胡東濱,林 媚,陳曉紅,2*

流域橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償政策的水環(huán)境效益評(píng)估

胡東濱1,林 媚1,陳曉紅1,2*

(1.中南大學(xué)商學(xué)院,湖南 長(zhǎng)沙 410083；2.湖南工商大學(xué)前沿交叉學(xué)院,湖南 長(zhǎng)沙 410205)

基于2000～2019年浙江和安徽26個(gè)地級(jí)市的面板數(shù)據(jù),使用合成控制法定量分析新安江3輪橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償試點(diǎn)政策對(duì)其水環(huán)境效益的總體性和結(jié)構(gòu)性影響.結(jié)果表明:政策效果在時(shí)間上存在異質(zhì)性.第1、2輪政策試點(diǎn)顯著的提升了新安江流域整體的水環(huán)境,但第3輪試點(diǎn)對(duì)上游水環(huán)境的影響是負(fù)的.政策效果在空間上存在異質(zhì)性.流域橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償政策使下游的生物多樣性價(jià)值平均提高了0.068億元,但使上游生物多樣性價(jià)值平均降低了0.015億元.政策效果在結(jié)構(gòu)上存在異質(zhì)性.通過對(duì)水環(huán)境效益的結(jié)構(gòu)性分解,發(fā)現(xiàn)橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償政策使新安江流域的水質(zhì)凈化能力價(jià)值平均提高了31.874億元,但使其產(chǎn)品供給價(jià)值平均下降了13.402億元.政策效果存在預(yù)期效益.流域橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償?shù)恼咝Ч谡哒綄?shí)施前2年已經(jīng)出現(xiàn).

橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償；合成控制法；水環(huán)境效益；新安江流域

中國(guó)政府過去一般采取行政命令方式治理流域污染,但由于受水資源的流動(dòng)性與行政區(qū)域的固定性和分割性影響[1],跨省流域污染治理權(quán)責(zé)復(fù)雜[2],治理效果不理想,形成了一系列治理難題[3].2011年,安徽浙江兩省通過協(xié)商談判,簽訂了新安江流域生態(tài)保護(hù)補(bǔ)償協(xié)議,我國(guó)首個(gè)跨省流域橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償試點(diǎn)啟動(dòng).與命令控制型的生態(tài)補(bǔ)償不同,橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償?shù)奶卣魇且允袌?chǎng)橫向補(bǔ)償為主、財(cái)政縱向轉(zhuǎn)移支付為輔[4].經(jīng)過3輪試點(diǎn),新安江流域生態(tài)系統(tǒng)服務(wù)價(jià)值和水生態(tài)服務(wù)價(jià)值逐年上升,連續(xù)多年是全國(guó)水質(zhì)最好的河流之一.此后,國(guó)務(wù)院、財(cái)政部、生態(tài)環(huán)境部等中央部門,相繼出臺(tái)了《生態(tài)文明體制改革總體方案》[5]、《關(guān)于健全生態(tài)保護(hù)補(bǔ)償機(jī)制的意見》[6]、《支持長(zhǎng)江全流域建立橫向生態(tài)保護(hù)補(bǔ)償機(jī)制的實(shí)施方案》[7]等文件,探索建立橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償長(zhǎng)效機(jī)制,解決跨省流域環(huán)境污染治理問題.

國(guó)內(nèi)外關(guān)于跨省流域橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償?shù)难芯恐饕菑闹贫纫?guī)則[6-7]等角度,基于合約理論[3]、博弈論[3,10-11]和制度分析與發(fā)展(IAD)框架[12]等理論,對(duì)流域橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償政策的有效性及對(duì)環(huán)境[13–16]、經(jīng)濟(jì)[4,17-18]和社會(huì)[18-19]影響評(píng)估進(jìn)行了部分研究.使用的方法主要有:訪談法[21-23]、案例法[23-24]、實(shí)驗(yàn)調(diào)查法[19-20,25-26]、模糊集定性比較法[27]等定性研究方法和統(tǒng)計(jì)方法[13-14]、雙重差分法(DID)[4,15,17,28]、構(gòu)建指標(biāo)體系法[29]、層次分析-模糊綜合評(píng)價(jià)法[30]等.選取的評(píng)價(jià)指標(biāo)主要有:水質(zhì)[21,31-32]、水污染強(qiáng)度[28]、水資源利用率[33-34]、企業(yè)全要素生產(chǎn)率[35]、貧困狀況[36]、環(huán)境保護(hù)意愿[25]等.

目前,國(guó)內(nèi)外對(duì)橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償政策效果評(píng)價(jià)的研究已取得一系列成果[2,37-39],但在水環(huán)境效益評(píng)估方面仍然有較大的探索空間.一是定量評(píng)估方法不夠科學(xué).現(xiàn)有文獻(xiàn)多采用傳統(tǒng)DID方法,使用DID方法的關(guān)鍵在于滿足平行趨勢(shì)假設(shè)及找到合適的對(duì)照組.而流域與流域之間的差別很大,很難找到與處理組相似的流域作為對(duì)照組,因此該方法使用在流域橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償政策評(píng)估中存在前提假設(shè)難以滿足、難以找到合適的對(duì)照組等問題,易造成因果識(shí)別不足和內(nèi)生性問題.二是水環(huán)境效益的評(píng)價(jià)指標(biāo)選取較為單一,多單獨(dú)選取水污染強(qiáng)度、水質(zhì)等,鮮有考慮水資源供給、生物多樣性等因素,對(duì)政策的水環(huán)境效果評(píng)價(jià)不夠全面;三是時(shí)間、空間和結(jié)構(gòu)上的異質(zhì)性的討論不足.新安江橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償政策試點(diǎn)分為3輪,每輪試點(diǎn)政策存在差異,而現(xiàn)有文獻(xiàn)大多只評(píng)估了某一輪試點(diǎn)[4,28,32],對(duì)3輪試點(diǎn)的整體效果及不同試點(diǎn)期的差異性效果討論很少.

