中国资源型城市生态系统服务价值评价——基于Meta模型视角

doi:10.12118/j.issn.1000-6060.2022.081

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

资源型城市是基础能源和重要原材料的供应地，但由于资源衰减和缺乏统筹规划等原因，这些城市面临经济结构失衡、生态环境破坏严重等较大压力。因此，将资源型城市自然环境经济价值进行成本效益分析，对于改善资源型城市的人居环境，解决生态环境问题具有一定的指导意义。应用Meta模型，以城市居民户均支付意愿为视角，对资源型城市生态系统服务价值进行评价，并运用价值转移函数对公园价值进行评估。结果表明：（1）以生态系统服务特征变量得到的价值较高，对资源型城市生态系统服务具有显著影响。（2）除森林外，其他自然类型特征变量的环境资源得到的生态系统服务价值较低。（3）城市居民收入越高支付能力越强，在支付工具的选择上，人们更倾向于利用捐款和入门费的方式进行支付。（4）公园生态系统服务价值在1790.26×10⁴~31016.00×10⁴元，并且按照东部、中部、西部次序排列。根据研究结论，提出进一步增加资源型城市的森林面积，强化生态效益产出，提升生态系统服务功能，提高居民可支配收入，增加捐赠和入门费等自愿性支付工具使用，以此不断提高城市生态系统服务价值。

关键词: 资源型城市, 生态系统服务, 价值转移, 陈述偏好法, Meta分析

Abstract:

Resource-based cities are sources of basic energy and important raw materials. However, due to the decline of resources and the lack of overall planning, these cities are facing significant pressure, for instance, economic structure imbalance and significant ecological challenges. Therefore, cost-benefit analysis has significant directive meaning for improving the living environment of resource-based cities and solving their ecological problems. By reviewing the relevant literature, collecting results related to the value evaluation of resource-based cities’ ecosystem services, and then establishing a value transfer database, a Meta-analysis model is applied to evaluate the ecosystem service value of resource-based cities from the perspective of urban residents’ willingness to pay for service per household, evaluate the effectiveness of the model in value transfer outside the sample, and then explore the feasibility of the Meta-analysis method in the field of ecosystem service value evaluation of resource-based cities. The findings are as follows: (1) The value of ecosystem service characteristic variables is high, which has a significant impact on ecosystem services in resource-based cities. (2) In addition to forest resources, the value of ecosystem services obtained from environmental resources with other natural characteristic variables is low. (3) The higher the income of urban residents, the stronger their ability to pay for services. For the choice of payment method, people prefer to use donation or entrance fee. (4) The park ecosystem service value ranges from 17.9026 million yuan to 310.16 million yuan, and it is ranked from high to low in the east, middle, and west China. Based on the above research results, political suggestions are given as follows. First, increase the forest area of the resource-based cities and improve the output of ecological benefits, as well as the property rights system and ecological compensation system. As a result, the service function of the ecosystem is increased. Second, scientifically arrange the layout of urban park green space, and increase the park area of resource-based cities. Finally, increase the disposable income of urban and rural residents, provide multiple voluntary payment methods such as donations and entry fees, to enhance people’s willingness to pay and enhance the value of urban ecosystem services.

Key words: resource-based cities, ecosystem services, value transfer, stated preference approach, Meta analysis

颉茂华, 孙佳文, 刘铁鑫. 中国资源型城市生态系统服务价值评价——基于Meta模型视角[J]. 干旱区地理, 2022, 45(6): 1949-1957.

XIE Maohua, SUN Jiawen, LIU Tiexin. Evaluation of ecosystem service value of resource-based cities in China: Based on the perspective of Meta model[J]. Arid Land Geography, 2022, 45(6): 1949-1957.

