基于参与者满意度的中国社区环境圆桌对话实施效果评估
|
摘要
基于对若干城市环境圆桌对话参与者开展的问卷调查以及利益相关者满意度理论,在对不同参与者整体满意度进行统计分析的基础上,构建针对满意度的多元有序Logistic模型,分析对话参与者满意度影响因素及各主要因素的影响强度。调查结果显示,圆桌对话参与者对对话活动整体评价较高,对会议形成的问题解决方案感到"比较满意"或"非常满意"的受访者占比达77. 4%。Logistic模型分析结果表明,满意度水平在不同身份、不同社会经济特征的参与者之间存在差异,也因会议制度设计、对话开展地区和议题的不同而不同。具体来说:①相对于非政府组织等中立的第三方,企业代表有较高的满意度,而政府、居民代表满意度水平相对低一些。②相对于低收入者,中等收入者满意度水平较高,受过高等教育者也更可能对结果满意;相对于其他年龄段的受访者,35岁以下的青年人满意度则低一些。③会议制度设计是影响参与者满意度的重要因素,会议资料公开越充分、代表选取及互答时间分配越合理,受访者满意度水平越高;而使议题得以充分讨论则是提升会议效果的关键,其平均边际效应甚至高达48. 7%。④已开展的圆桌对话在解决企业污染类问题上比解决社区垃圾类问题上满意度更高一些。最后就中国社区环境圆桌对话进一步制度化存在的问题进行了讨论,并从加强对话各个环节技术设计方面提出提高对话效果的具体建议。
The Environmental Roundtable Dialogue( ERD) program has been implemented in China for more than ten years. This is the first evaluation study based upon a survey of dialogue participants in several cities. After a simple analysis of participants' overall satisfaction,the Multinomial Ordinal Logistic models are developed to analyze the levels of stakeholders' satisfactions and to identify the determinants of satisfaction. The survey shows that most of the participants appreciate the dialogue programs. More than 77. 4% of the interviewees are satisfied with the dialogue meetings they participated. Estimates of Logistic models suggest that several factors can affect the levels of participants' satisfaction. First,participants' identity is a significant variable. The enterprises' representatives tend to have higher levels of satisfaction than the third party,while the government's and residents' representatives have lower satisfaction levels. Other socio-economic characteristics of the interviewees are also significant. People within medium income groups or with better education are more likely to be satisfied with the dialogue meetings,but people under 35 years old tend to have lower levels of satisfaction. Different ways of conducting dialogue can also affect the final effectiveness of the programs. Interviewees tend to be more satisfied in situations where the information about meetings has been made known to the public in advance and the procedures of electing representatives and the time allocation are reasonable. More importantly,full discussion of the issues,with the average marginal effect as high as 48. 7%,is a key determinant of the meeting's effectiveness. Besides,different dialogue subjects also have different satisfaction levels; less satisfaction is found with the community garbage dialogue programs than the industrial pollution control dialogue programs. Suggestions are put forward for improving the dialogue program design and implementation.
The Environmental Roundtable Dialogue( ERD) program has been implemented in China for more than ten years. This is the first evaluation study based upon a survey of dialogue participants in several cities. After a simple analysis of participants' overall satisfaction,the Multinomial Ordinal Logistic models are developed to analyze the levels of stakeholders' satisfactions and to identify the determinants of satisfaction. The survey shows that most of the participants appreciate the dialogue programs. More than 77. 4% of the interviewees are satisfied with the dialogue meetings they participated. Estimates of Logistic models suggest that several factors can affect the levels of participants' satisfaction. First,participants' identity is a significant variable. The enterprises' representatives tend to have higher levels of satisfaction than the third party,while the government's and residents' representatives have lower satisfaction levels. Other socio-economic characteristics of the interviewees are also significant. People within medium income groups or with better education are more likely to be satisfied with the dialogue meetings,but people under 35 years old tend to have lower levels of satisfaction. Different ways of conducting dialogue can also affect the final effectiveness of the programs. Interviewees tend to be more satisfied in situations where the information about meetings has been made known to the public in advance and the procedures of electing representatives and the time allocation are reasonable. More importantly,full discussion of the issues,with the average marginal effect as high as 48. 7%,is a key determinant of the meeting's effectiveness. Besides,different dialogue subjects also have different satisfaction levels; less satisfaction is found with the community garbage dialogue programs than the industrial pollution control dialogue programs. Suggestions are put forward for improving the dialogue program design and implementation.
引文
[1]王华,郭红燕.环境社会治理从理论到实践[M].北京:中国环境出版社,2015:1-50.
[2]LIPTON M,LORSCH J W. A modest proposal for improved corporate governance[J]. The business lawyer,1992,48:59-77.
