山东省城市化发展进程的战略生态影响评价
|
摘要
随着全球社会经济的不断发展,城市化已经成为当今社会一个不可逆转的趋势。城市化的程度是衡量一个国家和地区经济、社会、文化、科技水平的重要标志,也是衡量国家和地区社会组织程度和管理水平的重要标志。然而,城市化进程中引发的城市人口急剧增长和城市面积迅速膨胀是造成其他类型用地面积减少和土地利用格局变化的主要驱动因素之一。这就引发了很多社会的、经济的和生态环境的问题,并有可能造成当地或全球范围内的生物栖息地消失或破碎化、生物多样性降低以及生态系统服务功能的减弱。因此,如何应对这些生态环境问题,并将其纳入到政策、规划和项目(Plan,Program and Projects,PPPs)的决策过程中,成为决策者和生态学家面临的重要问题。
在地理信息系统(Geographic Information System,GIS)、遥感(Remote Sensing,RS)和全球定位系统(Global Positioning System,GPS)即3S技术的辅助下,战略环境评价(Strategic Environmental Assessment,SEA)、环境影响评价(EnvironmentalImpact Assessment,EIA)和生态影响评价(Ecological Impact Assessment,EcIA)等作为决策过程的辅助工具,在世界范围内迅速发展起来。SEA可以从战略层次如法律、政策或规划水平上帮助决策者在制定PPPs的过程中,能够将这些PPPs对环境的影响充分考虑在内,并制定出替代方案以期避免、减缓或补偿这些环境损失,达到无净损失(Non-Net-Loss)的目的。EIA是通过对具体的项目可能造成的潜在的环境影响进行评价并提供替代方案,以期达到无净损失的目的。EcIA是通过识别、量化和评价某项活动对生态系统或其组分的潜在影响,制定出减缓措施的过程。它能够将生态保护整合到项目的制定、执行过程中,达到保护生态环境的目的。然而,目前的EcIA主要应用在项目层面,很少有将EcIA应用到战略层面。EcIA在战略层面的应用有望作为SEA的一个有力的辅助,从宏观的时间和空间范围将生态保护纳入到PPPs的制定和执行过程中,并起到监测PPPs在执行过程中的生态影响的作用。
受经济增长和人口快速增加的影响,中国的城市化步伐也越来越快。作为中国的一个经济和人口大省,山东省自从改革开放以来也同样经历了城市的快速发展过程,本研究通过山东省不同时期的四期卫星影像(1980、1995、2000和2006)分析发现城市化的快速发展引发了城市人口急剧增长和城市面积迅速膨胀,也促使居住和工业用地面积的迅速膨胀造成城乡问耕地面积的相应减少,进而导致了大量的林地、湿地和草地被开垦为耕地,对森林、湿地和草地生态统造成了损害,继而引发了一系列的生态问题,比如由于土地利用类型变化而导致生物栖息地消失、隔离或破碎化削弱了生态系统的服务功能。
通过分析山东省各市县在不同时期其主要土地利用类型及其变化,结果发现在1980-2000的20年间,由于处于改革开放初期,山东省的社会经济发展刚刚起步,城市的扩张速度较慢,然而进入21世纪以来,随着改革开放的不断深入,山东省的社会经济处于快速发展阶段,城市的快速蔓延侵占了大面积的耕地、林地、草地和湿地,其中最受影响的是处于城乡结合带的耕地。土地利用类型变化较明显和复杂的市县一般都位于胶东半岛沿海地区和鲁中丘陵地区,主要包括济南、青岛、淄博、临沂、潍坊、日照、烟台等地级市的市辖区,这些地区由于先期农业不发达,改革开放以后特别注重工业的发展,由此引发这些地区的城市化发展速度较快。而土地利用类型变化相对缓和的地区一般位于鲁北平原地区、鲁西南平原地区、鲁西北平原地区和鲁东南平原地区,这些地区往往处于平原地带,以农业为主,工业相对欠发达,社会经济发展较慢,因此土地利用类型变化相对缓和,说明这一区域城市化发展较慢。
通过研究山东省各市县在不同时期其生态系统服务价值的变化,可以发现鲁中南丘陵地区、胶东半岛丘陵地区和鲁东南丘陵地区以及南四湖流域湿地和黄河三角洲湿地的生态系统服务价值较大,主要是由于这些地区含有大面积的森林和灌草地或者湿地,提供了较多的非市场价值的生态系统服务。然而这些区域快速的城市化发展给生态系统带来了不同程度的影响,正在逐渐削弱其生态系统服务功能。而鲁北平原地区、鲁西南平原地区、鲁西北平原地区和鲁东南平原地区的市场价值的生态系统服务比重相对较大,主要是因为这些区域以耕地为主,是山东省的主要粮食产区,由于这些区域社会经济发展较慢,因此其生态系统服务功能受到的影响相对较轻。
通过济南市和日照市两个典型城市的分析可以看出,在城市社会经济发展的初始阶段,城市化发展战略往往只侧重快速发展社会经济而忽略了对生态环境的维护,以低效率消耗有限的自然资源为动力以实现经济的粗放增长。以经济建设为中心发展机制下的城市化发展战略造成了对森林和湿地等重要生态系统的破坏以及对自然资源的大量损耗。然而,在城市化发展战略的制定和执行过程中,应当充分将生态环境保护考虑在内,加强对森林、湿地等重要生态系统的保护和管理,加快发展第三产业,限制第二产业特别是以高污染排放和高资源消耗为特点的产业的发展。城市发展中根据各地生态环境和自然条件的特点发展特色经济、循环经济,能够在实现社会经济发展的同时使生态环境得到有效的维持和保护。通过以济南市和日照市为案例,分别以两地市的四期卫星影像为基础,分析了不同时期实施的不同城市化发展战略对生态系统的影响,为环境友好型政策的制定提供理论借鉴。结果表明,充分将生态环境保护考虑在内的环境友好性政策的实施有助于维持生态系统服务功能,促进区域社会经济与生态环境保护的协调可持续发展。
Influenced by the socio-economy and population growth,urbanization is an inevitable tendency in today's world.As the most important human habitat,cities all over the world provided residence for approximately 3.3 billion or 50%of the world's population in 2007.The urban population is expected to increase to almost 5 billion by 2030.The rapid growth of population and urban expansion are the major driving forces that contribute to land use change,including the rapid loss of arable land and an increase of urban impermeable land area.Urban development results in several challenges including ecological problems from local to global scales such as the reduction of biodiversity and the weakening of ecosystem services.It has drawn the attention of decision-makers all over the world on how to incorporate the consideration of environmental and ecological protection into the policy-makers' deliberation on the legislation and implementation of policies,plans and programs (PPPs),so as to achieve the sustainable development of ecosystems,socio-economy and environment.
The technologies of Geographic Information System(GIS) and Remote Sensing (RS) have been employed as an aiding tool for risk assessment as well as simulation of land use changes.Strategic Environmental Assessment(SEA),Environmental Impact Assessment(EIA) and Ecological Impact Assessment(EcIA) are used as decision aiding tools in many developed as well as developing countries to predict and evaluate the potential environmental impacts at different levels.These tools can also be used to provide alternatives in order to avoid,mitigate or compensate for these environmental impacts.As a key component of EIA,EcIA can integrate ecosystems or their components into the implementation of EIA and provide measures for the protection and management of ecosystems.The practices of EcIA mainly focus on the ecological evaluation of projects of land resource development.Few of the EcIAs have been applied to assess the ecological impact of Policy,Plan and Program(PPPs) at a strategic level.This is due to the applied limits of the EIA,which is generally used to evaluate the environmental impact of programs,projects or other single development activities.The application of EcIA at a strategic level,however,would be an effective auxiliary component of SEA to evaluate the ecological impacts of PPPs.It would provide an alternative to avoid,mitigate or compensate for these impacts from a macro perspective.
As a developing country,China's economy has experienced a dramatic economic growth since its integration in the world economy after 1978.As an economically powerful province of China with a large population,Shandong Province has earned its economic growth to some extent at the cost of environmental quality since the 1950s. A series of policies made by central and/or local governments were economy-oriented without taking enough environmental concern into account.These policies sped up the environmental degeneration of Shandong Province.Facing the deterioration of environmental quality,the people and Government of Shandong Province have realized the importance of ecosystem services and other values of the environment and have been paying greater attention to improving environmental quality.