图/表 3

表1

表2

Meta回归结果"

特征变量	变量	模型1		模型2
特征变量	变量	非标准化系数	标准误	非标准化系数	标准误
	常数项	-0.984	1.964	-2.058	1.953
研究对象和方法	人均地区生产总值	0.597^***	0.177	0.705^***	0.187
	面积	-0.003	0.032	-0.063	0.041
	税收	-1.216^***	0.331	-1.435^***	0.378
	捐款	1.068^***	0.243	0.789^***	0.258
	入门费	0.303	0.230	0.728^***	0.254
	选择实验	-1.278^**	0.344	-1.477^***	0.395
	二分式条件价值评估	0.121	0.260	-0.156	0.251
	开放式条件价值评估	0.122	0.240	0.330	0.274
自然类型	森林	0.133	0.311	0.050	0.360
	公园	-0.077	0.230	-0.177	0.268
	湖泊	-0.558^**	0.271	-0.413	0.354
	湿地	-0.673^***	0.243	-0.878^***	0.290
生态系统服务	供给	-	-	0.483^**	0.240
	气候调节	-	-	0.360	0.384
	生物多样性	-	-	0.090	0.393
	娱乐	-	-	-0.142	0.238
	$F$ 统计量	7.028		7.715
	$R 2$	0.520		0.619
	样本量	93		93

表2

表3

Value estimation of resource-based urban parks /104元"

城市	价值	城市	价值	城市	价值
张家口市	13028.86	徐州市	31016.00	娄底市	12219.50
承德市	10664.24	宿迁市	14125.03	韶关市	8558.93
唐山市	27756.72	湖州市	11139.82	云浮市	5391.74
邢台市	14280.41	宿州市	11746.10	百色市	7582.88
邯郸市	17456.79	淮北市	5633.75	河池市	6560.18
大同市	8623.26	亳州市	9623.60	贺州市	4120.47
朔州市	6922.55	淮南市	7763.92	广元市	7184.68
阳泉市	4893.89	滁州市	11341.68	南充市	15940.45
长治市	10147.25	马鞍山市	9132.47	广安市	11329.60
晋城市	8279.61	铜陵市	6319.27	自贡市	9126.56
忻州市	8700.99	池州市	4502.32	泸州市	11040.11
晋中市	10236.36	宣城市	8973.09	攀枝花市	5117.50
临汾市	10015.16	南平市	10479.48	达州市	14344.37
运城市	10209.73	三明市	11108.14	雅安市	4692.12
吕梁市	10904.52	龙岩市	13334.64	六盘水市	9930.51
包头市	12168.97	景德镇市	4810.37	安顺市	6245.52
乌海市	2197.08	新余市	5297.72	毕节市	13645.97
赤峰市	12751.16	萍乡市	5596.54	曲靖市	13428.47
呼伦贝尔市	9904.62	赣州市	16878.74	保山市	4891.24
鄂尔多斯市	14312.04	宜春市	13970.65	昭通市	7766.40
阜新市	3638.96	东营市	14626.29	丽江市	2466.35
抚顺市	7214.42	淄博市	21147.94	普洱市	4783.39
本溪市	4814.68	临沂市	27643.13	临沧市	4812.17
鞍山市	10068.47	枣庄市	11963.06	延安市	9803.70
盘锦市	5876.40	济宁市	25320.11	铜川市	2184.98
葫芦岛市	6413.92	泰安市	19563.74	渭南市	11408.89
松原市	9409.33	莱芜市	5229.65	咸阳市	12944.18
吉林市	13964.28	三门峡市	8100.99	宝鸡市	11333.89
辽源市	4271.01	洛阳市	22072.62	榆林市	21117.75
通化市	6380.81	焦作市	10673.86	金昌市	1790.26
白山市	5925.13	鹤壁市	4560.03	白银市	3579.07
黑河市	5038.26	濮阳市	9877.69	武威市	3540.61
大庆市	14514.06	平顶山市	12363.72	张掖市	2953.25
伊春市	2787.86	南阳市	24311.68	庆阳市	5687.41
鹤岗市	2765.79	鄂州市	5412.43	平凉市	3189.09
双鸭山市	4622.71	黄石市	8082.38	陇南市	3520.03
七台河市	2388.39	衡阳市	18399.96	石嘴山市	3343.04
鸡西市	4834.32	郴州市	15633.93	克拉玛依市	2412.51
牡丹江市	9064.62	邵阳市	13055.45

