野生动物肇事、致害补偿与农户野生动物保护意愿

doi:10.11707/j.1001-7488.LYKX20230015

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

目的: 农户野生动物保护意愿事关野生动物保护成效，是建设人与自然和谐共生的内生动力。探究野生动物肇事、野生动物致害补偿对农户野生动物保护意愿的影响，为防控野生动物肇事、优化野生动物致害补偿机制和提高农户野生动物保护意愿提供理论支撑，为促进人与自然和谐共生的现代化提供决策参考。方法: 围绕野生动物肇事、野生动物致害补偿和农户野生动物保护意愿构建理论分析框架，基于云南省野生动物活跃地区837户农户调查数据，运用多元有序Logit模型，实证检验野生动物肇事、野生动物致害补偿对农户野生动物保护意愿的影响，并进一步考察野生动物致害补偿在野生动物肇事和农户野生动物保护意愿关系中发挥的调节效应。结果: 1）野生动物肇事对农户野生动物保护意愿具有负向影响，野生动物肇事越厉害，农户野生动物保护意愿越低；2）随着野生动物致害补偿水平上升，野生动物致害补偿对农户野生动物保护意愿具有先“促进”后“抑制”的影响，影响机制呈“倒U形”，补偿水平53.39%时出现拐点；3）野生动物致害补偿可调节野生动物肇事对农户野生动物保护意愿的负向影响，发挥先“削弱”后“强化”的调节作用；4）野生动物肇事、野生动物致害补偿对农户野生动物保护意愿的影响在不同地区、不同文化信仰和不同收入水平下存在异质性，野生动物肇事、野生动物致害补偿的调节作用对处于野生动物资源较丰富地区、野生动物文化信仰较强、收入水平较高的农户影响更大。结论: 野生动物肇事降低农户野生动物保护意愿，野生动物致害补偿在野生动物肇事对农户野生动物保护意愿的负向影响中发挥先“削弱”后“强化”的非线性调节作用。建议在促进人与野生动物和谐共生的过程中，加强野生动物肇事防控，优化野生动物致害补偿机制，构建可持续发展的野生动物保护机制。

关键词: 野生动物肇事, 野生动物致害补偿, 农户, 野生动物保护意愿, 调节效应

Abstract:

Objective: The willingness of farmers to protect wildlife is related to the effectiveness of wildlife protection, and is the endogenous driving force for the harmonious coexistence between human and nature. To explore the impact of wildlife accident and wildlife damage compensation on farmers’ willingness to protect wildlife, to provide theoretical support for preventing and controlling wildlife accident, optimizing wildlife damage compensation mechanism and improving farmers’ willingness to protect wildlife, and to provide decision-making reference for promoting the modernization of harmonious coexistence between human and nature. Method: A theoretical analysis framework was constructed around the wildlife accident, wildlife damage compensation and farmers’ wildlife protection intention. Based on the survey data of 837 farmers in active wildlife areas of Yunnan Province, the effects of wildlife accident and wildlife damage compensation on farmers’ wildlife protection intention were empirically tested using the multiple ordered Logit model. The regulating effect of wildlife damage compensation on the relationship between wildlife damage and farmers’ willingness to protect wildlife was further investigated. Result: 1) The wildlife accident had a negative effect on farmers’ wildlife protection intention. The more severe the wildlife accident, the lower the farmers’ wildlife protection intention; 2) With the increase of wildlife damage compensation level, the impact of wildlife damage compensation on farmers’ wildlife protection intention was first "promoted" and then "inhibited", and the impact mechanism was "inverted U-shaped", with an inflection point at 53.39% of the compensation level; 3) Wildlife damage compensation can regulate the negative impact of wildlife accidents on farmers’ wildlife protection intentions, and play a regulatory role of "weakening" and then "strengthening"; 4) The effects of wildlife accident and wildlife damage compensation on farmers’ wildlife protection intentions are heterogeneous in different regions, different cultural beliefs and different income levels. The regulatory effects of wildlife accident and wildlife damage compensation have a greater impact on farmers in areas with abundant wildlife resources, strong cultural beliefs in wildlife and higher income levels. Conclusion: Wildlife accidents reduce farmers’ willingness to protect wildlife, and wildlife damage compensation plays a nonlinear regulating role of first "weakening" and then "strengthening" in the negative impact of wildlife accidents on farmers’ willingness to protect wildlife. It is suggested that in the process of promoting harmonious coexistence between human and wildlife, we should strengthen the prevention and control of wildlife accidents, optimize the compensation mechanism of wildlife damage, and build a sustainable wildlife protection mechanism.