In this study,Shandong Province is viewed as a representative case in terms of the impact of the socio-economic development on ecosystem services in China.Land uses and their changes were categorized and mapped between 1980 and 2006.The ecosystem services capital and changes of 111 counties of Shandong Province in different phases were evaluated,as well the total ecosystem services capital of Shandong Province.Four sets of Landsat TM images of Shandong Province (1980/1995/2000/2006,seven bands) were used in this study.Five different land uses: arable land,forestland,grassland,wetland,as well as residential and industrial land were categorized by ArcGIS 9.0 software based on field investigation in Shandong Province.ArcGIS 9.0 software was also employed to map the conversions among land uses and determine the changes of various ecosystem services providing areas in different phases(1980-1995,1995-2000 and 2000-2006).Two important cities,Ji'nan City and Rizhao City,were viewed as representative case studies to analyze the ecological impact of different urban development policies.Finally,three management strategies for managing and improving ecosystem services were proposed and discussed with the aim of achieving coordinate and sustainable development of the socio-economy,environment and ecosystems not only in Shandong Province but also in other provinces of China,as well as in other developing and transitional countries and regions.
Land uses of Shandong Province in 1980,1995,2000 and 2006 were categorized and mapped.They show that arable land and residential and industrial land of Shandong Province have experienced a clear change since 1980,especially during the 2000s.On the contrary,residential and industrial land of Shandong Province has had a continuous expansion since 1980,which experienced a dramatic increase during the 2000s.The other three land uses,forestland,grassland and wetland,did not have a clear change during the 1980s and 1990s.However,they experienced a sharp loss between 2000 and 2006 especially grassland,which was due to the rapid expansion of arable land and residential and industrial land.The counties with high Total Ecosystems Services Value(TESV) per km~2 are located in the mountainous areas of the Jiaodong Peninsula and the middle part of Shandong Province,as well as the Yellow River Delta and South Four Lakes wetlands.Most of the counties where the Prefectural-Level Cities are located are also included in these areas.However,the counties,on the plains in the west and south-east parts of Shandong Province as well as the mountainous areas in the south part of Shandong Province,have a lower TESV per km~2.
Our study by way of introduction captured the strategic ecological impact of urban development strategies of Ji'nan City and Rizhao City on ecosystems and their components in different phases.This was followed by an assessment and analysis of biodiversity,habitats and ecosystem services and their changes.Growth in the 1990's was influenced by the traditional economy-centered development strategy,where the former UDP of Ji'nan City and Rizhao City mainly focused on the urban socio-economic development by speeding up the construction of urban infrastructures, expanding urban built-up areas as well as strengthening the development of resourceand pollution-intensive industries.This caused a significant decrease of arable land and forest land,which hampered the sustainable development of biodiversity,habitats and ecosystem services of Ji'nan City and Rizhao City during the early 1990s.The rapid socio-economic development and population growth of Ji'nan City and Rizhao City mainly took place in urban-rural fringe areas of Ji'nan City and Rizhao City. Arable land was occupied for resident and industrial land.The decrease of farmland posed a threat,at least in part,to Shandong Province's forest and wetland ecosystems as well as their ecological services.Given this,the government of Ji'nan City and Rizhao City has taken ecological protection more into account in more recent UDP, with important effects on land use change and ecosystem management.This promulgation of a more eco-environmentally friendly UDP in recent years has contributed to protect and maintain the ecosystems and their components.Based on our analysis,we predict that ecosystems as well as ecosystem services of Ji'nan City and Rizhao City will be maintained with the current UDPs in the near future.These UDPs will contribute to promote a more coordinated and sustainable development of cities' socio-economy,environment,and ecology.
在地理信息系统(Geographic Information System,GIS)、遥感(Remote Sensing,RS)和全球定位系统(Global Positioning System,GPS)即3S技术的辅助下,战略环境评价(Strategic Environmental Assessment,SEA)、环境影响评价(EnvironmentalImpact Assessment,EIA)和生态影响评价(Ecological Impact Assessment,EcIA)等作为决策过程的辅助工具,在世界范围内迅速发展起来。SEA可以从战略层次如法律、政策或规划水平上帮助决策者在制定PPPs的过程中,能够将这些PPPs对环境的影响充分考虑在内,并制定出替代方案以期避免、减缓或补偿这些环境损失,达到无净损失(Non-Net-Loss)的目的。EIA是通过对具体的项目可能造成的潜在的环境影响进行评价并提供替代方案,以期达到无净损失的目的。EcIA是通过识别、量化和评价某项活动对生态系统或其组分的潜在影响,制定出减缓措施的过程。它能够将生态保护整合到项目的制定、执行过程中,达到保护生态环境的目的。然而,目前的EcIA主要应用在项目层面,很少有将EcIA应用到战略层面。EcIA在战略层面的应用有望作为SEA的一个有力的辅助,从宏观的时间和空间范围将生态保护纳入到PPPs的制定和执行过程中,并起到监测PPPs在执行过程中的生态影响的作用。
受经济增长和人口快速增加的影响,中国的城市化步伐也越来越快。作为中国的一个经济和人口大省,山东省自从改革开放以来也同样经历了城市的快速发展过程,本研究通过山东省不同时期的四期卫星影像(1980、1995、2000和2006)分析发现城市化的快速发展引发了城市人口急剧增长和城市面积迅速膨胀,也促使居住和工业用地面积的迅速膨胀造成城乡问耕地面积的相应减少,进而导致了大量的林地、湿地和草地被开垦为耕地,对森林、湿地和草地生态统造成了损害,继而引发了一系列的生态问题,比如由于土地利用类型变化而导致生物栖息地消失、隔离或破碎化削弱了生态系统的服务功能。
通过分析山东省各市县在不同时期其主要土地利用类型及其变化,结果发现在1980-2000的20年间,由于处于改革开放初期,山东省的社会经济发展刚刚起步,城市的扩张速度较慢,然而进入21世纪以来,随着改革开放的不断深入,山东省的社会经济处于快速发展阶段,城市的快速蔓延侵占了大面积的耕地、林地、草地和湿地,其中最受影响的是处于城乡结合带的耕地。土地利用类型变化较明显和复杂的市县一般都位于胶东半岛沿海地区和鲁中丘陵地区,主要包括济南、青岛、淄博、临沂、潍坊、日照、烟台等地级市的市辖区,这些地区由于先期农业不发达,改革开放以后特别注重工业的发展,由此引发这些地区的城市化发展速度较快。而土地利用类型变化相对缓和的地区一般位于鲁北平原地区、鲁西南平原地区、鲁西北平原地区和鲁东南平原地区,这些地区往往处于平原地带,以农业为主,工业相对欠发达,社会经济发展较慢,因此土地利用类型变化相对缓和,说明这一区域城市化发展较慢。
通过研究山东省各市县在不同时期其生态系统服务价值的变化,可以发现鲁中南丘陵地区、胶东半岛丘陵地区和鲁东南丘陵地区以及南四湖流域湿地和黄河三角洲湿地的生态系统服务价值较大,主要是由于这些地区含有大面积的森林和灌草地或者湿地,提供了较多的非市场价值的生态系统服务。然而这些区域快速的城市化发展给生态系统带来了不同程度的影响,正在逐渐削弱其生态系统服务功能。而鲁北平原地区、鲁西南平原地区、鲁西北平原地区和鲁东南平原地区的市场价值的生态系统服务比重相对较大,主要是因为这些区域以耕地为主,是山东省的主要粮食产区,由于这些区域社会经济发展较慢,因此其生态系统服务功能受到的影响相对较轻。
通过济南市和日照市两个典型城市的分析可以看出,在城市社会经济发展的初始阶段,城市化发展战略往往只侧重快速发展社会经济而忽略了对生态环境的维护,以低效率消耗有限的自然资源为动力以实现经济的粗放增长。以经济建设为中心发展机制下的城市化发展战略造成了对森林和湿地等重要生态系统的破坏以及对自然资源的大量损耗。然而,在城市化发展战略的制定和执行过程中,应当充分将生态环境保护考虑在内,加强对森林、湿地等重要生态系统的保护和管理,加快发展第三产业,限制第二产业特别是以高污染排放和高资源消耗为特点的产业的发展。城市发展中根据各地生态环境和自然条件的特点发展特色经济、循环经济,能够在实现社会经济发展的同时使生态环境得到有效的维持和保护。通过以济南市和日照市为案例,分别以两地市的四期卫星影像为基础,分析了不同时期实施的不同城市化发展战略对生态系统的影响,为环境友好型政策的制定提供理论借鉴。结果表明,充分将生态环境保护考虑在内的环境友好性政策的实施有助于维持生态系统服务功能,促进区域社会经济与生态环境保护的协调可持续发展。
Influenced by the socio-economy and population growth,urbanization is an inevitable tendency in today's world.As the most important human habitat,cities all over the world provided residence for approximately 3.3 billion or 50%of the world's population in 2007.The urban population is expected to increase to almost 5 billion by 2030.The rapid growth of population and urban expansion are the major driving forces that contribute to land use change,including the rapid loss of arable land and an increase of urban impermeable land area.Urban development results in several challenges including ecological problems from local to global scales such as the reduction of biodiversity and the weakening of ecosystem services.It has drawn the attention of decision-makers all over the world on how to incorporate the consideration of environmental and ecological protection into the policy-makers' deliberation on the legislation and implementation of policies,plans and programs (PPPs),so as to achieve the sustainable development of ecosystems,socio-economy and environment.