表3

参考文献 31

[1]	徐君, 李贵芳, 王育红. 国内外资源型城市脆弱性研究综述与展望[J]. 资源科学, 2015, 37(6): 1266-1278.
	[Xu Ju, Li Guifang, Wang Yuhong. Review and prospect of resource-based city vulnerability in China and abroad[J]. Resources Science, 2015, 37(6): 1266-1278.]
[2]	王波, 杨太保. 1980—2018年银川市生态系统服务价值评价及驱动力分析[J]. 干旱区地理, 2021, 44(2): 552-564.
	[Wang Bo, Yang Taibao. Value evaluation and driving force analysis of ecosystem services in Yinchuan City from 1980 to 2018[J]. Arid Land Geography, 2021, 44(2): 552-564.]
[3]	Kotchen M J, Powers S M. Explaining the appearance and success of voter referenda for open-space conservation[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 2006, 52(1): 373-390. doi: 10.1016/j.jeem.2006.02.003
[4]	丁振民, 黄秀娟, 朱佳佳. CVM评价森林景区游憩价值的理论效度——以福州国家森林公园为例[J]. 林业科学, 2018, 54(8): 133-141.
	[Ding Zhenmin, Huang Xiujuan, Zhu Jiajia. Theoretical validity of CVM on assessment of the recreation value in forest scenic areas: A case study of Fuzhou National Forest Park[J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2018, 54(8): 133-141.]
[5]	黄和平, 王智鹏, 林文凯. 风景名胜区旅游资源价值损害评估——以三清山巨蟒峰为例[J]. 旅游学刊, 2020, 35(9): 26-40.
	[Huang Heping, Wang Zhipeng, Lin Wenkai. Ecological damage assessment of tourism resources in scenic spots: A case study of the Python Peak in Mount Sanqingshan[J]. Tourism Tribune, 2020, 35(9): 26-40.]
[6]	刘雅轩, 白亚娟, 马远. 基于支付意愿的干旱区绿洲城市居住区绿地愉悦价值研究[J]. 干旱区地理, 2020, 43(4): 1088-1097.
	[Liu Yaxuan, Bai Yajuan, Ma Yuan. Pleasant value of residential green space of oasis city in arid land based on WTP[J]. Arid Land Geography, 2020, 43(4): 1088-1097.]
[7]	国常宁, 杨建州. 基于双边界二分式CVM法的森林生物多样性生态价值评估[J]. 统计与决策, 2019, 35(24): 24-28.
	[Guo Changning, Yang Jianzhou. Evaluation on ecological value of forest biodiversity resource based on double-bounded contingent valuation methods[J]. Statistics and Decision, 2019, 35(24): 24-28.]
[8]	王育宝, 陆扬. 陕北油气矿区居民土地流转与生态环境受偿意愿研究[J]. 干旱区资源与环境, 2019, 33(5): 42-46.
	[Wang Yubao, Lu Yang. Research on residents’ willingness to accept land transfer and eco-environmental compensation in oil and gas fields in northern Shaanxi area[J]. Journal of Arid Land Resource and Environment, 2019, 33(5): 42-46.]
[9]	Chaikumbung M, Doucouliagos H, Scarborough H. The economic value of wetlands in developing countries: A meta-regression analysis[J]. Ecological Economics, 2016, 124: 164-174. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.01.022
[10]	Smith V K, Pattanayak S K. Is meta-analysis a Noah’s Ark for non-market valuation?[J]. Environmental and Resource Economics, 2002, 22(1): 271-296. doi: 10.1023/A:1015567316109
[11]	Bateman I J, Jones A P. Contrasting conventional with multi-level modeling approaches to meta-analysis: Expectation consistency in U.K. woodland recreation values[J]. Land Economics, 2003, 79(2): 235-258. doi: 10.2307/3146869
[12]	Loomis J D, White D S. Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: Summary and meta-analysis[J]. Ecological Economics, 1996, 18(3): 197-206. doi: 10.1016/0921-8009(96)00029-8
[13]	张小芳, 何瀚东, 王子杰, 等. 城市住宅室内空气污染物时空特征分析[J]. 环境工程, 2020, 38(1): 65-74.
	[Zhang Xiaofang, He Handong, Wang Zijie, et al. Temporal and spatial characteristics of indoor air pollutants in urban residential buildings[J]. Environmental Engineering, 2020, 38(1): 65-74.]
[14]	赵玲, 王尔大. 基于价值转移方法的我国游憩活动价值评价[J]. 旅游科学, 2013, 27(4): 47-60.
	[Zhao Ling, Wang Erda. A study on valuing assessment of China’s recreation activities: A benefit transfer approach[J]. Tourism Science, 2013, 27(4): 47-60.]
[15]	Lindhjem H. 20 years of stated preference valuation of non-timber benefits from Fennoscandian forests: A meta-analysis[J]. Journal of Forest Economics, 2007, 12(4): 251-277. doi: 10.1016/j.jfe.2006.09.003
[16]	Barrio M, Loureiro M L. A meta-analysis of contingent valuation forest studies[J]. Ecological Economics, 2010, 69(5): 1023-1030. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.016
[17]	漆信贤, 黄贤金, 赖力. 基于Meta分析的中国森林生态系统生态服务功能价值转移研究[J]. 地理科学, 2018, 38(4): 522-530. doi: 10.13249/j.cnki.sgs.2018.04.005
