Center for Health Economics Experiment and Public Policy, School of Public Health, Shandong University, No. 44 Wenhuaxi Road, Lixia, District, Jinan 250012, China.
Tianjin Hongqiao District Health and Family Planning Commission, 202 Qinjian Road, Hongqiao 300131, China.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018 Oct 19;15(10):2297. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15102297.
Given the health and welfare impacts of haze, haze reduction governance challenges Chinese policy-makers. Surprisingly, there have been no studies of the differences in the public's willingness to pay (WTP) for haze governance within a province. Yet haze reduction policies are implemented at the provincial level. Based on the contingent valuation method, data on WTP for haze governance across four industrial cities in Shandong province were collected using a questionnaire survey.
A combination of stratified sampling and non-probability sampling methods were used, yielding a valid sample of 1006 respondents. The Heckman sample selection model was used to analyze factors determining WTP and WTP amount.
53% of respondents were unwilling to pay for haze reduction, while less than 1% of these respondents were satisfied with Shandong's air quality. About half (47%) of the respondents were willing to pay, on average, US$14.14 per household per year for haze governance. We found that there were significant inter-city differences in the WTP and WTP amounts: those with a higher income, education, haze knowledge, and haze concern were WTP; age, marital status, and subjective indicators displayed a negative relationship with WTP amount. About two thirds of the non-payers, and those with poor environmental knowledge, argued that air quality improvement was mainly the responsibility of governments (39.3%) and polluters (25.6%), instead of ordinary citizens. Further, 27% of non-payers said that their income was too low to contribute to a pollution tax and 6.3% claimed that they did not believe the funds would be used effectively for environmental conservation.
City-specific differences in WTP may caution against "one size fits all" policies. The study indicates that the government may need to target policies to specific cities and the characteristics of residents in those cities by age, education, and income groups and residents' subjective evaluation of the government and the haze problem and those responsible for pollution.
鉴于雾霾对健康和福利的影响，雾霾治理给中国政策制定者带来了挑战。令人惊讶的是，目前还没有研究过省内公众对雾霾治理的支付意愿（WTP）差异。然而，雾霾减排政策是在省级层面实施的。本研究基于条件价值评估法，通过问卷调查收集了山东省四个工业城市的雾霾治理 WTP 数据。
采用分层抽样和非概率抽样相结合的方法，对 1006 名有效受访者进行调查。采用 Heckman 样本选择模型分析影响 WTP 和 WTP 金额的因素。
53%的受访者不愿意为雾霾治理付费，而对山东省空气质量满意的受访者不足 1%。约一半（47%）的受访者愿意支付，平均每户每年 14.14 美元用于雾霾治理。研究发现，各城市间的 WTP 和 WTP 金额存在显著差异：收入、受教育程度、雾霾知识和雾霾关注度较高的人愿意支付；年龄、婚姻状况和主观指标与 WTP 金额呈负相关。约三分之二的不支付者和那些对环境知识较差的人认为，空气质量改善主要是政府（39.3%）和污染者（25.6%）的责任，而不是普通市民。此外，27%的不支付者表示，他们的收入太低，无法缴纳污染税，6.3%的人则表示他们不相信这些资金将被有效地用于环境保护。
WTP 的城市特定差异可能会对“一刀切”的政策提出警告。研究表明，政府可能需要针对特定城市和这些城市的居民特征制定政策，按年龄、教育程度和收入群体以及居民对政府和雾霾问题及其责任方的主观评价进行分类。