The technologies of Geographic Information System(GIS) and Remote Sensing (RS) have been employed as an aiding tool for risk assessment as well as simulation of land use changes.Strategic Environmental Assessment(SEA),Environmental Impact Assessment(EIA) and Ecological Impact Assessment(EcIA) are used as decision aiding tools in many developed as well as developing countries to predict and evaluate the potential environmental impacts at different levels.These tools can also be used to provide alternatives in order to avoid,mitigate or compensate for these environmental impacts.As a key component of EIA,EcIA can integrate ecosystems or their components into the implementation of EIA and provide measures for the protection and management of ecosystems.The practices of EcIA mainly focus on the ecological evaluation of projects of land resource development.Few of the EcIAs have been applied to assess the ecological impact of Policy,Plan and Program(PPPs) at a strategic level.This is due to the applied limits of the EIA,which is generally used to evaluate the environmental impact of programs,projects or other single development activities.The application of EcIA at a strategic level,however,would be an effective auxiliary component of SEA to evaluate the ecological impacts of PPPs.It would provide an alternative to avoid,mitigate or compensate for these impacts from a macro perspective.
As a developing country,China's economy has experienced a dramatic economic growth since its integration in the world economy after 1978.As an economically powerful province of China with a large population,Shandong Province has earned its economic growth to some extent at the cost of environmental quality since the 1950s. A series of policies made by central and/or local governments were economy-oriented without taking enough environmental concern into account.These policies sped up the environmental degeneration of Shandong Province.Facing the deterioration of environmental quality,the people and Government of Shandong Province have realized the importance of ecosystem services and other values of the environment and have been paying greater attention to improving environmental quality.
In this study,Shandong Province is viewed as a representative case in terms of the impact of the socio-economic development on ecosystem services in China.Land uses and their changes were categorized and mapped between 1980 and 2006.The ecosystem services capital and changes of 111 counties of Shandong Province in different phases were evaluated,as well the total ecosystem services capital of Shandong Province.Four sets of Landsat TM images of Shandong Province (1980/1995/2000/2006,seven bands) were used in this study.Five different land uses: arable land,forestland,grassland,wetland,as well as residential and industrial land were categorized by ArcGIS 9.0 software based on field investigation in Shandong Province.ArcGIS 9.0 software was also employed to map the conversions among land uses and determine the changes of various ecosystem services providing areas in different phases(1980-1995,1995-2000 and 2000-2006).Two important cities,Ji'nan City and Rizhao City,were viewed as representative case studies to analyze the ecological impact of different urban development policies.Finally,three management strategies for managing and improving ecosystem services were proposed and discussed with the aim of achieving coordinate and sustainable development of the socio-economy,environment and ecosystems not only in Shandong Province but also in other provinces of China,as well as in other developing and transitional countries and regions.
Land uses of Shandong Province in 1980,1995,2000 and 2006 were categorized and mapped.They show that arable land and residential and industrial land of Shandong Province have experienced a clear change since 1980,especially during the 2000s.On the contrary,residential and industrial land of Shandong Province has had a continuous expansion since 1980,which experienced a dramatic increase during the 2000s.The other three land uses,forestland,grassland and wetland,did not have a clear change during the 1980s and 1990s.However,they experienced a sharp loss between 2000 and 2006 especially grassland,which was due to the rapid expansion of arable land and residential and industrial land.The counties with high Total Ecosystems Services Value(TESV) per km~2 are located in the mountainous areas of the Jiaodong Peninsula and the middle part of Shandong Province,as well as the Yellow River Delta and South Four Lakes wetlands.Most of the counties where the Prefectural-Level Cities are located are also included in these areas.However,the counties,on the plains in the west and south-east parts of Shandong Province as well as the mountainous areas in the south part of Shandong Province,have a lower TESV per km~2.
Our study by way of introduction captured the strategic ecological impact of urban development strategies of Ji'nan City and Rizhao City on ecosystems and their components in different phases.This was followed by an assessment and analysis of biodiversity,habitats and ecosystem services and their changes.Growth in the 1990's was influenced by the traditional economy-centered development strategy,where the former UDP of Ji'nan City and Rizhao City mainly focused on the urban socio-economic development by speeding up the construction of urban infrastructures, expanding urban built-up areas as well as strengthening the development of resourceand pollution-intensive industries.This caused a significant decrease of arable land and forest land,which hampered the sustainable development of biodiversity,habitats and ecosystem services of Ji'nan City and Rizhao City during the early 1990s.The rapid socio-economic development and population growth of Ji'nan City and Rizhao City mainly took place in urban-rural fringe areas of Ji'nan City and Rizhao City. Arable land was occupied for resident and industrial land.The decrease of farmland posed a threat,at least in part,to Shandong Province's forest and wetland ecosystems as well as their ecological services.Given this,the government of Ji'nan City and Rizhao City has taken ecological protection more into account in more recent UDP, with important effects on land use change and ecosystem management.This promulgation of a more eco-environmentally friendly UDP in recent years has contributed to protect and maintain the ecosystems and their components.Based on our analysis,we predict that ecosystems as well as ecosystem services of Ji'nan City and Rizhao City will be maintained with the current UDPs in the near future.These UDPs will contribute to promote a more coordinated and sustainable development of cities' socio-economy,environment,and ecology.
引文
1. Alexander A M, List J A, Margolis M, et al. A method for valuing global ecosystem services. Ecological Economics. 1998,27:161-170.
2. Bao C K, Lu Y S, Shang J C. Framework and operational procedure for implementing Strategic Environmental Assessment in China. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 2004,24:27-46.
3. Batabyal A A, Kahn J R, O'Neill R V. On the scarcity value of ecosystem services. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 2003,46:334-352.
4. Bolund P, Hunhammar S. Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecological Economics. 1999,29:293-301.
5. Borchers J G. Accepting uncertainty, assessing risk: Decision quality in managing wildfire, forest resource values, and new technology. Forest Ecology and Management. 2005,211:36-46.
6. Borjesson P. Economic valuation of the environmental impact of logging residue recovery and nutrient compensation. Biomass and Bioenergy. 2000,19:137-152.
7. Boumans R, Costanza R, Farley J, et al. Modeling the dynamics of the integrated earth system and the value of global ecosystem services using the GUMBO model. Ecological Economics. 2002,41: 529-560.
8. Buisson, E., Dutoit, T. Creation of the natural reserve of La Crau: mplications for the creation and management of protected areas. Journal of Environmental Management. 2006,80:318-326.
9. Buttoud G. How can policy take into consideration the "full value" of forests? Land Use Policy. 2000,17:169-175.
10. Chaker A, El-Fadl K, Chamas L, Hatjian B. A review of strategic environmental assessment in 12 selected countries. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 2006;26:15-56.
11. Che X Z, Shang J C. Strategic environmental assessment for sustainable development in urbanization process in China. Chinese Geographical Science. 2004;14:148-152.
12. Che X Z, Shang J C, Wang J H.. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 2002;22:101-109.
13. Coasr R H. The Problem of Social Cost. Journal of Law and Economics. 1960,3:6-17.
14. Costanza R, d'Arge R, de Groot R, et al. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature. 1997; 387:253-260.
15. Costanza R, Andrade F, Antunes P, et al. Ecological economics and sustainable governance of the oceans. Ecological Economics. 1999,31: 171-187.
16. Costanza R, D'Arge R, De Groot R, et al. The value of ecosystem services: putting the issues in perspective. Ecological Economics. 1998, 25:67-72.
17. Cuperus R, Bakermans M M, Udo De Haes H A, et al. Ecological compensation in Dutch highway. Environmental management. 2001,27(1): 75-89.
18. Cuperus R, Canters K J, Piepers A G. Ecological compensation of the impacts of a road- Preliminary method for the A50 road link (Eindhoven-Oss, The Netherlands). Ecological Engineering. 1996,7(4): 327-349.