	[Qi Xinxian, Huang Xianjin, Lai Li. An empirical study of meta-analytical value transfer of forest ecosystem services in China[J]. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 2018, 38(4): 522-530.] doi: 10.13249/j.cnki.sgs.2018.04.005
[18]	赵正, 韩锋, 侯一蕾. 基于Meta回归方法的中国城市森林生态系统服务功能价值再评估[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2021, 30(1): 64-75.
	[Zhao Zheng, Han Feng, Hou Yilei. Revaluation of urban forest ecosystem services function in China: Based on meta-regression analysis[J]. Resources and Environment in the Yangtze Basin, 2021, 30(1): 64-75.]
[19]	杨玲, 孔范龙, 郗敏, 等. 基于Meta分析的青岛市湿地生态系统服务价值评估[J]. 生态学杂志, 2017, 36(4): 1038-1046.
	[Yang Ling, Kong Fanlong, Xi Min, et al. Ecosystem services assessment of wetlands in Qingdao based on meta-analysis[J]. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2017, 36(4): 1038-1046.]
[20]	李庆波, 敖长林, 袁伟, 等. 基于中国湿地CVM研究的Meta分析[J]. 资源科学, 2018, 40(8): 1634-1644. doi: 10.18402/resci.2018.08.13
	[Li Qingbo, Ao Changlin, Yuan Wei, et al. A meta-analysis of wetland CVM studies in China[J]. Resources Science, 2018, 40(8): 1634-1644.] doi: 10.18402/resci.2018.08.13
[21]	颜俨, 姚柳杨, 郎亮明, 等. 基于Meta回归方法的中国内陆河流域生态系统服务价值再评估[J]. 地理学报, 2019, 74(5): 1040-1057. doi: 10.11821/dlxb201905015
	[Yao Liuyang, Lang Liangming, et al. Revaluation of ecosystem services in inland river basins of China: Based on meta-regression analysis[J]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2019, 74(5): 1040-1057.] doi: 10.11821/dlxb201905015
[22]	徐晓晔, 黄贤金, 赵涵. 基于Meta分析的中国水资源价值移位研究[J]. 中国环境管理, 2019, 11(4): 46-51.
	[Xu Xiaoye, Huang Xianjin, Zhao Han. Meta-regression on the benefit transfer of water resources in China[J]. Chinese Journal of Environmental Management, 2019, 11(4): 46-51.]
[23]	刘晖, 李春波, 韩旭龙, 等. 基于Meta分析的长白山地区土地利用变化与生态系统服务价值转移[J]. 水土保持研究, 2020, 27(4): 293-300.
	[Liu Hui, Li Chunbo, Han Xulong, et al. Land use change and transfer of ecosystem service value in Changbai Mountains based on meta-analysis[J]. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 2020, 27(4): 293-300.]
[24]	Fausold C J, Lilieholm R J. The economic value of open space: A review and synthesis[J]. Environmental Management, 1999, 23(3): 307-320. pmid: 9950694
[25]	Brander L M, Koetse M J. The value of urban open space: Meta-analyses of contingent valuation and hedonic pricing results[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2011, 92(10): 2763-2773. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.06.019 pmid: 21763064
[26]	Bockarjova M, Botzen W J, Koetse M J. Economic valuation of green and blue nature in cities: A meta-analysis[J]. Ecological Economics, 2020, 169: 106480, doi: org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106480. doi: org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106480
[27]	颉茂华, 施诺, 张婧鑫. 资源型产业地理集聚的时空分化与经济效应[J]. 资源与产业, 2020, 22(5): 19-27. doi: 10.13776/j.cnki.resourcesindustries.20200706.001
	[Xie Maohua, Shi Nuo, Zhang Jingxin. Temporal-spatial differentiation and economic effect of geographic concentration of resource industries[J]. Resources and Industries, 2020, 22(5): 19-27.] doi: 10.13776/j.cnki.resourcesindustries.20200706.001
[28]	全世文. 选择实验方法研究进展[J]. 经济学动态, 2016(1): 127-141.
	[Quan Shiwen. Progress in the research of selecting experimental methods[J]. Economic Perspectives, 2016(1): 127-141.]
[29]	Brander L M, Florax R J, Vermaat J E. The empirics of wetland valuation: A comprehensive summary and a meta-analysis of the literature[J]. Environmental and Resource Economics, 2006, 33(2): 223-250. doi: 10.1007/s10640-005-3104-4
[30]	Johnston R J, Besedin E Y, Stapler R. Enhanced geospatial validity for meta-analysis and environmental benefit transfer: An application to water quality improvements[J]. Environmental and Resource Economics, 2017, 68(2): 343-375. doi: 10.1007/s10640-016-0021-7
[31]	张玲, 李小娟, 周德民, 等. 基于Meta分析的中国湖沼湿地生态系统服务价值转移研究[J]. 生态学报, 2015, 35(16): 5507-5517.
	[Zhang Ling, Li Xiaojuan, Zhou Demin, et al. An empirical study of meta-analytical value transfer of lake and marsh ecosystem services in China[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2015, 35(16): 5507-5517.]

