Article 28
Article 28
复制标题
第二十八条
DOI：
10.5771/9783845279893-1093
复制
发表时间：
1993
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
T. Heberlein
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
B. Jorgensen;Mathew A. Wilson;T. Heberlein
本文分析了“抗议反应”，即人们不愿意支付以获得（或避免）增加（或减少）在一些环境公共产品的调查使用条件评估方法的原因。这给这种方法带来了一个问题，因为这并不一定表明他们不重视公共利益，而只是其他人有责任支付，他们已经支付了足够的费用，政府浪费太多，如果忽略不一致的数据，则审查此类响应会导致人口的不代表性样本或所收集数据的有效性问题，因为许多信念并不独立于一个信念另受访者可能不愿意为任何公共产品付费，原因与他们如何评价某项具体的改善无关，也可能由于预算限制而无法这样做，尽管他们希望这样做，或者只有在地方改善和规模足够小的情况下才能有所作为。为了检验抗议反应的影响，在威斯康星州北方进行了一项条件估值调查。受访者被问及他们愿意支付四个环境公共产品（生物多样性，鱼叉捕鱼，水质和狼）在两个层次的范围（部分和全部）。就水质和鱼叉捕鱼而言，“部分”一级的范围是奥奈达和维拉斯两州所有“整体”一级的湖泊中的一系列湖泊。就生物多样性而言，“部分”水平是奥奈达县和维拉斯县，而“整体”是北方威斯康星州的全部。狼的“部分”级是介绍300只狼，而“全部”级是介绍800只狼。在部分水平上，人们更倾向于为生物多样性（69%）和水质（62%）付费，而不是狼（51%）和印度矛捕鱼（44%），3%的人不愿意或无法支付。作为一个整体的公共产品，观察到类似的结果（生物多样性，72%;水质，73%;狼，47%;印度矛捕鱼，49%），7%的人不愿意或无法支付。每个公益物类别也存在一些人口差异。总的来说，狼的保护不像其他三个那样值得优先考虑，也不像其他三个那样被认为是个人权利问题。很明显，水质和生物多样性也是家庭支出中比狼和鱼叉捕鱼更认真考虑的优先事项。虽然抗议信念的分布对被重视的公共利益的类型很敏感，但对公共利益变化的范围不太敏感。愿意为整体公共利益付费的人比例较高，这表明人们可能更愿意花更多的钱来保护更多的公共利益，而不是花更少的钱来保护其中的一部分。
This paper analyzes "protest responses," or the reasons why people are unwilling to pay to obtain (or avoid) an increase (or decrease) in some environmental public good when surveyed in studies using the contingent valuation method. This presents a problem to this method because it does not necessarily indicate they do not value a public good, but simply it is someone else's responsibility to pay, they already pay enough, there is too much governmental waste, etc. Censoring such responses leads to unrepresentative samples of the population or problems with validity in the collected data if inconsistent data is ignored since many beliefs are not independent of one another. Respondents might be unwilling to pay for any public good for reasons unrelated to how they value a specific improvement, are unable due to budgetary constraints despite desire to do so, or only if it is for a local improvement and on a small enough scale to make a difference. To test the effects of protest responses' effects, a contingent valuation survey was conducted in northern Wisconsin. Respondents were asked about their willingness to pay for four environmental public goods (biodiversity, spearfishing, water quality, and wolves) at two levels of scope (part and whole). For water quality and spearfishing, the "part" level of scope were a chain of lakes that were considered among all lakes, at the "whole" level of scope, in Oneida and Vilas counties. For biodiversity, the "part" level was Oneida and Vilas counties while the "whole" was all of northern Wisconsin. The "part" level for wolves consisted of introducing 300 wolves while the "whole" level was introducing 800 wolves. People were more inclined to pay for biodiversity (69%) and water quality (62%) than wolves (51%) and Indian spearfishing (44%) at the partial level, with 3% unwilling or unable to pay. As a whole public good, a similar result was observed (biodiversity, 72%; water quality, 73%; wolves, 47%; Indian spearfishing, 49%), with 7% unwilling or unable to pay. Some demographic variability also existed for each public good category. In general, wolf protection was not as worthy as a spending priority and not considered a personal rights issue like the other three. It is clear that water quality and biodiversity are also more seriously considered priorities for household spending than wolves and spearfishing. While the distribution of protest beliefs was sensitive to the type of public good being valued, it was less sensitive to the scope of public good change. The higher percentage of people willing to pay for the public good as a whole indicates people are probably more likely to pay more money to preserve a greater amount of the good rather than less to preserve only part of it.