中国城市居民对青藏高原生态资产的支付意愿——以中国27市为例

青藏高原作为一个独特的生态—地理单元,其多种生态系统服务向周边各个区域供给,这种区域差异有可能引起青藏周边地域居民对其生态系统服务的感知不同,进一步影响生态管理对策的制定。选取27个城市,基于13254份网络问卷,通过支付意愿法探究城市居民对青藏高原生态系统服务感知的区域差异及其原因。结果表明:（1）不同区域支付金额存在显著差异,WTP从高到底为东北—华北地区、东南沿海地区、西北地区、中部地区和西南地区,年平均支付金额分别为1185.7元、1021.1元、1012.3元、957.1元和894.7元。（2）总金额中六项生态系统服务的分配比例依次为水源涵养>碳固定>土壤保持>生物多样性保育>污染物净化>美学景观,其中水源涵养和美学景观的比例区域差异小;土壤保持的比例西南和西北地区较大,距平值为1.68%和1.87%;污染物净化沿海地区、西南和中部地区金额分配比例较大,距平值分别为2.04%、2.20%、2.20%;碳固定和生物多样性保育不具备显著的区域差异性。（3）在支付金额的影响程度上,管理意愿>主观认知>客观情况;其中对国家政策响应的积极性与支付金额关联性最大。（4）生态系统服务类型和城市发展水平对支付金额区域差异起主导因素,水源涵养和美学景观各个区域的影响因素相似,一线城市受个人客观情况影响较小;空间距离仅能影响生物基因保育服务与人均月收入的相互关联。研究结果可以为基于利益相关者生态系统服务需求的青藏高原生态资产价值化与管理提供借鉴。

Chinese urban residents' willingness to pay for ecosystem service of the Tibetan Plateau: A case study of 27 cities in China

As a special ecological and geographical region, the Tibetan Plateau provides various ecosystem services for the surrounding areas. Does the ecosystem service perceive differently from the public who have regional characteristic respectively? Meanwhile, would the regional difference influence the valuation of the Tibetan Plateau and ecological management measures? Based on 13254 questionnaires from 27 cities in China, this paper aims to value the ecosystem service and the drivers of public willingness to pay, and probe into the spatial heterogeneity in the above-mentioned verdict. The results show that: (1) The sorts of average maximum willing payment are: Northeast and North regions (1185.7 yuan/year) > Southeast coastal region (1021.1 yuan/year) > Northwest region (1012.3 yuan/year) > Central region (957.1 yuan/year) > Southwest region (894.7 yuan/year). (2) The allocation proportion sequence of ecosystem services is sorted as water conservation > carbon fixation > soil retention > biodiversity conservation > pollution decomposition > aesthetic existence. The allocation proportion of payment has no spatial heterogeneity in water conservation and aesthetic. The people in Northwest and Southwest regions are willing to pay more in soil retention, while those in Southeast coastal, Southwest and Central regions are willing to pay more compared with North region in pollution decomposition. It is difficult to grasp the spatial heterogeneity in carbon fixation and biodiversity conservation. (3) The drivers of public willingness to pay are ordered as ecosystem management attitudes > subjective indicators > objective indicators. (4) The types of ecosystem services and the level of urban development are the dominant factors for the regional differences of payment amount. The spatial difference has no influence on water conservation and aesthetic existence, and the objective indicators of the first-tier cities link less tighter to the payments than others do. Spatial distance only affected the correlation between biodiversity conservation and per capita monthly income. The findings can enhance the publicity of ecosystem management in the Tibetan Plateau.