协商货币评估法中的参与不平等性研究——以胶州湾围填海造地生态损害评估为例

协商货币评估法通过在调查过程中引入协商环节,在提高环境物品估值有效性方面具有较大应用潜力,但同时协商过程中受访者的参与不平等使其估值结果面临质疑。本文以胶州湾海域围填海造地生态损害评估为例,探讨协商货币评估法中参与不平等的存在性及其对估值结果的影响。结果表明：①在协商过程中,受访者参与程度具有明显差异,是否为意见领袖是导致协商参与程度差异的最重要因素,收入水平、年龄对协商参与程度差异也具有一定贡献度;②协商讨论过程使得受访者的支付意愿水平显著下降,在协商后,海洋生态环境对受访者主观幸福感的影响程度、受访者对于围填海造地的态度、受教育程度与收入水平等变量开始对支付意愿产生显著影响;③协商讨论过程将促使受访者获取额外信息,并通过小组作用机制使个体偏好收敛于小组集体偏好的惯性重心,上述两个因素共同驱动受访者在协商讨论后改变其初始偏好,意味着协商环节为受访者形成真实偏好提供了充分的信息支持,但也因协商参与不平等的存在使得最终估值结果更多反映个别参与者的意志,在一定程度上影响了协商货币评估法的估值有效性。研究结论对规范协商货币评估法估值流程以提高估值有效性具有指导意义,为协商货币评估法在中国的应用提供参考依据。

Unequal participation in deliberative monetary valuation: A case study of ecological damage valuation caused by the reclamation in Jiaozhou Bay

Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV) that introduces deliberation into a survey process has been proved to have high potential in improving the validity of the valuation of environmental goods. However, inequality in participation of deliberation makes the valuation of DMV controversial. In this research, we applied DMV in a case study of valuing ecological damage of the reclamation in the Jiaozhou Bay. Our results show that there were obvious differences in respondents’ participation in deliberation. The binary variable representing whether they are opinion leaders was the most important factor leading to the differences in participation of deliberation. Income level and age also had a certain degree of contribution to the deliberation participation inequality. Comparing the respondents’ willingness to pay (WTP) before and after deliberation, we found that deliberation intervention made respondents’ willingness to pay decline significantly. After deliberation, variables such as income level, educational level, and respondents’ subjective well-being of the marine ecological environment began to have a significant impact on willingness to pay. With regard to the influence of deliberation on the validity of WTP estimation, the result shows that deliberation intervention would enable interviewees to obtain additional information on the one hand, and on the other hand, the group action mechanism of deliberation made individual preferences converge to the inertial center of the group’s collective preferences. The above two factors jointly drive the interviewees to change their initial preferences after deliberation, which means that the deliberation provided sufficient information support for respondents to form their real preferences. However, due to the existence of unequal participation, the final valuation results reflect more the will of individual participants, which affects the valuation validity of the DMV. The conclusion has guiding significance for standardizing the valuation process of the DMV to improve the valuation validity and provides a reference for the application of DMV in China.