本文基于水環(huán)境效益的角度,利用合成控制法構(gòu)造合理的反事實(shí),從水資源供給、產(chǎn)品供給、水質(zhì)凈化能力、生物多樣性價(jià)值和旅游價(jià)值5個(gè)維度,對(duì)流域橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償?shù)乃h(huán)境效益進(jìn)行全面的量化評(píng)估,旨在彌補(bǔ)以往流域橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償政策量化評(píng)估不足的問題,為橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償政策的進(jìn)一步推廣提供參考.

1 研究方法

1.1 樣本介紹

新安江流域是長(zhǎng)江流域的重要水系,發(fā)源于安徽省黃山市,橫跨安徽與浙江兩省,最終注入千島湖,是千島湖的重要水源地.為改善流域生態(tài)環(huán)境,經(jīng)過多年的實(shí)踐探索,新安江成為我國(guó)首個(gè)跨省流域的橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償試點(diǎn),2012～2020年9年間,共進(jìn)行了3輪試點(diǎn),建立了跨省流域橫向生態(tài)保護(hù)補(bǔ)償機(jī)制,取得了良好的環(huán)境、經(jīng)濟(jì)和社會(huì)效果.新安江3輪試點(diǎn)的參與對(duì)象均為黃山市和杭州市,考核標(biāo)準(zhǔn)均為斷面水質(zhì),補(bǔ)償資金來源和補(bǔ)償原則每一輪都有所不同,詳見表1.

表1 新安江3輪橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償實(shí)行情況

注:資料來源于《新安江流域水環(huán)境補(bǔ)償試點(diǎn)實(shí)施方案》[40]和《關(guān)于新安江流域上下游橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償?shù)膮f(xié)議》[41];參與對(duì)象均為黃山市和杭州市;考核標(biāo)準(zhǔn)均為斷面水質(zhì)核算的補(bǔ)償指數(shù).

1.2 模型設(shè)定

目前,國(guó)內(nèi)學(xué)者做政策評(píng)估多使用DID方法,該方法難點(diǎn)在于難以找到合適的對(duì)照組,在本研究中,流域與流域之間的差別很大,很難找到可以作為新安江流域?qū)φ战M的其他流域.針對(duì)該問題Abadie等[42-43]提出了合成控制法(SCM),用數(shù)據(jù)驅(qū)動(dòng)的方式,估算權(quán)重,合成多個(gè)控制單元,擬合形成一個(gè)在政策實(shí)施前生態(tài)環(huán)境和經(jīng)濟(jì)狀態(tài)與實(shí)驗(yàn)組基本一致的對(duì)照組,以減少主觀選擇對(duì)照組的誤差并克服潛在的政策內(nèi)生性問題[32],得到了廣泛的應(yīng)用[44-45].

式中:是時(shí)間固定效應(yīng);Z是控制變量;是參數(shù)向量是時(shí)間效應(yīng),是個(gè)體效應(yīng),是隨機(jī)擾動(dòng) 項(xiàng).

通過加權(quán)后得到的合成地區(qū)的流域橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償效果情況,實(shí)際上是模擬了假設(shè)流域橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償試點(diǎn)地區(qū)不實(shí)施該政策時(shí)的水環(huán)境效益情況,則政策實(shí)施地區(qū)與合成地區(qū)之間的水環(huán)境效益差異就是流域橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償政策對(duì)該流域水環(huán)境效益的影響.

按照上述原理,本文將杭州市和黃山市作為實(shí)驗(yàn)組.為了更加準(zhǔn)確的評(píng)估流域橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償政策的水環(huán)境效益,考慮到對(duì)照組與實(shí)驗(yàn)組的生態(tài)環(huán)境特征應(yīng)盡可能相似且不受流域橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償政策的影響,選取安徽省和浙江省的其他市作為對(duì)照組,同時(shí),因?yàn)樾鞘械目?jī)溪縣也參與了試點(diǎn),因此將宣城市剔除,最終確定寧波、嘉興、湖州、紹興、舟山、溫州、金華、衢州、臺(tái)州、麗水、合肥、淮北、亳州、宿州、蚌埠、阜陽、淮南、滁州、六安、馬鞍山、蕪湖、銅陵、池州和安慶24個(gè)市作為對(duì)照組.

1.3 變量與數(shù)據(jù)來源

1.3.1 被解釋變量 水環(huán)境效益.為了比較全面的衡量橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償政策對(duì)水環(huán)境效益的影響,本文借鑒相關(guān)研究[45-47],綜合考慮浙江和安徽的地理特性及數(shù)據(jù)可得性,從流域生態(tài)系統(tǒng)服務(wù)功能的4個(gè)一級(jí)類型和11個(gè)二級(jí)類型中(表2),選取單位面積水系生態(tài)系統(tǒng)服務(wù)功能價(jià)值當(dāng)量最大的5個(gè)二級(jí)類型:水源供給、產(chǎn)品供給、水質(zhì)凈化、生物多樣性和旅游價(jià)值作為指標(biāo),表征水環(huán)境效益,并借鑒馬慶華[50]的方法進(jìn)行計(jì)算.

表2 水生態(tài)系統(tǒng)服務(wù)類型

1.3.2 控制變量 借鑒已有研究成果[28],選取了以下控制變量:(1)行政區(qū)域面積(area,km2),取城市行政區(qū)域土地面積;(2)人均GDP(gdp,元),取城市當(dāng)年人均地區(qū)生產(chǎn)總值;(3)產(chǎn)業(yè)結(jié)構(gòu)(structrue,%),取第二產(chǎn)業(yè)增加值占GDP比重;(4)對(duì)外開放水平(open,億美元),取城市實(shí)際使用外資金額;(5)技術(shù)水平(technology,億元),取城市年度科學(xué)支出金額;(6)城鎮(zhèn)化水平(urban,%),取城市非農(nóng)業(yè)人口占總?cè)丝诘谋戎?(7)基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施情況(infrastructure,m2),取城市道路面積.同時(shí),計(jì)算了1999年為基期的GDP平減指數(shù),對(duì)相關(guān)變量進(jìn)行了平減,剔除了價(jià)格因素的影響.