19. Cuperus R, Canters K J, Udo De Haes H A, et al. Guidelines for ecological compensation associated with highways. Biological Conservation. 1999, 90(1): 41-51.
20. Cuperus R, Kalsbeek R, Udo De Haes H A, et al. Preparation and Implementation of Seven Ecological Compensation Plans for Dutch Highways. Environmental Management. 2002,29(6): 736-749.
21. Daily G C. Developing a scientific basis for managing Earth's life support systems. Conservation Ecology. 1999,3(2): 14.
22. Daily G C, S(o|¨)derqvist T, Aniyar S, et al. The value of nature and the nature of value. Science 2000; 289:395-396.
23. De Groot R, Wilson M A, Boumans R. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics. 2002,41:393-408.
24. De Riddera K, Adamec V, Ban(u|~)elos A, et al. An integrated methodology to assess the benefits of urban green space. Science of the Total Environment. 2004,334-335:489-497.
25. Del Carmen Sabatini, M., Verdiell, A., Rodriguez Iglesias, R.M., Vidal, M. A quantitative method for zoning of protected areas and its spatial ecological implications. Journal of Environmental Management. 2007,83:198-206.
26. Donnelly A, Jones M, O'Mahony T, Byrne G. Selecting environmental indicator for use in strategic environmental assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 2007;27:161-175.
27. Engel, S., Pagiola, S., Wunder, S. Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues. Ecological Economics. 2008, 65:663-674.
28. Fang, Q.H., Zhang, L.P., Hong, H.S. Adaptive Suburban Town Environmental Planning in Xiamen, China. Environmental Informatics Archives.2005,3:4-13.
29. Fang, Q.H., Zhang, L.P., Hong, H.S., et al. Ecological function zoning for environmental planning at different levels. Environ Dev Sustain. 2008,10:41-49.
30. Gennaio M P, Hersperger A M, Bürgi M. Containing urban sprawl-Evaluating effectiveness of urban growth boundaries set by the Swiss Land Use Plan. Land Use Policy. In Press.
31. Guo Z W, Xiai X M, Gan Y L, et al. Ecosystem functions, services and their values - a case study in Xingshan County of China. Ecological Economics. 2001, 38: 141-154.
32. Gürlük S. The estimation of ecosystem services' value in the region of Misi Rural Development Project: Results from a contingent valuation survey. Forest Policy and Economics. 2006, 9: 209-218.
33. Hasse J E, Lathrop R G. Land resource impact indicators of urban sprawl. Applied Geography. 2003,23: 159-175.
34. Haub C. 2007 World Population Data Sheet. Washington, DC: Population Reference Bureau. 2007.
35. Hoehn J P, Lupi F, Kaplowitz M D. Untying a Lancastrian bundle: valuing ecosystems and ecosystem services for wetland mitigation. Journal of Environmental Management. 2003, 68:263-272.
36. Howarth R B, Farber S. Accounting for the value of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics. 2002,41:421-429.
37. Hu H., Liu W., Cao M. Impact of land use and land cover changes on ecosystem services in Menglun, Xishuangbanna, Southwest China. Environ Monit Assess. 2008,146:147-156.
38. Huang Q.H., Cai Y.L. Simulation of land use change using GIS-based stochastic model: the case study of Shiqian County, Southwestern China. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment. 2007,21:419-426.
39. IEEM (Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management). Guidelines for ecological impact assessment in the United Kingdom. 2006. http://www.ieem.net/ecia/EcIA%20Approved%207%20July%2006.pdf.
40. Jo(a|~)o B. A research agenda for data and scale issues in Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 2007,27:479-491.
41. Jack B., Kousky C., Sims, R.E. Designing payments for ecosystem services: Lessons from previous experience with incentive-based mechanisms. PNAS. 2008,105:9465-9470.
42. Kalacska M., Sanchez-Azofeifa G.A., Rivard B., et al. Baseline assessment for environmental services payments from satellite imagery: A case study from Costa Rica and Mexico. Journal of Environmental Management. 2008,88:348-359.
43. Kosoy N., Martinez-Tuna M., Muradian R., Martinez-Alier J. Payments for environmental services in watersheds: Insights from a comparative study of three cases in Central America. Ecological Economics. 2007,61:446-455.
44. Kong F H, Yin H W, Nakagoshi N. Using GIS and landscape metrics in the hedonic price modeling of the amenity value of urban green space: A case study in Jinan City, China. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2007,79:240-252.
45. Kreuter U P, Harris H G, Matlock M D, et al. Change in ecosystem service values in the San Antonio area, Texas. Ecological Economics. 2001, 39:333-346.
46. Liou M L, Yu Y H. Development and implementation of Strategic Environmental Assessment in Taiwan. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 2004,24:337-350.
47. Liou M L, Yeh S C, Yu Y H. Reconstruction and systemization of the methodologies for strategic environmental assessment in Taiwan. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 2006,26:170-184.
48. Liu J, Diamond J. China's Environment in a Globalizing World. Nature. 2005,435:1179-1186.
49. Liu J., Dong M., Miao S.L., et al. Invasive alien plants in China: role of clonality and geographical origin. Biological Invasions. 2006,8:1461-1470.
50. Lin G C., Ho S P. China's land resources and land-use change: insights from the 1996 land survey. Land Use Policy. 2003,20:87-107.
51. Liu J., Li S., Ouyang Z., et al. Ecological and socioeconomic effects of China's policies for ecosystem services. PNAS 2008,105:9477-9482.
52. Loomis J, Kent P, Strange L, et al. Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: results from a contingent valuation survey. Ecological Economics. 2000, 33: 103-117.
53. Mankiw N G. Principles of economics. 3rd edition. Thomson learning, 2004.
54. Matero J, Saastamoinen O. In search of marginal environmental valuations -ecosystem services in Finnish forest accounting. Ecological Economics. 2007,61(1):101-114.
55. MEP (Ministry of Environmental Protection). Nature and Ecology Conservation in China. http://www.vecc-mep.org.cn/eng/news/news_detail.jsp?newsid= 10527. 2006.
56. Mouillot D., Culioli J M., Pelletier D., Tomasini J A. Do we protect biological originality in protected areas? A new index and an application to the Bonifacio Strait Natural Reserve. Biological Conservation. 2008,141:1569-1580.
57. Ng K L, Obbard J P. Strategic environmental assessment in Hong Kong. Environment International. 2005,31:483-492.
58. Pafiola S. Paying for Water Services in Central America: Learning from Costa Rica, 2002.
59. Pagiola S. Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica. Ecological Economics. 2008,65:712-724.
60. Pauleit S., Duhme F. Assessing the environmental performance of land cover types for urban planning. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2000,52:1-20.
61. Ren L J, Shang J C. Necessity and method of public participation in strategic environmental assessment of China. Chinese Geographical Science. 2005,15:42-46.
62. Ren L J, Yuan X L, Liu R T. Research on method development during the strategic environmental assessment. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess. 2006,21:151-157.
63. Retief F. A performance evaluation of strategic environmental assessment (SEA) processes within the South African context. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 2007,27:84-100.
64. Rocchini D., Perry L.W G., Salerno M., et al. Landscape change and the dynamics of open formations in a natural reserve. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2006,77:167-177.
65. Sandstr(o|¨)m UG, Angelstam P, Mikusínski G. Ecological diversity of birds in relation to the structure of urban green space. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2006,77:39-53.
66. Sayer J, Chokkalingam U, Poulsen J. The restoration of forest biodiversity and ecological values. Forest Ecology and Management. 2004,201:3-11.
67. Scherr S J, Bennett M T, Loughney M, et al. Developing Future Ecosystem Service Payments in China: Lessons Learned from International Experience. Forest Trends. 2006.
68. Seeborg M C, Jin Z H, Zhu Y P. The new rural-urban labor mobility in China: Causes and implications. Journal of Socio-Economics. 2000,29:39-56.
69. Shi T, Gill R. Developing effective policies for the sustainable development of ecological agriculture in China: the case study of Jinshan County with a systems dynamics model. Ecological Economics. 2005, 53:223-246.
70. Stevens D., Dragicevic S., Rothley K. ICity: A GIS-CA modelling tool for urban planning and decision making. Environmental Modelling & Software. 2007,22:761-773.
71. Sutton P, Costanza R. Global estimates of market and non-market values derived from nighttime satellite imagery, land cover, and ecosystem service valuation. Ecological Economics. 2002,41: 509-527.
