丘陵山区地块尺度耕地价值测算与提升
|
摘要
耕地资源具有多功能性,其一方面能够为人类提供生产和生活资料,具有经济价值；另一方面还能为人类提供涵养水源、保持土壤、调节气候、净化环境和维持生物多样性等生态价值以及提供社会保障和维护社会稳定等社会价值,确保一定数量和质量的耕地资源是实现我国社会经济可持续发展的基础。目前,耕地价值研究集中于国家、省(市)、县等区域尺度,土要对区域耕地资源价值总量、宏观因子对耕地价值的影响作用、区域耕地价值补偿等进行了研究。但是,在西南丘陵山区,由于受到新构造运动的影响,地形割裂,多形成孤立的山丘和岗地,耕地破碎、分散,从区域尺度上是不能完整地解析在自然条件和人为活动影响下耕地价值的本质,无法深入地认识决定耕地价值的气候、地形、植被、水文、土壤等内部影响冈子及农户微观主体对耕地价值的影响作用,也难以正确地理解不同耕地地块综合价值在现行市场机制下得以体现的特征,从而不利于全面识别耕地价值影响机理、找出促进耕地价值提升的有效途径,不利于根据不同耕地地块综合价值的体现特征制定出合理的耕地外部性价值补偿标准。为此,本研究选择重庆市合川区钱塘镇大柱村、开县竹溪镇灵泉村和綦江区永城镇中华村为研究区,从地块尺度出发,在对耕地地块投入产出情况、自然经济区位条件、农户特征等进行实地调查,测算其经济、社会、生态三大价值的基础上,对耕地地块价值特征、影响冈素、价值提升、价值体现及补偿进行了研究,使我们对耕地价值有了更全面、更深入的认识,并为促进耕地价值提升指明了行动方向,为进行耕地价值补偿提供了理论依据,为政府制定和完善耕地价值补偿制度提供了一定的决策参考。
1.地块尺度耕地经济价值
从耕地类型来看,大柱、灵泉、中华三个村调查水田地块地均经济价值的平均水平分别为182146元/hm2、271772元/hm2、126225元/hm2,均高于旱地地块的平均水平118934元/hm2、104369元/hm2、70001元/hm2；从耕地不同种植模式来看,水稻-油菜、水稻-油菜-冬洋芋种植模式地块的地均经济价值普遍高于单季水稻种植模式地块,经济作物种植模式地块的地均经济价值普遍高于麦子-玉米-红苕、玉米-红苕传统种植模式地块,由此揭示出,耕地地块复种指数越高、经济作物种植比例越高,越利于耕地地块经济产出功能的发挥。三个村调查水田地块的平均综合技术效率水平分别为0.724、0.766、0.784,调查旱地地块的平均综合技术效率水平分别为0.754、0.626、0.755,可见,三个村耕地地块的整体综合技术效率水平均不高,表明当前三个村耕地地块地均产出水平均有较大的提升空间。制约水田、旱地地块经济价值的影响冈素有所不同,其中三个村水田地块均未受到自然条件的明显影响,而旱地地块则主要受到自然条件的影响制约,三个村旱地地块经济价值与田面坡度的相关系数分别为-0.796、-0.707、-0.738,与土层厚度的相关系数分别为0.753、0.595、0.732,因此,水田地块经济价值提升的关键在于地块灌溉保障条件、经营规模、耕作半径、对外交通条件的改善,以及农户生产投入行为和耕作制度行为的合理调整,旱地地块经济价值提升的关键则是坡度、十层厚度等自然条件的改善。在厘清耕地经济价值影响机理的基础上可知,现阶段进行耕地经济价值提升应从耕地自身质量条件的改善、农户行为的合理调整、宏观环境的优化三个方面综合践行。
2.地块尺度耕地社会价值
(1)耕地社会稳定功能价值
大柱村调查耕地地块地均社会稳定功能价值的平均水平为192804元/hm2,是三个村中最高的,灵泉村次之,为164452元/hm2,中华村最小,为141333元/hm2；大柱、灵泉、中华三个村调查水田地块地均社会稳定功能价值的平均水平分别为216309元/hm2、169818元/hm2、157481元/hm2,均高于三个村调查旱地地块地均社会稳定功能价值的平均水平165969元/hm2、161165元/hm2、128261元/hm2,这主要是由水田地块的总体质量水平普遍高于旱地地块所决定的；个村大多数调查地块均表现为固定资产量所占比重>培肥投入折现值所占比重>收益损失折现值所占比重,这说明耕地地块社会稳定功能价值主要取决于决定耕地地块固定资产凝结量的耕地质量水平,总之,耕地地块质量水平越高,越利于耕地地块社会稳定功能作用的发挥。三个研究区耕地地块社会稳定功能价值均受到耕地地块自然质量条件、水利设施条件、耕作便利性的影响制约,表明现阶段通过土地整治工程的实施可以在一定程度上促进耕地地块社会稳定功能作用的发挥。对于耕地社会稳定功能价值的提升,当前一方面要通过开源和节流两种方式来增加耕地资源数量；另一方面要通过耕地质量改善、农户行为调整、以及宏观环境优化来提高耕地资源的物质产品产出能力。
(2)耕地社会保障功能价值
从农户家庭层面来看,灵泉村各调查农户家庭承包耕地单位面积承载的理论社会保障价值的平均水平与各调查农户家庭对理论社会保障价值的实际需求量的平均水平均是三个村中最大的,分别为296150元/hm2、171478元/hm2,中华村次之,分别为265675元/hm2、159264元/hm2,大柱村最小,分别为213908元/hm2、141336元/hm2,而三个村的人均耕地资源禀赋情况与此恰好相反,为大柱村>中华村>灵泉村,这表明人均耕地资源数量越少,单位耕地面积承载的社会保障压力越大；从理论社会保障价值与社会保障价值需求量的对比来看,三个村大多数调查农户家庭的社会保障价值需求量较理论社会保障价值均有所降低,表明农户家庭非农收入水平的提高在一定程度上减轻了农户家庭对其承包耕地的依赖程度。从耕地地块层面来看,大柱、灵泉、中华三个村调查水田地块地均社会保障价值的平均水平依次为150668元/hm2、189330元/hm2、171019元/hm2,均高于三个村调查旱地地块地均社会保障价值的平均水平97729元/hm2、68680元/hm2、98104元/hm2；复种指数高、经济作物种植比例高的种植模式地块提供的社会保障功能价值总体上高于麦子-玉米-红苕、玉米-红苕传统种植模式地块,这表明通过提高耕地地块的复种指数水平、经济作物种植比例可以在一定程度上提升耕地地块的社会保障供给能力。三个村耕地地块地均社会保障价值均受到农户家庭人均耕地面积、农户农业人口人均非农纯收入、耕地地块地均净收益三个冈子的显著影响：其中增加农户家庭人均耕地面积和提高农户家庭农业人口人均非农纯收入对减轻耕地社会保障承载压力有重要积极作用；提高耕地地块地均纯收益水平对提升耕地地块社会保障承载能力有重要促进作用。要缓解人类对耕地资源社会保障功能的巨大需求与耕地资源提供社会保障功能的有限供给之间的矛盾,现阶段一方面要通过增加耕地资源数量和提高耕地资源的物质产品产出能力来提高耕地资源的社会保障供给能力；另一方面要从提高农户家庭的非农收入水平、加快农村人口向城镇转移、进一步加强农村社会保障体系的建设与完善三个方面来减弱人类对耕地资源社会保障功能的依赖程度。
3.地块尺度耕地生态价值
总体来看,灵泉村调查耕地地块地均生态价值的平均水平是三个村中最高的,为308707元/hm2,大柱村次之,为270340元/hm2,中华村最低,为265174元/hm2；从耕地类型来看,大柱、灵泉、中华三个村调查旱地地块地均生态价值的平均水平比较接近,分别为296390元/hm2、296816元/hm2、299436元/hm2,而三个村调查水田地块地均生态价值的平均水平差异较大,灵泉村调查水田地块地均生态价值的平均水平分别比大柱、中华高出80591元/hm2、105265元/hm2；从耕地不同种植模式来看,水稻-油菜-冬洋芋种植模式地块的生态价值总体水平高于水稻、水稻-油菜两种种植模式,尤其高于水稻传统种植模式,麦子-玉米-红苕种植模式地块的生态价值总体水平高于玉米-红苕、经济作物两种种植模式,可见,复种指数越高、生物产量越高的地块,其提供生态服务功能的能力就越强,这揭示出今后可通过提高耕地地块的复种指数和生物量产出水平来进一步发挥耕地地块的生态服务功能。三个研究区水田、旱地地块地均生态价值均受到耕地质量指数和复种指数两个因子的显著正影响,这表明,当前加强研究区农田水利和生态环境的建设、通过采用现代化的农业技术措施来进一步提高研究区耕地地块的复种指数水平,可以在较大程度上提升耕地地块的生态价值。对于耕地地块生态价值的提升,需采取四个方面的综合措施：加强土地整治工程的规划与实施,通过改善耕地地块质量来直接或间接提高耕地地块的生态价值；合理调整农户的耕作制度行为和物质投入行为,提高复种指数水平和增加有机肥等保护性投入；加强农业技术的研究与推广应用,提高农业生产中的农业技术水平；大力推行生态农业,保障农田生态系统服务功能的正常发挥。
4.地块尺度耕地综合价值
从耕地地块综合价值总体特征来看,水利、道路等基础设施条件好、复种指数高、经济作物种植比例大的耕地地块,越利于耕地综合价值的提升；从耕地地块综合价值构成来看,大柱、灵泉、中华三个村调查耕地地块经济价值所占比重的平均水平分别为19.81%、19.30%、14.04%,可见,经济价值所占比重较小,社会价值与生态价值所占比重较高,表明耕地的外部性价值较大,是不容忽视的,现阶段必须加强耕地外部性价值在经济上的充分体现研究,从而提高耕地资源的比较效益,从根本上扭转当前耕地快速流失的局面。大柱、灵泉、中华三个研究区调查耕地地块综合价值在耕地利用过程中的体现程度总体较低,平均水平分别为38.98%、35.65%、36.84%,这表明在当前市场机制下,具有外部性的社会价值和生态价值难以得到充分体现,对耕地进行投资和保护的农户主体仅获得了应有投资收益中的较小部分,这既是对农民利益的剥夺,也是对耕地资源的一种低效利用,不利于提高农民保护耕地的积极性和耕地资源的比较效益；三个研究区调查耕地地块综合价值在耕地征用过程中的体现程度不一,特别是水田地块,大部分价值都没得到体现,这表明在确定耕地征用价值补偿标准时,不能按照平均补偿标准采取一刀切的做法,应基于耕地地块综合价值的评估确定差异化补偿标准。要促进耕地资源综合价值在耕地利用过程中得以充分体现,现阶段应进一步探讨有关耕地外部性价值补偿的相关问题,包括明晰产权,明确耕地外部性价值的补偿对象；加快基于耕地综合价值的耕地评估工作,明确补偿标准；明确耕地利用外部性价值补偿资金的来源与管理；确定补偿方式；加强立法,为耕地外部性价值补偿提供法律依据和保障。要促进耕地资源综合价值在耕地征用过程中得以充分体现,现阶段需进一步完善耕地征用价值补偿体系,在征地环节中增加生态补偿费征收项目;要基于耕地地块综合价值的评估确定差异化补偿标准；要明确价值补偿主体和补偿对象。
综上所述,本研究基于地块尺度进行耕地价值研究,解析了不同自然条件和人为活动影响下耕地地块经济价值、社会价值、生态价值的特征,较为全面地识别了耕地三大价值的影响机理,并针对性地提出了促进耕地三大价值提升的综合措施体系；解析了耕地地块综合价值总体特征和构成特征,揭示了现行市场机制下耕地地块综合价值在耕地利用和征用过程中的体现程度,探讨了耕地利用过程中的外部性价值补偿和耕地征用价值补偿所涉及的相关问题,尤其是提出了基于耕地地块综合价值的评估确定差异化补偿标准的思路。但本研究耕地地块生态价值的测算未考虑耕地的负外部性效益；耕地利用和征用过程中的价值体现研究也主要是基于理论探讨,缺乏实践操作性。因此,今后应进一步加强耕地生态价值的准确测算以及耕地外部性价值补偿的实践操作研究,从而为解决我国耕地利用和保护问题提供科学的、全面的理论基础和实践参考。
The cultivated land is a multi-functional resource. On the one hand, they can provide economic value by affording the basic resource for the production and survive of human being. On the other hand, they can afford the ecological value, such as water and soil conservation, climate regulation, environment purification and maintaining the biodiversity. Addition to that, they can provide social value such as offering the social security and maintain the social stability. Therefore, ensuring the quantity and quality of cultivated land resource is the base to achieve sustainable development of our society and economy. At present, most of the researches about cultivated land value mainly focus on the gross value, macro-factors affecting cultivated land value and compensation of regional cultivated land value at the country, province and county scale. But in south west China, where is influenced by new tectonic movement, the terrain is mainly split, hills and down land are isolated and cultivated land is scattered and broken. Consequently, at the regional scale, we can not completely reveal the essence of cultivated land value under the effect of nature and humanity. We can not recognize how the microcosmic main body of household and internal factors such as climate, topography, vegetation, hydrology and soil affect the cultivated land value. Addition to that, the features of different plots'gross value, which are embodied in current market mechanism, will not be understood reasonably. Therefore, that has a bad effect to identify the influence mechanism of cultivated land value and find out the effective methods to promote cultivated land value. Also, that impedes making rational compensation criteria of cultivated land externalities value according to the embodying features of different plots. Therefore, taking Dazhu Village of Qiantang Town in Hechuan District, Lingquan Village of Zhuxi Town in Kaixian County and Zhonghua Village of Yongcheng Town in Qianjiang District as study areas, the economy, society and ecology value was, at the plot scale, estimated by the investigation of cultivated land input and output situation, natural economy area condition and household characteristics in this paper. Furthermore, the value characteristics, influencing factors, value increment and value compensation were analyzed, which enable us to have a more comprehensive understanding of cultivated land value and indicate the action direction of cultivated land value increment. More importantly, those provide a theoretical basis for compensating the cultivated land value and offer the decision-making reference for the government to formulate the compensation system.