1.3.3 數(shù)據(jù)來源 水環(huán)境效益指標(biāo)體系包含內(nèi)容廣泛,數(shù)據(jù)涉及環(huán)境、經(jīng)濟(jì)等多個(gè)領(lǐng)域,統(tǒng)計(jì)數(shù)據(jù)均來源于2001～2020年浙江和安徽2省的統(tǒng)計(jì)年鑒和水資源公報(bào),水價(jià)數(shù)據(jù)來自于各級(jí)政府公布的水價(jià)公告和《涉農(nóng)價(jià)格和收費(fèi)目錄》.其他數(shù)據(jù)來源于EPS數(shù)據(jù)平臺(tái)整理而得.

在確定了方法、數(shù)據(jù)源,并獲得數(shù)據(jù)之后,應(yīng)用Abadie等[43]開發(fā)的程序包Synth來實(shí)證分析和檢驗(yàn)流域橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償政策對(duì)新安江流域水環(huán)境效益的影響.

表3 水環(huán)境效益評(píng)估方法

2 結(jié)果與討論

2.1 政策效應(yīng)評(píng)估

2.1.1 綜合效應(yīng) 由圖1可見,在橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償政策實(shí)施前,黃山和杭州水環(huán)境效益值的實(shí)際值與合成值的變化趨勢(shì)基本一致,說明模型擬合效果好.流域橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償實(shí)施后,水環(huán)境效益實(shí)際值曲線都位于合成值曲線之上,表明橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償有效[55]促進(jìn)了新安江流域上下游水環(huán)境效益的提升.從政策效果來看,橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償政策對(duì)新安江上下游水環(huán)境效益提升的平均值分別是10.600和98.070,下游的政策效果最明顯.從政策效應(yīng)的縱向變化來看,上游的政策效應(yīng)趨勢(shì)則波動(dòng)比較大,其政策效應(yīng)經(jīng)歷了2012～2015逐漸增大,到2015年達(dá)到最大值,然后開始減小,最后在2017年開始轉(zhuǎn)為負(fù)的過程.說明流域橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償政策在后期對(duì)上游水環(huán)境效益帶來了抑制作用,其原因可能與補(bǔ)貼金額不夠有關(guān)[56-57],因?yàn)樵?018年開始的第3輪試點(diǎn)中,中央不再給予補(bǔ)償資金.

2.1.2 預(yù)期效應(yīng) 從圖1中還可以看到,橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償?shù)恼咝?yīng)在政策開始正式實(shí)施前2年(2010年)就已經(jīng)出現(xiàn),在2009年,黃山市向全國(guó)人大遞交了《關(guān)于推進(jìn)新安江流域補(bǔ)償機(jī)制試點(diǎn)工作的議案》;2010年,全國(guó)政協(xié)赴杭州調(diào)研,形成了《關(guān)于千島湖水資源保護(hù)情況的調(diào)研報(bào)告》[58].同年,浙江省委做出《關(guān)于推進(jìn)生態(tài)文明建設(shè)的決定》[59],要求“實(shí)現(xiàn)主要水系源頭地區(qū)省級(jí)生態(tài)補(bǔ)償?shù)娜采w”,同時(shí)杭州編制了《杭州市生態(tài)文明建設(shè)規(guī)劃》[60]和《生態(tài)文明建設(shè)三年行動(dòng)方案》[61],要求盡快出臺(tái)《千島湖飲用水源專項(xiàng)整治規(guī)劃》[55]加強(qiáng)水環(huán)境治理;2010年3月,財(cái)政部、環(huán)保部就關(guān)于開展跨省新安江流域生態(tài)補(bǔ)償試點(diǎn)的實(shí)施方案征求皖浙兩省的意見,并于同年12月向黃山市和績(jī)溪縣撥付啟動(dòng)資金5000萬元;2011年3月,財(cái)政部、環(huán)保部印發(fā)了《關(guān)于啟動(dòng)實(shí)施新安江流域水環(huán)境補(bǔ)償試點(diǎn)工作的函》(財(cái)建函﹝2011﹞123號(hào)).由此可推斷,雖然新安江流域橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償政策的正式實(shí)施時(shí)間是2012年,但在此之前中央多部委及黃山和杭州進(jìn)行了大量的前期工作,使得新安江流域橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償?shù)恼咝Ч崆?產(chǎn)生了預(yù)期效應(yīng).

為了更精準(zhǔn)的評(píng)估2010年出現(xiàn)的政策預(yù)期效應(yīng),將政策實(shí)施點(diǎn)往前推至2010年,重新進(jìn)行擬合,結(jié)果如圖2所示.上游黃山和下游杭州在2010前的特征擬合非常好;2010年起,黃山與合成黃山、杭州與合成杭州水環(huán)境效益路徑開始有明顯差異,趨勢(shì)與2012年類似.這一方面說明2012年的結(jié)果是穩(wěn)健的;另一方面說明橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償?shù)恼咝Ч_實(shí)在2010年開始顯現(xiàn).在第1、2輪試點(diǎn)(2010～2017)中,流域橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償對(duì)新安江上下游的水環(huán)境效益都有正向的提升效應(yīng);第3輪試點(diǎn)(2017～2019年),下游水環(huán)境效益實(shí)際值曲線于擬合值曲線之間的距離逐漸縮小,說明流域橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償仍能改善新安江下游的水環(huán)境,但是政策效應(yīng)有縮小的趨勢(shì).而上游水環(huán)境效益實(shí)際值曲線開始位于擬合值曲線的下方,第3輪流域橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償政策對(duì)上游水環(huán)境產(chǎn)生了負(fù)面影響,降低了黃山的水環(huán)境效益.

合成黃山主要由麗水市、宿州市、淮北市以及衢州市合成,其權(quán)重分別為:0.066、0.026、0.588和0.320,淮北市的權(quán)重最高為0.588.合成杭州主要由合肥市、寧波市以及舟山市合成,其權(quán)重分別為: 0.020、0.842、0.138,寧波市的權(quán)重最高為0.842.

2.2 異質(zhì)性分析

2.2.1 產(chǎn)品供給(V2) 本文以漁業(yè)總產(chǎn)值來考察橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償政策對(duì)水資源產(chǎn)品供給的影響.結(jié)果如圖3所示,流域橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償政策降低了新安江上下游的水資源產(chǎn)品供給,且對(duì)下游的作用更明顯,上下游的政策效應(yīng)均值分別為-0.320、-13.830.

