期刊文献+

山东典型城市居民改善空气质量的支付意愿 被引量:6

Analysis of Urban Residents’Willingness to Pay for Improving Air Quality in Typical Cities in Shandong Province
原文传递
导出
摘要 目的了解山东典型城市居民对改善空气质量以提高健康水平的支付意愿。方法采用意愿调查价值评估法,通过发放开放式问卷,于2007年1月21日—2月22日在青岛、烟台、临沂、枣庄4座城市随机访问了1950位居民。分别采用Probit模型和逐步回归模型分析居民是否愿意支付及其意愿支付值大小的影响因素。结果调查共获得有效问卷1845份,青岛、烟台、临沂、枣庄城区居民每户每月愿意为改善空气质量支付的费用分别为93、69、81、58元。Probit模型分析结果表明,青岛市和枣庄市居民工作状况与支付意愿呈正相关,而烟台市居民工作状况与支付意愿呈负相关。青岛市、烟台市和临沂市居民月收入与居民支付意愿呈正相关。逐步回归模型分析结果表明,4城市居民月收入与支付意愿呈正相关。结论山东省4城市居民每户每月愿意为改善空气质量支付的费用由多至少依次为青岛、临沂、烟台、枣庄。月收入是影响4城市居民支付愿意的重要因素。 Objective To quantify urban residents' willingness-to-pay (WTP) to improve their health status in typical cities of Shandong, China. Methods A contingent valuation method (CVM) was employed to investigate 1 950 urban residents randomly. The field survey using open-ended format questionnaire was carried out in Qingdao, Yantai, Linyi and Zaozhuang. A Probit model and a stepwise regression model were established to find the influencing factors of WTP and payment amount. Results A total of 1 845 valid questionnaires were obtained. The average WTP was 93, 69, 81, 58 CNY per household per month for residents in Qingdao, Yantai, Linyi, and Zaozhuang. A probit model indicated that working condition had active influence on WTP in Qingdao and Zaozhuang and negative influence on WTP in Yantai. A stepwise regression model indicated that income per month had active influence on residents' payment amount. Conclusion The average WTP of Qingdao is the highest, and that of Zaozhuang is the lowest. The average WTP of Linyi is more than that of Yantai. Income per month is an important factor which influences residents' WTP.
出处 《环境与健康杂志》 CAS CSCD 北大核心 2010年第6期507-510,共4页 Journal of Environment and Health
基金 山东省优秀中青年科学家科研奖励基金资助项目(BS2009HZ011)
关键词 空气污染 人体健康 城市居民 支付意愿 Air pollution Human health Urban residents Willingness to pay
  • 相关文献

参考文献5

二级参考文献37

  • 1杨凯,赵军.城市河流生态系统服务的CVM估值及其偏差分析[J].生态学报,2005,25(6):1391-1396. 被引量:74
  • 2朱先磊,张远航,曾立民,王玮.北京市大气细颗粒物PM_(2.5)的来源研究[J].环境科学研究,2005,18(5):1-5. 被引量:239
  • 3[1]Carson RT,Flores N,Hanemann M.Sequencing and valuating public goods[J].Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1998,36:314-323.
  • 4[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.
  • 5[3]Hanemann WM.Valuing the environment through contingent valuation[J].Journal of Economic Perspectives,1994,8:19-25.
  • 6[4]Venkatachalam L.The contingent valuation method:a review[J].Environmental Impact Assessment Review,2004,24:89-124
  • 7[5]Whittington D.Administering contingent valuation surveys in developing countries[J].World Development,1998,26:21-30.
  • 8[6]Carson RT,Flores NE,Meade NF.Contingent valuation:controversies and evidence[J].Environmental and Resource Economics,2001,19:173-210.
  • 9[7]Harrington W,Portney PR.Valuing the benefits of health and safety regulation[J].Journal of Urban Economics,1987,22:101-112.
  • 10[8]Bateman IJ,Langford IH,Turner RK,et al.Elicitation and truncation effects in contingent valuation studies[J].Ecological Economics,1999,12:161-179.

共引文献157

同被引文献63

引证文献6

二级引证文献45

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