Key words: wildlife accidents, compensation for damage caused by wildlife, farmer, willingness to protect wildlife, regulatory effect

中图分类号:

F323.22

陈俊峰,谢屹. 野生动物肇事、致害补偿与农户野生动物保护意愿[J]. 林业科学, 2023, 59(12): 152-166.

Junfeng Chen,Yi Xie. Wildlife Accident, Compensation for Damage Caused by Wildlife and Farmers’ Willingness to Protect Wildlife[J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2023, 59(12): 152-166.

图/表 8

图1

表1

图2

表2

变量的说明及描述性统计"

变量 Variable	变量说明 Variable declaration	均值 Mean value	标准差 Standard deviation	最小值 Minimum value	最大值 Maximum value
野生动物保护意愿 Willingness to protect wildlife	您愿意保护野生动物吗？很不愿意=1，不愿意=2，一般=3，愿意=4，很愿意=5 Are you willing to protect wildlife? Very reluctant =1, Reluctant =2, Generally =3, Willing =4, Very willing =5	3.606	0.775	1	5
野生动物肇事 Wildlife accident	野生动物肇事程度=农户家庭受损金额/农户家庭总收入金额 The degree of wildlife accident = The amount of damage to the household/ The general income of the household	0.097	0.155	0	0.974
野生动物致害补偿 Compensation for damage caused by wildlife	野生动物致害补偿水平=野生动物致害补偿金额/农户家庭受损金额 Compensation level for wildlife damage = Compensation amount for wildlife damage/Damage amount for farmers’ family	0.227	0.241	0	0.920
性别 Gender	女=0，男=1 Female =0, Male =1	0.768	0.422	0	1
年龄 Age	岁数 Age of farmer	46.04	10.49	18	75
受教育程度 Education	小学及以下=1，初中=2，中专或高中=3，大专或本科及以上=4 Primary school and below =1, Junior high school =2, Secondary school or high school =3, Junior college and above =4	1.570	0.612	1	4
村干部经历 Village cadre experience	您是否担任村干部？否=0，是=1 Are you a village cadre? No =0, Yes =1	0.174	0.380	0	1
家庭人口数 Population	家庭总人口数 Total household population(person)	4.523	1.473	1	7
家庭耕地面积 Agricultural acreage	家庭耕地面积 The cultivated area of the family/hm²	1.92	2.11	0.13	26.80
家庭总收入 General income	家庭年总收入（元）的对数 The logarithm of the total annual household income (RMB)	10.98	0.806	8.854	13.96
家庭农业收入 Agricultural income	家庭年农业收入（元）的对数 The logarithm of a family’s annual farm income(RMB)	10.32	1.182	4.787	13.96
野生动物价值认知 Cognition of wildlife value	您认为野生动物有价值吗？很没价值=1，没价值=2，一般=3，有价值=4，很有价值=5 Do you think wildlife are valuable? Worthless =1, Worthless =2, Generally =3, Valuable =4, Very valuable =5	3.823	0.750	1	5

表2

表3

表4

表5

替换变量和计量模型的稳健性检验结果①"