2.2.2 水質(zhì)凈化(V3) 水質(zhì)凈化變化反映的是流域水資源納污能力的變化,結(jié)果如圖4所示,上游的政策效應(yīng)經(jīng)歷了一段波折,2010～2017年水質(zhì)凈化的實(shí)際值曲線位于合成值曲線的上方,2017～2019年實(shí)際值曲線位于合成值下方,表明橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償政策對(duì)上游水質(zhì)凈化的效應(yīng)隨著時(shí)間的推移先是有積極的作用,而后從2017年開始出現(xiàn)負(fù)面影響,政策效應(yīng)的均值5.360,與已有研究結(jié)論相一致.出現(xiàn)負(fù)面效應(yīng)的可能原因在于:對(duì)于一定量的水資源來說,其納污能力在一定程度上是有限的,隨著政策標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的不斷提高,其納污能力的提升將逐步達(dá)到最大值,然后開始下降.而政策實(shí)施后, 下游水質(zhì)凈化實(shí)際值曲線始終位于合成值曲線之上,且兩者之間的差值經(jīng)歷了先增大后變小的趨勢(shì),政策效應(yīng)均值達(dá)到82.020,表明橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償政策有效的提升了下游的水質(zhì)凈化能力,且這一積極作用隨著時(shí)間的推移先增大后減少.

關(guān)于2015年水質(zhì)凈化價(jià)值的突然提升的問題.通過對(duì)原始數(shù)據(jù)的核查發(fā)現(xiàn),是由于2015年黃山廢水治理設(shè)施運(yùn)行費(fèi)用突然增加近3倍引起的.而廢水治理設(shè)施運(yùn)行費(fèi)用突然增加的可能原因在于:安徽省“十二五”規(guī)劃要求“全面完成重點(diǎn)流域城鎮(zhèn)污水處理廠的升級(jí)改造,污水處理設(shè)施要求選擇具備脫磷脫氮能力的工藝技術(shù),同時(shí)還要求設(shè)計(jì)污泥無害化處理處置方案,確保到2015年,出水水質(zhì)達(dá)到一級(jí)A排放標(biāo)準(zhǔn).”為了確保本文結(jié)果的可靠性,將2015年作為異常值刪除重新擬合,發(fā)現(xiàn)在2016年政策效果由正轉(zhuǎn)負(fù),與當(dāng)前結(jié)論一致.

2.2.3 生物多樣性價(jià)值(V4) 以居民對(duì)生物多樣性的支付意愿來考察橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償對(duì)流域生物多樣性價(jià)值的政策效應(yīng).從具體效應(yīng)來看,在橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償政策實(shí)施后,上游生物多樣性價(jià)值的實(shí)際值曲線位于擬合值曲線之上,說明橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償政策對(duì)上游和流域的生物多樣性產(chǎn)生了負(fù)面的影響.與此相反,政策實(shí)施后,下游生物多樣性價(jià)值的實(shí)際值曲線位于擬合值曲線的上方,說明橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償政策對(duì)下游的生物多樣性價(jià)值有積極的政策效應(yīng).可能的原因在于本文生物多樣性指標(biāo)的計(jì)算使用的是常住人口對(duì)生物多樣性的支付意愿,隨著政策實(shí)施的不斷深入,水質(zhì)情況得到改善,政府承擔(dān)了大部分的治理支出,使得居民的支付意愿反而降低[26],這與馬慶華等[50]的結(jié)果相似.同時(shí)這個(gè)結(jié)果也從側(cè)面反映橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償政策在新安江上游的科普還遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)不夠.

2.3 穩(wěn)健性分析

為了確保新安江流域水環(huán)境效益的變化是源自于橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償政策形成的效應(yīng),而非其他因素的影響,分別采用調(diào)整政策試點(diǎn)年份和改變擬合城市2種方法對(duì)實(shí)證結(jié)果進(jìn)行穩(wěn)健性檢驗(yàn).

2.3.1 調(diào)整政策試點(diǎn)年份 為了剔除政策實(shí)施時(shí)間對(duì)本文實(shí)證結(jié)果的影響,將政策實(shí)施時(shí)間改變?yōu)?011年重新擬合.如果擬合結(jié)果變化不大,則說明政策效果不隨時(shí)間的改變而發(fā)生變化,前文結(jié)論是穩(wěn)健的;反之,則是不穩(wěn)健的.如圖6所示,擬合結(jié)果與前文基本一致,說明有關(guān)政策效應(yīng)的結(jié)果是穩(wěn)健的,與政策實(shí)施年份無關(guān).

2.3.2 更換對(duì)照組 為了剔除對(duì)照組對(duì)政策效果的影響,更換新安江上下游城市的對(duì)照組,分別用安徽省的其他城市作為對(duì)照組來擬合黃山,用浙江省的其他城市作為對(duì)照組來擬合杭州.結(jié)果如圖7所示,新安江上游黃山和下游杭州的實(shí)際值與新擬合值的變化趨勢(shì)與前文擬合結(jié)果相似,說明前文結(jié)果是穩(wěn)健的.

2.4 政策建議

為發(fā)揮新安江流域橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償實(shí)踐的經(jīng)驗(yàn)價(jià)值,進(jìn)一步完善橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償機(jī)制,形成長(zhǎng)效生態(tài)保護(hù)補(bǔ)償機(jī)制,提出如下政策建議:

一是繼續(xù)推動(dòng)流域橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償政策實(shí)施,拓寬補(bǔ)償資金渠道.繼續(xù)推進(jìn)試點(diǎn),鼓勵(lì)省內(nèi)各市之間也嘗試跨區(qū)域的橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償試點(diǎn),繼續(xù)朝著市場(chǎng)化的方向前進(jìn),進(jìn)一步完善橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償制度.同時(shí)拓寬補(bǔ)償資金渠道,吸引社會(huì)資本進(jìn)入,強(qiáng)化橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償?shù)拈L(zhǎng)效調(diào)節(jié)功能.

