Scientia Silvae Sinicae ›› 2023, Vol. 59 ›› Issue (12): 152-166.doi: 10.11707/j.1001-7488.LYKX20230015
• Research papers • Previous Articles
Junfeng Chen,Yi Xie*
Received:
2023-01-11
Online:
2023-12-25
Published:
2024-01-08
Contact:
Yi Xie
CLC Number:
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.
Table 1
Statistics of wildlife accidents and wildlife damage compensation"
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 |
Table 2
Description and descriptive statistics of variables"
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 |
Table 3
Regression results of wildlife accident, wildlife damage compensation and farmers’ willingness to protect wildlife"
变量 Variable | 农户野生动物保护意愿 Farmers’ willingness to protect wildlife | |||
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*** |
(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*** | |
(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*** |
(0.178) | (0.181) | (0.181) | (0.183) | |
年龄 Age | ?0.017** | ?0.021*** | ?0.019** | ?0.019** |
(0.008) | (0.008) | (0.008) | (0.008) | |
受教育程度 Education | 0.412*** | 0.380*** | 0.357*** | 0.351** |
(0.136) | (0.137) | (0.138) | (0.139) | |
村干部经历 Village cadre experience | 0.682*** | 0.654*** | 0.670*** | 0.801*** |
(0.220) | (0.222) | (0.222) | (0.225) | |
家庭人口数 Population | 0.015 | 0.016 | 0.010 | 0.021 |
(0.053) | (0.053) | (0.054) | (0.054) | |
家庭耕地面积 Agricultural acreage | ?0.007*** | ?0.006** | ?0.006** | ?0.006** |
(0.002) | (0.002) | (0.002) | (0.002) | |
家庭年总收入 General income | 0.313** | 0.253* | 0.257* | 0.267** |
(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*** |
(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*** |
(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 |
Table 4
Regression results of regional, cultural and income level heterogeneity"
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*** | ||
(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*** | ||
(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 |
Table 5
Robustness test results of alternative variables and econometric models"
变量 Variable | 农户野生动物保护意愿 Farmers’ willingness to protect wildlife | |||
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*** |
(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*** |
(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** |
(0.188) | (0.176) | (0.101) | (0.054) | |
年龄 Age | ?0.017** | ?0.017** | ?0.010** | ?0.005** |
(0.008) | (0.008) | (0.004) | (0.002) | |
受教育程度 Education | 0.409*** | 0.302** | 0.203*** | 0.086** |
(0.141) | (0.132) | (0.074) | (0.039) | |
村干部经历 Village cadre experience | 0.902*** | 0.563*** | 0.405*** | 0.195*** |
(0.233) | (0.206) | (0.122) | (0.061) | |
家庭人口数 Population | 0.049 | 0.065 | 0.014 | 0.009 |
(0.056) | (0.052) | (0.030) | (0.016) | |
家庭耕地面积 Agricultural acreage | ?0.008*** | ?0.004* | ?0.003** | ?0.002** |
(0.003) | (0.002) | (0.001) | (0.001) | |
家庭年总收入 General income | 0.750*** | 0.497*** | 0.144** | 0.077** |
(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*** |
(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*** |
(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 |
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. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||