72. Tallis H, Kareiva P, Ecosystem services. Current Biology. 2005,15: R746-R748.
73. Taft O W, Haig S M. The value of agricultural wetlands as invertebrate resources for wintering shorebirds. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 2005,110:249-256.
74. Tao T, Tan Z, He X. Integrating environment into land-use planning through strategic environmental assessment in China: Towards legal frameworks and operational procedures. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 2007,27:243-265.
75. Thérivel, R. Strategic Environmental Assessment in Action. London: Earthscan; 2004.
76. Thompson A W, Prokopy L S. Tracking urban sprawl: Using spatial data to inform farmland preservation policy. Land Use Policy. In Press.
77. Treweek J. Ecological impact assessment. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd; 1999.
78. Treweek J R, Hankard P, Roy D B, et al. Scope for strategic ecological assessment of trunk-road development in England with respect to potential impacts on lowland heathland, the Dartford warbler (Sylvia undata) and the sand lizard (Lacerta agilis). Journal of Environmental Management. 1998, 53:147-163.
79. Treweek J R, Veitch N. The potential application of GIS and remotely sensed data to the ecological assessment of proposed new road schemes. Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters. 1996, 5:249-257.
80. Troy A., Wilson A M. Mapping ecosystem services: Practical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and value transfer. Ecological Economics. 2006,60:435-449.
81. Tong C F, Feagin R A, Lu J J, et al. Ecosystem service values and restoration in the urban Sanyang wetland of Wenzhou, China. Ecological Engineering. 2007,29(3):249-258.
82. Turner M A. A simple theory of smart growth and sprawl. Journal of Urban Economics. 2007, 61: 21-44.
83. Wallace J K. Classification of ecosystem services: Problems and solutions. Biological Conservation. 2007,139:235-246.
84. Wang S J., Li J, Wu D Q, et al. The strategic ecological impact assessment of urban development policies: a case study of Rizhao City, China. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment. In Press.
85. Westman W E. How much are nature's services worth? Science. 1977,197: 960-964.
86. Winker R. Valuation of ecosystem goods and services Part 1: An integrated dynamic approach. Ecological Economics. 2006a,59: 82-93.
87. Winker R. Valuation of ecosystem goods and services Part 2: Implications of unpredictable novel change. Ecological Economics. 2006b,59: 94-105.
88. Woodward R T, Wui Y S. The economic value of wetland services: a meta-analysis. Ecological Economics. 2001, 37:257-270.
89. Wunder S., Engel S., Pagiola S. Taking stock: A comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries. Ecological Economics. 2008,65:834-852.
90. Xu Z M, Cheng G D, Zhang Z Q, et al. Applying contingent valuation in China to measure the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in Ejina region. Ecological Economics. 2003,44:345-358.
91. Yu X J., Ng C N. Spatial and temporal dynamics of urban sprawl along two urban-rural transects: A case study of Guangzhou, China. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2007,79:96-109.
92. Zheng H., Zhang L. Chinese Practices of Ecological Compensation and Payments for Ecological and Environmental Services and its Policies in River Basins. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTEAPREGTOPENVIRONMENT/Resources/ReportPESreviewChinesepracticeCAASFinalENFINAL.pdf.2006.
93.Zhu D,Ru J.Strategic environmental assessment in China:Motivations,politics,and effectiveness.Journal of Environmental Management.2008,88:615-626.
94.庇古.福利经济学.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1999.
95.曹明德.试论建立我国生态补偿制度.∥庄国泰,王金南.生态补偿机制与政策设计国际研讨会论文集.北京:中国环境科学出版社,2006,40-48.
96.陈芳,徐天祥.山东半岛城市群城市化的可持续发展道路.菏泽学院学报,2008,1:36-39.
97.陈立俊.中国城市化发展现状的探析与思考.经济论坛,2008,11:72-74.
98.陈林生.世界城市化发展现状、模式及其治理对策.地理教育,2006,2:17.
99.陈爽,刘云霞,彭立华.城市生态空间演变规律及调控机制——以南京市为例.生态学报,2008,28(5):2270-2278.
100.诸大建.中国出现了城市化“大跃进”?沪港经济,2008,7:23.
101.戴星翼,俞厚未,董梅.生态服务的价值实现.北京:科学出版社,2005.
102.杜群.生态补偿的法律关系及其发展现状和问题.现代法学,2005,3:186-191.
103.杜群,张萌.我国生态补偿法律政策现状和问题.∥庄国泰,王金南.生态补偿机制与政策设计国际研讨会论文集.北京:中国环境科学出版社,2006,61-70.
104.段晓峰,许学工.区域森林生态系统服务功能评价.北京大学学报(自然科学版)网络版,2006,2:1-6.
105.范昌伟,刘雷,崔兆杰.日照工业循环经济发展思路及模式探讨.山东师范大学学报(自然科学版),2006,21(3):113-115.
106.宫玉波.世界城市化发展特点之浅析.现代商业,2007,16:170-171.
107.顾朝林,吴莉娅.中国城市化研究主要成果综述.城市问题,2008,12:24-26.
108.管卫华,林振山,陆玉麒,甄峰.改革开放以来中国城市化水平发展的区域差异研究.中国软科学,2008,9:80-87.
109.郭志仪,李娟.世界人口城市化现状及存在的问题.西北人口,2008,6:14-17.
110.洪尚群,吴晓青,段昌群,等.补偿途径和方式多样化是生态补偿基础和保障.环境科学与技术,2001,24(增):40-42.
111.洪尚群,吴晓青,陀正阳,等.补偿途径和方式多样化是生态补偿基础和保障.环境科学与技术,2002,14(24):40-42.
112.候元兆,吴水荣.森林生态服务价值评价与补偿研究综述.世界林业研究,2005,3:1-5.
113.胡娟.中国城市化进程中的人口问题研究.湖北经济学院学报(人文社会科学版),2008,6:12-13.
114.胡艳琳,戚仁海,由文辉,等.城市森林生态系统生态服务功能的评价.南京林业大学学报(自然科学版),2005,3:111-114.
115.黄丽娜.中国城市化进程中的农民问题.农业与技术,2008,3:4-7.
116.济南市统计局.济南市统计年鉴2007.北京,中国统计出版社,2008.
117.靳芳,鲁绍伟,余新晓,等.中国森林生态系统服务功能及其价值评价.应用生态学报,2005,16(8):1531-1536.
118.李锋,刘旭升,胡聃,等.城市可持续发展评价方法及其应用.生态学报,2007,27(11):4793-4802.
119.李善同.中国城市化进程存在的主要问题及对策.中国建设信息,2008,6:10.
120.李兆前.地方政府推进循环经济发展的局限性及对策研究——以山东省日照市为例.中国人口·资源与环境,2006,16(6):182-187.
鲁春霞,谢高地,肖玉,等.青藏高原生态系统服务功能的价值评估.生态学报,2004,12:2749-2755.
121.林晓红.世界人口城市化速度加剧.人口与计划生育,2005,6:49.
122.刘贵丰.浅析中国城市化的历史进程和发展战略.中国科技信息,2008,24:282-287.
123.马国青,宋春姬.森林效益评价与公益林生态补偿问题的思考.防护林科技,2002,1:41-44.
124.毛显强,钟瑜,张胜.生态补偿的理论探讨.中国人口·资源与环境,2002,12(4):38-41.
125.孟祥林.城市郊区化:世界城市化的发展趋势分析.嘉兴学院学报,2008,1:53-60.
126.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.生态学报,1999,5:607-613.
127.日照市统计局.日照市统计年鉴2007.北京,中国统计出版社,2008.
128.山东省统计局.山东省统计年鉴2007.北京,中国统计出版社,2008.
129.山东省土壤肥料工作站.山东土壤.中国农业出版社.北京.1994.
130.粟晏,赖庆奎.国外社区参与生态补偿的实践及经验.林业与社会,2005,4:40-44.
131.唐茂华.中国城市化30年回眸与展望.中国国情国力,2008,12:45-47.
132.王成.浅议生态补偿方式.污染防治技术,2005,1:36-37.
133.王翠然,陆根法,蔡邦成.中国道路建设生态补偿机制建立的理论思考.环境保护科学,2006,3:43-45.
134.汪德军.中国城市化进程中土地利用效率现状分析.辽宁经济,2008,8:18.
135.王丰年.论生态补偿的原则和机制.自然辩证法研究,2006,22(1):31-35.
136.王建国.山东气候.气象出版社.北京.2005.
137.王金南,万军,张惠远,等.中国生态补偿政策评估与框架初探.∥庄国泰,王金南.生态补偿机制与政策设计国际研讨会论文集.北京:中国环境科学出版 社,2006,13-24.
138.王鹏程.世界范围人口城市化特点.合作经济与科技,2006,14:31-32.
139.王仁卿,周光裕.山东植被.山东科学技术出版社.济南.2000.
140.王伟,陆健健.三垟湿地生态系统服务功能及其价值.生态学报,2005,3:404-407.
141.吴琼,王如松,李宏卿,等.土地利用/景观生态学研究中的马尔可夫链统计性质分析.应用生态学报,2006,17(3):434-437.
142.辛琨,肖笃宁.盘锦地区湿地生态系统服务功能价值估算.生态学报,2002,8:1345-1349.
143.邢丽.关于建立中国生态补偿机制的财政对策研究.财政研究,2005,1:20-22.
144.谢高地,鲁春霞,冷允法,等.青藏高原生态资产的价值评估.自然资源学报,2003,(18)2:189-196.
145.徐中民,张志强,龙爱华,等.额济纳旗生态系统服务恢复价值评估方法的比较与应用.生态学报,2003,9:1841-1850.
146.杨光梅,李文华,闵庆文.生态系统服务价值评估研究进展.生态学报,2006,1:205-212.
147.叶裕民.世界城市化进程及其特征.红旗文稿,2004,8:38-40.
148.余斌,罗静,靳军.城市化与城乡发展:世界不同类型国家比较与启示.地域研究与开发,2005,5:21-24.
149.岳文泽,徐建华,徐丽华.基于遥感影像的城市土地利用生态环境效应研究——以城市热环境和植被指数为例.生态学报,2006,26(5):1450-1460.
150.张贡生.世界城市化规律:文献综述.兰州商学院学报,2005,2:101-109.
151.张凯,任丽军.山东省战略环境评价方法与应用研究.北京:科学出版社,2005.
152.张健,高中贵,濮励杰,等.经济快速增长区城市用地空间扩展对生态安全的影响.生态学报,2008,28(6):2799-2810.
153.张乃莉,王娓,郭继勋.吉林省生态系统服务价值评估.生态科学,2004,23(3):270-272.
154.张天华,陈利顶,普布丹巴,等.西藏拉萨拉鲁湿地生态系统服务功能价值估算.生态学报,2005,12:3176-3180.
155.张廷选.山东城市化进程的现状与展望.泰安师专学报,2001,5:65-66.
156.张文心,陈吕军,赵华林,等.美国补偿环境项目的设计与实施.环境保护,2003,5:62-64.
157.张志强,徐中民,程国栋.生态系统服务与自然资本价值评估.生态学报,2001,11:1918-1926.
158.张志强,徐中民,程国栋.条件价值评估法的发展与应用.地球科学进展,2003,18(3):454-463.
159.赵传松,任建兰.山东半岛城市化进程中的生态环境问题.国土与自然资源研究,2006,1:51-52.
160.中国市长协会.中国城市发展报告2007.北京,中国城市出版,2008.
161.周锡海.谈山东的城市化道路.山东省工会管理干部学院学报,2003,5:67-68.
2. Bao C K, Lu Y S, Shang J C. Framework and operational procedure for implementing Strategic Environmental Assessment in China. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 2004,24:27-46.
3. Batabyal A A, Kahn J R, O'Neill R V. On the scarcity value of ecosystem services. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 2003,46:334-352.
4. Bolund P, Hunhammar S. Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecological Economics. 1999,29:293-301.
5. Borchers J G. Accepting uncertainty, assessing risk: Decision quality in managing wildfire, forest resource values, and new technology. Forest Ecology and Management. 2005,211:36-46.
6. Borjesson P. Economic valuation of the environmental impact of logging residue recovery and nutrient compensation. Biomass and Bioenergy. 2000,19:137-152.
7. Boumans R, Costanza R, Farley J, et al. Modeling the dynamics of the integrated earth system and the value of global ecosystem services using the GUMBO model. Ecological Economics. 2002,41: 529-560.
8. Buisson, E., Dutoit, T. Creation of the natural reserve of La Crau: mplications for the creation and management of protected areas. Journal of Environmental Management. 2006,80:318-326.
9. Buttoud G. How can policy take into consideration the "full value" of forests? Land Use Policy. 2000,17:169-175.
10. Chaker A, El-Fadl K, Chamas L, Hatjian B. A review of strategic environmental assessment in 12 selected countries. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 2006;26:15-56.
11. Che X Z, Shang J C. Strategic environmental assessment for sustainable development in urbanization process in China. Chinese Geographical Science. 2004;14:148-152.
12. Che X Z, Shang J C, Wang J H.. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 2002;22:101-109.
13. Coasr R H. The Problem of Social Cost. Journal of Law and Economics. 1960,3:6-17.
14. Costanza R, d'Arge R, de Groot R, et al. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature. 1997; 387:253-260.
15. Costanza R, Andrade F, Antunes P, et al. Ecological economics and sustainable governance of the oceans. Ecological Economics. 1999,31: 171-187.
16. Costanza R, D'Arge R, De Groot R, et al. The value of ecosystem services: putting the issues in perspective. Ecological Economics. 1998, 25:67-72.
17. Cuperus R, Bakermans M M, Udo De Haes H A, et al. Ecological compensation in Dutch highway. Environmental management. 2001,27(1): 75-89.
18. Cuperus R, Canters K J, Piepers A G. Ecological compensation of the impacts of a road- Preliminary method for the A50 road link (Eindhoven-Oss, The Netherlands). Ecological Engineering. 1996,7(4): 327-349.
19. Cuperus R, Canters K J, Udo De Haes H A, et al. Guidelines for ecological compensation associated with highways. Biological Conservation. 1999, 90(1): 41-51.
20. Cuperus R, Kalsbeek R, Udo De Haes H A, et al. Preparation and Implementation of Seven Ecological Compensation Plans for Dutch Highways. Environmental Management. 2002,29(6): 736-749.
21. Daily G C. Developing a scientific basis for managing Earth's life support systems. Conservation Ecology. 1999,3(2): 14.
22. Daily G C, S(o|¨)derqvist T, Aniyar S, et al. The value of nature and the nature of value. Science 2000; 289:395-396.
23. De Groot R, Wilson M A, Boumans R. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics. 2002,41:393-408.
24. De Riddera K, Adamec V, Ban(u|~)elos A, et al. An integrated methodology to assess the benefits of urban green space. Science of the Total Environment. 2004,334-335:489-497.
25. Del Carmen Sabatini, M., Verdiell, A., Rodriguez Iglesias, R.M., Vidal, M. A quantitative method for zoning of protected areas and its spatial ecological implications. Journal of Environmental Management. 2007,83:198-206.
26. Donnelly A, Jones M, O'Mahony T, Byrne G. Selecting environmental indicator for use in strategic environmental assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 2007;27:161-175.
27. Engel, S., Pagiola, S., Wunder, S. Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues. Ecological Economics. 2008, 65:663-674.
28. Fang, Q.H., Zhang, L.P., Hong, H.S. Adaptive Suburban Town Environmental Planning in Xiamen, China. Environmental Informatics Archives.2005,3:4-13.
29. Fang, Q.H., Zhang, L.P., Hong, H.S., et al. Ecological function zoning for environmental planning at different levels. Environ Dev Sustain. 2008,10:41-49.
30. Gennaio M P, Hersperger A M, Bürgi M. Containing urban sprawl-Evaluating effectiveness of urban growth boundaries set by the Swiss Land Use Plan. Land Use Policy. In Press.
31. Guo Z W, Xiai X M, Gan Y L, et al. Ecosystem functions, services and their values - a case study in Xingshan County of China. Ecological Economics. 2001, 38: 141-154.
32. Gürlük S. The estimation of ecosystem services' value in the region of Misi Rural Development Project: Results from a contingent valuation survey. Forest Policy and Economics. 2006, 9: 209-218.
33. Hasse J E, Lathrop R G. Land resource impact indicators of urban sprawl. Applied Geography. 2003,23: 159-175.
34. Haub C. 2007 World Population Data Sheet. Washington, DC: Population Reference Bureau. 2007.
35. Hoehn J P, Lupi F, Kaplowitz M D. Untying a Lancastrian bundle: valuing ecosystems and ecosystem services for wetland mitigation. Journal of Environmental Management. 2003, 68:263-272.
36. Howarth R B, Farber S. Accounting for the value of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics. 2002,41:421-429.