二是建立流域橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償動(dòng)態(tài)評(píng)估機(jī)制,豐富補(bǔ)償原則中的考核標(biāo)準(zhǔn).增加生物多樣性、水資源供給等考核指標(biāo),完善政策評(píng)估方法,動(dòng)態(tài)跟蹤流域橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償政策的實(shí)施效果,助力流域生態(tài)環(huán)境持續(xù)全面改善.

三是完善流域橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償?shù)呐涮讬C(jī)制,同步加強(qiáng)對(duì)上下游的激勵(lì)和約束.流域上下游是生態(tài)環(huán)境的利益共同體,根據(jù)流域橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償政策對(duì)上下游生態(tài)環(huán)境的不同影響,有針對(duì)性的設(shè)計(jì)配套機(jī)制,同步完善對(duì)上下游的激勵(lì)和約束,以保障流域整體生態(tài)環(huán)境的提升.

3 結(jié)論

3.1 從整體效果來看,跨省流域橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償政策有效的提升了新安江流域上下游的水環(huán)境效益,且這一效果在第一二輪試點(diǎn)中是積極顯著的,但是在第三輪試點(diǎn)中,對(duì)上游的影響有正轉(zhuǎn)負(fù),這可能與中央政府不再提供補(bǔ)貼有關(guān).

3.2 流域橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償?shù)恼咝Ч嬖陬A(yù)期效益,新安江流域橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償政策的具體實(shí)施年份是2012年,但早在2010年政策效果已經(jīng)開始凸顯.說明中央兩部委、黃山和杭州的前期工作促使了該政策預(yù)期效果的出現(xiàn).

3.3 流域橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償所帶來的水環(huán)境效益變化具有顯著的空間和結(jié)構(gòu)差異性,即該政策對(duì)流域的上游和下游、流域水環(huán)境效益的不同維度均存在顯著的異質(zhì)性影響.空間上,流域橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償政策提高了下游的生物多樣性價(jià)值,但對(duì)上游生物多樣性價(jià)值的影響為負(fù).結(jié)構(gòu)上,跨省流域橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償政策能夠提升新安江流域的水質(zhì)凈化價(jià)值,但對(duì)產(chǎn)品供給產(chǎn)生了負(fù)向的影響.

[1] 饒清華,林秀珠,陳 芳,等.基于排污量分配的流域生態(tài)補(bǔ)償標(biāo)準(zhǔn)研究[J]. 中國(guó)環(huán)境科學(xué), 2022,42(6):2828–2834.

Rao Q H, Lin X Z, Chen F, et al. Research on the ecological compensation standard for river basin based on pollutant allocation [J]. China Environmental Science, 2022,42(6):2828–2834.

[2] 饒清華,邱 宇,王菲鳳,等.閩江流域跨界生態(tài)補(bǔ)償量化研究 [J]. 中國(guó)環(huán)境科學(xué), 2013,33(10):1897–1903.

Rao Q H, Qiu Y, Wang F F, et al. Quantification of trans-regional eco-compensation in Minjiang River Basin [J]. China Environmental Science, 2013,33(10):1897-1903.

[3] 張 捷,莫 揚(yáng).“科斯范式”與“庇古范式”可以融合嗎？——中國(guó)跨省流域橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償試點(diǎn)的制度分析 [J]. 制度經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)研究, 2018, (3):23–44.

Zhang J, M Y. The Coase Theorem and the Pigovian Tax can be integrated? An institutional analysis on pilot programs of inter- province ecological compensation in Chinese watersheds [J]. Research of Institutional Economics, 2018,(3):23–44.

[4] 劉 聰,張 寧.新安江流域橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償?shù)慕?jīng)濟(jì)效應(yīng) [J]. 中國(guó)環(huán)境科學(xué), 2021,41(4):1940–1948.

Liu C, Zhang N. Study on the economic effects of Xin’an river basin horizontal ecological compensation [J]. China Environmental Science, 2021,41(4):1940–1948.

[5] 中共中央國(guó)務(wù)院.生態(tài)文明體制改革總體方案 [R]. 北京:中共中央國(guó)務(wù)院, 2017.

The Communist Party of China Central Committee and the State Council. Integrated reform plan for promoting ecological progress [R]. Beijing: The Communist Party of China Central Committee and the State Council, 2017.

[6] 國(guó)務(wù)院辦公廳.關(guān)于健全生態(tài)保護(hù)補(bǔ)償機(jī)制的意見 [R]. 北京:國(guó)務(wù)院辦公廳, 2016.

General Office of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China. Opinions on improving the ecological protection compensation mechanism [R]. Beijing: General Office of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China, 2016.

[7] 財(cái)政部,等.支持長(zhǎng)江全流域建立橫向生態(tài)保護(hù)補(bǔ)償機(jī)制的實(shí)施方案[R]. 北京:財(cái)政部等, 2021.

Ministry of Finance of the People’s Republic of China. Implementation plan for supporting the establishment of horizontal ecological protection compensation mechanism in the Whole Yangtze River Basin [R]. Beijing: Ministry of Finance of the People’s Republic of China, 2021.

[8] 沈滿洪,謝慧明.跨界流域生態(tài)補(bǔ)償?shù)摹靶掳步Ｊ健奔翱沙掷m(xù)制度安排 [J]. 中國(guó)人口·資源與環(huán)境, 2020,30(9):156–163.

Shen M H,Xie H. Transboundary ecological compensation in the Xin’an River Basin and its institutional arrangement of sustainability [J]. China Population, Resources and Environment, 2020,30(9):156- 163.

[9] 王雨蓉,陳利根,陳 歆,等.制度分析與發(fā)展框架下流域生態(tài)補(bǔ)償?shù)膽?yīng)用規(guī)則:基于新安江的實(shí)踐 [J]. 中國(guó)人口·資源與環(huán)境, 2020, 30(1):41–48.

Wang Y R, Chen L G, Chen Xin, et al. Rules-in-use in payments for watershed services under IAD framework: a case study based on Xin’an River’s practices [J]. China Population, Resources and Environment, 2020,30(1):41–48.

[10] 胡振華,劉景月,鐘美瑞,等.基于演化博弈的跨界流域生態(tài)補(bǔ)償利益均衡分析——以漓江流域?yàn)槔?[J]. 經(jīng)濟(jì)地理, 2016,36(6):42–49.