变量 Variable	农户野生动物保护意愿 Farmers’ willingness to protect wildlife
变量 Variable	替换核心解释变量 Replace the core argument	替换被解释变量 Replace the dependent variable	采用Ordered Probit模型 Adopt Ordered Probit model	采用OLS模型 Adopt OLS model
野生动物肇事 Wildlife accident	?0.488^***	?9.056^***	?4.856^***	?2.546^***
野生动物肇事 Wildlife accident	(0.065)	(0.888)	(0.469)	(0.197)
野生动物致害补偿 Compensation for damage caused by wildlife	16.554^***	7.557^***	4.398^***	2.255^***
野生动物致害补偿 Compensation for damage caused by wildlife	(2.687)	(1.159)	(0.647)	(0.312)
野生动物致害补偿平方 The square term of compensation for wildlife damage	?17.660^***	?7.364^***	?4.368^***	?2.178^***
	(4.452)	(1.640)	(0.946)	(0.472)
野生动物肇事×野生动物致害补偿 Wildlife accident×compensation for damage caused by wildlife	0.151^***	52.332^***	28.075^***	13.167^***
	(0.835)	(9.221)	(5.127)	(2.329)
野生动物肇事×野生动物致害补偿平方 Wildlife accident×the square term of compensation for wildlife damage	?0.736^***	?51.446^***	?27.451^***	?11.924^***
	(1.425)	(11.646)	(6.812)	(3.347)
性别 Gender	0.551^***	0.510^***	0.265^***	0.115^**
性别 Gender	(0.188)	(0.176)	(0.101)	(0.054)
年龄 Age	?0.017^**	?0.017^**	?0.010^**	?0.005^**
年龄 Age	(0.008)	(0.008)	(0.004)	(0.002)
受教育程度 Education	0.409^***	0.302^**	0.203^***	0.086^**
受教育程度 Education	(0.141)	(0.132)	(0.074)	(0.039)
村干部经历 Village cadre experience	0.902^***	0.563^***	0.405^***	0.195^***
村干部经历 Village cadre experience	(0.233)	(0.206)	(0.122)	(0.061)
家庭人口数 Population	0.049	0.065	0.014	0.009
家庭人口数 Population	(0.056)	(0.052)	(0.030)	(0.016)
家庭耕地面积 Agricultural acreage	?0.008^***	?0.004^*	?0.003^**	?0.002^**
家庭耕地面积 Agricultural acreage	(0.003)	(0.002)	(0.001)	(0.001)
家庭年总收入 General income	0.750^***	0.497^***	0.144^**	0.077^**
家庭年总收入 General income	(0.133)	(0.130)	(0.073)	(0.038)
家庭年农业收入 Agricultural income	?0.277^***	?0.600^***	?0.180^***	?0.079^***
家庭年农业收入 Agricultural income	(0.087)	(0.087)	(0.047)	(0.024)
野生动物价值认知 Cognition of wildlife value	1.070^***	0.762^***	0.512^***	0.282^***
野生动物价值认知 Cognition of wildlife value	(0.109)	(0.103)	(0.057)	(0.030)
N	837	837	837	837
Prob > chi²	0.000 0	0.000 0	0.000 0	0.000 0
Pseudo R²	0.237 1	0.176 7	0.186 4	0.355 5