[3]STAMMLER F,PESKOV V. Building a‘culture of dialogue’among stakeholders in North-West Russian oil extraction[J]. Europe-Asia studies,2008,60(5):831-849.
[4]王华.环境圆桌对话:探索和实践[M].北京:商务印书馆,2018:22-28.
[5]吴茵茵,李力,李可,等.中国工业环境生产效率及环境保护税开征的研究[J].中国人口·资源与环境,2018,28(9):63-72.
[6]康志勇,张宁,汤学良,等.“减碳”政策制约了中国企业出口吗[J].中国工业经济,2018(9):117-135.
[7]SHAHAB S J,PETER C,EOIN N. Accounting for transaction costs in planning policy evaluation[J]. Land use policy,2018,70:263-272.
[8]CERUTTI A K,CONTU S,ARDENTE F,et al. Carbon footprint in green public procurement:policy evaluation from a case study in the food sector[J]. Food policy,2016,58:82-93.
[9]林巍,傅国伟.冲突分析理论方法及其在环境管理中的实例研究[J].中国环境科学,1996,16(2):143-147.
[10]藏俊梅,王万茂,李边疆.我国基本农田保护制度的政策评价与完善研究[J].中国人口·资源与环境,2007,17(2):105-110.
[11]SCHROEDER C H. Public choice and environmental policy:a review of the literature[C]//Duke Law School Faculty Scholarship series. Camberley:Edward Elgar Publishing,2009,175.
[12]LUBELL M,SCHNEIDER M,SCHOLZ J T,et al. Watershed partnerships and the emergence of collective action institutions[J].American journal of political science,2002,46(1):148-163.
[13]LUBELL M. Environmental activism as collective action[J].Environment and behavior,2002,34(4):431-454.
[14]王兰芳.公共选择理论视角下乡村服务型社区治理的现实困境与破解路径[J].南京理工大学学报(社会科学版),2017,30(2):81-86.
[15]刘华军,雷名雨.中国雾霾污染区域协同治理困境及其破解思路[J].中国人口·资源与环境,2018,28(10):88-95.
[16]MCDONALD S L,LEWISON R L,ROADY S E,et al. Comparing stakeholder perceptions with empirical outcomes from negotiated rulemaking policies:is participant satisfaction a proxy for policy success?[J]. Marine policy,2016,73:224-230.
[17]HECKMAN J J. Randomization and social policy evaluation[M]//Manski C F,Garfinkel I,Garfinkel I. Evaluating Welfare and Training Programs. Boston:Harvard University Press,1992:201.
[18]DUNN W N. Public policy analysis[M]. 5th ed. New Jersey:Pearson Education Inc,2015:10-15.
[19]PAUL E S. Measurement of human service staff satisfaction:development of the job satisfaction survey[J]. American journal of community psychology,1985,13(6):693-713.
[20]杨乃定.员工满意度模型及其管理[J].中国管理科学,2000,8(1):61-65.
[21]FRIMAN M,GARLING T,ETTEMA D,et al. How does travel affect emotional well-being and life satisfaction?[J]. Transportation research part A:policy and practice,2017,106:170-180.
[22]TEDER M,KAIMRE P. The participation of stakeholders in the policy processes and their satisfaction with results:a case of Estonian forestry policy[J]. Forest policy and economics,2018,89:54-62.
[23]李玉新,魏同洋,靳乐山.牧民对草原生态补偿政策评价及其影响因素研究———以内蒙古四子王旗为例[J].资源科学,2014(11):2442-2450.
[24]WANG Hua. Dialogue strategies for socio-ecological resilience and sustainability in China[M]//Hutter B M. Risk, resilience,inequality and environmental law. Camberley:Edward Elgar Publishing,2017:167-187.
[25]王华.加强环境圆桌对话,突破环境社会治理瓶颈[R].中国环境战略与政策研究专报,2015(9).
[26]GREENE W H. Econometric analysis[M]. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River NJ:Prentice Hall,2003:663-678.
[27]RONALD I. Culture shift in advanced industrial society[M]. New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1989:30-80.
[28]中国环境意识项目办. 2007年全国公众环境意识调查报告[J].世界环境,2008,2(2):72-77.
[29]叶军,李文婷,张立波,等.城乡居民“环境意识”的调查与分析[J].经济问题探索,2010(12):64-67.
[30]BANERJEE A V,DUFLO E. What is middle class about the middle classes around the world?[J]. The journal of economic perspectives,2008,22(2):3-41A.
[31]BHALLA S. The middle class kingdoms of India and China[J].Peterson Institute for International Economics,2009(1):238-245.
[32]WTLLIAMS R. Using the margins command to estimate and interpret adjusted predictions and marginal effects[J]. Stata journal,2012,12(2):308.
[2]LIPTON M,LORSCH J W. A modest proposal for improved corporate governance[J]. The business lawyer,1992,48:59-77.