1. The economic value of cultivated land at the plot scale
From the perspective of land types, the averages of surveyed paddy field plots'economic value per unit area in Dazhu Village, Lingquan Village and Zhonghua Village were182146yuan per hectare,271772yuan per hectare and126225yuan per hectare, respectively. That is higher than dry land which is118934yuan per hectare,104369yuan per hectare and70001yuan per hectare, respectively. From the perspective of different cultivation modes, the economic value per unit area of the rice-rape and rice-rape-potato mode plot is generally higher than that of the single season rice planting mode plot and the economy value per unit area of the economic crop mode plot is much higher than that of the traditional planting mode plot such as wheat-corn-sweet-potato and corn-sweet-potato.That reveals the higher the cultivated land multiple cropping indexes and economic crop proportion is, the better the economic output function value can exerts. The average comprehensive technical efficiency levels of paddy field plots in three villages were0.724,0.766and0.784, respectively. Whereas, the average comprehensive technical efficiency levels of dry field plots in three villages were0.754,0.626and0.755respectively. Obviously, the average comprehensive technical levels of three villages are not so high, which indicates the current output level has a large promote space. The factors restricting the economic value of dry field and paddy field are different from each other. The paddy field plots of three villages were not significantly affected by natural condition but the dry land plots were mainly affected by natural condition. For instance, the correlation coefficients between dry land plots and surface slope in three villages were-0.796,-0.707and-0.738, respectively. While, the correlation coefficients between dry land plots and the thickness of soil layer in three villages were0.753,0.595and0.732, respectively. Therefore, the key to promote the economy value of paddy field is reforming the irrigation condition, planting scale, cultivating radius and traffic condition, as well as reasonably adjusting the investment behavior and the cropping system behavior. On the other hand, the key to promote the value of dry field is improving natural condition such as slope and soil thickness. On the base of clarifying the effect mechanism of cultivated land economy value, the increment of cultivated land economy value should be conducted on three aspects, which are reforming the cultivated land quality condition, reasonably adjusting farmer behavior and optimizing the macro-environment.
2. The social value of cultivated land at the plot scale
(1)The social stability function value of cultivated land
The highest average level of surveyed cultivated land plots'social stability function value per unit area in the three villages is Dazhu Village, with192804yuan per hectare; followed by Lingquan Village with164452yuan per hectare; and the lowest one is Zhonghua Village with141333yuan per hectare. The mean levels of surveyed paddy field plots'social stability function value per unit area in Dazhu Village, Lingquan Village, and Zhonghua Village were216309yuan per hectare,169818yuan per hectare and157481yuan per hectare espectively, which all higher than that of surveyed paddy field plots with165969yuan per hectare,161165yuan per hectare and128261yuan per hectare.That's mainly determined by that the overall quality of the paddy field is generally higher than that of dry field. The same feature of the most surveyed plots in the three villages is that the largest composition proportion of social stability function value is fixed assets, followed by the discounted value of fertilizing input and the discounted value of land revenue losses successively. It shows that the social stability function value of cultivated land is mainly determined by the cultivated land quality which determines the fixed assets condensation of plots. In short, the higher the quality of cultivated land is, the better the social stability function value of cultivated land will be.The social stability function value of cultivated land plot in the three study areas was restricted by the natural quality of cultivated land, the conditions of water conservancy facilities and the convenience to farming, which shows that at this stage we can promote the social stability function of cultivated land by land reclamation to a certain extent. To promote the social stability value of cultivated land, on the one hand, we should increase the amount of cultivated land resources by two means of increasing land area and reducing expenditure, on the other hand, we should enhance the material product output capacity of cultivated land by improving the cultivated land quality, adjusting the farmers'behavior and optimizing the macro environment.
(2)The social security function value of cultivated land
From the perspective of rural households,the average level of the theoretical social security value that surveyed households'contracted land per unit area bearing and the average level of the surveyed households'actual demand for the theoretical social security value in Lingquan Village were largest, which with296150yuan per hectare and171478yuan per hectare espectively, then followed by Zhonghua Village with265675yuan per hectare and159264yuan per hectare,and the lowest one was Dazhu Village with213908yuan per hectare and141336yuan per hectare espectively. While the situation of three villages'per capita cultivated land resource is just opposite. The per capita cultivated land resource of Dazhu Village is largest, the second one was Zhonghua Village and the lowest one was Lingquan Village.It shows that the fewer the per capita cultivated land resource is, the greater the social security pressure that cultivated land per unit area bearing will be. According to the comparison between the theoretical social security value and the demand for the social security value, for most surveyed households of three villages, the demand for social security value was lower than the theoretical social security value, which indicates that the increase of rural households'non-agricultural income could reduce the dependence of rural households on their contracted land to some extent. From the perspective of cultivated land plot, the average levels of surveyed paddy field plots'social security function value per unit area in the three villages of Dazhu, Lingquan and Zhonghua were150668yuan per hectare,189330yuan per hectare and171019yuan per hectare espectively, which all higher than that of surveyed dry field plots with97729yuan per hectare,68680yuan per hectare and98104yuan per hectare. The social security function value of plots with high multiple cropping index and economic crop proportion was generally greater than that of the traditional planting mode plots such as wheat-corn-sweet-potato and corn-sweet-potato. It indicates that we can enhance the social security supply capacity of the cultivated land to some extent by improving the multiple cropping index and the economic crop proportion.The cultivated land plots'social security value of three villages was significantly affected by the per capita cultivated land area, the per capita non-farm income and the net income of cultivated land plot per unit area. It plays a positive role to reduce the social security pressure of cultivated land by increasing the per capita cultivated land area of the rural households and improving the per capita non-farm income of farmers. Also it's important to enhance the social security carrying capacity of cultivated land by increasing the net income of cultivated land plot per unit area.To mitigate the contradiction between the human's huge demand for the social security function of cultivated land resources and the limited supply of the social security function, on the one hand, we should enhance the social security supply capacity of cultivated land resources by increasing the amonut of cultivated land resources and improving the material goods output capacity of cultivated land resources, on the other hand, we should weaken the dependence of human on the social security function of cultivated land by increasing the non-farm income of rural households, speeding up the transfer of rural population to urban areas, and further strengthening the construction and improvement of rural social security system.
3. The ecological value of cultivated land at the plot scale
Overall, the ecological value of Lingquan Village,308707yuan per hectare, was the highest of all the three villages. The second one was Dazhu Village,270340yuan per hectare and the lowest one was Zhonghua Village,265174Yuan per hectare. From the perspective of land types, the average levels of surveyed dry field plots'ecological value per unit area in the three villages were close to each other, which were296390Yuan per hectare,296816Yuan per hectare and299436Yuan per hectare, respectively. While the average levels of surveyed paddy field plots'ecological value per unit area in the three villages were totally different and the ecological value of Lingquan Village was80591Yuan per hectare higher than that of Dazhu Village and105265Yuan per hectare higher than that of Zhonghua Village. From the perspective of different cultivation modes, the ecological value of plot adopting rice-rape-potato mode was higher than rice-rape and rice mode, especially higher than the traditional rice mode. The ecological value of plot adopting wheat-corn-potato mode was higher than corn-potato and economic crop mode. That indicates the higher the cultivated land multiple cropping index and economic crop proportion is, the stronger the ecological service function is. It reveals the ecological service function of cultivated land can be exerted further through improving the multiple cropping index and biomass output of the plots. The ecological value of paddy field and dry field in three research areas was significantly affected by the infield quality index and multiple cropping index. That shows the ecological value of cultivated land can be greatly improved through enhancing the construction of water conservancy and the ecological environment as well as through the use of modern agricultural technology to improve the multiple cropping index of research area. The comprehensive measures to promote the ecological value can be adopted in four aspects. First, the ecological value of cultivated land can be improved through reforming the quality of plot including strengthening the plan and implementation of land consolidation projects. Secondly, the multiple cropping index and organic fertilizer input should be increased by adjusting farming system behavior and material investment behavior. Then, the agricultural technology research and application should be enhanced in order to improve the agricultural technology level. At last, the ecological agriculture should be widely carried out to ensure the normal exertion of infield ecosystem service function.
4. The comprehensive value of cultivated land at the plot scale
From the perspective of the overall features of plot's comprehensive value, the cultivated land, which has good irrigation, traffic conditions, high multiple cropping index, and high economic crop proportion, is more conducive to promote the value of cultivated land; From the perspective of the composition of plot's comprehensive value, the plot's economic value took up19.81%,19.30%and14.04%of the comprehensive value in Dazhu Village, Lingquan Village and Zhonghua Village, respectively. The results indicate that the economic value occupies a small proportion, while social value and ecological value take up larger proportion, which prove the external value of cultivated land is much larger and can not be ignored. Therefore, the research to embody the external value of cultivated land fully must be strengthened, in order to enhance the comparative efficiency of the cultivated land resources, and fundamentally reverse the rapid loss of the arable land at present. Besides, at the process of land use, the comprehensive value of cultivated land does not embody sufficiently in the three villages of Dazhu, Lingquan and Zhonghua, of which the ration was38.98%,35.65%and36.84%, respectively. That suggests that in current market mechanism, social value and ecological value which with external features are difficult to be fully embodied. And the peasant households who investing and protecting the cultivated land only get a small part of the income that should belong to them. That is a deprivation of farmers'interests and also an inefficient use of cultivated land resource, which has a bad effect to enhance the farmers'enthusiasm to protect cultivated land and improve the comparative benefit of cultivated land resource. The comprehensive value of cultivated land is reflected at varying degree in the three study areas during the process of land requisition, especially the paddy field plots, most value of which have not been reflected. That indicates when establishing the compensation standard of land requisition, we should base on the evaluation of each cultivated land plot'comprehensive value, instead of the average compensation standard. To reflect the comprehensive value of the cultivated land resources in the process of land use, the issues about externality value compensation of cultivated land should be further explored at this stage, including clarifying property rights and the compensation object of the cultivated land external value. Moreover, cultivated land evaluation based on the comprehensive value should be speeded up and the compensation standard should be established. Then the origin and management about the compensation funds of the cultivated land use external value should be clarified and the compensation method should be determined. At last, the legislation should be strengthened to provide a legal basis and protection for cultivated land external value compensation. To fully reflect the comprehensive value of the cultivated land resources in the process of cultivated land requisition, cultivated land expropriation value compensation system should to be further improved at this stage, and the ecology compensation fee should be set up in land requisition aspects. Furthermore, the different compensation standards should be established on the evaluation of comprehensive value of cultivated land and the compensation subject and compensation object should be clarified.
Overall, the value of cultivated land was researched on plot scale in this paper.First, the features of economic value, social value, ecological value of cultivated land under different nature conditions and human activities were analyzed, which helps us to recognize the affect mechanism of three values. Furthermore, the system of comprehensive measures to improve the three values of cultivated land was proposed. Meantime, the overall features and composition characteristics of the cultivated land comprehensive value was clarified in order to reveal the embodiment degree of cultivated land comprehensive value in the process of land use and requisition under the current market mechanisms. Moreover, the issues related to compensating the external value in the process of land use and requisition was explored, more importantly, the idea of determining different compensation standards based on the evaluation of cultivated land comprehensive value was proposed. But in this paper, the evaluation of the cultivated land ecological value didn't consider the negative externality benefits of the cultivated land. The value embodiment research about the cultivated land value in the process of land use and requisition is mainly based on theoretical studies, which lacks practical operability. Therefore, the accurate evaluation of the cultivated land value and the practical operational research about the externality value compensation of the cultivated land should be further strengthened from now on, the aim of which are providing scientifically and comprehensively theoretical basis and practical reference to resolve the problems about cultivated land use and protection in our country.
1.地块尺度耕地经济价值
从耕地类型来看,大柱、灵泉、中华三个村调查水田地块地均经济价值的平均水平分别为182146元/hm2、271772元/hm2、126225元/hm2,均高于旱地地块的平均水平118934元/hm2、104369元/hm2、70001元/hm2；从耕地不同种植模式来看,水稻-油菜、水稻-油菜-冬洋芋种植模式地块的地均经济价值普遍高于单季水稻种植模式地块,经济作物种植模式地块的地均经济价值普遍高于麦子-玉米-红苕、玉米-红苕传统种植模式地块,由此揭示出,耕地地块复种指数越高、经济作物种植比例越高,越利于耕地地块经济产出功能的发挥。三个村调查水田地块的平均综合技术效率水平分别为0.724、0.766、0.784,调查旱地地块的平均综合技术效率水平分别为0.754、0.626、0.755,可见,三个村耕地地块的整体综合技术效率水平均不高,表明当前三个村耕地地块地均产出水平均有较大的提升空间。制约水田、旱地地块经济价值的影响冈素有所不同,其中三个村水田地块均未受到自然条件的明显影响,而旱地地块则主要受到自然条件的影响制约,三个村旱地地块经济价值与田面坡度的相关系数分别为-0.796、-0.707、-0.738,与土层厚度的相关系数分别为0.753、0.595、0.732,因此,水田地块经济价值提升的关键在于地块灌溉保障条件、经营规模、耕作半径、对外交通条件的改善,以及农户生产投入行为和耕作制度行为的合理调整,旱地地块经济价值提升的关键则是坡度、十层厚度等自然条件的改善。在厘清耕地经济价值影响机理的基础上可知,现阶段进行耕地经济价值提升应从耕地自身质量条件的改善、农户行为的合理调整、宏观环境的优化三个方面综合践行。
2.地块尺度耕地社会价值
(1)耕地社会稳定功能价值
大柱村调查耕地地块地均社会稳定功能价值的平均水平为192804元/hm2,是三个村中最高的,灵泉村次之,为164452元/hm2,中华村最小,为141333元/hm2；大柱、灵泉、中华三个村调查水田地块地均社会稳定功能价值的平均水平分别为216309元/hm2、169818元/hm2、157481元/hm2,均高于三个村调查旱地地块地均社会稳定功能价值的平均水平165969元/hm2、161165元/hm2、128261元/hm2,这主要是由水田地块的总体质量水平普遍高于旱地地块所决定的；个村大多数调查地块均表现为固定资产量所占比重>培肥投入折现值所占比重>收益损失折现值所占比重,这说明耕地地块社会稳定功能价值主要取决于决定耕地地块固定资产凝结量的耕地质量水平,总之,耕地地块质量水平越高,越利于耕地地块社会稳定功能作用的发挥。三个研究区耕地地块社会稳定功能价值均受到耕地地块自然质量条件、水利设施条件、耕作便利性的影响制约,表明现阶段通过土地整治工程的实施可以在一定程度上促进耕地地块社会稳定功能作用的发挥。对于耕地社会稳定功能价值的提升,当前一方面要通过开源和节流两种方式来增加耕地资源数量；另一方面要通过耕地质量改善、农户行为调整、以及宏观环境优化来提高耕地资源的物质产品产出能力。
(2)耕地社会保障功能价值
从农户家庭层面来看,灵泉村各调查农户家庭承包耕地单位面积承载的理论社会保障价值的平均水平与各调查农户家庭对理论社会保障价值的实际需求量的平均水平均是三个村中最大的,分别为296150元/hm2、171478元/hm2,中华村次之,分别为265675元/hm2、159264元/hm2,大柱村最小,分别为213908元/hm2、141336元/hm2,而三个村的人均耕地资源禀赋情况与此恰好相反,为大柱村>中华村>灵泉村,这表明人均耕地资源数量越少,单位耕地面积承载的社会保障压力越大；从理论社会保障价值与社会保障价值需求量的对比来看,三个村大多数调查农户家庭的社会保障价值需求量较理论社会保障价值均有所降低,表明农户家庭非农收入水平的提高在一定程度上减轻了农户家庭对其承包耕地的依赖程度。从耕地地块层面来看,大柱、灵泉、中华三个村调查水田地块地均社会保障价值的平均水平依次为150668元/hm2、189330元/hm2、171019元/hm2,均高于三个村调查旱地地块地均社会保障价值的平均水平97729元/hm2、68680元/hm2、98104元/hm2；复种指数高、经济作物种植比例高的种植模式地块提供的社会保障功能价值总体上高于麦子-玉米-红苕、玉米-红苕传统种植模式地块,这表明通过提高耕地地块的复种指数水平、经济作物种植比例可以在一定程度上提升耕地地块的社会保障供给能力。三个村耕地地块地均社会保障价值均受到农户家庭人均耕地面积、农户农业人口人均非农纯收入、耕地地块地均净收益三个冈子的显著影响：其中增加农户家庭人均耕地面积和提高农户家庭农业人口人均非农纯收入对减轻耕地社会保障承载压力有重要积极作用；提高耕地地块地均纯收益水平对提升耕地地块社会保障承载能力有重要促进作用。要缓解人类对耕地资源社会保障功能的巨大需求与耕地资源提供社会保障功能的有限供给之间的矛盾,现阶段一方面要通过增加耕地资源数量和提高耕地资源的物质产品产出能力来提高耕地资源的社会保障供给能力；另一方面要从提高农户家庭的非农收入水平、加快农村人口向城镇转移、进一步加强农村社会保障体系的建设与完善三个方面来减弱人类对耕地资源社会保障功能的依赖程度。
3.地块尺度耕地生态价值
总体来看,灵泉村调查耕地地块地均生态价值的平均水平是三个村中最高的,为308707元/hm2,大柱村次之,为270340元/hm2,中华村最低,为265174元/hm2；从耕地类型来看,大柱、灵泉、中华三个村调查旱地地块地均生态价值的平均水平比较接近,分别为296390元/hm2、296816元/hm2、299436元/hm2,而三个村调查水田地块地均生态价值的平均水平差异较大,灵泉村调查水田地块地均生态价值的平均水平分别比大柱、中华高出80591元/hm2、105265元/hm2；从耕地不同种植模式来看,水稻-油菜-冬洋芋种植模式地块的生态价值总体水平高于水稻、水稻-油菜两种种植模式,尤其高于水稻传统种植模式,麦子-玉米-红苕种植模式地块的生态价值总体水平高于玉米-红苕、经济作物两种种植模式,可见,复种指数越高、生物产量越高的地块,其提供生态服务功能的能力就越强,这揭示出今后可通过提高耕地地块的复种指数和生物量产出水平来进一步发挥耕地地块的生态服务功能。三个研究区水田、旱地地块地均生态价值均受到耕地质量指数和复种指数两个因子的显著正影响,这表明,当前加强研究区农田水利和生态环境的建设、通过采用现代化的农业技术措施来进一步提高研究区耕地地块的复种指数水平,可以在较大程度上提升耕地地块的生态价值。对于耕地地块生态价值的提升,需采取四个方面的综合措施：加强土地整治工程的规划与实施,通过改善耕地地块质量来直接或间接提高耕地地块的生态价值；合理调整农户的耕作制度行为和物质投入行为,提高复种指数水平和增加有机肥等保护性投入；加强农业技术的研究与推广应用,提高农业生产中的农业技术水平；大力推行生态农业,保障农田生态系统服务功能的正常发挥。
4.地块尺度耕地综合价值
从耕地地块综合价值总体特征来看,水利、道路等基础设施条件好、复种指数高、经济作物种植比例大的耕地地块,越利于耕地综合价值的提升；从耕地地块综合价值构成来看,大柱、灵泉、中华三个村调查耕地地块经济价值所占比重的平均水平分别为19.81%、19.30%、14.04%,可见,经济价值所占比重较小,社会价值与生态价值所占比重较高,表明耕地的外部性价值较大,是不容忽视的,现阶段必须加强耕地外部性价值在经济上的充分体现研究,从而提高耕地资源的比较效益,从根本上扭转当前耕地快速流失的局面。大柱、灵泉、中华三个研究区调查耕地地块综合价值在耕地利用过程中的体现程度总体较低,平均水平分别为38.98%、35.65%、36.84%,这表明在当前市场机制下,具有外部性的社会价值和生态价值难以得到充分体现,对耕地进行投资和保护的农户主体仅获得了应有投资收益中的较小部分,这既是对农民利益的剥夺,也是对耕地资源的一种低效利用,不利于提高农民保护耕地的积极性和耕地资源的比较效益；三个研究区调查耕地地块综合价值在耕地征用过程中的体现程度不一,特别是水田地块,大部分价值都没得到体现,这表明在确定耕地征用价值补偿标准时,不能按照平均补偿标准采取一刀切的做法,应基于耕地地块综合价值的评估确定差异化补偿标准。要促进耕地资源综合价值在耕地利用过程中得以充分体现,现阶段应进一步探讨有关耕地外部性价值补偿的相关问题,包括明晰产权,明确耕地外部性价值的补偿对象；加快基于耕地综合价值的耕地评估工作,明确补偿标准；明确耕地利用外部性价值补偿资金的来源与管理；确定补偿方式；加强立法,为耕地外部性价值补偿提供法律依据和保障。要促进耕地资源综合价值在耕地征用过程中得以充分体现,现阶段需进一步完善耕地征用价值补偿体系,在征地环节中增加生态补偿费征收项目;要基于耕地地块综合价值的评估确定差异化补偿标准；要明确价值补偿主体和补偿对象。
综上所述,本研究基于地块尺度进行耕地价值研究,解析了不同自然条件和人为活动影响下耕地地块经济价值、社会价值、生态价值的特征,较为全面地识别了耕地三大价值的影响机理,并针对性地提出了促进耕地三大价值提升的综合措施体系；解析了耕地地块综合价值总体特征和构成特征,揭示了现行市场机制下耕地地块综合价值在耕地利用和征用过程中的体现程度,探讨了耕地利用过程中的外部性价值补偿和耕地征用价值补偿所涉及的相关问题,尤其是提出了基于耕地地块综合价值的评估确定差异化补偿标准的思路。但本研究耕地地块生态价值的测算未考虑耕地的负外部性效益；耕地利用和征用过程中的价值体现研究也主要是基于理论探讨,缺乏实践操作性。因此,今后应进一步加强耕地生态价值的准确测算以及耕地外部性价值补偿的实践操作研究,从而为解决我国耕地利用和保护问题提供科学的、全面的理论基础和实践参考。
The cultivated land is a multi-functional resource. On the one hand, they can provide economic value by affording the basic resource for the production and survive of human being. On the other hand, they can afford the ecological value, such as water and soil conservation, climate regulation, environment purification and maintaining the biodiversity. Addition to that, they can provide social value such as offering the social security and maintain the social stability. Therefore, ensuring the quantity and quality of cultivated land resource is the base to achieve sustainable development of our society and economy. At present, most of the researches about cultivated land value mainly focus on the gross value, macro-factors affecting cultivated land value and compensation of regional cultivated land value at the country, province and county scale. But in south west China, where is influenced by new tectonic movement, the terrain is mainly split, hills and down land are isolated and cultivated land is scattered and broken. Consequently, at the regional scale, we can not completely reveal the essence of cultivated land value under the effect of nature and humanity. We can not recognize how the microcosmic main body of household and internal factors such as climate, topography, vegetation, hydrology and soil affect the cultivated land value. Addition to that, the features of different plots'gross value, which are embodied in current market mechanism, will not be understood reasonably. Therefore, that has a bad effect to identify the influence mechanism of cultivated land value and find out the effective methods to promote cultivated land value. Also, that impedes making rational compensation criteria of cultivated land externalities value according to the embodying features of different plots. Therefore, taking Dazhu Village of Qiantang Town in Hechuan District, Lingquan Village of Zhuxi Town in Kaixian County and Zhonghua Village of Yongcheng Town in Qianjiang District as study areas, the economy, society and ecology value was, at the plot scale, estimated by the investigation of cultivated land input and output situation, natural economy area condition and household characteristics in this paper. Furthermore, the value characteristics, influencing factors, value increment and value compensation were analyzed, which enable us to have a more comprehensive understanding of cultivated land value and indicate the action direction of cultivated land value increment. More importantly, those provide a theoretical basis for compensating the cultivated land value and offer the decision-making reference for the government to formulate the compensation system.
1. The economic value of cultivated land at the plot scale
From the perspective of land types, the averages of surveyed paddy field plots'economic value per unit area in Dazhu Village, Lingquan Village and Zhonghua Village were182146yuan per hectare,271772yuan per hectare and126225yuan per hectare, respectively. That is higher than dry land which is118934yuan per hectare,104369yuan per hectare and70001yuan per hectare, respectively. From the perspective of different cultivation modes, the economic value per unit area of the rice-rape and rice-rape-potato mode plot is generally higher than that of the single season rice planting mode plot and the economy value per unit area of the economic crop mode plot is much higher than that of the traditional planting mode plot such as wheat-corn-sweet-potato and corn-sweet-potato.That reveals the higher the cultivated land multiple cropping indexes and economic crop proportion is, the better the economic output function value can exerts. The average comprehensive technical efficiency levels of paddy field plots in three villages were0.724,0.766and0.784, respectively. Whereas, the average comprehensive technical efficiency levels of dry field plots in three villages were0.754,0.626and0.755respectively. Obviously, the average comprehensive technical levels of three villages are not so high, which indicates the current output level has a large promote space. The factors restricting the economic value of dry field and paddy field are different from each other. The paddy field plots of three villages were not significantly affected by natural condition but the dry land plots were mainly affected by natural condition. For instance, the correlation coefficients between dry land plots and surface slope in three villages were-0.796,-0.707and-0.738, respectively. While, the correlation coefficients between dry land plots and the thickness of soil layer in three villages were0.753,0.595and0.732, respectively. Therefore, the key to promote the economy value of paddy field is reforming the irrigation condition, planting scale, cultivating radius and traffic condition, as well as reasonably adjusting the investment behavior and the cropping system behavior. On the other hand, the key to promote the value of dry field is improving natural condition such as slope and soil thickness. On the base of clarifying the effect mechanism of cultivated land economy value, the increment of cultivated land economy value should be conducted on three aspects, which are reforming the cultivated land quality condition, reasonably adjusting farmer behavior and optimizing the macro-environment.
2. The social value of cultivated land at the plot scale
(1)The social stability function value of cultivated land
The highest average level of surveyed cultivated land plots'social stability function value per unit area in the three villages is Dazhu Village, with192804yuan per hectare; followed by Lingquan Village with164452yuan per hectare; and the lowest one is Zhonghua Village with141333yuan per hectare. The mean levels of surveyed paddy field plots'social stability function value per unit area in Dazhu Village, Lingquan Village, and Zhonghua Village were216309yuan per hectare,169818yuan per hectare and157481yuan per hectare espectively, which all higher than that of surveyed paddy field plots with165969yuan per hectare,161165yuan per hectare and128261yuan per hectare.That's mainly determined by that the overall quality of the paddy field is generally higher than that of dry field. The same feature of the most surveyed plots in the three villages is that the largest composition proportion of social stability function value is fixed assets, followed by the discounted value of fertilizing input and the discounted value of land revenue losses successively. It shows that the social stability function value of cultivated land is mainly determined by the cultivated land quality which determines the fixed assets condensation of plots. In short, the higher the quality of cultivated land is, the better the social stability function value of cultivated land will be.The social stability function value of cultivated land plot in the three study areas was restricted by the natural quality of cultivated land, the conditions of water conservancy facilities and the convenience to farming, which shows that at this stage we can promote the social stability function of cultivated land by land reclamation to a certain extent. To promote the social stability value of cultivated land, on the one hand, we should increase the amount of cultivated land resources by two means of increasing land area and reducing expenditure, on the other hand, we should enhance the material product output capacity of cultivated land by improving the cultivated land quality, adjusting the farmers'behavior and optimizing the macro environment.
(2)The social security function value of cultivated land
From the perspective of rural households,the average level of the theoretical social security value that surveyed households'contracted land per unit area bearing and the average level of the surveyed households'actual demand for the theoretical social security value in Lingquan Village were largest, which with296150yuan per hectare and171478yuan per hectare espectively, then followed by Zhonghua Village with265675yuan per hectare and159264yuan per hectare,and the lowest one was Dazhu Village with213908yuan per hectare and141336yuan per hectare espectively. While the situation of three villages'per capita cultivated land resource is just opposite. The per capita cultivated land resource of Dazhu Village is largest, the second one was Zhonghua Village and the lowest one was Lingquan Village.It shows that the fewer the per capita cultivated land resource is, the greater the social security pressure that cultivated land per unit area bearing will be. According to the comparison between the theoretical social security value and the demand for the social security value, for most surveyed households of three villages, the demand for social security value was lower than the theoretical social security value, which indicates that the increase of rural households'non-agricultural income could reduce the dependence of rural households on their contracted land to some extent. From the perspective of cultivated land plot, the average levels of surveyed paddy field plots'social security function value per unit area in the three villages of Dazhu, Lingquan and Zhonghua were150668yuan per hectare,189330yuan per hectare and171019yuan per hectare espectively, which all higher than that of surveyed dry field plots with97729yuan per hectare,68680yuan per hectare and98104yuan per hectare. The social security function value of plots with high multiple cropping index and economic crop proportion was generally greater than that of the traditional planting mode plots such as wheat-corn-sweet-potato and corn-sweet-potato. It indicates that we can enhance the social security supply capacity of the cultivated land to some extent by improving the multiple cropping index and the economic crop proportion.The cultivated land plots'social security value of three villages was significantly affected by the per capita cultivated land area, the per capita non-farm income and the net income of cultivated land plot per unit area. It plays a positive role to reduce the social security pressure of cultivated land by increasing the per capita cultivated land area of the rural households and improving the per capita non-farm income of farmers. Also it's important to enhance the social security carrying capacity of cultivated land by increasing the net income of cultivated land plot per unit area.To mitigate the contradiction between the human's huge demand for the social security function of cultivated land resources and the limited supply of the social security function, on the one hand, we should enhance the social security supply capacity of cultivated land resources by increasing the amonut of cultivated land resources and improving the material goods output capacity of cultivated land resources, on the other hand, we should weaken the dependence of human on the social security function of cultivated land by increasing the non-farm income of rural households, speeding up the transfer of rural population to urban areas, and further strengthening the construction and improvement of rural social security system.
3. The ecological value of cultivated land at the plot scale
Overall, the ecological value of Lingquan Village,308707yuan per hectare, was the highest of all the three villages. The second one was Dazhu Village,270340yuan per hectare and the lowest one was Zhonghua Village,265174Yuan per hectare. From the perspective of land types, the average levels of surveyed dry field plots'ecological value per unit area in the three villages were close to each other, which were296390Yuan per hectare,296816Yuan per hectare and299436Yuan per hectare, respectively. While the average levels of surveyed paddy field plots'ecological value per unit area in the three villages were totally different and the ecological value of Lingquan Village was80591Yuan per hectare higher than that of Dazhu Village and105265Yuan per hectare higher than that of Zhonghua Village. From the perspective of different cultivation modes, the ecological value of plot adopting rice-rape-potato mode was higher than rice-rape and rice mode, especially higher than the traditional rice mode. The ecological value of plot adopting wheat-corn-potato mode was higher than corn-potato and economic crop mode. That indicates the higher the cultivated land multiple cropping index and economic crop proportion is, the stronger the ecological service function is. It reveals the ecological service function of cultivated land can be exerted further through improving the multiple cropping index and biomass output of the plots. The ecological value of paddy field and dry field in three research areas was significantly affected by the infield quality index and multiple cropping index. That shows the ecological value of cultivated land can be greatly improved through enhancing the construction of water conservancy and the ecological environment as well as through the use of modern agricultural technology to improve the multiple cropping index of research area. The comprehensive measures to promote the ecological value can be adopted in four aspects. First, the ecological value of cultivated land can be improved through reforming the quality of plot including strengthening the plan and implementation of land consolidation projects. Secondly, the multiple cropping index and organic fertilizer input should be increased by adjusting farming system behavior and material investment behavior. Then, the agricultural technology research and application should be enhanced in order to improve the agricultural technology level. At last, the ecological agriculture should be widely carried out to ensure the normal exertion of infield ecosystem service function.
4. The comprehensive value of cultivated land at the plot scale
From the perspective of the overall features of plot's comprehensive value, the cultivated land, which has good irrigation, traffic conditions, high multiple cropping index, and high economic crop proportion, is more conducive to promote the value of cultivated land; From the perspective of the composition of plot's comprehensive value, the plot's economic value took up19.81%,19.30%and14.04%of the comprehensive value in Dazhu Village, Lingquan Village and Zhonghua Village, respectively. The results indicate that the economic value occupies a small proportion, while social value and ecological value take up larger proportion, which prove the external value of cultivated land is much larger and can not be ignored. Therefore, the research to embody the external value of cultivated land fully must be strengthened, in order to enhance the comparative efficiency of the cultivated land resources, and fundamentally reverse the rapid loss of the arable land at present. Besides, at the process of land use, the comprehensive value of cultivated land does not embody sufficiently in the three villages of Dazhu, Lingquan and Zhonghua, of which the ration was38.98%,35.65%and36.84%, respectively. That suggests that in current market mechanism, social value and ecological value which with external features are difficult to be fully embodied. And the peasant households who investing and protecting the cultivated land only get a small part of the income that should belong to them. That is a deprivation of farmers'interests and also an inefficient use of cultivated land resource, which has a bad effect to enhance the farmers'enthusiasm to protect cultivated land and improve the comparative benefit of cultivated land resource. The comprehensive value of cultivated land is reflected at varying degree in the three study areas during the process of land requisition, especially the paddy field plots, most value of which have not been reflected. That indicates when establishing the compensation standard of land requisition, we should base on the evaluation of each cultivated land plot'comprehensive value, instead of the average compensation standard. To reflect the comprehensive value of the cultivated land resources in the process of land use, the issues about externality value compensation of cultivated land should be further explored at this stage, including clarifying property rights and the compensation object of the cultivated land external value. Moreover, cultivated land evaluation based on the comprehensive value should be speeded up and the compensation standard should be established. Then the origin and management about the compensation funds of the cultivated land use external value should be clarified and the compensation method should be determined. At last, the legislation should be strengthened to provide a legal basis and protection for cultivated land external value compensation. To fully reflect the comprehensive value of the cultivated land resources in the process of cultivated land requisition, cultivated land expropriation value compensation system should to be further improved at this stage, and the ecology compensation fee should be set up in land requisition aspects. Furthermore, the different compensation standards should be established on the evaluation of comprehensive value of cultivated land and the compensation subject and compensation object should be clarified.
Overall, the value of cultivated land was researched on plot scale in this paper.First, the features of economic value, social value, ecological value of cultivated land under different nature conditions and human activities were analyzed, which helps us to recognize the affect mechanism of three values. Furthermore, the system of comprehensive measures to improve the three values of cultivated land was proposed. Meantime, the overall features and composition characteristics of the cultivated land comprehensive value was clarified in order to reveal the embodiment degree of cultivated land comprehensive value in the process of land use and requisition under the current market mechanisms. Moreover, the issues related to compensating the external value in the process of land use and requisition was explored, more importantly, the idea of determining different compensation standards based on the evaluation of cultivated land comprehensive value was proposed. But in this paper, the evaluation of the cultivated land ecological value didn't consider the negative externality benefits of the cultivated land. The value embodiment research about the cultivated land value in the process of land use and requisition is mainly based on theoretical studies, which lacks practical operability. Therefore, the accurate evaluation of the cultivated land value and the practical operational research about the externality value compensation of the cultivated land should be further strengthened from now on, the aim of which are providing scientifically and comprehensively theoretical basis and practical reference to resolve the problems about cultivated land use and protection in our country.
引文
[1]曲福田,陈江龙,陈雯.农地非农化经济驱动机制的理论分析与实证研究[J].自然资源学报,2005,20(2)：231-241.
[2]王宇,欧名豪.耕地生态价值与保护研究[J].国土资源科技管理,2006,23：104-108.
[3]霍雅勤,蔡运龙.耕地资源价值的评价与重建—以甘肃省会宁县为例[J].干旱区资源与环境,2003,17(5)：81-85.
[4]赵海珍,李文华,马爱进,等.拉萨河谷地区青稞农田生态系统服务功能的评价—以达孜县为例.自然资源学报,2004,19(5)：632--636.
[5]蔡运龙,俞奉庆.中国耕地问题的症结与治本之策[J].中国土地科学,2004,18(3)：13-17.
[6]李孟波.耕地资源价值研究—以武汉市为例[D].武汉：华中农业大学,2005.
[7]周建春.耕地估价理论与方法研究[D].南京：南京农业大学,2005.
[8]杜新波,孙习稳.耕地资源可持续发展内涵探讨—兼论耕地资源价值[J].地域研究与开发,2004,23(6)：98-101.
[9]谢建豪.农用地价值构成与征地价格研究[D].保定：河北农业大学,2004.
[10]张燕,张洪,彭补拙.我国耕地价值研究现状概述[J].土壤,2008,40(1)：1-8.
[11]汪峰.农地价值评估及其社会保障功能研究—以上虞市小越镇农地评估项目为例[D].浙江：浙江大学,2001.
[12]王仕菊,黄贤金,陈志刚,等.基于耕地价值的征地补偿标准[J].中国十地科学,2008,22(11)：44-50.
[13]金建君,王玉海,刘学敏.耕地资源非市场价值及其评估方法分析[J].生态经济,2008(11)：39-41.
[14]孔祥斌,张凤荣,李霖.农用地估价方法探讨[J].河北农业大学学报,2002,25(4)：57-61.
[15]刘慧芳.论我国农地地价的构成与量化[J].中国土地科学,2000,14(3)：15-18.
[16]霍雅勤,姚华军.耕地资源价值影响因素分析[J].中国土地,2003：22-23.
[17]王湃,张安录.农地价值构成及其评估方法研究[J].理论月刊,2007,(6)：163-165.
[18]李景刚,欧名豪,张效军,等.耕地资源价值重建及其货币化评价—以青岛市为例[J].自然资源学报,2009,24(11)：1870-1880.
[19]曹志宏,郝晋珉,梁流涛.黄淮海地区耕地资源价值核算[J].干旱区资源与环境,2009,23(9)：5-10.
[20]张效军.耕地保护区域补偿机制研究[D].南京：南京农业大学,2006.
[21]车裕斌.论耕地资源的生态价值及其实现[J].生态经济,2004(S1)：224-228.
[22]Daily G C. Nature's Services:Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems [M].Washington D C:Island Press,1997.
[23]Costanza R,d'Arge R,De Groot R,et al.The Value of the World's Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital[J].Nature,1997,387:253-260.
[24]De Groot R S,Wilson M A,Boumans R.A Typology for the Classification,Description and Valuation of Ecosystem Functions,Goods and Services[J].Ecological Economics,2002,41:393-408.
[25]谢高地,鲁春霞,冷允法,等.青藏高原生态资产的价值评估[J].自然资源学报,2003,18(2)：189-196.
[26]经济合作与发展组织(OECD)编,施涵,陈松译.环境项目和政策的经济评价指南[M].北京：中国环境科学出版社,1996.
[27]黄烈佳,张安录.农地价值与农地城市流转决策若干问题探讨[J].地理与地理信息科学,2006,22(2)：88-91.
[28]王瑞雪,陈银蓉.国内外耕地资源价值研究综述[J].中国农业资源与区划,2005,26(3)：49-53.
[29]王瑞雪.耕地非市场价值评估理论方法与实践[D].武汉：华中农业大学,2005.
[30]景莉娜.乌鲁木齐市耕地资源价值研究[D].新疆：新疆农业大学,2008.
[31]诸培新,曲福田.从资源环境经济学角度考察土地征用补偿价格构成[J].中国土地科学,2003,17(3)：10-14.
[32]俞奉庆,蔡运龙.耕地资源价值探讨[J].中国土地科学,2003,17(3)：3-9.
[33]武燕丽.农用土地资源价值测度方法研究[D].山西：山西农业大学,2005.
[34]周建春.中国耕地产权与价值研究—兼论征地补偿[J].中国土地科学,2007,21(1)：4-9.
[35]霍雅勤,蔡运龙.可持续理念下的土地价值决定与量化[J].中国土地科学,2003,17(2)：19-23.
[36]姜文来,杨瑞珍.资源资产论[M].北京：科学出版社,2003,33-108.
[37]D.E.McCormark, M.A.Stoking. Soil Potential Rating:I. An Evaluation Form of Land Evaluation[J].Soil Survey and Evaluation,1986,6(2):37-41.
[38]J.Stephen Clark, Murray Fulton and JohnT.Scott, The Inconsistency of Land Values, Land Rent and capitalization Formulas[J].American Economics Association,1993,(75):147-155.
[39]Turnari Jatileksono,Keijiro Otsuka.Impact of modern rice,technology on land price:The case of lampung in indonesia[J].American Agricultural Economics Association,1993,(75):652-665.
[40]美国估价学会.不动产估价翻译委员会译.不动产估价[M].北京：地质出版社.第11版.445-446.
[41]蔡运龙,霍雅勤.中国耕地价值重建方法与案例研究[J].地理学报,2006,61(10)：1084-1092.
[42]Burt,O.Econometric Modeling of the Capitalization formula for Farmland Prices[J].Amer. J. Agri.Econ.1986,(68):10-26.
[43]Falk,B-Formally Testing the Present Value Model of Farmland Prices[J].Amer.J.Agri.Econ.1991, (72):1-10.
[44]谢宗棠,王生林,杨慧敏,等.甘肃省耕地资源价值的测算[J].开发研究,2006,(3)：99-102.
[45]罗文光,丛艳静,邢世和.基于GIS技术的福建省耕地价值评价及其空间分异[J].土壤,2009,41(2)：295-302.
[46]谷树忠.对耕地资源估价方法的探讨[J].自然资源,1997,(4)：9-14.
[47]林英彦.不动产估价.台北：台湾文笙书局,1993.
[48]黄贤金.江苏省耕地资源价值核算研究[J].江苏社会科学,1999,(4)：55-60.
[49]Maddison David. A Spatio-temporal Model of Farmland Values[J]. Journal of Agricultural Economics,2009,60(1):171-189.
[50]Gracia Azucena,y Perez Luis Perez,Sanjuan Ana I. Hedonic analysis of farmland prices:the case of Aragon[J]. International Journal of Agricultural Resources Governance and Ecology,2007,6(1):96-110.
[51]Lloyd, T.. Testing a present value model of agricultural land values. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics,1994,56:209-223.
[52]Runge C Ford,Halbach Daniel.Export Demand,U.S.Farmland Income,and Land Price[J].Land Economics,1990,66(2):150.
[53]Yue Jin Shi,Timothy T Phipps,Dale Colyer.Agricultural Land Values under Urbanizing Influnes[J].Land Economics,1997,73(1):90.
[54]Alfons Weersink,Steve Clark,Calum G Turvey,Rakhal Sarker.The Effect of Agricultural Policy on Farmland Values[J].Land Economics,1999,75(3):425.
[55]Erin O. Sills, Jill L. Caviglia-Harris. Evolution of the Amazonian frontier:Land values in Rondonia, Brazil[J].Land Use Policy,2008,26:55-67.
[56]FRANK MERRY. Land Values in Frontier Settlements of the Brazilian Amazon [J].World Development,2008,36(11):2390-2401.
[57]单胜道,尤建新.市场比较法及其在农地价格评估中的应用[J].同济大学学报,2002,30(11)：1397-1401.
[58]周小萍,曾磊,王军艳.我国耕地估价研究思路的整合与RRM综合估价模型—以北京市门头沟区永定镇为例[J].资源科学,2002,24(4)：35-42.
[59]单胜道.成本逼近法及其在农地评估中的应用[J].资源科学,2002,24(6)：18-21.
[60]郭贯成.土地社会保障功能价值评估研究[J].房地产评估,2004,(1)：31-35.
[61]陈丽,曲福田,师学义.耕地资源社会价值测算方法探讨—以山西省柳林县为例[J].资源科学,2006,28(6)：86-90.
[62]蒋冬梅.耕地资源综合价值内涵及其量化研究—以南京市为例[D].南京：南京农业大学,2005.
[63]臧俊梅.农地发展权的创设及其在农地保护中的运用研究[D].南京：南京农业大学,2007.
[64]Dennis Wichelns and Jeffery D.Kline.The Impact of Parcel Characteristics on the Cost of Development Rights to Farmland,Agricultural and Resource Economics Review.October 1993.
[65]OECD Saving Biological Diversity-Economic Incentives[M].Paris:OECD,1996.
[66]Walter EW.How much are nature's services worth? [J]. Science,1977,197:960-964.
[67]Stephen CF,Costanza R,Wilson MA.Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services [J].Ecological Economics,2002,41:375-392.
[68]Bolund P., Hunhammar S. Ecosystem services in urban areas[J].Ecological Economics,1999, 29:293-301.
[69]Holmund C. and Hammer M. Ecosystem services generated by fish populations [J].Ecological Economics,1999,29:253-268.
[70]Amirnejad H,Khalilian S,Assareh M H,Ahmadian M.Estimating the existence value of north forests of Iran by using a contingent valuation method[J].Ecological Economics,2006,58(4):665-675.
[71]Pearce D W.Assessing the returns to the economy and to society from investments in forestry[J].Scotland:Ed-inburgh Press,1991:1-46.
[72]ShanshinTon a, HowardT. Odum b, Joseph J. Delfino.EcoIogical economic Evaluation of Wetland Management Alternatives[J]. Ecological Engineering,1998,(11):291-302.
[73]Richard T. Woodward, Yong-Suhk Wui. The Economic Value of Wetland Services:a Meta-analysis[J]. Ecological Economics,2001,(37):257-270.
[74]Sandhu Harpinder S., Wratten Stephen D.,Cullen Ross. The role of supporting ecosystem services in conventional and organic arable farmland [J]. Ecological Complexity,2010,7(3):302-310.
[75]Sandhu Harpinder S., Wratten Stephen D., Cullen Ross,et al. The future of farming:The value of ecosystem services in conventional and organic arable land. An experimental approach [J]. Ecological Economics,2008,64(4):835-848.
[76]Chang Jie, Wu Xu, Liu Anqin,et al. Assessment of net ecosystem services of plastic greenhouse vegetable cultivation in China[J]. Ecological Economics,2010,70(4):740-748.
[77]Yang Wu.Chang Jie,Xu Bin, et al. Ecosystem service value assessment for constructed wetlands: A case study in Hangzhou, China[J]. Ecological Economics,2008,68(1-2):116-125.
[78]Zhao B,Kreuter U,Li B, et al. An Ecosystem Service Value Assessment Of Land-Use Change on Chongming Island, China [J]. Land Use Policy,2004,21(2):139-148.
[79]Chen Zuo-zhou,Zhang Yu-qing, Wu Bin,et al. Evaluation of ecosystem services function value of farmland shelterbelts in Shandong Province [J]. Shengtaixue Zazhi,2012,31(1):59-65.
[80]欧阳志云,王效科,苗鸿.中国陆地生态系统服务功能及其生态经济价值的初步研究[J].生态学报,1999,19(5)：607-613.
[81]Zheng Bofu,Duan Jing.Jia Junsong, et al. Assessment of ecosystem services of Lugu Lake watershed[J].International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology,2008,15(1):62-70.
[82]赵同谦,欧阳志云,郑华,等.中国森林生态系统服务功能及其价值评价[J].自然资源学报,2004,19(4)：480-491.
[83]赵同谦,欧阳志云,贾良清,等.中国草地生态系统服务功能间接价值评价[J].生态学报,2004,24(6)：1101-1109.
[84]任浩.征地制度中地价补偿标准的研究[D].北京：中国农业大学,2003.
[85]徐慧,彭补拙.国外生物多样性经济价值评估研究进展[J].资源科学,2003,25(4)：102-109.
[86]赵荣钦,黄爱民,秦明周,等.农田生态系统服务功能及其评价方法研究[J].农业系统科学与综合研究,2003,19(4)：267-270.
[87]马新辉,任志远,孙根年.城市植被净化大气价值计量与评价：以西安市为例[J].中国生态农业学报,2004,12(2)：180-182.
[88]孙新章,谢高地,成升魁,等.中国农田生产系统土壤保持功能及其经济价值[J].水土保持学报,2005,19(4)：156-159.
[89]曾贤刚.环境影响经济评价[M].北京：化学工业出版社,2003.
[90]谢高地,肖玉,甄霖,等.我国粮食生产的生态服务价值研究[J].中国生态农业学报,2005,13(3)：10-13.
[91]CARSON R T. Valuation of tropical rainforests:philosophical and practical issues in the use of contingent valuation[J].Ecological Economics,1998,24:15-29.
[92]Ridker RG. Economic Costs of Air Pollution (New York,Praeger),1967.
[93]Hanemann W Michael. A Methodological and Empirical Study of the Recreation Benefits from water Quality Improvement (Ph D dissertation, Harvard Univ),1978.
[94]Darling AH. Measuring Benefits Generated by Urban Water Parks[J].Land Economics,1973, 49(1):22-34.
[95]Takatsuka Yuki, Cullen Ross, Wilson Matthew, et al. Using stated preference techniques to value four key ecosystem services on New Zealand arable land[J].International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability,2009,7(4):279-291.
[96]杜亚平.改善东湖水质的经济分析[J].生态经济,1996,(6)：15-20.
[97]薛达元.长白山自然保护区生物多样性非使用价值评估[J].中国环境科学,2000,20(2)：141-145.
[98]王舒曼,谭荣,吴丽梅.农地资源舒适性价值评估—以江苏省为例[J].长江流域资源与环境,2005,14(6)：720-724.
[99]蔡银莺,李晓云,张安录.湖北省农地资源价值研究[J].自然资源学报,2007,22(1)：121-130.
[100]高魏,闵捷,张安录.江汉平原耕地非市场价值评估[J].资源科学,2007,29(2)：124-130.
[101]薛达元,Clem Tisdell环境物品的经济价值评估方法：条件价值法[J].农村生态环境,1999,15(3)：39-43.
[102]王瑞雪,张安录,颜廷武.近年国外农地价值评估方法研究进展述评[J].中国土地科学,2005,19(3)：59-64.
[103]闵庆文,谢高地,胡聃,等.青海草地生态系统服务功能的价值评估[J].资源科学,2004,26(3)：56-60.
[104]Chris T.Bastian, Donald M. McLeod, Matthew J. Germino, William A. Reiners, and Benedict J. Blasko. Environmental Amenities and Agricultural Land Values:A Hedonic Model Using Geographic Information Systems Data[J]. Ecological Economics,2002, (40):337-349.
[105]Henderson, Jason, and Sean Moore.2005.The Impact of Wildlife Recreation on Farmland Values. Working paper, The Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City,Economic Research Department.
[106]Falk, Barry, and Bong-Soo Lee.Fads versus Fundamentals in Farmland Prices[J]. American Journal of Agricultural Economics,1998,80(4):696-707.
[107]Moss, Charles, B. Returns, Interest Rates, and Inflation:How They Explain Changes in Farmland Values[J]. American Journal of Agricultural Economics,1997,79(4):1311-1318.
[108]Burt, Oscar R. Econometric Modeling of the Capitalization Formula for Farmland Prices[J]. American Journal of Agricultural Economics,1986,68(l):10-26.
[109]Olayiwola L. M.,Adeleye O. A., Oduwaye A.. Correlates of land value determinants in Lagos Metropolis, Nigeria[J].Journal of Human Ecology,2005,17(3):183-189.
[110]Shi, Y., Phipps, T., & Colyer, D.. Agricultural land values under urbanizing influences[J]. Land Economics,1997,73:90-100.
[111]易忠君,杨小雄,苏夏.耕地资源的价值构成及制约因素：广西个案[J].重庆社会科学,2010,(2)：49-52.
[112]Von Thunen,J.H.,1966. Der Isolierte Staat in Beziehung der Landwirtschaft und Nationalokonomie. In:Hall, P. (Ed.),Von Thunen's Isolated State. Pergamon Press,Oxford, UK.
[113]Huang HX, Miller GY, Sherrick BJ, et al. Factors Influencing Illinois Farmland Values[J]. American Journal of Agricultural Economics,2006,88(2):458-470.
[114]Chomitz, K.M., Alger, K., Thomas, T.S., Orlando, H.,Nova, P.V..Opportunity costs of conservation in a biodiversity hotspot:the case of southern Bahia[J]. Environment and Development Economics,2005,10:293-312.
[115]Geoghegan,J.,Wainger,L.A.,Bockstael,N.E..Spatial landscape indices in a hedonic framework:an ecological economics analysis using GIS[J].Ecological Economics,1997,23(3):251-264.
[116]Goodwin, B.K.,Mishra,A.K.,Ortalo-Magne,F.N.. What's wrong with our models of agricultural land values? [J].American Journal of Agricultural Economics,2003,85 (3):744-752.
[117]Flanders, Archie, Fred C. White, and Cesar L. Escalante.2004. "Comparing Land Values and Capitalization of Cash Rents for Cropland and Pasture in Georgia." Paper presented at SAEA annual meeting, Tulsa OK,14-18 February.
[118]Palmquist, R.B., Danielson, L.E..A hedonic study of the effects of erosion control and drainage on farmland values[J]. AJAE,1989,77 (1):55-62.
[119]Xu, F., Mittelhammer, R.C., Barkley, P.W.. Measuring the contributions of site characteristics to the value of agricultural land[J]. Land Economics,1993,69 (4):356-369.
[120]王万茂.黄贤金.中国大陆农地价格区划和农地估价[J].自然资源,1997(4)：1-8.
[121]牛海鹏,许传阳,李明秋,等.耕地保护经济补偿的接受和给付主体分析—基于110份接受主体和445份给付主体的问卷调查[J].资源科学,2011,33(3)：513-520.
[122]BOWKER J M,DIDYCHUK D D.Estimation of non-market benefit of rural land retention in eastern Canada[J].Rural and Resource Economics Review,1994,23(2):218-225.
[123]牛海鹏,杨小爱,张安录,等.国内外耕地保护的经济补偿研究进展述评[J].资源开发与市场,2010,26(1)：24-27.
[124]姜广辉,孔祥斌,张凤荣,等.耕地保护经济补偿机制分析[J].中国土地科学,2009,23(7)：24-27.
[125]牛海鹏.耕地保护的外部性及其经济补偿研究[D].武汉：华中农业大学,2010.
[126]马文博.耕地保护经济补偿机制研究[D].陕西：西北农林科技大学,2009.
[127]雍新琴.耕地保护经济补偿机制研究[D].武汉：华中农业大学,2010.
[128]李明秋,赵伟霞.耕地资源的价值体系及其经济补偿机制研究[J].江西农业学报,2010,22(9)：152-154.
[129]朱新华,曲福田.基于粮食安全的耕地保护外部性补偿途径与机制设计[J].南京农业大学学报(社会科学版),2007,7(4)：1-7.
[130]李广东,邱道持,王平,等.基于忠县农户调查的耕地保护经济补偿机制需求分析[J].中国土地科学,2010,24(9)：33-39.
[131]牛海鹏,张安录.耕地保护的外部性及其测算—以河南省焦作市为例[J].资源科学,2009,31(8)：1400-1408.
[132]马文博,李世平,陈昱.基于CVM的耕地保护经济补偿探析[J].中国人口资源与环境,2010,20(11)：107-111.
[133]吴泽斌,刘卫东.基于粮食安全的耕地保护区域经济补偿标准测算[J].自然资源学报,2009,24(12)：2076-2086.
[134]陈秧分,刘彦随,李裕瑞.基于农户生产决策视角的耕地保护经济补偿标准测算[J].中国土地科学,2010,24(4)：4-8,31.
[135]范胜龙,邢世和,林翔程.从耕地资源价值论我国耕地征用补偿的完善—以福建省为例[J].福建农林大学学报(自然科学版),2010,39(6)：651-657.
[136]李效顺,郭忠兴,潘元庆,等.耕地征用区片补偿的综合价格量化—以驻马店市为例[J].资源科学,2007,29(5)：150-156.
[137]张晓娅,谭荣建.耕地资源价值与征地补偿标准比较分析—以兰州市城关区为例[J].江西农业学报,2011,23(2)：196-198.
[138]金妹兰,金威,徐磊,等.基于耕地价值的江西省征地补偿标准测算[J].湖北农业科学,2011,50(15)：3054-3057.
[139]范辉.基于耕地资源价值的征地完全补偿问题探析[J].农村经济,2008,(5)：35-38.
[140]周立军.城市化进程中耕地多功能保护的价值研究—以宁波市为例[D].浙江：浙江大学,2010.
[141]景莉娜,刘新平,罗桥顺.乌鲁木齐市耕地资源价值评价与分析[J].新疆农业科学,2008,45(5)：934-938.
[142]唐建.耕地价值评价研究—以重庆市为例[D].重庆：西南大学,2010.
[143]朱新华,曲福田.不同粮食分区间的耕地保护外部性补偿机制研究[J].中国人口资源与环境,2008,18(5)：148-153.
[144]邵彦敏,杨印生.耕地保护外部性内部化的路径选择[J].农业技术经济,2008,(2)：19-24.
[145]牛海鹏,张安录,李明秋.耕地利用效益体系与耕地保护的经济补偿机制重构[J].农业现代化研究,2009,30(2)：164-167.
[146]俞奉庆,蔡运龙.耕地资源价值重建与农业补贴—一种解决“三农”问题的政策取向[J].中国十地科学,2004,18(1)：18-23.
[147]Tsoodle, L.J., Golden, B.B., Featherston, A.M.. Factors influencing Kansas agricultural farm land values[J]. Land Economics,2006,82 (1):124-139.
[148]Hardie, I.W., Narayan, T.A., Gardner, B.L.. The joint influence of agricultural and nonfarm factors on real estate values:an application to the mid-Atlantic region[J].American Journal of Agricultural Economics,2001,83 (1):120-132.
[149]Mishra Ashok K., Livanis Grigorios T., Moss Charles B.. Did the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 Affect Farmland Values? [J]. ENTROPY,2011,13(3): 668-682.
[150]Bayramoglu Zeki, Gundogmus Erdemir. Farmland values under the influence of urbanization: Case study from Turkey[J]. Journal of Urban Planning and Development-ASCE,2008,134(2):71-77.
[151]Devadoss Stephen,Manchu Viswanadham.A comprehensive analysis of farmland value determination:a county-level analysis[J]. Applied Economics,2007,39(18):2323-2330.
[152]罗文.湖南省耕地资源价值核算与利用对策研究[J].衡阳师范学院学报,2005,26(4)：118-121.
[153]刘木丹,蔚传忠.还原利率R的实质及其确定方法[J].重庆建筑大学学报,2000,22(2)：107-109.
[154]钱建平,周勇郧,文聚等.基于灰色系统理论的收益还原法在农用地估价中的应用[J].农业工程学报,2004,20(60)：282-285.
[155]田云霄.基于CCA-DEA模型的我国上市银行效率实证研究[D].湖南：湖南大学,2009.
[156]梁流涛,曲福田,王春华.基于DEA方法的耕地利用效率分析[J].长江流域资源与环境,2008,17(2)：242-246.
[157]杨龙,胡晓珍.基于DEA的中国绿色经济效率地区差异与收敛分析[J].经济学家,2010,(2)：46-54.
[158]龚长兰.基于DEA方法的四川城市土地利用效率研究[D].四川：四川农业大学,2008.
[159]马琳.基于数据包络分析的上海郊区土地利用效率评价研究[D].上海：上海交通大学,2009.
[160]孙婷.基于数据包络分析的城市土地利用效率评价研究[D].重庆：西南大学,2007.
[161]王秋兵.土地资源学[M].北京：中国农业出版社,2002.
[162]高魏,闵捷,张安录.耕地经济产出影响因素实证分析—以湖北省为例[J].资源科学,2006,28(3)：73-79.
[163]陈冲,董文渊,郑进炬,等.不同坡位对天然水竹生长的影响[J].林业科技开发,2008,22(2)：40-42.
[164]邢世和,黄吉,黄河,等.GIS支持下的区域耕地质量评价[J].福建农林大学学报(自然科学版),2002,31(3)：378-382.
[165]周佳松,钟沛林,张弘.占补平衡补充耕地按等级折算研究—以南方丘陵山区为例[J].中国农学通报,2005,21(11)：360-362,378.
[166]袁伟伟.农地利用经济效益影响因素研究—以河北省元氏县为例[D].武汉：华中农业大学,2009.
[167]毕宝德.土地经济学[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005.
[168]高更和.中国中部农区农户经济活动区位研究—以河南省南阳市6个村为例[D].河南：河南大学,2007.
[169]张贞,魏朝富,李萍,等.四川盆地丘陵区农户行为对耕地质量的影响[J].农业工程学报,2009,25(4)：230-236.
[170]高艳梅.工业化、城市化对农地质量影响研究[D].南京：南京农业大学,2007.
[171]王瑷玲,胡继连,刘文鹏.基于土地整理的耕地经济价值评定及其变化[J].农业工程学报,2010,26(9)：296-300.
[172]孔祥斌,刘灵伟,秦静,等.基于农户行为的耕地质量评价指标体系构建的理论与方法[J].地理科学进展,2007,26(4)：75-85.
[173]屈艳芳,郭敏.农户投资行为实证研究[J].上海经济研究,2002,(4)：17-27.
[174]周端明.农户规模与农业技术创新[J].山西财经大学学报,2005,27(1)：56-60.
[175]谭淑豪,谭仲春,黄贤金.农户行为与土壤退化的制度经济学分析[J].土壤,2004,36(2)：141-144.
[176]姚洋.农地制度与农业绩效的实证研究[J].中国农村观察,1998：1-10.
[177]李杨,杨锦秀,傅新红.我国区域农业技术创新能力评价[J].中国软科学,2009,(1)：84-89.
[178]牛海鹏,张安录.耕地利用生态社会效益测算方法及其应用[J].农业工程学报,2010,26(5)：316-323.
[179]梅昀,陈银蓉,胡伟艳.农用土地的价值观与农地转用价格评估—以柳州市郊区农地为例[J].国十资源科技管理,2004,(5)：26-29.
[180]常晓飞.耕地资源的社会价值探讨—以沈阳市为例[J].吉林农业,2011,(6)：69-71.
[181]宋敏,张安录.湖北省农地资源止外部性价值量估算—基于对农地社会与生态之功能和价值分类的分析[J].长江流域资源与环境,2009,18(4)：314-319.
[182]李翠珍,孔祥斌,孙宪海.北京市耕地资源价值体系及价值估算方法[J].地理学报,2008,63(3)：321-329.
[183]尹文静,王礼力,Ted McConnel农民生产投资的影响因素分析—基于监督分组的主成分回归分析[J].农业技术经济,2011,(2)：19-26.
[184]崔峥岭,张晋华.山西省现代农业影响冈子分析及对策研究[J].山西高等学校社会科学学报,201],23(4)：33-36.
[185]杨鹭.依托农地构建农村社会保障体系研究[D].武汉：华中农业大学,2010.
[186]葛荣霞,郭文玲,胡金敏.论新型农村社会保障体系的建立和完善[J].河北学刊,2011,31(2)：135-138.
[187]吕杰.建立完善的农村社会保障体系的建议[J].经营与管理,2011,(1)：25-26.
[188]王英.构建和完善我国农村社会保障体系[J].党政干部学刊,2011,(12)：41-42.
[189]孙维亮.我国农村社会保障体系建设中的资金问题探析[J].中国集体经济,2010,(36)：7-8.
[190]吕保利.加快建立农村社会保障体系问题探析[J].黑龙江对外经贸,2011,(1)：76-77.
[191]庞英.耕地利用效益及其区域差异—基于山东省的实证研究[D].南京：南京农业大学,2006.
[192]袁伟玲,曹凑贵.农田生态系统服务功能及可持续发展对策初探[J].湖南农业科学,2007,(1)：1-3.
[193]崔朝伟,许学工.北京市农用地生态系统服务价值评估[J].生态经济(学术版),2007,(2)：338-340,358.
[194]白玮.粮食生产中的自然资源价值研究[D].北京：中国农业大学,2007.
[195]张其鲁,张立全,张连晓,等.小麦的高产育种途径及其发展趋势[J].麦类作物学报,2007,27(1)：176-178.
[196]张贞.丘陵区多尺度土地质量评价研究[D].重庆：西南大学,2009.
[197]龚碧凯,邓良基,胡玉福,等.水库淹没区耕地生态服务功能价值估算研究—以黄金坪水电站为例[J].资源开发与市场,2007,23(12)：1085-1088.
[198]黄长志,周秋峰,张书仁,等.郑花5号花生矮化密植增产效应的研究[J].陕西农业科学,2008,(4)：23-25.
[199]李志沛,张宇清,朱清科,等.中国平原林业工程的生态服务功能价值研究[J].湖南农业科学,2011,(13)：124-128
[200]张丹,闵庆文,成升魁,等.传统农业地区生态系统服务功能价值评估—以贵州省从江县为例[J].资源科学,2009,31(1)：31-37.
[201]Zhongwei Guo,Xiangming Xiao,Yaling Gan,Yuejun Zheng.Ecosystem functions,services and their values-a case study in Xingshan County of China[J].Ecological Economics,2001,38:141-154.
[202]刘敏超,李迪强,温琰茂,等.三江源地区生态系统生态功能分析及其价值评估[J].环境科学学报,2005,25(9)：1280-1286.
[203]杨志新.北京郊区农田生态系统正负效应价值的综合评价研究[D].北京：中国农业大学,2006.
[204]欧阳志云,赵同谦,赵景柱,等.海南岛生态系统生态调节功能及其生态经济价值研究[J].应用生态学报,2004,15(8)：1395-1402.
[205]苑莉.基于可持续理念下的土地生态系统价值评估—以四川省乐至县为例[J].经济体制改革,2009,(4)：169-173.
[206]李晶,任志远.秦巴山区植被涵养水源价值测评研究[J].水土保持学报,2003,17(4)：132-138.
[207]Thomas P. Simon. The Use of Biological Criteria as a Tool for Water Resource Management[J].Environmental Science & Policy,2000,(3):43-49.
[208]Amy R,Robert K K,Ranga B M.Valuing ecosystem services:A shadow price for net primary production[J].Ecological Economics,2007,64:454-462.
[209]庄大昌.洞庭湖湿地生态系统服务功能价值评估[J].经济地理,2004,24(3)：391-394.
[210]孙新章,周海林,谢高地.中国农田生态系统的服务功能及其经济价值[J].中国人口资源与环境,2007,17(4)：55-60.
[211]肖寒,欧阳志云,赵景柱,等.海南岛生态系统土壤保持空间分布特征及生态经济价值评估[J].生态学报,2000,20(4)：552-558.
[212]张贞,高金权,杨威,等.土地整理工程影响下农业生态系统服务价值的变化[J].应用生态学报,2010,21(3)：723-733.
[213]肖玉,谢高地,安凯.青藏高原生态系统土壤保持功能及其价值[J].生态学报,2003,23(11)：2367-2378.
[214]宗浩,陈文祥,黄翔,等.成都市生态系统服务功能价值探讨[J].四川师范大学学报(自然科学版),2007,30(5)：636-641.
[215]李加林,童亿勤,杨晓平,等.杭州湾南岸农业生态系统土壤保持功能及其生态经济价值评估[J].水土保持研究,2005,12(4)：202-205.
[216]韩永伟,高吉喜,拓学森,等.门头沟生态系统土壤保持功能及其生态经济价值分析[J].环境科学研究,2007,20(5)：144-147.
[217]刘敏超,李迪强,温琰茂,等.三江源地区土壤保持功能空间分析及其价值评估[J].中国环境科学,2005,25(5)：627-631.
[218]罗文光.基于GIS技术的福建省耕地资源价值评价及其分区[D].福建：福建农林大学,2006.
[219]李佳,南灵.耕地资源价值内涵及测算方法研究—以陕西省为例[J].干旱区资源与环境,2010,24(9)：10-15.
[220]吴泽斌.耕地保护利益冲突及其管理研究[D].浙江：浙江大学,2011.
[221]徐晓绵.耕地保护经济补偿机制的实践研究[J].广东土地科学,2010,9(2)：4-8.
[222]张飞,崔延松,孔伟.耕地资源开发中的价值补偿问题研究[J].农业经济,2009,(1)：33-35.
[2]王宇,欧名豪.耕地生态价值与保护研究[J].国土资源科技管理,2006,23：104-108.
[3]霍雅勤,蔡运龙.耕地资源价值的评价与重建—以甘肃省会宁县为例[J].干旱区资源与环境,2003,17(5)：81-85.
[4]赵海珍,李文华,马爱进,等.拉萨河谷地区青稞农田生态系统服务功能的评价—以达孜县为例.自然资源学报,2004,19(5)：632--636.
[5]蔡运龙,俞奉庆.中国耕地问题的症结与治本之策[J].中国土地科学,2004,18(3)：13-17.
[6]李孟波.耕地资源价值研究—以武汉市为例[D].武汉：华中农业大学,2005.
[7]周建春.耕地估价理论与方法研究[D].南京：南京农业大学,2005.
[8]杜新波,孙习稳.耕地资源可持续发展内涵探讨—兼论耕地资源价值[J].地域研究与开发,2004,23(6)：98-101.
[9]谢建豪.农用地价值构成与征地价格研究[D].保定：河北农业大学,2004.
[10]张燕,张洪,彭补拙.我国耕地价值研究现状概述[J].土壤,2008,40(1)：1-8.
[11]汪峰.农地价值评估及其社会保障功能研究—以上虞市小越镇农地评估项目为例[D].浙江：浙江大学,2001.
[12]王仕菊,黄贤金,陈志刚,等.基于耕地价值的征地补偿标准[J].中国十地科学,2008,22(11)：44-50.
[13]金建君,王玉海,刘学敏.耕地资源非市场价值及其评估方法分析[J].生态经济,2008(11)：39-41.
[14]孔祥斌,张凤荣,李霖.农用地估价方法探讨[J].河北农业大学学报,2002,25(4)：57-61.
[15]刘慧芳.论我国农地地价的构成与量化[J].中国土地科学,2000,14(3)：15-18.
[16]霍雅勤,姚华军.耕地资源价值影响因素分析[J].中国土地,2003：22-23.
[17]王湃,张安录.农地价值构成及其评估方法研究[J].理论月刊,2007,(6)：163-165.
[18]李景刚,欧名豪,张效军,等.耕地资源价值重建及其货币化评价—以青岛市为例[J].自然资源学报,2009,24(11)：1870-1880.
[19]曹志宏,郝晋珉,梁流涛.黄淮海地区耕地资源价值核算[J].干旱区资源与环境,2009,23(9)：5-10.
[20]张效军.耕地保护区域补偿机制研究[D].南京：南京农业大学,2006.
[21]车裕斌.论耕地资源的生态价值及其实现[J].生态经济,2004(S1)：224-228.
[22]Daily G C. Nature's Services:Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems [M].Washington D C:Island Press,1997.
[23]Costanza R,d'Arge R,De Groot R,et al.The Value of the World's Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital[J].Nature,1997,387:253-260.
[24]De Groot R S,Wilson M A,Boumans R.A Typology for the Classification,Description and Valuation of Ecosystem Functions,Goods and Services[J].Ecological Economics,2002,41:393-408.
[25]谢高地,鲁春霞,冷允法,等.青藏高原生态资产的价值评估[J].自然资源学报,2003,18(2)：189-196.
[26]经济合作与发展组织(OECD)编,施涵,陈松译.环境项目和政策的经济评价指南[M].北京：中国环境科学出版社,1996.
[27]黄烈佳,张安录.农地价值与农地城市流转决策若干问题探讨[J].地理与地理信息科学,2006,22(2)：88-91.
[28]王瑞雪,陈银蓉.国内外耕地资源价值研究综述[J].中国农业资源与区划,2005,26(3)：49-53.
[29]王瑞雪.耕地非市场价值评估理论方法与实践[D].武汉：华中农业大学,2005.
[30]景莉娜.乌鲁木齐市耕地资源价值研究[D].新疆：新疆农业大学,2008.
[31]诸培新,曲福田.从资源环境经济学角度考察土地征用补偿价格构成[J].中国土地科学,2003,17(3)：10-14.
[32]俞奉庆,蔡运龙.耕地资源价值探讨[J].中国土地科学,2003,17(3)：3-9.
[33]武燕丽.农用土地资源价值测度方法研究[D].山西：山西农业大学,2005.
[34]周建春.中国耕地产权与价值研究—兼论征地补偿[J].中国土地科学,2007,21(1)：4-9.
[35]霍雅勤,蔡运龙.可持续理念下的土地价值决定与量化[J].中国土地科学,2003,17(2)：19-23.
[36]姜文来,杨瑞珍.资源资产论[M].北京：科学出版社,2003,33-108.
[37]D.E.McCormark, M.A.Stoking. Soil Potential Rating:I. An Evaluation Form of Land Evaluation[J].Soil Survey and Evaluation,1986,6(2):37-41.
[38]J.Stephen Clark, Murray Fulton and JohnT.Scott, The Inconsistency of Land Values, Land Rent and capitalization Formulas[J].American Economics Association,1993,(75):147-155.
[39]Turnari Jatileksono,Keijiro Otsuka.Impact of modern rice,technology on land price:The case of lampung in indonesia[J].American Agricultural Economics Association,1993,(75):652-665.
[40]美国估价学会.不动产估价翻译委员会译.不动产估价[M].北京：地质出版社.第11版.445-446.
[41]蔡运龙,霍雅勤.中国耕地价值重建方法与案例研究[J].地理学报,2006,61(10)：1084-1092.
[42]Burt,O.Econometric Modeling of the Capitalization formula for Farmland Prices[J].Amer. J. Agri.Econ.1986,(68):10-26.
[43]Falk,B-Formally Testing the Present Value Model of Farmland Prices[J].Amer.J.Agri.Econ.1991, (72):1-10.
[44]谢宗棠,王生林,杨慧敏,等.甘肃省耕地资源价值的测算[J].开发研究,2006,(3)：99-102.
[45]罗文光,丛艳静,邢世和.基于GIS技术的福建省耕地价值评价及其空间分异[J].土壤,2009,41(2)：295-302.
[46]谷树忠.对耕地资源估价方法的探讨[J].自然资源,1997,(4)：9-14.
[47]林英彦.不动产估价.台北：台湾文笙书局,1993.
[48]黄贤金.江苏省耕地资源价值核算研究[J].江苏社会科学,1999,(4)：55-60.
[49]Maddison David. A Spatio-temporal Model of Farmland Values[J]. Journal of Agricultural Economics,2009,60(1):171-189.
[50]Gracia Azucena,y Perez Luis Perez,Sanjuan Ana I. Hedonic analysis of farmland prices:the case of Aragon[J]. International Journal of Agricultural Resources Governance and Ecology,2007,6(1):96-110.
[51]Lloyd, T.. Testing a present value model of agricultural land values. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics,1994,56:209-223.
[52]Runge C Ford,Halbach Daniel.Export Demand,U.S.Farmland Income,and Land Price[J].Land Economics,1990,66(2):150.
[53]Yue Jin Shi,Timothy T Phipps,Dale Colyer.Agricultural Land Values under Urbanizing Influnes[J].Land Economics,1997,73(1):90.
[54]Alfons Weersink,Steve Clark,Calum G Turvey,Rakhal Sarker.The Effect of Agricultural Policy on Farmland Values[J].Land Economics,1999,75(3):425.
[55]Erin O. Sills, Jill L. Caviglia-Harris. Evolution of the Amazonian frontier:Land values in Rondonia, Brazil[J].Land Use Policy,2008,26:55-67.
[56]FRANK MERRY. Land Values in Frontier Settlements of the Brazilian Amazon [J].World Development,2008,36(11):2390-2401.
[57]单胜道,尤建新.市场比较法及其在农地价格评估中的应用[J].同济大学学报,2002,30(11)：1397-1401.
[58]周小萍,曾磊,王军艳.我国耕地估价研究思路的整合与RRM综合估价模型—以北京市门头沟区永定镇为例[J].资源科学,2002,24(4)：35-42.
[59]单胜道.成本逼近法及其在农地评估中的应用[J].资源科学,2002,24(6)：18-21.
[60]郭贯成.土地社会保障功能价值评估研究[J].房地产评估,2004,(1)：31-35.
[61]陈丽,曲福田,师学义.耕地资源社会价值测算方法探讨—以山西省柳林县为例[J].资源科学,2006,28(6)：86-90.
[62]蒋冬梅.耕地资源综合价值内涵及其量化研究—以南京市为例[D].南京：南京农业大学,2005.
[63]臧俊梅.农地发展权的创设及其在农地保护中的运用研究[D].南京：南京农业大学,2007.
[64]Dennis Wichelns and Jeffery D.Kline.The Impact of Parcel Characteristics on the Cost of Development Rights to Farmland,Agricultural and Resource Economics Review.October 1993.
[65]OECD Saving Biological Diversity-Economic Incentives[M].Paris:OECD,1996.
[66]Walter EW.How much are nature's services worth? [J]. Science,1977,197:960-964.
[67]Stephen CF,Costanza R,Wilson MA.Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services [J].Ecological Economics,2002,41:375-392.
[68]Bolund P., Hunhammar S. Ecosystem services in urban areas[J].Ecological Economics,1999, 29:293-301.
[69]Holmund C. and Hammer M. Ecosystem services generated by fish populations [J].Ecological Economics,1999,29:253-268.
[70]Amirnejad H,Khalilian S,Assareh M H,Ahmadian M.Estimating the existence value of north forests of Iran by using a contingent valuation method[J].Ecological Economics,2006,58(4):665-675.
[71]Pearce D W.Assessing the returns to the economy and to society from investments in forestry[J].Scotland:Ed-inburgh Press,1991:1-46.
[72]ShanshinTon a, HowardT. Odum b, Joseph J. Delfino.EcoIogical economic Evaluation of Wetland Management Alternatives[J]. Ecological Engineering,1998,(11):291-302.
[73]Richard T. Woodward, Yong-Suhk Wui. The Economic Value of Wetland Services:a Meta-analysis[J]. Ecological Economics,2001,(37):257-270.
[74]Sandhu Harpinder S., Wratten Stephen D.,Cullen Ross. The role of supporting ecosystem services in conventional and organic arable farmland [J]. Ecological Complexity,2010,7(3):302-310.
[75]Sandhu Harpinder S., Wratten Stephen D., Cullen Ross,et al. The future of farming:The value of ecosystem services in conventional and organic arable land. An experimental approach [J]. Ecological Economics,2008,64(4):835-848.
[76]Chang Jie, Wu Xu, Liu Anqin,et al. Assessment of net ecosystem services of plastic greenhouse vegetable cultivation in China[J]. Ecological Economics,2010,70(4):740-748.
[77]Yang Wu.Chang Jie,Xu Bin, et al. Ecosystem service value assessment for constructed wetlands: A case study in Hangzhou, China[J]. Ecological Economics,2008,68(1-2):116-125.
[78]Zhao B,Kreuter U,Li B, et al. An Ecosystem Service Value Assessment Of Land-Use Change on Chongming Island, China [J]. Land Use Policy,2004,21(2):139-148.
[79]Chen Zuo-zhou,Zhang Yu-qing, Wu Bin,et al. Evaluation of ecosystem services function value of farmland shelterbelts in Shandong Province [J]. Shengtaixue Zazhi,2012,31(1):59-65.
[80]欧阳志云,王效科,苗鸿.中国陆地生态系统服务功能及其生态经济价值的初步研究[J].生态学报,1999,19(5)：607-613.
[81]Zheng Bofu,Duan Jing.Jia Junsong, et al. Assessment of ecosystem services of Lugu Lake watershed[J].International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology,2008,15(1):62-70.
[82]赵同谦,欧阳志云,郑华,等.中国森林生态系统服务功能及其价值评价[J].自然资源学报,2004,19(4)：480-491.
[83]赵同谦,欧阳志云,贾良清,等.中国草地生态系统服务功能间接价值评价[J].生态学报,2004,24(6)：1101-1109.
[84]任浩.征地制度中地价补偿标准的研究[D].北京：中国农业大学,2003.
[85]徐慧,彭补拙.国外生物多样性经济价值评估研究进展[J].资源科学,2003,25(4)：102-109.
[86]赵荣钦,黄爱民,秦明周,等.农田生态系统服务功能及其评价方法研究[J].农业系统科学与综合研究,2003,19(4)：267-270.
[87]马新辉,任志远,孙根年.城市植被净化大气价值计量与评价：以西安市为例[J].中国生态农业学报,2004,12(2)：180-182.
[88]孙新章,谢高地,成升魁,等.中国农田生产系统土壤保持功能及其经济价值[J].水土保持学报,2005,19(4)：156-159.
[89]曾贤刚.环境影响经济评价[M].北京：化学工业出版社,2003.
[90]谢高地,肖玉,甄霖,等.我国粮食生产的生态服务价值研究[J].中国生态农业学报,2005,13(3)：10-13.
[91]CARSON R T. Valuation of tropical rainforests:philosophical and practical issues in the use of contingent valuation[J].Ecological Economics,1998,24:15-29.
[92]Ridker RG. Economic Costs of Air Pollution (New York,Praeger),1967.
[93]Hanemann W Michael. A Methodological and Empirical Study of the Recreation Benefits from water Quality Improvement (Ph D dissertation, Harvard Univ),1978.
[94]Darling AH. Measuring Benefits Generated by Urban Water Parks[J].Land Economics,1973, 49(1):22-34.
[95]Takatsuka Yuki, Cullen Ross, Wilson Matthew, et al. Using stated preference techniques to value four key ecosystem services on New Zealand arable land[J].International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability,2009,7(4):279-291.
[96]杜亚平.改善东湖水质的经济分析[J].生态经济,1996,(6)：15-20.
[97]薛达元.长白山自然保护区生物多样性非使用价值评估[J].中国环境科学,2000,20(2)：141-145.
[98]王舒曼,谭荣,吴丽梅.农地资源舒适性价值评估—以江苏省为例[J].长江流域资源与环境,2005,14(6)：720-724.
[99]蔡银莺,李晓云,张安录.湖北省农地资源价值研究[J].自然资源学报,2007,22(1)：121-130.
[100]高魏,闵捷,张安录.江汉平原耕地非市场价值评估[J].资源科学,2007,29(2)：124-130.
[101]薛达元,Clem Tisdell环境物品的经济价值评估方法：条件价值法[J].农村生态环境,1999,15(3)：39-43.
[102]王瑞雪,张安录,颜廷武.近年国外农地价值评估方法研究进展述评[J].中国土地科学,2005,19(3)：59-64.
[103]闵庆文,谢高地,胡聃,等.青海草地生态系统服务功能的价值评估[J].资源科学,2004,26(3)：56-60.
[104]Chris T.Bastian, Donald M. McLeod, Matthew J. Germino, William A. Reiners, and Benedict J. Blasko. Environmental Amenities and Agricultural Land Values:A Hedonic Model Using Geographic Information Systems Data[J]. Ecological Economics,2002, (40):337-349.
[105]Henderson, Jason, and Sean Moore.2005.The Impact of Wildlife Recreation on Farmland Values. Working paper, The Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City,Economic Research Department.
[106]Falk, Barry, and Bong-Soo Lee.Fads versus Fundamentals in Farmland Prices[J]. American Journal of Agricultural Economics,1998,80(4):696-707.
[107]Moss, Charles, B. Returns, Interest Rates, and Inflation:How They Explain Changes in Farmland Values[J]. American Journal of Agricultural Economics,1997,79(4):1311-1318.
[108]Burt, Oscar R. Econometric Modeling of the Capitalization Formula for Farmland Prices[J]. American Journal of Agricultural Economics,1986,68(l):10-26.
[109]Olayiwola L. M.,Adeleye O. A., Oduwaye A.. Correlates of land value determinants in Lagos Metropolis, Nigeria[J].Journal of Human Ecology,2005,17(3):183-189.
[110]Shi, Y., Phipps, T., & Colyer, D.. Agricultural land values under urbanizing influences[J]. Land Economics,1997,73:90-100.
[111]易忠君,杨小雄,苏夏.耕地资源的价值构成及制约因素：广西个案[J].重庆社会科学,2010,(2)：49-52.
[112]Von Thunen,J.H.,1966. Der Isolierte Staat in Beziehung der Landwirtschaft und Nationalokonomie. In:Hall, P. (Ed.),Von Thunen's Isolated State. Pergamon Press,Oxford, UK.
[113]Huang HX, Miller GY, Sherrick BJ, et al. Factors Influencing Illinois Farmland Values[J]. American Journal of Agricultural Economics,2006,88(2):458-470.
[114]Chomitz, K.M., Alger, K., Thomas, T.S., Orlando, H.,Nova, P.V..Opportunity costs of conservation in a biodiversity hotspot:the case of southern Bahia[J]. Environment and Development Economics,2005,10:293-312.
[115]Geoghegan,J.,Wainger,L.A.,Bockstael,N.E..Spatial landscape indices in a hedonic framework:an ecological economics analysis using GIS[J].Ecological Economics,1997,23(3):251-264.
[116]Goodwin, B.K.,Mishra,A.K.,Ortalo-Magne,F.N.. What's wrong with our models of agricultural land values? [J].American Journal of Agricultural Economics,2003,85 (3):744-752.
[117]Flanders, Archie, Fred C. White, and Cesar L. Escalante.2004. "Comparing Land Values and Capitalization of Cash Rents for Cropland and Pasture in Georgia." Paper presented at SAEA annual meeting, Tulsa OK,14-18 February.
[118]Palmquist, R.B., Danielson, L.E..A hedonic study of the effects of erosion control and drainage on farmland values[J]. AJAE,1989,77 (1):55-62.
[119]Xu, F., Mittelhammer, R.C., Barkley, P.W.. Measuring the contributions of site characteristics to the value of agricultural land[J]. Land Economics,1993,69 (4):356-369.
[120]王万茂.黄贤金.中国大陆农地价格区划和农地估价[J].自然资源,1997(4)：1-8.
[121]牛海鹏,许传阳,李明秋,等.耕地保护经济补偿的接受和给付主体分析—基于110份接受主体和445份给付主体的问卷调查[J].资源科学,2011,33(3)：513-520.
[122]BOWKER J M,DIDYCHUK D D.Estimation of non-market benefit of rural land retention in eastern Canada[J].Rural and Resource Economics Review,1994,23(2):218-225.