Hu Z H, Liu J Y, Zhong M R, et al. Interests balance of trans- boundary river basin ecological compensation based on evolutionary game theory: Taking Lijiang Basin as a case [J]. Economic Geograph, 2016,36(6):42-49.

[11] Jiang K, Zhang X, Wang Y. Stability and influencing factors when designing incentive-compatible payments for watershed services: Insights from the Xin’an River Basin, China [J]. Marine Policy, 2021, 134:104824.

[12] 王雨蓉,曾慶敏,陳利根,等.基于IAD框架的國(guó)外流域生態(tài)補(bǔ)償制度規(guī)則與啟示 [J]. 生態(tài)學(xué)報(bào), 2021,41(5):2086–2096.

Wang Y R, Zeng Q M, Chen L G, et al. Rules in payments for watershed services abroad based on IAD framework and its enlightenments to China [J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2021,41(5):2086– 2096.

[13] Lin Y, Dong Z, Zhang W, et al. Estimating inter-regional payments for ecosystem services: Taking China’s Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region as an example [J]. Ecological Economics, 2020,168:106514.

[14] 曾賢剛,劉紀(jì)新,段存儒,等.基于生態(tài)系統(tǒng)服務(wù)的市場(chǎng)化生態(tài)補(bǔ)償機(jī)制研究——以五馬河流域?yàn)槔?[J]. 中國(guó)環(huán)境科學(xué), 2018,38(12): 4755–4763.

Zeng X G, Liu J X, Duan C R, et al. A study on market-oriented ecological compensation for the ecosystem services based on Wuma River Watershed [J]. China Environmental Science, 2018,38(12): 4755-4763.

[15] Von Thaden J, Manson R H, Congalton R G, et al. Evaluating the environmental effectiveness of payments for hydrological services in Veracruz, México: A landscape approach [J]. Land Use Policy, 2021, 100:105055.

[16] 李冬花,張曉瑤,王 詠,等.新安江流域生態(tài)系統(tǒng)服務(wù)演化過程及權(quán)衡協(xié)同關(guān)系 [J]. 生態(tài)學(xué)報(bào), 2021,41(17):6981–6993.

Li D H, Zhang X Y, Wang Y, et al. Evolution process of ecosystem services and the trade-off synergy in Xin’an River Basin [J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2021,41(17):6981-6993.

[17] 張 暉,吳 霜,張燕媛,等.流域生態(tài)補(bǔ)償政策對(duì)受償?shù)貐^(qū)經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)的影響研究——以安徽省黃山市為例 [J]. 長(zhǎng)江流域資源與環(huán)境, 2019,28(12):2848–2856.

Zhang H, Wu S, Zhang Y Y, et al. Effect of watershed eco- compensation mechanism on economic growth in compensation area: Take Huangshan City as an example [J]. Resources and Environment in the Yangtze Basin, 2019,28(12):2848–2856.

[18] Jones K W, Mayer A, Von Thaden J, et al. Measuring the net benefits of payments for hydrological services programs in Mexico [J]. Ecological Economics, 2020,175:106666.

[19] Grillos T, Bottazzi P, Crespo D, et al. In-kind conservation payments crowd in environmental values and increase support for government intervention: A randomized trial in Bolivia [J]. Ecological Economics, 2019,166:106404.

[20] Lehtoranta V, Louhi P. Does conservation in Natura 2000areas promote water quality improvement? Findings from a contingent valuation study on environmental benefits and residents’ preferences [J]. Environmental Science & Policy, 2021,124:226–234.

[21] Brownson K, Fowler L. Evaluating how we evaluate success: Monitoring, evaluation and adaptive management in payments for watershed services programs [J]. Land Use Policy, 2020,94:104505.

[22] Sheng J, Han X. Practicing policy mobility of payment for ecosystem services through assemblage and performativity: Lessons from China’s Xin’an River Basin eco-compensation pilot [J]. Ecological Economics, 2022,191:107234.

[23] Diswandi D. A hybrid Coasean and Pigouvian approach to payment for ecosystem services program in West Lombok: Does it contribute to poverty alleviation? [J]. Ecosystem Services, 2017,23:138–145.

[24] Chen C, Matzdorf B, Zhen L, et al. Social-Network Analysis of local governance models for China’s eco-compensation program [J]. Ecosystem Services, 2020,45:101191.

[25] Aguilar F X, Obeng E A, Cai Z. Water quality improvements elicit consistent willingness-to-pay for the enhancement of forested watershed ecosystem services [J]. Ecosystem Services, 2018,30:158– 171.

[26] Li C, Shi Y, Ni Q, et al. Effects of social interactions and information bias on the willingness to pay for transboundary basin ecosystem services [J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2021,296:113233.

[27] 朱仁顯,李佩姿.跨區(qū)流域生態(tài)補(bǔ)償如何實(shí)現(xiàn)橫向協(xié)同?——基于13個(gè)流域生態(tài)補(bǔ)償案例的定性比較分析 [J]. 公共行政評(píng)論, 2021, 14(1):170-190+224-225.

Zhu R X, Li P Z. How to achieve horizontal coordination of cross-regional river basin ecological compensation: A qualitative comparative analysis of 13 watershed ecological compensation cases [J]. Journal of Public Administration, 2021,14(1):170-190,224- 225.

[28] 景守武,張 捷.新安江流域橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償降低水污染強(qiáng)度了嗎? [J]. 中國(guó)人口·資源與環(huán)境, 2018,28(10):152–159.

Jing S W, Zhang J. Can Xin’anjiang river basin horizontal ecological compensation reduce the intensity of water pollution? [J]. China Population, Resources and Environment, 2018,28(10):152-159.

[29] 李彩紅,葛顏祥.流域雙向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償綜合效益評(píng)估研究——以山東省小清河流域?yàn)槔?[J]. 山東社會(huì)科學(xué), 2019,(12):85–90.

Li C H, Ge Y X. Study on comprehensive benefit evaluation of two- way ecological compensation in the river basin: A case study of Xiaoqing River Basin in Shandong Province [J]. Shandong Social Sciences, 2019,(12):85–90.