[3]STAMMLER F,PESKOV V. Building a‘culture of dialogue’among stakeholders in North-West Russian oil extraction[J]. Europe-Asia studies,2008,60(5):831-849.
[4]王华.环境圆桌对话:探索和实践[M].北京:商务印书馆,2018:22-28.
[5]吴茵茵,李力,李可,等.中国工业环境生产效率及环境保护税开征的研究[J].中国人口·资源与环境,2018,28(9):63-72.
[6]康志勇,张宁,汤学良,等.“减碳”政策制约了中国企业出口吗[J].中国工业经济,2018(9):117-135.
[7]SHAHAB S J,PETER C,EOIN N. Accounting for transaction costs in planning policy evaluation[J]. Land use policy,2018,70:263-272.
[8]CERUTTI A K,CONTU S,ARDENTE F,et al. Carbon footprint in green public procurement:policy evaluation from a case study in the food sector[J]. Food policy,2016,58:82-93.
[9]林巍,傅国伟.冲突分析理论方法及其在环境管理中的实例研究[J].中国环境科学,1996,16(2):143-147.
[10]藏俊梅,王万茂,李边疆.我国基本农田保护制度的政策评价与完善研究[J].中国人口·资源与环境,2007,17(2):105-110.
[11]SCHROEDER C H. Public choice and environmental policy:a review of the literature[C]//Duke Law School Faculty Scholarship series. Camberley:Edward Elgar Publishing,2009,175.
[12]LUBELL M,SCHNEIDER M,SCHOLZ J T,et al. Watershed partnerships and the emergence of collective action institutions[J].American journal of political science,2002,46(1):148-163.
[13]LUBELL M. Environmental activism as collective action[J].Environment and behavior,2002,34(4):431-454.
[14]王兰芳.公共选择理论视角下乡村服务型社区治理的现实困境与破解路径[J].南京理工大学学报(社会科学版),2017,30(2):81-86.
[15]刘华军,雷名雨.中国雾霾污染区域协同治理困境及其破解思路[J].中国人口·资源与环境,2018,28(10):88-95.
[16]MCDONALD S L,LEWISON R L,ROADY S E,et al. Comparing stakeholder perceptions with empirical outcomes from negotiated rulemaking policies:is participant satisfaction a proxy for policy success?[J]. Marine policy,2016,73:224-230.
[17]HECKMAN J J. Randomization and social policy evaluation[M]//Manski C F,Garfinkel I,Garfinkel I. Evaluating Welfare and Training Programs. Boston:Harvard University Press,1992:201.
[18]DUNN W N. Public policy analysis[M]. 5th ed. New Jersey:Pearson Education Inc,2015:10-15.
[19]PAUL E S. Measurement of human service staff satisfaction:development of the job satisfaction survey[J]. American journal of community psychology,1985,13(6):693-713.
[20]杨乃定.员工满意度模型及其管理[J].中国管理科学,2000,8(1):61-65.
[21]FRIMAN M,GARLING T,ETTEMA D,et al. How does travel affect emotional well-being and life satisfaction?[J]. Transportation research part A:policy and practice,2017,106:170-180.
[22]TEDER M,KAIMRE P. The participation of stakeholders in the policy processes and their satisfaction with results:a case of Estonian forestry policy[J]. Forest policy and economics,2018,89:54-62.
[23]李玉新,魏同洋,靳乐山.牧民对草原生态补偿政策评价及其影响因素研究———以内蒙古四子王旗为例[J].资源科学,2014(11):2442-2450.
[24]WANG Hua. Dialogue strategies for socio-ecological resilience and sustainability in China[M]//Hutter B M. Risk, resilience,inequality and environmental law. Camberley:Edward Elgar Publishing,2017:167-187.
[25]王华.加强环境圆桌对话,突破环境社会治理瓶颈[R].中国环境战略与政策研究专报,2015(9).
[26]GREENE W H. Econometric analysis[M]. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River NJ:Prentice Hall,2003:663-678.
[27]RONALD I. Culture shift in advanced industrial society[M]. New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1989:30-80.
[28]中国环境意识项目办. 2007年全国公众环境意识调查报告[J].世界环境,2008,2(2):72-77.
[29]叶军,李文婷,张立波,等.城乡居民“环境意识”的调查与分析[J].经济问题探索,2010(12):64-67.
[30]BANERJEE A V,DUFLO E. What is middle class about the middle classes around the world?[J]. The journal of economic perspectives,2008,22(2):3-41A.
[31]BHALLA S. The middle class kingdoms of India and China[J].Peterson Institute for International Economics,2009(1):238-245.
[32]WTLLIAMS R. Using the margins command to estimate and interpret adjusted predictions and marginal effects[J]. Stata journal,2012,12(2):308.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |