| 3,564 | 99 | 101 |
| 下载次数 | 被引频次 | 阅读次数 |
现有研究在分析居民环境行为的干预政策时,较多地关注干预策略对政策目标行为的影响,忽视了其对于居民其他环境行为可能产生的溢出效应。本文设计了一个田野准实验,分别检视了宣传教育和经济激励这两种垃圾分类推广策略的实施效果。为期3个月的实验结果显示,尽管两类策略均能够改善居民的垃圾分类行为,且不存在显著差异,但垃圾分类的宣传教育策略更易推动居民参与其他环保行为。进一步的中介效应分析结果显示,不断强化的环境关心度是宣传策略正溢出的一个机制,而外在激励对环保认同感的"挤出"是经济策略难以发生正溢出,甚至可能引发负溢出的一个重要原因。此类溢出效应的深入研究不仅可形成学术积累亦可优化实践部门的综合施策。
Abstract：When analyzing the effects of behavioral interventions to promote environmental protection,past research tends to focus on their influences on the target pro-environmental behavior(PEB), while underestimating their potential spillover effects on other nontarget pro-environmental behaviors. The current study was designed to examine environmental appeals and economic incentives to promote household waste separation in terms of their influences on a variety of PEBs via a field quasi-experiment. Results showed that both initiatives improved waste sorting performance equally, while the environmental framing could increase more nontarget PEBs compared with its economic counterpart. Further mediation analyses reveal that the strengthened environmental concern could help explain the positive spillover effects of environmental appeals, and that the "crowding-out" effect of external rewards on pro-environmental identity inhibited the occurrence of positive spillover and made negative spillover more likely. The investigation into such spillover can contribute to academic accumulation and help policymakers optimize their behavioral strategies within the environmental domain.
1.洪大用、范叶超、肖晨阳：《检验环境关心量表中国版（CNEP）-基于CGSS2010数据的再分析》，《社会学研究》2014年第4期。
2.温忠麟、叶宝娟：《中介效应分析：方法和模型发展》，《心理科学进展》2014年第5期。
3.徐林、凌卯亮：《垃圾分类政策对居民的节电行为有溢出效应吗？》，《行政论坛》2017年第5期。
4.徐林、凌卯亮、卢昱杰：《城市居民垃圾分类的影响因素研究》，《公共管理学报》2017年第1期。
5.张书维、李纾：《行为公共管理学探新：内容、方法与趋势》，《公共行政评论》2018年第1期。
6.Baron, RM.&Kenny, DA.(1986).The Moderatormediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research:Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51:1173~1182.
7.Bowles, S.(2008).Policies Designed for Self-Interested Citizens May Undermine “The Moral Sentiments”:Evidence from Economic Experiments.Science, 320(5883):1605~1609.
8.Bowles, S.&Polania-Reyes, S.(2012).Economic Incentives and Social Preferences:Substitutes or Complements?.Journal of Economic Literature, 50(2):368~425.
9.Bénabou, R.&Tirole, J.(2011).Identity, Morals, and Taboos:Beliefs as Assets.The Quarterly Journal of Economics,126 (2):805~855.
10.Carrico, A.R., Raimi, K.T.&Truelove, H.B.et al.(2018).Putting Your Money Where Your Mouth Is:An Experimental Test of Pro-Environmental Spillover from Reducing Meat Consumption to Monetary Donations.Environment and Behavior, 50(7):723~748.
11.Deci, E.L., Koestner, R.&Ryan, R.M.(1999).A Meta-analytic Review of Experiments Examining the Effects of Extrinsic Rewards on Intrinsic Moti vation.Psychological Bulletin, 125(6):627~668.
12.Dolan, P.&Galizzi, M.M.Like Ripples on a Pond:Behavioral Spillovers and Their Implications for Research and Policy.Journal of Economic Psychology, 47, 1~16.
13.Evans, L., Maio, GR.&Corner, A.et al.(2013).Self-Interest and Pro-environmental Behaviour.Nature Climate Change, 3(2):122~125.
14.Farrow, K., Grolleau, G.&Ibanez, L.(2017).Social Norms and Pro-environmental Behaivor:A Review of The Evidence.Ecological Economics, 140:1~13.
