选择试验模型法在澳门固体废弃物管理中的应用被引量：10

Choice Experiment Method and Its Application to Solid Waste Management in Macao

下载PDF

导出

摘要环境物品或环境服务的经济价值评估是环境经济学研究的前沿领域.选择试验模型法是目前国际上用于评估环境物品经济价值的一种新方法.本文以澳门的固体废弃物管理为例,探讨选择试验模型法在澳门进行环境物品经济价值评估实践的可行性.在专家咨询和小组讨论的基础上,确定垃圾分选和回收、垃圾收集频率、减小垃圾收集过程中产生的噪音和垃圾处理费为澳门固体废弃物管理的4个属性.在对澳门6个堂260名居民进行随机抽样调查的基础上,分析了澳门固体废弃物管理不同属性的价值以及固体废弃物管理不同替代方案的相对价值.结果表明,实行垃圾分选和回收利用以及减小垃圾收集过程中产生的噪声是澳门今后固体废弃物管理的合理选择. Economic valuation of environmental goods or services has been becoming a research frontier and hotspot of environmental economics in the world. Choice experiment （CE） is a relatively new method that can be used to value the economic benefits of environmental goods or services. This paper reports an attempt to apply the CE method in Macao that aimed to understand Macao residents＇ preferences for solid waste management programs. A random sample survey of 260 respondents in Macao was conducted during the summer in 2004. Survey data was analyzed using multinomial logit models. Results from 260 in-person interviews indicate that Macao residents preferred waste segregation and recycling at source and noise reduction during waste collection and transportation. The study concludes that CE is a reliable tool in the analysis of respondents＇ preferences for the development of suitable solid waste management programs in Macao.

作者金建君王志石

机构地区澳门大学科技学院

出处《环境科学》 EI CAS CSCD 北大核心 2006年第4期820-824,共5页 Environmental Science

基金澳门大学科研基金(RG012/03-04S/WZS/FST)

关键词选择试验模型法固体废弃物管理澳门 choice experiment solid waste management Macao

分类号 X327 [环境科学与工程—环境工程]

引文网络
相关文献

参考文献15

1张志强,徐中民,程国栋.条件价值评估法的发展与应用[J].地球科学进展,2003,18(3):454-463. 被引量：247
2Foo T Seik.Recycling of domestic waste:early experiences in Singapore[J].Habitat Intl.,1997,21(3):277～289.
3Kwabena A Anaman,Rashidah M Jair.Contingent valuation of solid waste collection services for rural households in Brunei Darussalam[J].The Singapore Economic Review,2000,45(2):223～240.
4Patricia A Champ,Kevin J Boyle,Thomas C Brown.A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation[M].The Netherlands:Kluwer Academic Publishers,2003.
5Adamowicz W,Louviere J,Williams M.Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities[J].J.Environ.Econ.Manage.,1994,26:271～292.
6Adamowicz,W,Boxall P,Williams M,et al.Stated preferences approaches to measuring passive use values[J].Amer.J.Agr.Econ.,1998,80:64～75.
7Hanley N,Wright R,Adamowicz W.Using choice experiments to value the environment[J].Environ.Resource Econ.,1998,11:413～428.
8Hanley N,Robert E W,Gary K.Modelling recreation demand using choice experiments:Climbing in Scotland[J].Environ.Resource Econ.,2002,22:449～466.
9Carlsson F,Frykblom P,Liljenstolpe C.Valuing wetland attributes:an application of choice experiments[J].Ecolog.Econ.,2003,47:95～103.
10徐中民,张志强,龙爱华,陈东景,巩增泰,苏志勇,张勃,石惠春.环境选择模型在生态系统管理中的应用——以黑河流域额济纳旗为例[J].地理学报,2003,58(3):398-405. 被引量：29

二级参考文献47

1[11]Bateman I J, Langford I H, Turner R K,et al. Elicitation and truncation effects in contingent valuation studies[J]. Ecological Economics, 1999, 12:161-179.
2[12]Bonnieux F, Rainelli P. Contingent valuation methodology and the EU institutional framework [A]. In: Bateman I J, Willis K G, eds. Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing Countries[C]. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. 585-612.
3[13]Carson R T. Valuation of tropical rainforests: Philosophical and practical issues in the use of contingent valuation [J]. Ecological Economics, 1998, 24: 15-29.
4[14]Loomis J B, Kent P, Strange L, et al. 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.
5[15]Jorgenson B S, Wilson M A, Heberlein T A. Fairness in the contingent valuation of environmental public goods: Attitude toward paying for environmental improvements at two levels of scope [J]. Ecological Economics, 2001, 36(1): 133-148.
6[17]Lovett A, Bateman I J. Economic analysis of environmental preferences: Progress and prospects [J]. Computer, Environment and Urban systems, 2001, 25: 131-139.
7[18]Smith V K. Non-market valuation of environmental resources: An interpretive appraisal [J]. Land Economics, 1993, 69: 1-26.
8[19]Brown T C, Gregory R. Why the WTP-WTA disparity matters [J]. Ecological Economics, 1999, 28: 323-335.
9[20]Hanemann W M. The economic theory of WTP and WTA [A]. In: Bateman I J, Willis K G, eds. Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing Countries[C]. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.42-96.
10[21]Bishop R C, Heberlein T A. Measuring values of extra-Market goods: Are indirect measures biased? [J]. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1979, 61(5): 926-930.