柑橘在全球水果产业中占据首要生产地位，也是我国长江以南地区发展农业经济 的关键性果树物种。但近年来，随着种植面积扩张，柑橘黄龙病的危害也呈蔓延趋势，该病会造成柑橘树体衰退、死亡，严重时会导致果园完全绝收，使我国柑橘产业面临巨大的生产风险。采用无病种苗是从源头上杜绝柑橘黄龙病及其他病虫害最直接有效的防御手段，作为作物农业中最重要的投入，优质种苗不仅能极大提高果树的成活率，而且对于确保农业安全和改善果农生计至关重要。然而，目前我国柑橘种苗市场呈现出诸多失灵乱象，假苗病苗跨区销售、非法繁育露地种苗等问题频出，未经检疫的感染性接穗及苗木通过市场交易扩散，直接导致我国广西、广东等主产区的黄龙病爆发。为了维护柑橘种苗市场秩序，保障柑橘用苗安全，借鉴发达国家经验，我国积极探索推行种子质量认证工作，并于 2023 年正式建立农作物种子认证制度。推动柑橘种苗实行质量认证，是遏制种苗市场乱象，保障作物质量安全和果实品质的现实选择。因此，从柑橘果农角度出发，研究其对认证种苗的购买偏好和意愿支付情况，并分析影响其偏好的具体因素，将对未来政府制定认证柑橘种苗推广政策，探索建立科学、规范的认证柑橘种苗市场具有重要意义。

本文借助柑橘种苗的选择实验法，基于江西、湖南和广西三个柑橘主产省份共 630户柑橘果农的调研数据，基于离散选择实验框架，利用混合 Logit 模型对柑橘种植户群体进行分层研究，依据苗木定植规模，分别估计了柑橘小苗和大苗两类果农对认证种苗各属性的购买偏好并探讨属性间的交叉关系，然后根据模型结果计算得出果农对认证种苗各属性的意愿支付价格，最后从果农个体及家庭特征、生产经营特征和信息干预三个维度，解析偏好异质性的形成机制。实证结果表明，两类果农均对种苗质量认证属性的选择存在显著偏好且具有正向支付意愿。具体而言，选择柑橘小苗和柑橘 大苗的果农群体分别愿意为种苗的质量认证属性平均支付 6.41 元/株和 7.31 元/株。此外，果农对影响改善种苗市场交易的其他属性，诸如缩短交易距离和提供快递运输表现出了显著的正向偏好，并愿意为其支付一定的溢价。进一步分析发现，柑橘种苗部分属性间存在显著的互补关系，即对经过质量认证的柑橘种苗提供快递运输，和在交易距离为 20 公里时对种苗提供快递运输均可以显著提高两类果农对该种苗的支付意愿。最后，通过将各类影响因素与质量认证属性变量交互分析显示，果农的受教育水平、家庭年均收入、接受信息干预等因素都会显著影响其对质量认证柑橘种苗的采纳行为。

根据以上研究结论，本文提出如下政策建议：（1）政府应加快推动柑橘种苗质量认证制度的落地实施工作，以提升柑橘种苗质量和种苗企业质量管理水平。（2）在推广中重视种苗质量认证信息的宣传作用，切实增强广大果农购苗的安全意识。（3）认证柑橘种苗推广需要合理定价并改善其交易条件，合理控制认证成本并兼顾果农的实际收入能力，是确保认证体系运行的前提。（4）采取差异化策略打造柑橘种苗认证市场，以应对不同果农群体的需求与偏好。

Citrus fruits hold the leading position in global fruit production and are a key fruit tree species for developing the agricultural economy in regions south of the Yangtze River in China. However, in recent years, with the expansion of planting areas, the damage caused by citrus Huanglongbing (HLB) has also shown a spreading trend. This disease can lead to the decline and death of citrus trees, and in severe cases, can result in a complete loss of orchards, posing significant production risks to China's citrus industry. The use of disease-free seedlings is the most direct and effective defense measure to eliminate citrus HLB and other pests and diseases from the source. As the most important input in crop agriculture, high-quality seedlings not only greatly improve the survival rate of fruit trees but are also crucial for ensuring agricultural security and improving the livelihoods of fruit farmers. However, at present, China's citrus seedling market presents many dysfunctional phenomena, such as the cross-regional sale of fake and diseased seedlings, illegal propagation of open-field seedlings, and other issues. The spread of untested infected scions and seedlings through market transactions has directly led to outbreaks of HLB in major producing areas such as Guangxi and Guangdong. In order to maintain the order of the citrus seedling market and ensure the safety of citrus seedlings, drawing on the experience of developed countries, China has actively explored and promoted seed quality certification work and formally established a crop seed certification system in 2023. Promoting quality certification for citrus seedlings is a practical choice to curb market chaos and ensure crop quality and fruit quality safety. Therefore, from the perspective of citrus farmers, studying their purchasing preferences and willingness to pay for certified seedlings and analyzing the specific factors that affect their preferences will be of great significance for the government to formulate policies for promoting certified citrus seedlings in the future and explore the establishment of a scientific and standardized market for certified citrus seedlings.

Based on a survey of 630 citrus farmers in three major citrus-producing provinces of Jiangxi, Hunan, and Guangxi, this paper utilizes a discrete choice experiment framework and a mixed Logit model to conduct a stratified study on citrus growers. According to the scale of seedling planting, the study estimates the purchasing preferences of two groups of citrus farmers, those planting small seedlings and those planting large seedlings, for various attributes of certified seedlings and explores the cross-relationships between attributes. Then, based on the model results, the willingness to pay prices of farmers for each attribute of certified seedlings is calculated. Finally, from the three dimensions of individual and family characteristics of farmers, production and operation characteristics, and information intervention, the formation mechanism of preference heterogeneity is analyzed. The empirical results show that both groups of farmers have significant preferences for the selection of seedling quality certification attributes and have a positive willingness to pay. Specifically, the groups of farmers who choose small citrus seedlings and large citrus seedlings are willing to pay an average of 6.41 yuan and 7.31 yuan per seedling respectively for the quality certification attribute of seedlings. In addition, farmers have shown significant positive preferences for other attributes that improve seedling market transactions, such as shortening transaction distances and providing express transportation, and are willing to pay a certain premium for them. Further analysis revealed that there are significant complementary relationships between some attributes of citrus seedlings. Providing express transportation for quality-certified citrus seedlings and providing express transportation for seedlings when the transaction distance is 20 kilometers can significantly increase the willingness to pay of both types of farmers for the seedlings. Finally, by interacting various influencing factors with quality certification attribute variables, it is shown that factors such as farmers' education level, average annual family income, and information intervention all significantly affect their adoption behavior of quality-certified citrus seedlings.

Based on the above research conclusions, this paper proposes the following policy recommendations: (1) The government should accelerate the implementation of the citrus seedling quality certification system to improve the quality of citrus seedlings and the quality management level of seedling enterprises. (2) Emphasize the role of promoting information on seedling quality certification in the promotion process, and effectively enhance the safety awareness of farmers when purchasing seedlings. (3) The promotion of certified citrus seedlings requires reasonable pricing and improvement of their trading conditions, and reasonable control of certification costs while taking into account the actual income capacity of farmers is a prerequisite for ensuring the operation of the certification system. (4) Adopt a differentiated strategy to build a citrus seedling certification market to meet the needs and preferences of different farmer groups.

[1]Alarcón, S., Lema, V. H. Multiplier effects of some complementary agricultural practices: Evidence from rice in Ecuador. Outlook on Agriculture, 2023,52(2), 163-173.

[2]Auriol E, Schilizzi S G M. Quality signaling through certification in develo** countries. Journal of Development Economics, 2015, 116: 105~121.

[3]Banerji A, Birol E, Karandikar B, et al. Information, branding, certification, and consumer willingness to pay for high-iron pearl millet: Evidence from experimental auctions in Maharashtra, India. Food Policy, 2016, 62: 133~141.

[4]Barkley A P, Porter L L. The determinants of wheat variety selection in Kansas, 1974 to 1993. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1996, 78(1): 202-211.

[5]Bazzani C ,Scarpa R ,Begalli D , et al.Reporting nutritional information on wine packaging:Does it affect consumers’choices? Evidence from a choice experiment in Italy.Food Policy, 2025,131102800-102800.

[6]Challinor A J, Koehler A K, Ramirez-Villegas J, et al. Current warming will reduce yields unless maize breeding and seed systems adapt immediately. Nature Climate Change, 2016, 6(10): 954-958.

[7]de Sousa K, van Zonneveld M, Holmgren M, et al. The future of coffee and cocoa agroforestry in a warmer Mesoamerica. Scientific Reports, 2019, 9(1): 8828.

[8]De Valck J, Vlaeminck P, Broekx S, et al. Benefits of clearing forest plantations to restore nature? Evidence from a discrete choice experiment in Flanders, Belgium. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2014, 125: 65-75.

[9]Dennis E J, Tonsor G T, Lusk J L. Choosing quantities impacts individuals choice, rationality, and willingness to pay estimates. Agricultural Economics, 2021, 52(6): 945-962.

[10]Dwiastuti M E, Wuryantini S, Sugiyatno A, et al. Seed health evaluation in the process of free-virus citrus seed production on Kampar regency, Riau province of Indonesia. Russian Journal of Agricultural and Socio-Economic Sciences, 2019, 86(2): 273~282.

[11]Farayola C O, Nwachukwu S C, Alao B I. Transaction costs and agricultural household supply: response of sweetpotato farmers in Kwara State of Nigeria//Potato and sweetpotato in Africa: transforming the value chains for food and nutrition security. Wallingford UK: CABI, 2015: 524-532.

[12]Griliches Z. Hybrid corn: An exploration in the economics of technological change. Econometrica, Journal of the Econometric Society, 1957: 501-522.

[13]Hasibuan A M, Gregg D, Stringer R. The role of certification, risk and time preferences in promoting adoption of climate-resilient citrus varieties in Indonesia. Climatic Change, 2021, 164: 1~21.

[14]Hayes D J, Shogren J F, Shin S Y, et al. Valuing food safety in experimental auction markets. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1995, 77(1): 40-53.

[15]Heisey P W, Brennan J P. An analytical model of farmers' demand for replacement seed. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1991, 73(4): 1044-1052.

[16]Heltberg R, Tarp F. Agricultural supply response and poverty in Mozambique. Food policy, 2002, 27(2): 103~124.

[17]Hobbs J E. Evolving Marketing Channels for Beef and Lamb in the United Kingdom- A Transaction Cost Approach. Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing, 1996, 7(4): 15~39.

[18]Hoffmann V, Gatobu K M. Growing their own: Unobservable quality and the value of self-provisioning. Journal of Development Economics, 2014, 106: 168-178.

[19]Holloway G, Nicholson C, Delgado C, et al. Agroindustrialization through institutional innovation Transaction costs, cooperatives and milk‐market development in the east‐African highlands. Agricultural economics, 2000, 23(3): 279~288.

[20]Kansiime M K, Mastenbroek A. Enhancing resilience of farmer seed system to climate-induced stresses: Insights from a case study in West Nile region, Uganda. Journal of rural studies, 2016, 47: 220-230.

[21]Lancaster K J. A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of political economy, 1966, 74(2): 132-157.

[22]Larsen A F. When knowledgeable neighbors also share seedlings: diffusion of banana cultivation in Tanzania. Agricultural Economics, 2019, 50(1): 51-65.

[23]Louviere J J, Hensher D A. On the design and analysis of simulated choice or allocation experiments in travel choice modelling. Transportation research record, 1982, 890(1): 11-17.

[24]Louviere J J, Woodworth G. Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: an approach based on aggregate data. Journal of marketing research, 1983, 20(4): 350-367.

[25]Maredia M K, Bartle B. Excess demand amid quality misperceptions: the case for low-cost seed quality signalling strategies. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 2023, 50(2): 360~394.

[26]Maredia M K, Shupp R, Opoku E, et al. Farmer perception and valuation of seed quality: Evidence from bean and cowpea seed auctions in Tanzania and Ghana. Agricultural Economics, 2019, 50(4): 495-507.

[27]Mastenbroek A, Sirutyte I, Sparrow R. Information barriers to adoption of agricultural technologies: willingness to pay for certified seed of an open pollinated maize variety in Northern Uganda. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 2021, 72(1): 180~201.

[28]McEwan M, Spielman D J, Okello J J, et al. Exploring the regulatory space for improving availability, access and quality of vegetatively propagated crop seed: potato in Kenya. 2021.

[29]McFadden D, Train K. Mixed MNL models for discrete response. Journal of applied Econometrics, 2000, 15(5): 447-470.

[30]McFadden D. The choice theory approach to market research. Marketing science, 1986, 5(4): 275-297.

[31]Musoke C, Kyazze F, Kibwika P, et al. Farmers’purchase intention and willingness to pay for certified sweetpotato seed under different disease pressure zones in Uganda. Crop Science, 2024, 64.

[32]Pan Y, Smith S C, Sulaiman M. Agricultural extension and technology adoption for food security: Evidence from Uganda. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 2018, 100(4): 1012-1031.

[33]Pek C K, Jamal O. A choice experiment analysis for solid waste disposal option: A case study in Malaysia. Journal of environmental management, 2011, 92(11): 2993-3001.

[34]Penn, Jerrod M. and Wuyang Hu. “Understanding Hypothetical Bias: An Enhanced Meta‐Analysis.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics.2018,100: 1186–1206.

[35]Qu, Ruopin et al. “Consumers’ Preferences for Apple Production Attributes: Results of a Choice Experiment.”. Foods,2023: n. pag.

[36]Spielman D J, Kennedy A. Towards better metrics and policymaking for seed system development: Insights from Asia's seed industry. Agricultural Systems, 2016, 147: 111-122.

[37]Tadelis S. What's in a Name? Reputation as a Tradeable Asset. American Economic Review, 1999, 89(3): 548-563.

[38]Tripp R, Louwaars N. Seed regulation: choices on the road to reform. Food policy, 1997, 22(5): 433~446.

[39]Ubilava D, Foster K. Quality certification vs. product traceability: Consumer preferences for informational attributes of pork in georgia. Food Policy, 2009, 34(3): 305~310.

[40]陈超,翟乾乾,王莹.交易成本、生产行为与果农销售渠道模式选择[J].农业现代化研究,2019,40(06):954-963.DOI:10.13872/j.1000-0275.2019.0069.

[41]陈宏伟,穆月英.社会网络、交易成本与农户市场参与行为[J].经济经纬,2020,37(05):45-53.DOI:10.15931/j.cnki.1006-1096.20200724.005.

[42]高方栏,耿雪欣,张木清,等.广西柑橘黄龙病发生情况及黄龙病菌的遗传多样性分析[J].南方农业学报,2023,54(01):128-138.

[43]高琴,敖长林,毛碧琦,等.基于计划行为理论的湿地生态系统服务支付意愿及影响因素分析[J].资源科学,2017,39(05):893-901.

[44]郜亮亮.中国农户在农地流转市场上能否如愿以偿？——流转市场的交易成本考察[J].中国农村经济,2020,(03):78-96.

[45]古川,易钰杰.获取披露信息能提高食品信任水平吗——基于湖南省长沙市生鲜品信息公示的调查数据[J].农业技术经济,2020,(01):68-79.DOI:10.13246/j.cnki.jae.2020.01.005.

[46]何鹏搏,李咏梅,刘宏斌,等.基于根域灌溉系统的柑橘黄龙病生物防治研究[J].中国果树,2021,(08):48-51.DOI:10.16626/j.cnki.issn1000-8047.2021.08.009.

[47]侯建昀,刘军弟.交易成本对农户市场化行为影响研究[J].农业技术经济,2014,(08):25-36.DOI:10.13246/j.cnki.jae.2014.08.003.

[48]景琦,刘春青,程长林.市场渠道对种子交易格局的影响——基于动态博弈视角的分析[J].种子,2022,41(08):143-148.DOI:10.16590/j.cnki.1001-4705.2022.08.143.