[30] 王慧杰,畢粉粉,董戰(zhàn)峰.基于AHP-模糊綜合評(píng)價(jià)法的新安江流域生態(tài)補(bǔ)償政策績(jī)效評(píng)估 [J]. 生態(tài)學(xué)報(bào), 2020,40(20):7493–7506.

Wang H J, Bi F F, Dong Z F. Evaluation of ecological compensation policy for Xin’an River Basin based on AHP-Fuzzy Comprehensive Method [J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2020,40(20):7493-7506.

[31] Immerzeel W, Stoorvogel J, Antle J. Can payments for ecosystem services secure the water tower of Tibet? [J]. Agricultural Systems, 2008,96(1):52–63.

[32] Zeng Q, Brouwer R, Wang Y, et al. Measuring the incremental impact of payments for watershed services on water quality in a transboundary river basin in China [J]. Ecosystem Services, 2021, 51:101355.

[33] Salzman J. Creating markets for ecosystem services: Notes from the field [J]. New York University Law Review, 2005,80:92.

[34] B?sch M, Elsasser P, Wunder S. Why do payments for watershed services emerge? A cross-country analysis of adoption contexts [J]. World Development, 2019,119:111–119.

[35] 景守武,張捷.跨界流域橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償與企業(yè)全要素生產(chǎn)率 [J]. 財(cái)經(jīng)研究, 2021,47(5):139–152.

Jing S W, Zhang J. Trans-provincial basin horizontal ecological compensation and enterprise Total factor productivity [J]. Journal of Finance and Economics, 2021,47(5):139-152.

[36] 娜 仁,陳 藝,萬倫來,等.中國(guó)典型流域生態(tài)補(bǔ)償財(cái)政支出的減貧效應(yīng)研究——來自2010～2017年安徽新安江流域的經(jīng)驗(yàn)數(shù)據(jù) [J]. 財(cái)政研究, 2020,(5):51–62.

Na R, Chen Y, Wan L L, et al. Research on the poverty reduction effect of fiscal expenditure of ecological compensation in Typical River Basins of China: Empirical data from Xin’an River Basin, Anhui Province from 2010to 2017 [J]. Public Finance Research, 2020, (5):51-62.

[37] Tacconi L. Redefining payments for environmental services [J]. Ecological Economics, 2012,73:29–36.

[38] Aguilar-Gómez C R, Arteaga-Reyes T T, Gómez-Demetrio W, et al. Differentiated payments for environmental services: A review of the literature [J]. Ecosystem Services, 2020,44:101131.

[39] 石曉然,張彩霞,殷克東.中國(guó)沿海省市海洋生態(tài)補(bǔ)償效率評(píng)價(jià) [J]. 中國(guó)環(huán)境科學(xué), 2020,40(7):3204–3215.

Shi X R, Zhang C X, Yin K D. Evaluation of marine ecological compensation efficiency in coastal provinces and cities of China [J]. China Environmental Science, 2020,40(7):3204-3215.

[40] 生態(tài)環(huán)境部.新安江流域水環(huán)境補(bǔ)償試點(diǎn)實(shí)施方案 [R]. 北京:生態(tài)環(huán)境部, 2012.

Ministry of Ecological Environment of the People’s Republic of China. Pilot implementation plan for water environment compensation in Xin’an Jiang River Basin [R]. Beijing: Ministry of Ecological Environment of the People’s Republic of China, 2012.

[41] 安徽省人民政府,浙江省人民政府.關(guān)于新安江流域上下游橫向生態(tài)補(bǔ)償?shù)膮f(xié)議 [R]. 安徽浙江:安徽省人民政府,浙江省人民政府, 2018.

Anhui Provincial People’s Government,Zhejiang Provincial People’s Government. Agreement on horizontal ecological compensation in upstream and downstream of Xin’an Jiang River Basin [R]. Ahui and Zhejiang: Anhui Provincial People’s Government and Zhejiang Provincial People’s Government, 2018.

[42] Alberto Abadie. Semiparametric instrumental variable estimation of treatment response models [J]. Journal of Econometrics, 2003,113(2): 231–263.

[43] Alberto Abadie, Alexis Diamond, Jens Hainmueller. Synthetic Control Methods for comparative case studies: Estimating the effect of California’s tobacco control program [J]. Publications of the American Statistical Association, 2010,105(490):493–505.

[44] 劉友金,曾小明.房產(chǎn)稅對(duì)產(chǎn)業(yè)轉(zhuǎn)移的影響:來自重慶和上海的經(jīng)驗(yàn)證據(jù) [J]. 中國(guó)工業(yè)經(jīng)濟(jì), 2018,(11):98–116.

Liu Y J, Zeng X M. Research on the influence of industrial transfer from the property taxes: Empirical research from Chongqing and Shanghai [J]. China Industrial Economics, 2018,(11):98–116.

[45] Almer C, Winkler R. Analyzing the effectiveness of international environmental policies: The case of the Kyoto Protocol [J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 2017,82:125–151.

[46] Costanza R, Limburg K, Naeem S, et al. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital [J]. Nature, 1997,387:253–260.

[47] 謝高地,張彩霞,張昌順,等.中國(guó)生態(tài)系統(tǒng)服務(wù)的價(jià)值 [J]. 資源科學(xué), 2015,37(9):1740–1746.

Xie G D, Zhang C X, Zhang C S, et al. The value of ecosystem services in China [J]. Resources Science, 2015,37(9):1740-1746.

[48] 謝高地,張彩霞,張雷明,等.基于單位面積價(jià)值當(dāng)量因子的生態(tài)系統(tǒng)服務(wù)價(jià)值化方法改進(jìn)[J]. 自然資源學(xué)報(bào), 2015,30(8):1243–1254.

Xie G D, Zhang C X, Zhang L M, et al. Improvement of the evaluation method for ecosystem service value based on per unit area [J]. Journal of Natural Resources, 2015,30(8):1243–1254.

[49] 昝 欣,張玉玲,賈曉宇,等.永定河上游流域水生態(tài)系統(tǒng)服務(wù)價(jià)值評(píng)估[J]. 自然資源學(xué)報(bào), 2020,35(6):1326–1337.

Zan X, Zhang Y L, Jia X Y, et al. Evaluation on the ecosystem services value of the upper reaches of Yongding River [J]. Journal of Natural Resources, 2020,35(6):1326–1337.