表5

表6

参考文献 0

	陈哲璐, 程　煜, 周美玲, 等. 国家公园原住民对野生动物肇事的认知、意愿及其影响因素——以武夷山国家公园为例. 生态学报, 2022, 42 (7): 2698- 2707.
	Chen Z L, Cheng Y, Zhou M L, et al. Local residents’ cognition, willingness and influencing factors on wildlife conflict in national parks: a case study of Wuyishan National Park, China. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2022, 42 (7): 2698- 2707.
	程名望, 华汉阳. 购买社会保险能提高农民工主观幸福感吗?——基于上海市2 942个农民工生活满意度的实证分析. 中国农村经济, 2020, (2): 46- 61.
	Cheng M W, Hua H Y. Can the purchase of social insurance improve the subjective well-being of migrant workers? An empirical analysis based on life satisfaction of 2 942 migrant workers in Shanghai. Chinese Rural Economy, 2020, (2): 46- 61.
	富丽莎, 汪三贵, 秦　涛, 等. 森林保险保费补贴政策参保激励效应分析——基于异质性营林主体视角. 中国农村观察, 2022, (2): 79- 97.
	Fu L S, Wang S G, Qin T, et al. The incentive effect of forest insurance premium subsidy policy in China: an analysis from the perspective of heterogeneous forest operators. China Rural Survey, 2022, (2): 79- 97.
	何　可, 张俊飚, 张　露, 等. 2015. 人际信任、制度信任与农民环境治理参与意愿——以农业废弃物资源化为例. 管理世界, (5): 75−88.
	He K, Zhang J B, Zhang L, et al. 2015. International trust, institutional trust and farmers’ willingness to participate in environmental governance: a case study of agricultural waste recycling. Journal of Management World, (5): 75−88. ［in Chinese］
	洪银兴. 论中国式现代化的经济学维度. 管理世界, 2022, 38 (4): 1- 15.
	Hong Y X. On the Chinese-style modernization from an economic perspective. Journal of Management World, 2022, 38 (4): 1- 15.
	李海棠, 周冯琦. 2022. 公众参与野生动物保护法治的困境和出路. 中国人口·资源与环境, 32(5): 156−164.
	Li H T, Zhou F Q. 2022. Dilemma and strategy of public participation in the rule of law in wildlife protection. China Population, Resources and Environment, 32(5): 156−164. ［in Chinese］
	李江一. 农业补贴政策效应评估: 激励效应与财富效应. 中国农村经济, 2016, (12): 17- 32.
	Li J Y. Evaluation of agricultural subsidy policy effect: incentive effect and wealth effect. Chinese Rural Economy, 2016, (12): 17- 32.
	龙　耀. 野生动物致损与经济补偿的诸多选项. 改革, 2018, (2): 146- 158.
	Long Y. Damage caused by wild animals and its economic compensation. Reform, 2018, (2): 146- 158.
	马　奔, 温亚利. 人与野生动物冲突研究现状及经验启示. 生态学报, 2022, 42 (8): 3082- 3092.
	Ma B, Wen Y L. Research status on conflict between human and wildlife and its experience. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2022, 42 (8): 3082- 3092.
	庞　洁, 丘水林, 靳乐山. 生态补偿政策对农户湿地保护意愿及行为的影响研究——以鄱阳湖为例. 长江流域资源与环境, 2021, 30 (12): 2982- 2991.
	Pang J, Qiu S L, Jin L S. Effect of eco-compensation policy on farmers’ willing and behavior of wetlands ecological protection: based on Poyang Lake. Resources and Environment in the Yangtze Basin, 2021, 30 (12): 2982- 2991.
	丘水林, 靳乐山. 2022. 资本禀赋对生态保护红线区农户人为活动限制受偿意愿的影响. 中国人口·资源与环境, 32(1): 146−154.
	Qiu S L, Jin L S. 2022. Influence of capital on the willingness to accept compensation for human activity restrictions in ecological protection red line areas. China Population, Resources and Environment, 32(1): 146−154. ［in Chinese］
	任天驰, 张洪振, 杨晓慧, 等. 农业保险保障水平与农户生产投资: 一个 “倒U形” 关系——基于鄂、赣、川、滇四省调查数据. 中国农村观察, 2021, (5): 128- 144.
	Ren T C, Zhang H Z, Yang X H, et al. The level of agricultural insurance and farmers’ production investment: an “inverted U” relationship: based on the survey data of Hubei, Jiangxi, Sichuan and Yunnan provinces. China Rural Survey, 2021, (5): 128- 144.
	史恒通, 睢党臣, 徐　涛, 等. 生态价值认知对农民流域生态治理参与意愿的影响——以陕西省渭河流域为例. 中国农村观察, 2017, (2): 68- 80.
	Shi H T, Sui D C, Xu T, et al. The influence mechanism of ecological value cognition on farmers’ willingness to participate in ecological management: an example from Weihe Basin in Shaanxi Province. China Rural Survey, 2017, (2): 68- 80.
	王昌海, 谢　屹. 环境收入、农户福祉与保护行为. 上海经济研究, 2022, (3): 77- 99. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-1309.2022.03.007
	Wang C H, Xie Y. Environmental income, households’well-being and protection behavior. Shanghai Journal of Economics, 2022, (3): 77- 99. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-1309.2022.03.007
	王昌海. 农户生态保护态度: 新发现与政策启示. 管理世界, 2014, (11): 70- 79.
	Wang C H. Farmers’ attitudes to ecological protection: new findings and policy implications. Journal of Management World, 2014, (11): 70- 79.
	王昌海. 中国自然保护区给予周边社区了什么? ——基于1998—2014年陕西、四川和甘肃三省农户调查数据. 管理世界, 2017, (3): 63- 75.
	Wang C H. What did China nature reserve give to the surrounding communities? Based on the survey data of farmers in Shaanxi, Sichuan and Gansu Provinces from 1998 to 2014. Journal of Management World, 2017, (3): 63- 75.
	王建华, 钭露露, 王　缘. 环境规制政策情境下农业市场化对畜禽养殖废弃物资源化处理行为的影响分析. 中国农村经济, 2022, (1): 93- 111.
	Wang J H, Tou L L, Wang Y. The impact of agricultural marketization on livestock waste resource utilization in the context of environmental regulation policy. Chinese Rural Economy, 2022, (1): 93- 111.
	魏辅文, 平晓鸽, 胡义波, 等. 中国生物多样性保护取得的主要成绩、面临的挑战与对策建议. 中国科学院院刊, 2021, 36 (4): 375- 383.
	Wei F W, Ping X G, Hu Y B, et al. Main achievements, challenges, and recommendations of biodiversity conservation in China. Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, 2021, 36 (4): 375- 383.
	温忠麟, 侯杰泰, 张　雷. 调节效应与中介效应的比较和应用. 心理学报, 2005, 37 (2): 268- 274.
	Wen Z L, Hou J T, Zhang L. A comparison of moderator and mediator and their applications. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2005, 37 (2): 268- 274.
	文丰安. 新时代加强农村生态治理的现实困境及可行途径. 经济体制改革, 2019, (6): 32- 38.
	Wen F A. The practical difficulties and feasible ways of strengthening ecological governance in rural areas in the new era. Reform of Economic System, 2019, (6): 32- 38.
	许海平, 张雨雪, 傅国华. 绝对收入、社会阶层认同与农村居民幸福感——基于CGSS的微观经验证据. 农业技术经济, 2020, (11): 56- 71.
	Xu H P, Zhang Y X, Fu G H. Income, class identity, and happiness of rural residents: empirical analysis based on intermediary effect model. Journal of Agrotechnical Economics, 2020, (11): 56- 71.
	杨照东, 任义科, 杜海峰. 确权、多种补偿与农民工退出农村意愿. 中国农村观察, 2019, (2): 93- 109.
	Yang Z D, Ren Y K, Du H F. Rights confirmation, diversified compensation and migrant workers’ willingness to exit from the countryside. China Rural Survey, 2019, (2): 93- 109.
	姚树荣, 周诗雨. 乡村振兴的共建共治共享路径研究. 中国农村经济, 2020, (2): 14- 29.
	Yao S R, Zhou S Y. The research on the rural revitalization path based on collaboration, participation and common interests. Chinese Rural Economy, 2020, (2): 14- 29.
	喻永红, 张志坚, 刘耀森. 农业生态保护政策目标的农民偏好及其生态保护参与行为——基于重庆十区县的农户选择实验分析. 中国农村观察, 2021, (1): 85- 105.
	Yu Y H, Zhang Z J, Liu Y S. Farmers’preferences for agro-ecological protection policy goals and their participation behaviors: evidence from choice experimental analysis of farmers from ten districts(counties)in Chongqing. China Rural Survey, 2021, (1): 85- 105.