变量名称	变量特征	变量	解释	均值	标准差
被解释变量	价值特征	生态系统服务价值	户均支付意愿/元·a^-1	5.42	0.490
解释变量	研究对象和方法	人均地区生产总值	人均地区生产总值/元	10.87	0.278
		面积	自然面积大小/hm²	10.65	1.566
		税收	支付工具是否为税收：是=1，否=0	0.16	0.210
		捐款	支付工具是否为捐款：是=1，否=0	0.29	0.261
		入门费	支付工具是否为入门费：是=1，否=0	0.31	0.265
		其他方式	参照组	0.52	0.286
		选择实验	研究方法是否为选择实验：是=1，否=0	0.07	0.143
		二分式条件价值评估	研究方法是否为二分式条件价值评估：是=1，否=0	0.08	0.158
		开放式条件价值评估	研究方法是否为开放式条件价值评估：是=1，否=0	0.13	0.194
		支付卡式条件价值评估	参照组	0.70	0.262
	自然类型	森林	城市自然类型是否为森林：是=1，否=0	0.07	0.142
		公园	城市自然类型是否为公园：是=1，否=0	0.20	0.229
		湖泊	城市自然类型是否为湖泊：是=1，否=0	0.19	0.223
		湿地	城市自然类型是否为湿地：是=1，否=0	0.13	0.191
		其他自然类型	参照组	0.42	0.283
	生态系统服务类型	供给	生态系统服务是否包括供给服务：是=1，否=0	0.72	0.258
		气候调节	生态系统服务是否包括调节服务：是=1，否=0	0.64	0.275
		生物多样性	生态系统服务是否包括生物多样性服务：是=1，否=0	0.59	0.282
		娱乐	生态系统服务是否包括娱乐服务：是=1，否=0	0.51	0.286