[50] 馬慶華.流域生態(tài)補(bǔ)償政策實(shí)施效果評(píng)價(jià)方法及案例研究 [D]. 北京:清華大學(xué), 2015.

Ma Q H. Research on evaluation methods and case studies for watershed ecological compensation [D]. Beijing: Tsinghua University, 2015.

[51] GB 3838-2002 地表水環(huán)境質(zhì)量標(biāo)準(zhǔn) [S].

GB 3838-2002 Environmental quality standards for surface water [R].

[52] 歐陽志云,朱春全,楊廣斌,等.生態(tài)系統(tǒng)生產(chǎn)總值核算:概念、核算方法與案例研究 [J]. 生態(tài)學(xué)報(bào), 2013,33(21):6747–6761.

Ouyang Z Y, Zhu C Q, Yang G B, et al. Gross ecosystem product: concept, accounting framework and case study [J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2013,33(21):6747-6761.

[53] 汪為青.鄱陽湖濕地生態(tài)系統(tǒng)服務(wù)價(jià)值與退田還湖生態(tài)補(bǔ)償研究[D]. 南昌:江西師范大學(xué), 2009.

Wang W Q. Study on Poyang Lake wetland ecosystem services value and eco-compensation of the returning field in lakeside areas to Poyang Lake [D]. Nanchang: Jiangxi Normal University, 2009.

[54] 趙同謙,歐陽志云,王效科,等.中國(guó)陸地地表水生態(tài)系統(tǒng)服務(wù)功能及其生態(tài)經(jīng)濟(jì)價(jià)值評(píng)價(jià) [J]. 自然資源學(xué)報(bào), 2003,(4):443–452.

Zhao T Q, OUYang Z Y, Wang X K, et al. Ecosystem services and their valuation of terrestrial surface water system in China [J]. Journal of Natural Resources, 2003,(4):443–452.

[55] 浙江省環(huán)境保護(hù)廳.千島湖飲用水源專項(xiàng)整治規(guī)劃[R]. 杭州:浙江省環(huán)境保護(hù)廳, 2009.

Zhejiang Provincial Department of Ecology and Environment. Special improvement plan for drinking water sources in Qiandao Lake [R]. Hangzhou: Zhejiang Provincial Department of Ecology and Environment, 2009.

[56] 王奕淇,李國(guó)平,延步青.流域生態(tài)服務(wù)價(jià)值橫向補(bǔ)償分?jǐn)傃芯?[J]. 資源科學(xué), 2019,41(6):1013–1023.

Wang Y Q, Li G P, Yan B Q. Sharing of watershed ecosystem service value horizontal compensation burden by downstream cities [J]. Resources Science, 2019,41(6):1013-1023.

[57] Shang W, Gong Y, Wang Z, et al. Eco-compensation in China: Theory, practices and suggestions for the future [J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2018,210:162–170.

[58] 全國(guó)政協(xié).關(guān)于千島湖水資源保護(hù)情況的調(diào)研報(bào)告 [R]. 北京:全國(guó)政協(xié), 2010.

National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference. Investigation report on the protection of water resources in Qiandao Lake [R]. Beijing: National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, 2010.

[59] 浙江省委.關(guān)于推進(jìn)生態(tài)文明建設(shè)的決定 [R]. 杭州:浙江省委, 2010.

The CPC Zhejiang Provincial Committee. Decision on promoting the ecological civilization [R]. Hangzhou: The CPC Zhejiang Provincial Committee, 2010.

[60] 杭州市人民政府.杭州市生態(tài)文明建設(shè)規(guī)劃 [R]. 杭州:杭州市人民政府, 2011.

Hangzhou Municipal People’s Government. Hangzhou ecological conservation plan [R]. Hangzhou: Hangzhou Municipal People’s Government, 2011.

[61] 杭州市人民政府.生態(tài)文明建設(shè)三年行動(dòng)方案 [R]. 杭州:杭州市人民政府, 2011.

Hangzhou Municipal People’s Government. Three-year action plan for ecologicalconservation [R]. Hangzhou: Hangzhou Municipal People’s Government, 2011.

Effects of river basin horizontal ecological compensation on water environment benefits.

HU Dong-bin1, LIN Mei1, CHEN Xiao-hong1,2*

(1.School of Business, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China；2.School of Frontier Crossover Studies, Hunan University of Technology and Business, Changsha 410205, China)., 2022,42(11)：5447～5456

Based on the panel data of 26 prefecture-level cities in Zhejiang and Anhui provinces from 2000 to 2019, this paper uses the synthetic control method to quantitatively analyze the overall and structural impacts of the three-round horizontal ecological compensation pilots’ policy on the Xin'an River basin on its water environmental benefits. The results showed that: (1) there existed temporal heterogeneity in policy effects. The first and second rounds of policy pilots significantly improved the overall water environment of the Xin'an River Basin, while the third round of pilots had a negative impact on the upstream water environment. (2) there existed spatial heterogeneity in policy effects. The horizontal ecological compensation policy of the river basin increased the biodiversity value of the downstream by an average of 6.8 million yuan, but reduced the biodiversity value of the upstream by an average of 1.5 million yuan. (3) there existed structural heterogeneity in policy effects. Structural decomposition of water environmental benefits showed that the horizontal ecological compensation policy increased the value of water purification capacity in the Xin'an River Basin by an average of 3.1874 billion yuan, but reduced the value of its product supply by an average of 1.3402 billion yuan. (4) there existed expected benefits in policy effects. The effect of the horizontal ecological compensation policy has appeared two years ahead the official implementation of the policy.

horizontal ecological compensation；synthetic control method；water environmental benefits；Xin'an river basin

X321

A

1000-6923(2022)11-5447-10

胡東濱(1969-),男,湖南長(zhǎng)沙人,教授,博士,主要從事資源環(huán)境及環(huán)境大數(shù)據(jù)等方面研究.發(fā)表論文70余篇.

2021-04-09

國(guó)家自然科學(xué)基金基礎(chǔ)科學(xué)中心項(xiàng)目(72088101)

* 責(zé)任作者, 院士, xhc_201909@163.com