37. Hu H., Liu W., Cao M. Impact of land use and land cover changes on ecosystem services in Menglun, Xishuangbanna, Southwest China. Environ Monit Assess. 2008,146:147-156.
38. Huang Q.H., Cai Y.L. Simulation of land use change using GIS-based stochastic model: the case study of Shiqian County, Southwestern China. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment. 2007,21:419-426.
39. IEEM (Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management). Guidelines for ecological impact assessment in the United Kingdom. 2006. http://www.ieem.net/ecia/EcIA%20Approved%207%20July%2006.pdf.
40. Jo(a|~)o B. A research agenda for data and scale issues in Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 2007,27:479-491.
41. Jack B., Kousky C., Sims, R.E. Designing payments for ecosystem services: Lessons from previous experience with incentive-based mechanisms. PNAS. 2008,105:9465-9470.
42. Kalacska M., Sanchez-Azofeifa G.A., Rivard B., et al. Baseline assessment for environmental services payments from satellite imagery: A case study from Costa Rica and Mexico. Journal of Environmental Management. 2008,88:348-359.
43. Kosoy N., Martinez-Tuna M., Muradian R., Martinez-Alier J. Payments for environmental services in watersheds: Insights from a comparative study of three cases in Central America. Ecological Economics. 2007,61:446-455.
44. Kong F H, Yin H W, Nakagoshi N. Using GIS and landscape metrics in the hedonic price modeling of the amenity value of urban green space: A case study in Jinan City, China. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2007,79:240-252.
45. Kreuter U P, Harris H G, Matlock M D, et al. Change in ecosystem service values in the San Antonio area, Texas. Ecological Economics. 2001, 39:333-346.
46. Liou M L, Yu Y H. Development and implementation of Strategic Environmental Assessment in Taiwan. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 2004,24:337-350.
47. Liou M L, Yeh S C, Yu Y H. Reconstruction and systemization of the methodologies for strategic environmental assessment in Taiwan. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 2006,26:170-184.
48. Liu J, Diamond J. China's Environment in a Globalizing World. Nature. 2005,435:1179-1186.
49. Liu J., Dong M., Miao S.L., et al. Invasive alien plants in China: role of clonality and geographical origin. Biological Invasions. 2006,8:1461-1470.
50. Lin G C., Ho S P. China's land resources and land-use change: insights from the 1996 land survey. Land Use Policy. 2003,20:87-107.
51. Liu J., Li S., Ouyang Z., et al. Ecological and socioeconomic effects of China's policies for ecosystem services. PNAS 2008,105:9477-9482.
52. Loomis J, Kent P, Strange L, et al. Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: results from a contingent valuation survey. Ecological Economics. 2000, 33: 103-117.
53. Mankiw N G. Principles of economics. 3rd edition. Thomson learning, 2004.
54. Matero J, Saastamoinen O. In search of marginal environmental valuations -ecosystem services in Finnish forest accounting. Ecological Economics. 2007,61(1):101-114.
55. MEP (Ministry of Environmental Protection). Nature and Ecology Conservation in China. http://www.vecc-mep.org.cn/eng/news/news_detail.jsp?newsid= 10527. 2006.
56. Mouillot D., Culioli J M., Pelletier D., Tomasini J A. Do we protect biological originality in protected areas? A new index and an application to the Bonifacio Strait Natural Reserve. Biological Conservation. 2008,141:1569-1580.
57. Ng K L, Obbard J P. Strategic environmental assessment in Hong Kong. Environment International. 2005,31:483-492.
58. Pafiola S. Paying for Water Services in Central America: Learning from Costa Rica, 2002.
59. Pagiola S. Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica. Ecological Economics. 2008,65:712-724.
60. Pauleit S., Duhme F. Assessing the environmental performance of land cover types for urban planning. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2000,52:1-20.
61. Ren L J, Shang J C. Necessity and method of public participation in strategic environmental assessment of China. Chinese Geographical Science. 2005,15:42-46.
62. Ren L J, Yuan X L, Liu R T. Research on method development during the strategic environmental assessment. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess. 2006,21:151-157.
63. Retief F. A performance evaluation of strategic environmental assessment (SEA) processes within the South African context. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 2007,27:84-100.
64. Rocchini D., Perry L.W G., Salerno M., et al. Landscape change and the dynamics of open formations in a natural reserve. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2006,77:167-177.
65. Sandstr(o|¨)m UG, Angelstam P, Mikusínski G. Ecological diversity of birds in relation to the structure of urban green space. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2006,77:39-53.
66. Sayer J, Chokkalingam U, Poulsen J. The restoration of forest biodiversity and ecological values. Forest Ecology and Management. 2004,201:3-11.
67. Scherr S J, Bennett M T, Loughney M, et al. Developing Future Ecosystem Service Payments in China: Lessons Learned from International Experience. Forest Trends. 2006.
68. Seeborg M C, Jin Z H, Zhu Y P. The new rural-urban labor mobility in China: Causes and implications. Journal of Socio-Economics. 2000,29:39-56.
69. Shi T, Gill R. Developing effective policies for the sustainable development of ecological agriculture in China: the case study of Jinshan County with a systems dynamics model. Ecological Economics. 2005, 53:223-246.
70. Stevens D., Dragicevic S., Rothley K. ICity: A GIS-CA modelling tool for urban planning and decision making. Environmental Modelling & Software. 2007,22:761-773.
71. Sutton P, Costanza R. Global estimates of market and non-market values derived from nighttime satellite imagery, land cover, and ecosystem service valuation. Ecological Economics. 2002,41: 509-527.
72. Tallis H, Kareiva P, Ecosystem services. Current Biology. 2005,15: R746-R748.
73. Taft O W, Haig S M. The value of agricultural wetlands as invertebrate resources for wintering shorebirds. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 2005,110:249-256.
74. Tao T, Tan Z, He X. Integrating environment into land-use planning through strategic environmental assessment in China: Towards legal frameworks and operational procedures. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 2007,27:243-265.
75. Thérivel, R. Strategic Environmental Assessment in Action. London: Earthscan; 2004.
76. Thompson A W, Prokopy L S. Tracking urban sprawl: Using spatial data to inform farmland preservation policy. Land Use Policy. In Press.
77. Treweek J. Ecological impact assessment. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd; 1999.
78. Treweek J R, Hankard P, Roy D B, et al. Scope for strategic ecological assessment of trunk-road development in England with respect to potential impacts on lowland heathland, the Dartford warbler (Sylvia undata) and the sand lizard (Lacerta agilis). Journal of Environmental Management. 1998, 53:147-163.
79. Treweek J R, Veitch N. The potential application of GIS and remotely sensed data to the ecological assessment of proposed new road schemes. Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters. 1996, 5:249-257.
80. Troy A., Wilson A M. Mapping ecosystem services: Practical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and value transfer. Ecological Economics. 2006,60:435-449.
81. Tong C F, Feagin R A, Lu J J, et al. Ecosystem service values and restoration in the urban Sanyang wetland of Wenzhou, China. Ecological Engineering. 2007,29(3):249-258.
82. Turner M A. A simple theory of smart growth and sprawl. Journal of Urban Economics. 2007, 61: 21-44.
83. Wallace J K. Classification of ecosystem services: Problems and solutions. Biological Conservation. 2007,139:235-246.
84. Wang S J., Li J, Wu D Q, et al. The strategic ecological impact assessment of urban development policies: a case study of Rizhao City, China. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment. In Press.
85. Westman W E. How much are nature's services worth? Science. 1977,197: 960-964.
86. Winker R. Valuation of ecosystem goods and services Part 1: An integrated dynamic approach. Ecological Economics. 2006a,59: 82-93.
87. Winker R. Valuation of ecosystem goods and services Part 2: Implications of unpredictable novel change. Ecological Economics. 2006b,59: 94-105.
88. Woodward R T, Wui Y S. The economic value of wetland services: a meta-analysis. Ecological Economics. 2001, 37:257-270.
89. Wunder S., Engel S., Pagiola S. Taking stock: A comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries. Ecological Economics. 2008,65:834-852.
90. Xu Z M, Cheng G D, Zhang Z Q, et al. Applying contingent valuation in China to measure the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in Ejina region. Ecological Economics. 2003,44:345-358.
91. Yu X J., Ng C N. Spatial and temporal dynamics of urban sprawl along two urban-rural transects: A case study of Guangzhou, China. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2007,79:96-109.
92. Zheng H., Zhang L. Chinese Practices of Ecological Compensation and Payments for Ecological and Environmental Services and its Policies in River Basins. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTEAPREGTOPENVIRONMENT/Resources/ReportPESreviewChinesepracticeCAASFinalENFINAL.pdf.2006.