[123]牛海鹏,杨小爱,张安录,等.国内外耕地保护的经济补偿研究进展述评[J].资源开发与市场,2010,26(1)：24-27.
[124]姜广辉,孔祥斌,张凤荣,等.耕地保护经济补偿机制分析[J].中国土地科学,2009,23(7)：24-27.
[125]牛海鹏.耕地保护的外部性及其经济补偿研究[D].武汉：华中农业大学,2010.
[126]马文博.耕地保护经济补偿机制研究[D].陕西：西北农林科技大学,2009.
[127]雍新琴.耕地保护经济补偿机制研究[D].武汉：华中农业大学,2010.
[128]李明秋,赵伟霞.耕地资源的价值体系及其经济补偿机制研究[J].江西农业学报,2010,22(9)：152-154.
[129]朱新华,曲福田.基于粮食安全的耕地保护外部性补偿途径与机制设计[J].南京农业大学学报(社会科学版),2007,7(4)：1-7.
[130]李广东,邱道持,王平,等.基于忠县农户调查的耕地保护经济补偿机制需求分析[J].中国土地科学,2010,24(9)：33-39.
[131]牛海鹏,张安录.耕地保护的外部性及其测算—以河南省焦作市为例[J].资源科学,2009,31(8)：1400-1408.
[132]马文博,李世平,陈昱.基于CVM的耕地保护经济补偿探析[J].中国人口资源与环境,2010,20(11)：107-111.
[133]吴泽斌,刘卫东.基于粮食安全的耕地保护区域经济补偿标准测算[J].自然资源学报,2009,24(12)：2076-2086.
[134]陈秧分,刘彦随,李裕瑞.基于农户生产决策视角的耕地保护经济补偿标准测算[J].中国土地科学,2010,24(4)：4-8,31.
[135]范胜龙,邢世和,林翔程.从耕地资源价值论我国耕地征用补偿的完善—以福建省为例[J].福建农林大学学报(自然科学版),2010,39(6)：651-657.
[136]李效顺,郭忠兴,潘元庆,等.耕地征用区片补偿的综合价格量化—以驻马店市为例[J].资源科学,2007,29(5)：150-156.
[137]张晓娅,谭荣建.耕地资源价值与征地补偿标准比较分析—以兰州市城关区为例[J].江西农业学报,2011,23(2)：196-198.
[138]金妹兰,金威,徐磊,等.基于耕地价值的江西省征地补偿标准测算[J].湖北农业科学,2011,50(15)：3054-3057.
[139]范辉.基于耕地资源价值的征地完全补偿问题探析[J].农村经济,2008,(5)：35-38.
[140]周立军.城市化进程中耕地多功能保护的价值研究—以宁波市为例[D].浙江：浙江大学,2010.
[141]景莉娜,刘新平,罗桥顺.乌鲁木齐市耕地资源价值评价与分析[J].新疆农业科学,2008,45(5)：934-938.
[142]唐建.耕地价值评价研究—以重庆市为例[D].重庆：西南大学,2010.
[143]朱新华,曲福田.不同粮食分区间的耕地保护外部性补偿机制研究[J].中国人口资源与环境,2008,18(5)：148-153.
[144]邵彦敏,杨印生.耕地保护外部性内部化的路径选择[J].农业技术经济,2008,(2)：19-24.
[145]牛海鹏,张安录,李明秋.耕地利用效益体系与耕地保护的经济补偿机制重构[J].农业现代化研究,2009,30(2)：164-167.
[146]俞奉庆,蔡运龙.耕地资源价值重建与农业补贴—一种解决“三农”问题的政策取向[J].中国十地科学,2004,18(1)：18-23.
[147]Tsoodle, L.J., Golden, B.B., Featherston, A.M.. Factors influencing Kansas agricultural farm land values[J]. Land Economics,2006,82 (1):124-139.
[148]Hardie, I.W., Narayan, T.A., Gardner, B.L.. The joint influence of agricultural and nonfarm factors on real estate values:an application to the mid-Atlantic region[J].American Journal of Agricultural Economics,2001,83 (1):120-132.
[149]Mishra Ashok K., Livanis Grigorios T., Moss Charles B.. Did the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 Affect Farmland Values? [J]. ENTROPY,2011,13(3): 668-682.
[150]Bayramoglu Zeki, Gundogmus Erdemir. Farmland values under the influence of urbanization: Case study from Turkey[J]. Journal of Urban Planning and Development-ASCE,2008,134(2):71-77.
[151]Devadoss Stephen,Manchu Viswanadham.A comprehensive analysis of farmland value determination:a county-level analysis[J]. Applied Economics,2007,39(18):2323-2330.
[152]罗文.湖南省耕地资源价值核算与利用对策研究[J].衡阳师范学院学报,2005,26(4)：118-121.
[153]刘木丹,蔚传忠.还原利率R的实质及其确定方法[J].重庆建筑大学学报,2000,22(2)：107-109.
[154]钱建平,周勇郧,文聚等.基于灰色系统理论的收益还原法在农用地估价中的应用[J].农业工程学报,2004,20(60)：282-285.
[155]田云霄.基于CCA-DEA模型的我国上市银行效率实证研究[D].湖南：湖南大学,2009.
[156]梁流涛,曲福田,王春华.基于DEA方法的耕地利用效率分析[J].长江流域资源与环境,2008,17(2)：242-246.
[157]杨龙,胡晓珍.基于DEA的中国绿色经济效率地区差异与收敛分析[J].经济学家,2010,(2)：46-54.
[158]龚长兰.基于DEA方法的四川城市土地利用效率研究[D].四川：四川农业大学,2008.
[159]马琳.基于数据包络分析的上海郊区土地利用效率评价研究[D].上海：上海交通大学,2009.
[160]孙婷.基于数据包络分析的城市土地利用效率评价研究[D].重庆：西南大学,2007.
[161]王秋兵.土地资源学[M].北京：中国农业出版社,2002.
[162]高魏,闵捷,张安录.耕地经济产出影响因素实证分析—以湖北省为例[J].资源科学,2006,28(3)：73-79.
[163]陈冲,董文渊,郑进炬,等.不同坡位对天然水竹生长的影响[J].林业科技开发,2008,22(2)：40-42.
[164]邢世和,黄吉,黄河,等.GIS支持下的区域耕地质量评价[J].福建农林大学学报(自然科学版),2002,31(3)：378-382.
[165]周佳松,钟沛林,张弘.占补平衡补充耕地按等级折算研究—以南方丘陵山区为例[J].中国农学通报,2005,21(11)：360-362,378.
[166]袁伟伟.农地利用经济效益影响因素研究—以河北省元氏县为例[D].武汉：华中农业大学,2009.
[167]毕宝德.土地经济学[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005.
[168]高更和.中国中部农区农户经济活动区位研究—以河南省南阳市6个村为例[D].河南：河南大学,2007.
[169]张贞,魏朝富,李萍,等.四川盆地丘陵区农户行为对耕地质量的影响[J].农业工程学报,2009,25(4)：230-236.
[170]高艳梅.工业化、城市化对农地质量影响研究[D].南京：南京农业大学,2007.
[171]王瑷玲,胡继连,刘文鹏.基于土地整理的耕地经济价值评定及其变化[J].农业工程学报,2010,26(9)：296-300.
[172]孔祥斌,刘灵伟,秦静,等.基于农户行为的耕地质量评价指标体系构建的理论与方法[J].地理科学进展,2007,26(4)：75-85.
[173]屈艳芳,郭敏.农户投资行为实证研究[J].上海经济研究,2002,(4)：17-27.
[174]周端明.农户规模与农业技术创新[J].山西财经大学学报,2005,27(1)：56-60.
[175]谭淑豪,谭仲春,黄贤金.农户行为与土壤退化的制度经济学分析[J].土壤,2004,36(2)：141-144.
[176]姚洋.农地制度与农业绩效的实证研究[J].中国农村观察,1998：1-10.
[177]李杨,杨锦秀,傅新红.我国区域农业技术创新能力评价[J].中国软科学,2009,(1)：84-89.
[178]牛海鹏,张安录.耕地利用生态社会效益测算方法及其应用[J].农业工程学报,2010,26(5)：316-323.
[179]梅昀,陈银蓉,胡伟艳.农用土地的价值观与农地转用价格评估—以柳州市郊区农地为例[J].国十资源科技管理,2004,(5)：26-29.
[180]常晓飞.耕地资源的社会价值探讨—以沈阳市为例[J].吉林农业,2011,(6)：69-71.
[181]宋敏,张安录.湖北省农地资源止外部性价值量估算—基于对农地社会与生态之功能和价值分类的分析[J].长江流域资源与环境,2009,18(4)：314-319.
[182]李翠珍,孔祥斌,孙宪海.北京市耕地资源价值体系及价值估算方法[J].地理学报,2008,63(3)：321-329.
[183]尹文静,王礼力,Ted McConnel农民生产投资的影响因素分析—基于监督分组的主成分回归分析[J].农业技术经济,2011,(2)：19-26.
[184]崔峥岭,张晋华.山西省现代农业影响冈子分析及对策研究[J].山西高等学校社会科学学报,201],23(4)：33-36.
[185]杨鹭.依托农地构建农村社会保障体系研究[D].武汉：华中农业大学,2010.
[186]葛荣霞,郭文玲,胡金敏.论新型农村社会保障体系的建立和完善[J].河北学刊,2011,31(2)：135-138.
[187]吕杰.建立完善的农村社会保障体系的建议[J].经营与管理,2011,(1)：25-26.
[188]王英.构建和完善我国农村社会保障体系[J].党政干部学刊,2011,(12)：41-42.
[189]孙维亮.我国农村社会保障体系建设中的资金问题探析[J].中国集体经济,2010,(36)：7-8.
[190]吕保利.加快建立农村社会保障体系问题探析[J].黑龙江对外经贸,2011,(1)：76-77.
[191]庞英.耕地利用效益及其区域差异—基于山东省的实证研究[D].南京：南京农业大学,2006.
[192]袁伟玲,曹凑贵.农田生态系统服务功能及可持续发展对策初探[J].湖南农业科学,2007,(1)：1-3.
[193]崔朝伟,许学工.北京市农用地生态系统服务价值评估[J].生态经济(学术版),2007,(2)：338-340,358.
[194]白玮.粮食生产中的自然资源价值研究[D].北京：中国农业大学,2007.
[195]张其鲁,张立全,张连晓,等.小麦的高产育种途径及其发展趋势[J].麦类作物学报,2007,27(1)：176-178.
[196]张贞.丘陵区多尺度土地质量评价研究[D].重庆：西南大学,2009.
[197]龚碧凯,邓良基,胡玉福,等.水库淹没区耕地生态服务功能价值估算研究—以黄金坪水电站为例[J].资源开发与市场,2007,23(12)：1085-1088.
[198]黄长志,周秋峰,张书仁,等.郑花5号花生矮化密植增产效应的研究[J].陕西农业科学,2008,(4)：23-25.
[199]李志沛,张宇清,朱清科,等.中国平原林业工程的生态服务功能价值研究[J].湖南农业科学,2011,(13)：124-128
[200]张丹,闵庆文,成升魁,等.传统农业地区生态系统服务功能价值评估—以贵州省从江县为例[J].资源科学,2009,31(1)：31-37.
[201]Zhongwei Guo,Xiangming Xiao,Yaling Gan,Yuejun Zheng.Ecosystem functions,services and their values-a case study in Xingshan County of China[J].Ecological Economics,2001,38:141-154.
[202]刘敏超,李迪强,温琰茂,等.三江源地区生态系统生态功能分析及其价值评估[J].环境科学学报,2005,25(9)：1280-1286.
[203]杨志新.北京郊区农田生态系统正负效应价值的综合评价研究[D].北京：中国农业大学,2006.
[204]欧阳志云,赵同谦,赵景柱,等.海南岛生态系统生态调节功能及其生态经济价值研究[J].应用生态学报,2004,15(8)：1395-1402.
[205]苑莉.基于可持续理念下的土地生态系统价值评估—以四川省乐至县为例[J].经济体制改革,2009,(4)：169-173.
[206]李晶,任志远.秦巴山区植被涵养水源价值测评研究[J].水土保持学报,2003,17(4)：132-138.
[207]Thomas P. Simon. The Use of Biological Criteria as a Tool for Water Resource Management[J].Environmental Science & Policy,2000,(3):43-49.
[208]Amy R,Robert K K,Ranga B M.Valuing ecosystem services:A shadow price for net primary production[J].Ecological Economics,2007,64:454-462.
[209]庄大昌.洞庭湖湿地生态系统服务功能价值评估[J].经济地理,2004,24(3)：391-394.
[210]孙新章,周海林,谢高地.中国农田生态系统的服务功能及其经济价值[J].中国人口资源与环境,2007,17(4)：55-60.
[211]肖寒,欧阳志云,赵景柱,等.海南岛生态系统土壤保持空间分布特征及生态经济价值评估[J].生态学报,2000,20(4)：552-558.
[212]张贞,高金权,杨威,等.土地整理工程影响下农业生态系统服务价值的变化[J].应用生态学报,2010,21(3)：723-733.
[213]肖玉,谢高地,安凯.青藏高原生态系统土壤保持功能及其价值[J].生态学报,2003,23(11)：2367-2378.
[214]宗浩,陈文祥,黄翔,等.成都市生态系统服务功能价值探讨[J].四川师范大学学报(自然科学版),2007,30(5)：636-641.
[215]李加林,童亿勤,杨晓平,等.杭州湾南岸农业生态系统土壤保持功能及其生态经济价值评估[J].水土保持研究,2005,12(4)：202-205.
[216]韩永伟,高吉喜,拓学森,等.门头沟生态系统土壤保持功能及其生态经济价值分析[J].环境科学研究,2007,20(5)：144-147.
[217]刘敏超,李迪强,温琰茂,等.三江源地区土壤保持功能空间分析及其价值评估[J].中国环境科学,2005,25(5)：627-631.
[218]罗文光.基于GIS技术的福建省耕地资源价值评价及其分区[D].福建：福建农林大学,2006.
[219]李佳,南灵.耕地资源价值内涵及测算方法研究—以陕西省为例[J].干旱区资源与环境,2010,24(9)：10-15.
[220]吴泽斌.耕地保护利益冲突及其管理研究[D].浙江：浙江大学,2011.
[221]徐晓绵.耕地保护经济补偿机制的实践研究[J].广东土地科学,2010,9(2)：4-8.
[222]张飞,崔延松,孔伟.耕地资源开发中的价值补偿问题研究[J].农业经济,2009,(1)：33-35.