	原　艺, 赵　荣. 我国野生动物致害补偿机制与野生动物肇事公众责任保险制度比较. 世界林业研究, 2022, 35 (2): 123- 128.
	Yi Y, Rong Z. Comparison of compensation mechanism and public liability insurance system against wildlife caused injuries and losses in China. World Forestry Research, 2022, 35 (2): 123- 128.
	张馨予, 胡宇轩, 张忠义, 等. 中国公众的国际野生动物保护意愿调查: 以非洲象为例. 生物多样性, 2021, 29 (10): 1358- 1368. doi: 10.17520/biods.2021082
	Zhang X Y, Hu Y X, Zhang Z Y, et al. Chinese public willingness of international wildlife conservation: a case study of African elephant. Biodiversity Science, 2021, 29 (10): 1358- 1368. doi: 10.17520/biods.2021082
	张跃华, 刘纯之, 利菊秀. 生猪保险、信息不对称与谎报——基于农户“不足额投保”问题的案例研究. 农业技术经济, 2013, (1): 11- 24.
	Zhang Y H, Liu C Z, Li J. Pig insurance, information asymmetry and false report: a case study based on farmers’ "insufficient insurance". Journal of Agrotechnical Economics, 2013, (1): 11- 24.
	Castillo-Huitrón N M, Naranjo E J, Santos-Fita D, et al. 2020. The importance of human emotions for wildlife conservation. Frontiers in Psychology, 11: 1277.
	Chen S, Sun G Z, Wang Y, et al. A multistakeholder exercise to identify research and conservation priorities for Asian elephants in China. Global Ecology and Conservation, 2021, 27 (4): e01561.
	Chen S, Yi Z F, Campos-Arceiz A, et al. Developing a spatially-explicit, sustainable and risk-based insurance scheme to mitigate human-wildlife conflict. Biological Conservation, 2013, 168, 31- 39. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2013.09.017
	Christie M, Hanley N, Warren J, et al. Valuing the diversity of biodiversity. Ecological Economics, 2006, 58 (2): 304- 317. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.07.034
	Everard M, Khandal D, Sahu Y K. Ecosystem service enhancement for the alleviation of wildlife-human conflicts in the Aravalli Hills, Rajasthan, India. Ecosystem Services, 2017, 24 (4): 213- 222.
	Fadhliani Z, Luckstead J, Wailes E J. The impacts of multiperil crop insurance on Indonesian rice farmers and production. Agricultural Economics, 2019, 50 (1): 15- 26. doi: 10.1111/agec.12462
	Ferrer-i-Carbonell A, Frijters P. 2004. How important is methodology for the estimates of the determinants of happiness? The Economic Journal, 114(497): 641−659.
	Goodwin B K, Vandeveer M L, Deal J L. An empirical analysis of acreage effects of participation in the federal crop insurance program. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 2004, 86 (4): 1058- 1077. doi: 10.1111/j.0002-9092.2004.00653.x
	Haans R F J, Pieters C, He Z L. Thinking about U: Theorizing and testing U- and inverted U-shaped relationships in strategy research. Strategic Management Journal, 2016, 37 (7): 1177- 1195. doi: 10.1002/smj.2399
	Hale L J, Shi K, Gilbert T C, et al. Social structure and demography of a remnant Asian elephant Elephas maximus population and the implications for survival. Oryx, 2021, 55 (3): 473- 478. doi: 10.1017/S0030605319000504
	Huang C, Li X Y, Shi L J, et al. Patterns of human-wildlife conflict and compensation practices around Daxueshan Nature Reserve, China. Zoological Research, 2018, 39 (6): 406- 412. doi: 10.24272/j.issn.2095-8137.2018.056
	Huang G P, Ping X G, Xu W H, et al. Wildlife conservation and management in China: achievements, challenges and perspectives. National Science Review, 2021, 8 (7): 26- 30.
	Illukpitiya P, Gopalakrishnan C. Decision-making in soil conservation: application of a behavioral model to potato farmers in Sri Lanka. Land Use Policy, 2004, 21 (4): 321- 331. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2003.09.006
	Keane A, Lund J F, Bluwstein J, et al. Impact of Tanzania’s wildlife management areas on household wealth. Nature Sustainability, 2020, 3, 226- 233.
	König H J, Kiffner C, Kramer-Schadt S, et al. Human-wildlife coexistence in a changing world. Conservation Biology, 2020, 34 (4): 786- 794. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13513
	Lancaster K J. A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy, 1966, 74 (2): 132- 157. doi: 10.1086/259131
	Law S H, Kutan A M, Naseem N A. The role of institutions in finance curse: evidence from international data. Journal of Comparative Economics, 2018, 46 (1): 174- 191. doi: 10.1016/j.jce.2017.04.001
	Li W, Liu P, Guo X, et al. Human-elephant conflict in Xishuangbanna Prefecture, China: distribution, diffusion, and mitigation. Global Ecology and Conservation, 2018, 16 (10): e00462.
	Lind J T, Mehlum H. With or without U? the appropriate test for a U-shaped relationship. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 2010, 72 (1): 109- 118. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0084.2009.00569.x
	Liu P, Wen H, Lin L, et al. Habitat evaluation for Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) in Lincang: conservation planning for an extremely small population of elephants in China. Biological Conservation, 2016, 198, 113- 121. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.04.005
	Maclennan S D, Groom R J, Macdonald D W, et al. Evaluation of a compensation scheme to bring about pastoralist tolerance of lions. Biological Conservation, 2009, 142 (11): 2419- 2427. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2008.12.003
	Menger A K, Hamm U. Consumers’ knowledge and perceptions of endangered livestock breeds: how wording influences conservation efforts. Ecological Economics, 2021, 188 (1): 107117.
	Mosley P, Verschoor A. Risk attitudes and the ‘vicious circle of poverty’. The European Journal of Development Research, 2005, 17 (1): 59- 88. doi: 10.1080/09578810500066548
	Nepal S, Spiteri A. Linking livelihoods and conservation: an examination of local residents’ perceived linkages between conservation and livelihood benefits around Nepal’s chitwan National Park. Environmental Management, 2011, 47 (5): 727- 738. doi: 10.1007/s00267-011-9631-6
	Ravenelle J, Nyhus P J. Global patterns and trends in human-wildlife conflict compensation. Conservation Biology, 2017, 31 (6): 1247- 1256. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12948
	Rothschild M, Stiglitz J. Equilibrium in competitive insurance markets: an essay on the economics of imperfect information. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1976, 90 (4): 629- 649. doi: 10.2307/1885326
	Toothaker L E. Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 1994, 45 (1): 119- 120.
	Yin D, Yuan Z J, Li J, et al. Mitigate human-wildlife conflict in China. Science, 2021, 373 (6554): 500- 501.

