长江流域资源与环境 >> 2014, Vol. 23 >> Issue (07): 911-.doi: 10.11870/cjlyzyyhj201407003

• 区域可持续发展 • 上一篇    下一篇

猫儿山自然保护区生态受益者支付意愿及影响因素

戴其文,彭瑜,刘澈元,翟禄新   

  1. (1华东师范大学中国现代城市研究中心, 上海 200062;2广西师范大学经济与管理学院, 
    广西 桂林541004;3广西师范大学环境与资源学院, 广西 桂林 541004)
  • 出版日期:2014-07-20

ANALYSIS  ON THE WILLINGNESS TO PAY OF ECOLOGICAL BENEFICIARIES AND ITS INFLUENCING FACTORS #br# FOR GUANGXI MAOERSHAN NATIONAL NATURE RESERVE

DAI Qiwen1, 2, PENG Yu2, LIU CheYuan2, ZHAI Luxin2   

  1. (1 The Center for Modern Chinese City Studies, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200062, China;
    2College of Economics and Management, Guangxi Normal University, Guilin 541004, China; 
    3 College of Environment and Resources, Guangxi Normal University, Guilin 541004, China)
  • Online:2014-07-20

摘要:

利用问卷调查和条件估值法,以猫儿山自然保护区为例,基于保护区受益者视角,分析受益区居民对保护区的认知、支付意愿及其影响因素和支付方式,探讨自然保护区生态补偿机制的构建。结果表明:(1)受益区居民对猫儿山自然保护区基本情况不熟悉,但绝大多数受益者认同保护区与漓江中下游的水源密切相关。部分受访者不认同作为保护区生态效益受益者的身份;(2)8558%的受益者愿意为猫儿山自然保护区提供帮助,受益者的支付意愿为每户每年28789元,对受益者来说,保护区生态系统服务的经济价值为202×108元/a;(3)文化层次和家庭年收入与支付意愿的关系呈单调变化,职业的影响表现出企业员工的支付意愿最高,其次是教师,农民的支付意愿最低;(4)受益者支付意愿的方式偏好存在差异性,比起现金支付,受益者更倾向于通过参加环保公益活动和纳税的形式,支付保护区提供的生态效益。

Abstract:

Using the questionnaire and contingent valuation methods, this study analyzes the perception of beneficiaries on Guangxi Maoershan National Natural Reserve, their willingness to pay for its ecological compensation, factors influencing willingness and ways of the willingness to pay from the perspective of beneficiaries The results are as follows.(1)Beneficiaries were not familiar with the reserves basic situation and aim, but most of them thought that Maoershan National Natural Reserve was closely related to the water resources of the middle and lower reaches of the Lijiang River More than half of the beneficiaries thought that the ecological environment in Lijiang River Basin has become worse, 7643% of the respondents believed they have benefited from the natural reserve, 2197% of them didnt think that they benefit from the protection zone It should be noted that 16% of the beneficiaries could not answer the question, because they dont understand the relation between the reserve and their lives (2)8558% of the beneficiaries were willing to provide help for the reserve The reasons why they were reluctant to help include low income; the management of the protected areas is the responsibility of the government; and they distrust that the government or relevant organizations can rationally use and manage the funds and they did not benefit from the reserve The willingness to pay of beneficiary was 28789 Yuan per year per household (3) The aggregate economic value of Guangxi Maoershan National Natural Reserve ecosystem service is [XCd1.tif]202×108 yearly Since we investigated urban residents in the benefited region and the average willingness to pay of beneficiary is in fact the urban residents willingness to pay But in the calculation of total ecosystem value of reserve, the article multiplied the average willingness to pay by the total number of households, including urban families and rural families, so there may be a higher result (4)The chisquare test revealed that except for the influence of age and gender, the level of education, annual household income and occupations affected willingness to pay in different degrees The willingness to pay monotonously changed with educational attainment and annual household income The willingness of the beneficiaries with annual household income of 100 000 Yuan was 5 times more than those of under 12 000 Yuan The influence of occupation on the average willingness to pay was different The highest willingness to pay was from enterprise employees, the second was from the teachers, the lowest one was from peasants, only up to 55% of the enterprise employees (5) The beneficiaries preferred to pay in different ways They favor to pay for the ecological benefits provided by the reserve through participating in environmental protection activities and tax, contrast to cash payment 5558% of the beneficiaries favor to pay for the ecological benefits provided by the reserve through participating in environmental protection activities, 2834% of the respondents thought that using tax as the compensation funds is a good choice, 1497% of the beneficiaries choose to pay cash for the ecosystem service.

No related articles found!
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] 解晓南,许朋柱,秦伯强. 太湖流域苏锡常地区地面沉降若干问题探析[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2005, 14(1): 125 -131 .
[2] 李 彬,武 恒. 安徽省耕地资源数量变化及其对粮食安全的影响[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2009, 18(12): 1115 .
[3] 黄, 薇, 陈 进, 王 波. 梯级开发对河流径流过程和水温过程均化作用的研究[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2010, 19(03): 335 .
[4] 陈永柏, 邓 云| 梁瑞峰. 溪洛渡水电站叠梁门取水方式减缓下泄低温水的优化调度[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2010, 19(03): 340 .
[5] 罗秉征. 河口及近海的生态特点与渔业资源[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 1992, 1(1): 4 .
[6] 刘春霞, 李月臣, 杨华. 三峡库区(重庆段)石漠化敏感性评价及空间分异特征[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2011, 20(3): 291 .
[7] 徐东坡|刘凯|张敏莹|段金荣|张敏|施炜纲. 长江常熟江段近岸小型鱼类群落结构及多样性探析[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2012, 21(04): 448 .
[8] 赵莉莉|杨文忠 |孟广涛|范勋承. 怒江云南北段的村域土地利用及驱动力分析[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2012, 21(9): 1093 .
[9] 傅 春| 詹莉群| 卢艺分. 基于TFP的中部地区经济增长中自然资源贡献分析[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2012, 21(11): 1301 .
[10] 杨晓辉|尹爱经|高超. 巢湖主要入湖河流表层沉积物镉的分布特征及污染评价[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2014, 23(02): 237 .