估计环境价值的陈述偏好技术比较分析被引量：15

Comparison Analysis of the Stated Preference Techniques for Valuing Environment

下载PDF

导出

摘要随着人们环境意识的提高和环境资产稀缺性的增加,在资源利用决策中,决策者也逐渐考虑环境因素的作用.但是由于缺乏市场,环境物品利用决策中大多缺乏有关环境价值方面的信息.陈述偏好技术是当前解决环境物品经济价值评估的主要方法和手段.首先介绍了环境物品经济价值的分类和评估技术,从理论和应用角度系统地阐述了当前国际上广泛应用于环境物品非利用价值评估的陈述偏好技术(条件估值法,选择模型法,条件分级法,条件排队法和配对比较法),并分析比较了各种不同的陈述偏好技术的差异,最后总结分析了陈述偏好技术的优缺点. The use of stated preference techniques for estimating environmental value has increased substantially in recent years. However, criticizing the most widespread stated preferences used for valuing environmental resources, the contingent valuation method (CVM) suggests that there is a need to not only refine the CVM, but also to develop alternative stated preferences techniques. In this paper, the CVM is compared with four other stated preferences: contingent rating, contingent ranking, paired comparison and choice modeling. The techniques are compared in terms of their methodologies and the validity and reliability of the results they produce. The appropriateness of using each of the stated preferences techniques in different environmental valuation applications is also discussed. It is concluded that while the CVM is prone to bias and has some practical limitations, when applied appropriately it can be used to produce theoretically valid results. Three of the other techniques such as contingent rating, contingent ranking and paired comparison are found to have weak theoretical bases and do not produce economically valid valuation estimates. The final stated preferences technique examined, choice modeling, appears to have considerable potential for providing useful and valid estimated of environmental values.

作者徐中民任福康马松尧郭庭天

机构地区中国科学院寒区旱区环境与工程研究所冻土工程国家重点实验室

出处《冰川冻土》 CSCD 北大核心 2003年第6期701-707,共7页 Journal of Glaciology and Geocryology

基金国家自然科学基金重点项目(40235053) 国家自然科学基金项目(40201019)资助

关键词环境价值环境物品径济价值陈述偏好技术条件估值方法选择模型 environmental good economic value stated preference technique contingent valuation method choice modeling

分类号 F062.2 [经济管理—政治经济学]

引文网络
相关文献

参考文献15

1[1]Loomis J B, Walsh R G. Recreation Economic Decisions:Comparing Benefits and Costs (2nd edition) [M]. Pennsylvania: Venture Publishing Inc. , 1997.
2[2]Bateman I J, Willis K G. 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.
3[8]Mitchell D C, Carson R T. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods, the Contingent Valuation Method [M]. Washington D C: Resources for the Future, 1989. 85-102.
4[9]Loomis J B. Environment valuation techniques in water resource decision making [J]. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 2000, (12): 339-344.
5[10]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.
6[11]Loomis J B, Kent P, Strange L, etal. 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.
7[12]Hanemann W M, Kanninen B. The statistical analysis of discrete-response CV data [R]. Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California at Berkeley.Working Paper No. 798. 1996. 3-15.
8[13]Bennet J, Russell B. The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation [M]. Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing Inc, 2001. 37-69.
9[14]Adamowicz W, Boxall P, Williams M, etal. Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: Choice experi ments and contingent valuation [J]. American Journal of Agriculture Economics, 1998, 80: 64-75.
10[15]Rolfe J, Bennett J, Louviere J. Choice modeling and its potential application to tropical rainforest preservation [J]. Ecological Economics, 2000, 35: 289-302.