer surplus （CS） estimated by using TCM are respectively 10.904925 × 10^8￥ and 103593.73 × 10^8￥, with Linear Regression and Quadratic Regression model. The actual total travel cost is 19. 10012× 10^8￥ , The recreational value of the natural space in Wulingyuan should be the sum of the consumer surplus and the total actual travel cost. Finally, the result of Quadratic Regression is decided to serve as the CS of Wulingyuan Scenic Resort, so that the Recreational Value of the natural space in Wulingyuan Scenic Resort is 29,45949× 10^8￥, in 2004. On the other hand, when we compare the result of WTP in CVM with the results of CS in TCM, the latter are found to be respectively 8,75 and 9.21 times higher than the former, It is showed that only WTP in CVM is applied to estimate the economic value of a natural space in an ecological tourism distract, whose result will be underestimated, Although CVM and TCM are different methods of estimating environmental value, the results are the consumer surplus of the statistical value of the same year and the same place. The difference is that the CS estimated by using TCM is the results reckoned based on the actual travel cost, and the WTP estimated by using CVM is the result calculated based on questionnaire, not on actual payment. The comparison between the two estimation methods is meaningful and feasible. Those factors below can result in the result underestimated by using CVM. Firstly, in the CVM investigation, more than half （52.3 % ） of respondents are not willing to pay, which form actual zero payment. Secondly, some respondents resist against such investigations or some respondents doubt that the payment will be used for protecting environment so that they will not pay or pay a little. Thirdly, many respondents treat the payment as a generous deed not as the payment based on judgement of environmental value. Fourthly, it is the most important reason that the respondents in China are not aware of the real value of saving environment from damage. Finally, it seems that the local tourists like to ＂hitchhike＂, because that the results of the questionnaire show the WTP has no correlation with the distance. Consequently we suggest when applying the CVM to estimate the economic value of the natural space in eco-tourism distracts, we should combine the results of WTP and WAC in CVM with the results of TCM to estimate it in order that its results will be much more reliable, the value estimated will be much closer to the actual value of a natural space.