93.Zhu D,Ru J.Strategic environmental assessment in China:Motivations,politics,and effectiveness.Journal of Environmental Management.2008,88:615-626.
94.庇古.福利经济学.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1999.
95.曹明德.试论建立我国生态补偿制度.∥庄国泰,王金南.生态补偿机制与政策设计国际研讨会论文集.北京:中国环境科学出版社,2006,40-48.
96.陈芳,徐天祥.山东半岛城市群城市化的可持续发展道路.菏泽学院学报,2008,1:36-39.
97.陈立俊.中国城市化发展现状的探析与思考.经济论坛,2008,11:72-74.
98.陈林生.世界城市化发展现状、模式及其治理对策.地理教育,2006,2:17.
99.陈爽,刘云霞,彭立华.城市生态空间演变规律及调控机制——以南京市为例.生态学报,2008,28(5):2270-2278.
100.诸大建.中国出现了城市化“大跃进”?沪港经济,2008,7:23.
101.戴星翼,俞厚未,董梅.生态服务的价值实现.北京:科学出版社,2005.
102.杜群.生态补偿的法律关系及其发展现状和问题.现代法学,2005,3:186-191.
103.杜群,张萌.我国生态补偿法律政策现状和问题.∥庄国泰,王金南.生态补偿机制与政策设计国际研讨会论文集.北京:中国环境科学出版社,2006,61-70.
104.段晓峰,许学工.区域森林生态系统服务功能评价.北京大学学报(自然科学版)网络版,2006,2:1-6.
105.范昌伟,刘雷,崔兆杰.日照工业循环经济发展思路及模式探讨.山东师范大学学报(自然科学版),2006,21(3):113-115.
106.宫玉波.世界城市化发展特点之浅析.现代商业,2007,16:170-171.
107.顾朝林,吴莉娅.中国城市化研究主要成果综述.城市问题,2008,12:24-26.
108.管卫华,林振山,陆玉麒,甄峰.改革开放以来中国城市化水平发展的区域差异研究.中国软科学,2008,9:80-87.
109.郭志仪,李娟.世界人口城市化现状及存在的问题.西北人口,2008,6:14-17.
110.洪尚群,吴晓青,段昌群,等.补偿途径和方式多样化是生态补偿基础和保障.环境科学与技术,2001,24(增):40-42.
111.洪尚群,吴晓青,陀正阳,等.补偿途径和方式多样化是生态补偿基础和保障.环境科学与技术,2002,14(24):40-42.
112.候元兆,吴水荣.森林生态服务价值评价与补偿研究综述.世界林业研究,2005,3:1-5.
113.胡娟.中国城市化进程中的人口问题研究.湖北经济学院学报(人文社会科学版),2008,6:12-13.
114.胡艳琳,戚仁海,由文辉,等.城市森林生态系统生态服务功能的评价.南京林业大学学报(自然科学版),2005,3:111-114.
115.黄丽娜.中国城市化进程中的农民问题.农业与技术,2008,3:4-7.
116.济南市统计局.济南市统计年鉴2007.北京,中国统计出版社,2008.
117.靳芳,鲁绍伟,余新晓,等.中国森林生态系统服务功能及其价值评价.应用生态学报,2005,16(8):1531-1536.
118.李锋,刘旭升,胡聃,等.城市可持续发展评价方法及其应用.生态学报,2007,27(11):4793-4802.
119.李善同.中国城市化进程存在的主要问题及对策.中国建设信息,2008,6:10.
120.李兆前.地方政府推进循环经济发展的局限性及对策研究——以山东省日照市为例.中国人口·资源与环境,2006,16(6):182-187.
鲁春霞,谢高地,肖玉,等.青藏高原生态系统服务功能的价值评估.生态学报,2004,12:2749-2755.
121.林晓红.世界人口城市化速度加剧.人口与计划生育,2005,6:49.
122.刘贵丰.浅析中国城市化的历史进程和发展战略.中国科技信息,2008,24:282-287.
123.马国青,宋春姬.森林效益评价与公益林生态补偿问题的思考.防护林科技,2002,1:41-44.
124.毛显强,钟瑜,张胜.生态补偿的理论探讨.中国人口·资源与环境,2002,12(4):38-41.
125.孟祥林.城市郊区化:世界城市化的发展趋势分析.嘉兴学院学报,2008,1:53-60.
126.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.生态学报,1999,5:607-613.
127.日照市统计局.日照市统计年鉴2007.北京,中国统计出版社,2008.
128.山东省统计局.山东省统计年鉴2007.北京,中国统计出版社,2008.
129.山东省土壤肥料工作站.山东土壤.中国农业出版社.北京.1994.
130.粟晏,赖庆奎.国外社区参与生态补偿的实践及经验.林业与社会,2005,4:40-44.
131.唐茂华.中国城市化30年回眸与展望.中国国情国力,2008,12:45-47.
132.王成.浅议生态补偿方式.污染防治技术,2005,1:36-37.
133.王翠然,陆根法,蔡邦成.中国道路建设生态补偿机制建立的理论思考.环境保护科学,2006,3:43-45.
134.汪德军.中国城市化进程中土地利用效率现状分析.辽宁经济,2008,8:18.
135.王丰年.论生态补偿的原则和机制.自然辩证法研究,2006,22(1):31-35.
136.王建国.山东气候.气象出版社.北京.2005.
137.王金南,万军,张惠远,等.中国生态补偿政策评估与框架初探.∥庄国泰,王金南.生态补偿机制与政策设计国际研讨会论文集.北京:中国环境科学出版 社,2006,13-24.
138.王鹏程.世界范围人口城市化特点.合作经济与科技,2006,14:31-32.
139.王仁卿,周光裕.山东植被.山东科学技术出版社.济南.2000.
140.王伟,陆健健.三垟湿地生态系统服务功能及其价值.生态学报,2005,3:404-407.
141.吴琼,王如松,李宏卿,等.土地利用/景观生态学研究中的马尔可夫链统计性质分析.应用生态学报,2006,17(3):434-437.
142.辛琨,肖笃宁.盘锦地区湿地生态系统服务功能价值估算.生态学报,2002,8:1345-1349.
143.邢丽.关于建立中国生态补偿机制的财政对策研究.财政研究,2005,1:20-22.
144.谢高地,鲁春霞,冷允法,等.青藏高原生态资产的价值评估.自然资源学报,2003,(18)2:189-196.
145.徐中民,张志强,龙爱华,等.额济纳旗生态系统服务恢复价值评估方法的比较与应用.生态学报,2003,9:1841-1850.
146.杨光梅,李文华,闵庆文.生态系统服务价值评估研究进展.生态学报,2006,1:205-212.
147.叶裕民.世界城市化进程及其特征.红旗文稿,2004,8:38-40.
148.余斌,罗静,靳军.城市化与城乡发展:世界不同类型国家比较与启示.地域研究与开发,2005,5:21-24.
149.岳文泽,徐建华,徐丽华.基于遥感影像的城市土地利用生态环境效应研究——以城市热环境和植被指数为例.生态学报,2006,26(5):1450-1460.
150.张贡生.世界城市化规律:文献综述.兰州商学院学报,2005,2:101-109.
151.张凯,任丽军.山东省战略环境评价方法与应用研究.北京:科学出版社,2005.
152.张健,高中贵,濮励杰,等.经济快速增长区城市用地空间扩展对生态安全的影响.生态学报,2008,28(6):2799-2810.
153.张乃莉,王娓,郭继勋.吉林省生态系统服务价值评估.生态科学,2004,23(3):270-272.
154.张天华,陈利顶,普布丹巴,等.西藏拉萨拉鲁湿地生态系统服务功能价值估算.生态学报,2005,12:3176-3180.
155.张廷选.山东城市化进程的现状与展望.泰安师专学报,2001,5:65-66.
156.张文心,陈吕军,赵华林,等.美国补偿环境项目的设计与实施.环境保护,2003,5:62-64.
157.张志强,徐中民,程国栋.生态系统服务与自然资本价值评估.生态学报,2001,11:1918-1926.
158.张志强,徐中民,程国栋.条件价值评估法的发展与应用.地球科学进展,2003,18(3):454-463.
159.赵传松,任建兰.山东半岛城市化进程中的生态环境问题.国土与自然资源研究,2006,1:51-52.
160.中国市长协会.中国城市发展报告2007.北京,中国城市出版,2008.
161.周锡海.谈山东的城市化道路.山东省工会管理干部学院学报,2003,5:67-68.