15.Fornell, C.&Larcker, D.F.(1981).Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error.Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1):39 ~50.
16.Frey, B.S.&Jegen, R.(2002).Motivation Crowding Theory.Journal of Economic Surveys, 15(5):589~611.
17.Frey, B.S.&Oberholzer-Gee, F.(1997).The Cost of Price Incentives:An Empirical Analysis of Motivation Crowding-out.The American Economic Review, 87(4):746~755.
18.Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M.&Sarstedt, M.(2011).PLSSEM:Indeed a Silver Bullet.Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2):139~152.
19.Grimmelikhuijsen, S., Jilke, S.&Olsen, A.L.et al.(2017).Behavioral Public Administration:Combining Insights from Public Administration and Psychology.Public Administration Review, 77(1), 45~56.
20.Kahneman, D.(2011).Thinking, fast and slow.London:Penguin, 2011:53.
21.Lanzini, P.&Th覬gersen, J.(2014).Behavioural Spillover in the Environmental Domain:An Intervention Study.Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40:381~390.
22.Moros, L., Vélez, M.A.&Corbera, E.(2017).Payments for Ecosystem Services and Motivational Crowding in Colombia's Amazon Piedmont.Ecological Economics, online.Doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.11.032.
23.Ostrom, E.(2000).Collective Action and The Evolution of Social Norms.Journal of EconomicsPerspective, 14:137 ~158.
24.Schwartz, S.H.(1992).Universals in the Content and Structure of Values:Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries.Advance in Experimental Social Psychology, 25:1~65.
25.Schwartz, S.H.&Rubel, T.(2005).Sex Diffreences in Value Priorities:Cross-Cultural and Multimethod Studies.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89:1010~1028.
26.Steg, L., Bolderdijk, J.W.&Keizer, K.et al.(2014).An Integrated Framework for Encouraging Pro-environmental Behaviour:The Role of Values, Situational Factors and Goals.Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38:104~115.
27.Steinhorst, J., Klockner, C.A.&Matthies, E.(2015).Saving Electricity-For the Money or the Environment? Risks of Limiting Pro-environmental Spillover When Using Monetary Framing.Journal of Environmental Psychology, 43:125~135.
28.Steinhorst, J.&Matthies, E.(2016).Monetary or Environmental Appeals for Saving Electricity?–Potentials for Spillover on Low Carbon Policy Acceptability.Energy Policy, 93:335~344.
29.Thomas, G.O., Poortinga, W.&Sautkina, E.(2016).The Welsh Single-Use Carrier Bag Charge and Behavioural Spillover.Jouranl of Environmental Pychology, 47:126~135.
30.Truelove, H.B., Carrico, A.R.&Webber, E.U.et al.(2014).Positive and Negative Spillover of Pro-environmental Behavior:An Integrative Review And Theoretical Framework.Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions, 29:127~138.
31.Truelove, H.B., Yeung, K.L.&Carrico, A.R.et al.(2016).From Plastic Bottle Recycling to Policy Support:An Experimental Test of Pro-environmental Spillover.Journal of Environmental Psychology, 46:55~66.
32.Th?gersen, J.&Crompton, T.(2009).Simple and Painless? The Limitations of Spillover in Environmental Campaigning.Journal of Consumer Policy, 32(2):141~163.
33.Thogersen, J.&Olander, F.(2003).Spillover of Environment-friendly Consumer Behaviour.Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(3):225~236.
34.Thogersen, J.&Olander, F.(2006).To What Degree Are Environmentally Beneficial Choices Reflective of a General Conservation Stance?.Environment and Behavior, 38(4):550 ~569.
35.Van Der Werff, E., Steg, L.&Keizer, K.(2014).Follow the Signal:When Past Pro-Environmental Actions Signal Who You Are.Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40:273~282.
36.Varotto, A.&Spagnolli, A.(2017).Psychological Strategies to Promote HouseholdRecycling.A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis of Validated FieldInterventions.Journal of Environmental Psychology, 51:168~188.
37.Verplanken, B.&Holland, R.W.(2002).Motivated Decision Making:Effects of Action and Self-Centrality of Values on Choices and Behavior.Journal of Personality and Social Pschology, 82:434~447.