[49]靖飞,赵青清.农户购种渠道选择行为的影响因素分析——基于江苏和辽宁水稻种植农户的实证[J].江苏农业科学,2017,45(11):273-277.DOI:10.15889/j.issn.1002-1302.2017.11.071.

[50]李丹,王晓玉,杨玉,等.主要农作物种子质量标准体系现状与展望[J].中国种业,2023,(02):1-9.DOI:10.19462/j.cnki.1671-895x.2023.02.038.

[51]梁杰,高堃,高强.交易成本、生产成本与农业生产环节外包——基于农地禀赋效应调节视角[J].资源科学,2021,43(08):1589-1604.

[52]刘丰泽,金石桥,周泽宇,等.我国农作物种子质量认证试点示范工作的成效与经验[J].中国种业,2020,(09):17-20.DOI:10.19462/j.cnki.1671-895x.2020.09.005.

[53]刘雅美,刘立,蓝菁.基于选择实验法的大豆种质农户选择偏好研究[J].大豆科学,2019,38(01):124-133.

[54]蒙秀锋,饶静,叶敬忠.农户选择农作物新品种的决策因素研究[J].农业技术经济,2005,(01):20-26.

[55]孟全业.种子认证制度的探索与实践[J].中国种业,2020,(05):24-25.DOI:10.19462/j.cnki.1671-895x.2020.05.007.

[56]牟艳蓉,李艳军.基于农户角度的种子价值要素重要性评价——以水稻种子为例[J].华中农业大学学报(社会科学版),2012,(03):43-47.DOI:10.13300/j.cnki.hnwkxb.2012.03.013.

[57]倪大鹏,阴卫军,韩金龙,等.我国种子市场中的信息不对称问题及对策[J].中国种业,2007,(09):34-35.DOI:10.19462/j.cnki.1671-895x.2007.09.019.

[58]祁春节,顾雨檬,曾彦.我国柑橘产业经济研究进展[J].华中农业大学学报,2021,40(01):58-69.DOI:10.13300/j.cnki.hnlkxb.2021.01.007.

[59]史恒通,睢党臣,吴海霞,等.公众对黑河流域生态系统服务消费偏好及支付意愿研究——基于选择实验法的实证分析[J].地理科学,2019,39(02):342-350.DOI:10.13249/j.cnki.sgs.2019.02.019.

[60]谭巧巧,黄小兰,秦泰春,等.赣南脐橙产业发展现状及黄龙病防控探讨[J].江西科学,2022,40(05):841-847.DOI:10.13990/j.issn1001-3679.2022.05.004.

[61]王翠翠,夏春萍,童庆蒙,等.电商参与促进农户绿色生产吗？——基于3省4县812户果农的实证研究[J].中国人口·资源与环境,2022,32(05):132-143.

[62]王海燕,蔡欣然,宁升.农村电商平台交易信息不对称困境及规避对策研究[J].情报科学,2020,38(11):128-133.DOI:10.13833/j.issn.1007-7634.2020.11.021.

[63]王建华,沈旻旻.基于多群组结构方程模型的有机农产品支付意愿研究[J].农村经济,2021,(02):87-94.

[64]王晓亮,陈冉冉,朱莉,等.2010年—2022年我国农业植物检疫性有害生物发生防控形势分析[J].植物保护,2023,49(05):426-440.DOI:10.16688/j.zwbh.2023275.

[65]袁涓文,颜谦.农户接受杂交玉米新品种的影响因素探讨[J].安徽农业科学,2009,37(14):6651-6652+6654.DOI:10.13989/j.cnki.0517-6611.2009.14.078.

[66]张森,徐志刚,仇焕广.市场信息不对称条件下的农户种子新品种选择行为研究[J].世界经济文汇,2012,(04):74-89.

[67]赵旭,池辰,何伟军.基于选择实验法的三峡屏障区居民生态补偿支付意愿研究[J].长江流域资源与环境,2020,29(01):101-112.

[68]郑峰.农村电商发展对农产品交易成本的影响及其区域异质性[J].商业经济研究,2023,(19):129-132.