项目 Project	类型 Type	家庭（户） Household	占各自样本比例Proportion of each sample（%）
样本农户是否遭遇野生动物肇事 Whether the sample farmers have been hit by wild animals	否 No	303	36.20
	是 Yes	534	63.80
样本农户受损金额 Damage amount of sample farmers	1 000元以下 Less than 1 000 RMB	336	40.14
	1 000~5 000元 1 000-5 000 RMB	212	25.33
	5 000元以上 More than 5 000 RMB	289	34.53
样本农户受损金额占收入的比例 The proportion of damage to income of sample farmers	5%以下 Less than 5%	478	57.11
	5%~15%	173	20.67
	15%以上 More than 15%	186	22.22
受损农户是否得到致害补偿 Whether the damaged farmers are compensated for the damage	否 No	62	11.61
	是 Yes	472	88.39
受损农户得到的致害补偿金额 The amount of damage compensation received by the damaged farmers	1 000元以下 Less than 1 000 RMB	180	33.71
	1 000~5 000元 1 000-5 000 RMB	265	49.62
	5 000元以上 More than 5 000 RMB	89	16.67
受损农户得到的致害补偿金额占受损金额的比例 The proportion of the damage compensation amount received by the damaged farmers to the damage amount	25%以下 Less than25%	158	29.59
	25%~50%	242	45.32
	50%以上 More than 50%	134	25.09

变量 Variable	农户野生动物保护意愿 Farmers’ willingness to protect wildlife
变量 Variable	基准模型 Basic model	直线效应模型 Linear effect model	曲线效应模型 Curve effect model	调节效应模型 Regulatory effect model
野生动物肇事 Wildlife accident	?3.523^***	?4.661^***	?5.257^***	?8.263^***
野生动物肇事 Wildlife accident	(0.486)	(0.525)	(0.570)	(0.855)
野生动物致害补偿 Compensation for damage caused by wildlife		2.209^***	5.256^***	7.776^***
野生动物致害补偿 Compensation for damage caused by wildlife		(0.353)	(1.079)	(1.194)
野生动物致害补偿平方 The square term of compensation for wildlife damage			?4.922^***	?7.545^***
			(1.629)	(1.737)
野生动物肇事×野生动物致害补偿 Wildlife accident×compensation for damage caused by wildlife				45.423^***
				(9.127)
野生动物肇事×野生动物致害补偿平方 Wildlife accident×the square term of compensation for wildlife damage				?43.324^***
				(11.911)
性别 Gender	0.514^***	0.409^**	0.417^**	0.473^***
性别 Gender	(0.178)	(0.181)	(0.181)	(0.183)
年龄 Age	?0.017^**	?0.021^***	?0.019^**	?0.019^**
年龄 Age	(0.008)	(0.008)	(0.008)	(0.008)
受教育程度 Education	0.412^***	0.380^***	0.357^***	0.351^**
受教育程度 Education	(0.136)	(0.137)	(0.138)	(0.139)
村干部经历 Village cadre experience	0.682^***	0.654^***	0.670^***	0.801^***
村干部经历 Village cadre experience	(0.220)	(0.222)	(0.222)	(0.225)
家庭人口数 Population	0.015	0.016	0.010	0.021
家庭人口数 Population	(0.053)	(0.053)	(0.054)	(0.054)
家庭耕地面积 Agricultural acreage	?0.007^***	?0.006^**	?0.006^**	?0.006^**
家庭耕地面积 Agricultural acreage	(0.002)	(0.002)	(0.002)	(0.002)
家庭年总收入 General income	0.313^**	0.253^*	0.257^*	0.267^**
家庭年总收入 General income	(0.131)	(0.132)	(0.132)	(0.133)
家庭年农业收入 Agricultural income	?0.305^***	?0.319^***	?0.332^***	?0.316^***
家庭年农业收入 Agricultural income	(0.085)	(0.086)	(0.087)	(0.087)
野生动物价值认知 Cognition of wildlife value	0.897^***	0.922^***	0.912^***	0.954^***
野生动物价值认知 Cognition of wildlife value	(0.101)	(0.103)	(0.104)	(0.107)
野生动物致害补偿水平拐点 The inflection point of compensation for wildlife damage			0.533 9	0.515 3
N	837	837	837	837
Prob > chi²	0.000 0	0.000 0	0.000 0	0.000 0
Pseudo R²	0.134 7	0.158 7	0.163 9	0.187 8