38.Whitmarsh, L.&O'neill, S.(2010).Green Identity,Green Living? The Role of Pro-environmental Self-identity in Determining Consistency Across Diverse Pro-environmental Behaviours.Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(3):305 ~314.
39.Xu, L., Ling, M.L.&Lu, Y.J.et al.(2017).External Influences on Forming Residents'Waste Separation Behaviour:Evidence from Households in Hangzhou, China.Habitat International, 63:21~33.
40.Zhong, CB., Liljenquist, K.&Cain, D.(2009).Moral Self-regulation:Licensing&Compensation//De Cremer, D.Psychological Perspectives on Ethical Behavior and Decision Making.Charlotte:The Information Age Pressing, 75~89.
(1)非正式回收部门（Informal Recycling Sector）是指以回收废品为营生手段的拾荒者、流动商贩或小型回收摊点，该因素的存在会显著提升居民的垃圾分类水平（徐林等，2017）。
(2)“经济组”的参与者被告知参与垃圾分类会受到奖励。回收公司在社区周边开设了垃圾投放点和超市，居民也可直接呼叫公司的上门服务进行垃圾投掷。系统后台依据前端工作人员对居民垃圾分类的评估结果自动为各居民的“绿色账户”进行充值，居民可凭借账户内的积分在超市中进行消费。该类激励在实验期间并未向“环保组”和控制组的参与者提供。
(3)题项内容参照徐林等的测评指标（徐林等，2017）。
(4)题项内容参照Lanzini和Th覬gersen(2014）、Th覬gersen和魻lander(2003）的测评体系。
(5)环境关心度题项内容参照洪大用等的环境关心量表（洪大用等，2014）；环保认同感题项内容参照Truelove等（2016）的测评指标。
(6)垃圾分类：前测CR值=0.88，后测CR值=0.84；绿色出行：前测CR值=0.89，后测CR值=0.91；政策支持：前测CR值=0.82，后测CR值=0.76；公民性行为：前测CR值=0.88，后测CR值=0.88。本文主要使用组合信度（CR）而非克朗巴哈系数评估变量内部信度是因为CR考虑了对因素载荷的估计（Hair&Ringle,2011），尤其当数据呈现多维特征的时候，CR更准确（Fornell&Larcker,1981）。
(7)环境关心度：前测CR值=0.80，后测CR值=0.80；环保认同感：前测CR值=0.67，后测CR值=0.70。
(8)数据来源于2016年《中国统计年鉴》。
(9)由于本文主要目的仍在于探讨行为干预策略能否发生溢出效应，并未详细了解居民对各类行为具体的认知情况，因此无法精准地判断为何正溢出仅在部分行为上得以体现，这一问题需要未来更加精细的研究予以解答。
(10)尽管前文并未发现经济策略对非目标行为总的负向影响，但自变量与因变量之间关系的显著与否并非是识别中介机制的必要条件（温忠麟、叶宝娟，2014），因此外在激励的负溢出路径可能仍然存在。
(11)将经济策略对认同的回归系数与认同感对行为的回归系数相乘，可计算环保认同这一中介机制的效应量。结果表明，对于本文考察的所有环保行为，该机制的效应量均在-0.1左右浮动，程度较弱。
(12)近几年来，“行为公共管理”（Behavioral Public Administration）这一概念正不断被国际公共管理学者所倡导（Grimmelikhuijsen et al.,2017），并开始被国内学者引入。行为公共管理学加强了心理学与公共管理学之间的学科对话，相关研究往往集中于公共管理情境中微观个体（或群体）的行为决策模式，通过运用心理学等行为科学知识及实验研究方法，探讨政府决策行为的形成与输出、公众的心理体验与行为反馈（张书维、李纾，2018）。
基本信息:
DOI：10.14167/j.zjss.2019.11.008
中图分类号:D63;X799.3
引用信息:
[1]徐林,凌卯亮.居民垃圾分类行为干预政策的溢出效应分析——一个田野准实验研究[J].浙江社会科学,2019,No.279(11):65-75+157-158.DOI:10.14167/j.zjss.2019.11.008.
基金信息:
国家自然科学基金项目“居民环保行为溢出效应的内在机理与影响因素研究”(项目编号:71974168)
2019-11-15
2019-11-15