期刊文献+

空气污染健康损失的条件价值评估与人力资本评估比较研究 被引量:14

Valuation of Health Economic Loss by Air Pollution in Beijing-Comparison of Contingent Valuation Method and Human Capital Method
原文传递
导出
摘要 目的探寻在我国定量评估环境污染健康经济损失的途径。方法通过实例研究,采用条件价值评估方法和人力资本方法对北京市空气污染健康经济损失进行计算和比较。结果2005年北京市空气污染降低50%的健康效益评估,人力资本法计算得到健康经济效益为21.83亿元,采用条件价值评估方法得到健康经济效益为108.91亿元,是人力资本法的4.99倍。结论条件价值评估方法能够更全面地评估健康经济损失,它在我国的应用是可行的,仍需要进一步的实证应用。 Objective To explore the applicable method for the quantitative valuation of health economic loss by environmental pollution. Methods The contingent valuation method (CVM) and human capital method were respectively used to valuate the health economic loss by air pollution in Beijing and the comparison of the results was conducted. Results In 2005, the economic benefit of main air pollutants reduction by 50% in Beijing was 2.183 billion Yuan estimated by human capital method, and it was 10.891 billion Yuan estimated by CVM. The result of CVM is 4.99 times as high as that of human capital method. Conclusion CVM is a well recommended technique which can be used to estimate the total value of health loss by environment pollution, and this empirical study proved that it is feasible to estimated health economic loss in China. Further studies are needed to improve the efficiency of evaluation.
作者 蔡春光
出处 《环境与健康杂志》 CAS CSCD 北大核心 2009年第11期960-961,共2页 Journal of Environment and Health
关键词 条件价值评估 人力资本法 健康损失评估 空气污染 Contingent valuation method Human capital approach Health economic loss valuation Air pollution
  • 相关文献

参考文献4

二级参考文献40

  • 1杨功焕,黄正京,谭健,陈爱平.我国人群的主要卫生问题——全国疾病监测死亡资料分析[J].中华流行病学杂志,1996,17(4):199-202. 被引量:169
  • 2[1]Carson RT,Flores N,Hanemann M.Sequencing and valuating public goods[J].Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1998,36:314-323.
  • 3[2]Johannesson M,Liljas B,Johansson PO.An experimental comparison of dichotomous choice contingent valuation questions and real purchase decisions[J].Applied Economics,1998,30:643-647.
  • 4[3]Hanemann WM.Valuing the environment through contingent valuation[J].Journal of Economic Perspectives,1994,8:19-25.
  • 5[4]Venkatachalam L.The contingent valuation method:a review[J].Environmental Impact Assessment Review,2004,24:89-124
  • 6[5]Whittington D.Administering contingent valuation surveys in developing countries[J].World Development,1998,26:21-30.
  • 7[6]Carson RT,Flores NE,Meade NF.Contingent valuation:controversies and evidence[J].Environmental and Resource Economics,2001,19:173-210.
  • 8[7]Harrington W,Portney PR.Valuing the benefits of health and safety regulation[J].Journal of Urban Economics,1987,22:101-112.
  • 9[8]Bateman IJ,Langford IH,Turner RK,et al.Elicitation and truncation effects in contingent valuation studies[J].Ecological Economics,1999,12:161-179.
  • 10[9]Horowitz JK,McConnell KE.Values elicited from open-ended real experiments[J].Journal of Economics Behavior and Organization,2000,41:221-237.

共引文献231

同被引文献158

引证文献14

二级引证文献111

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部