变量 Variable	农户野生动物保护意愿 Farmers’ willingness to protect wildlife
	地区异质性 Regional heterogeneity		文化异质性 Cultural heterogeneity		收入水平异质性 Income heterogeneity
	普洱 Pu ’er	西双版纳 Xishuangbanna	其他民族 Other nations	傣族和佤族 The Dai and the Wa	低收入组 Low-income group	高收入组 High-income group
野生动物肇事 Wildlife accident	?8.698^***	?10.531^***	?7.771^***	?14.824^***	?7.192^***	?13.468^***
野生动物肇事 Wildlife accident	(1.262)	(1.660)	(0.911)	(3.809)	(0.923)	(2.016)
野生动物致害补偿 Compensation for damage caused by wildlife	10.145^***	7.858^***	8.051^***	15.468^***	6.866^***	13.394^***
野生动物致害补偿 Compensation for damage caused by wildlife	(2.000)	(1.784)	(1.339)	(4.360)	(1.616)	(2.133)
野生动物致害补偿平方 The square term of compensation for wildlife damage	?10.913^***	?7.215^**	?7.382^***	?17.793^***	?6.404^**	?13.296^***
	(2.845)	(2.893)	(1.935)	(5.861)	(2.522)	(2.740)
野生动物肇事×野生动物致害补偿 Wildlife accident×compensation for damage caused by wildlife	40.110^***	70.735^***	34.832^***	149.891^***	32.708^***	99.117^***
	(13.394)	(17.338)	(9.788)	(41.869)	(10.127)	(22.095)
野生动物肇事×野生动物致害补偿平方 Wildlife accident×The square term of compensation for wildlife damage	?32.097^*	?94.112^***	?32.851^***	?160.046^***	?30.945^**	?91.375^***
	(16.909)	(29.617)	(12.679)	(54.484)	(13.627)	(28.430)
控制变量 Control variable	已控制 Controlled	已控制 Controlled	已控制 Controlled	已控制 Controlled	已控制 Controlled	已控制 Controlled
野生动物致害补偿水平拐点 The inflection point of compensation for wildlife damage	0.464 8	0.544 6	0.545 3	0.434 7	0.536 1	0.503 7
N	365	472	631	206	419	418
Prob > chi²	0.000 0	0.000 0	0.000 0	0.000 0	0.000 0	0.000 0
Pseudo R²	0.182 5	0.209 9	0.197 1	0.211 6	0.203 6	0.195 7

项目 Project	下界 Lower bound	上界 Upper bound
区间 Interval	0	0.92
斜率 Slope	5.256	?3.800
t-value	4.871	?1.894
P>\|t\|	0.000	0.029

[1]	张婧怡,陈琛,王立群. 首轮退耕还林补贴到期对农户内部收入不平等的影响[J]. 林业科学, 2023, 59(4): 139-148.
[2]	胡宇轩,陈俊峰,谢屹. 基于选择实验法的西双版纳人象冲突治理措施[J]. 林业科学, 2023, 59(10): 162-170.
[3]	廖文梅,林静,沈月琴,孔凡斌. 林业社会化服务对农户家庭收入差距的影响[J]. 林业科学, 2023, 59(1): 59-73.
[4]	朱爱琴,顾蕾,朱玮强,冯贻勇,陈伟,周国模. 外生激励和价值认同对农户持续参与森林碳汇项目意愿的影响[J]. 林业科学, 2021, 57(8): 176-188.
[5]	程钰,刘璨,杨红强,张寒. 商品林种植结构的“趋经济林化”——基于劳动力成本效应及相对收益效应的成因分析[J]. 林业科学, 2021, 57(7): 184-193.
[6]	潘丹,陆雨,孔凡斌. 不同贫困程度农户退耕还林的收入效应[J]. 林业科学, 2020, 56(8): 148-161.
[7]	李博伟,朱臻,沈月琴. 产业组织模式对经济林种植户生态化经营的影响[J]. 林业科学, 2020, 56(6): 152-164.
[8]	张雅馨,刘霞,张博,谢屹. 自然保护区建立是否必然导致农户收入低——基于福建武夷山国家级自然保护区内外社区农户收入的实证研究[J]. 林业科学, 2020, 56(6): 165-178.
[9]	谢芳婷, 朱述斌, 康小兰, 杜娟, 刘小进. 集体林地不同经营模式对林地经营投入的影响——以江西省为例[J]. 林业科学, 2019, 55(6): 122-132.
[10]	张连刚,支玲,王光玉,李娅. 农户对退耕还林工程满意度的影响因素及提升路径——基于云南省鹤庆县和贵州省织金县的调查数据[J]. 林业科学, 2019, 55(12): 123-132.
[11]	孔凡斌,阮华,廖文梅. 不同贫困程度农户林权抵押贷款收入效应与贷款行为及其影响因素分析——基于702户农户调查数据的实证[J]. 林业科学, 2019, 55(10): 111-123.
[12]	高岚, 徐冬梅. 个体禀赋与认知对农户林地流转行为的影响——基于意愿与行为一致视角分析[J]. 林业科学, 2018, 54(7): 137-145.
[13]	孔凡斌, 阮华, 廖文梅, 秦克清. 农村劳动力转移对农户林业社会化服务需求的影响——基于1 407户农户生产环节的调查[J]. 林业科学, 2018, 54(6): 132-142.
[14]	薛彩霞, 姚顺波. 家庭劳动力配置异质性农户非木质林产品经营行为选择——来自陕西省和四川省1131户的调查[J]. 林业科学, 2018, 54(1): 128-140.
[15]	李卫, 薛彩霞, 姚顺波, 朱瑞祥. 农户对山地林果生产机械化作业需求及影响因素[J]. 林业科学, 2017, 53(2): 117-128.