农地生态与农地价值关系
|
摘要
农地价值的货币化计量是资源与环境经济学研究的焦点和难点之一。科学、合理地评估农地价值，尤其是非市场价值，形成完整的资源成本核算体系，一方面不仅能够弥补市场机制作用不足给农地城市流转决策带来的影响，而且通过提高农地的比较效益，可以缓解我国农地流失的形势；另一方面，可以修订和完善我国当前的农地分等定级成果，为制定和实施农地生态保护政策，实行开发和保护并举的农业生产方针，确定农地城市流转的生态损失、农地保护的补偿机制等方面提供理论与实践依据。
湖北省是我国著名的商品粮棉油基地，对其农地生态与农地价值的关系研究对于全国的粮食安全、长江水域生态系统和两湖平原湿地生态系统的保护有着重要的现实意义，为协调地区经济发展和农地保护的现实关系、探寻两者的均衡提供重要的决策依据。论文以湖北省为研究范围，通过对城市区域、江汉平原、鄂中丘陵、鄂西山地等不同类型地区农地生态背景及土地利用变化效果进行全面调查，查明影响农地价值的主导性生态因子以及农地生态对农地价值的贡献程度；通过设计问卷、入户调查(有效问卷1248份)的方式取得详实、准确的农地经济产出、公众参与农地保护的响应意愿等相关基础数据，运用收益还原法、条件价值评估法分别估算不同类型农地的市场价值和非市场价值，科学地评估农地资源的总价值；科学地揭示湖北省不同区域、不同类型农地的生态特征值的动态变化过程与农地经济产出的互动关系，分析各主导生态因子对农地价值的贡献，揭示农地生态经济系统的快、中、慢变量和序参量，归纳出农地质量和价值变化的关系规律。调查及研究表明：
(1)随着农地保护意识的增强，全省平均78.09％的受访居民已经意识到农地资源非市场价值的存在，91.79％的受访居民认为所在地目前需要加强农地保护工作，84.29％的受访居民愿意以捐资或参加义务劳动的方式参与农地保护。
(2)运用CVM从居民参与农地保护的支付意愿出发，湖北省居民每年保护农地资源的支付意愿总价值56.5846亿元，折合单位公顷农地非市场价值16893元。并且不同生态类型农地非市场价值的高低与资源禀赋显著相关，资源越丰富、利用优势明显的农地类型，非市场价值愈低；反之，越稀缺的农地，非市场价值较高。在不同类型区域内，同一生态类型农地的非市场价值具有明显的地域差异。进入快速城市化进程、农地生态系统相对脆弱的武汉市的农地非市场价值明显高于农地资源丰富的鄂中丘陵、江汉平原，农地资源稀缺、水土流失严重、农田生态环境较为敏感的鄂西山地农地非市场价值也高于鄂中丘陵、江汉平原。
(3)通过对全省不同类型地区896户样本农户在不同的资源禀赋、耕作制度条件下的农业经营资料的调查，获取详实的基础数据，运用收益还原法估算出江汉平原、鄂中丘陵、鄂西山地、武汉市等不同生态类型地区农地的市场价值。研究表明，农地市场价值的高低与地区资源禀赋及耕作制度密切相关。结合农地利用优势度指标分析，研究区利用优势明显的农地资源，其经济产出价值相对较高。诸如，荆门地区水田资源优势明显，为此其水田经济产出价值在不同类型地区中最高；江汉平原地势平坦、水资源丰富，旱地和水域资源具有比较优势，其旱地和水域用地的经济产出价值也明显高于丘陵地区，高于鄂西山地；鄂西山地园地优势明显，其经济产值在不同类型地区中最高。
(4)综合收益还原法和条件价值评估法对不同生态类型地区农地价值的估算单价，较为系统、科学地评估出武汉市、江汉平原、荆门、宜昌、湖北省五个典型研究区现有农地资源的总价值，摸清农地资源的价值构成及其比例份额。估算结果表明，湖北省现有包括耕地、园地、林地、水域在内的农地资源的非市场价值达2456.23亿元，是全省2004年生产总值的40.67％。其中，水田、旱地、园地和水域的非市场价值在其资源价值构成中的贡献分别为8.54％、10.14％、13.64％和5.48％。非市场价值在资源总价值中的比例份额与地区经济发展水平、农地生态环境密切相关，与农地资源禀赋相关。在农地资源流失速度较快、农地生态系统脆弱、景观破碎度较高的特大城市，其农地资源非市场价值所占比例份额较高；农地生态环境敏感、资源相对稀缺的鄂西山地，其农地非市场价值的比例份额也明显高于资源相对丰富、生态环境较好的鄂中丘陵和江汉平原。从农地类型分析，越稀缺的农地资源，其非市场价值所占的比例份额越高，农地非市场价值与资源禀赋呈负相关关系。
(5)对近年来武汉、江汉平原、荆门、宜昌、湖北省五个典型研究地区农地资源景观变化及其价值变动进行分析。研究结果表明，近年来随着工业化、城市化进程的推进，湖北省耕地资源的流失速度加快，耕地资源价值损失442.53亿元，相当于2004年全省农业生产总值1020.09亿元的47.05％。同期受生态退耕及农业结构调整政策影响，园地、林地及水域用地呈增加趋势，为此全省农地资源的非市场价值增加7.53亿元。
(6)运用Logit和多元线性回归模型分析了武汉、江汉平原、荆门、宜昌、湖北省受访居民参与农地保护的响应意愿及支付数额的影响因素，分析结果表明，环境态度、影响预期、年龄、性别、收入、劳动力状况等社会经济信息对受访居民参与农地保护的响应意愿具有显著的影响，符合经济学理论，CVM的可靠性得到较好的验证。
(7)通过对江汉平原、鄂中丘陵、鄂西山地等不同类型地区农地生态与农地市场价值的研究，表明在同一区域范围内农地经济产出的高低主要取决于耕作制度、资源禀赋及灌溉保收条件。将水稻和小麦分别作为水田和旱地的基准作物，通过对湖北省58个市县水稻及小麦单产与其相关生态因子进行主成分分析，研究表明不同生态类型区域内基本农田建设情况、地区人均土地资源禀赋及地貌特征、光温生产潜力等是影响水田市场价值高低的主导性生态因子，影响早地的主导性生态因子仅有土地资源禀赋及气候生产潜力通过显著性检验。通过对湖北省70多个市县水稻和小麦单位产量的聚类分析，研究结果表明，不同类型地区农地的市场价值呈明显的地域分域规律。水田的市场价值呈现出由平原中心向丘陵及最外围山地依次递减的趋势，旱地的市场价值呈丘陵向平原及最外围山地递减的趋势。
(8)通过对江汉平原、鄂中丘陵、鄂西山地等不同类型区域农地生态与农地非市场价值的比较分析，研究表明在不同生态环境、资源禀赋、经济发展阶段地区的受访居民对各类型农地的偏好有明显的差异。从农地类型分析，居民普遍对当前流失速度较快的耕地资源保护意愿最强；从生态类型区域分析，生态环境敏感、脆弱、景观破碎度较大的城市、鄂西山地受访居民的支付意愿和维护改善农地资源的受偿意愿明显高于生态环境状况相对较好的江汉平原和鄂中丘陵。
(9)将农地资源非市场价值的估算结果与Constanza等的研究结果比较，结果表明在我国目前的经济水平下，耕地资源非市场价值的估算结果与Constanza等1997年的估算结果较为接近，水域用地则相对较低。从区域分析，武汉市当前耕地、林地的非市场价值与Constanza的研究结果最接近。估算结果有一定的借鉴和参考价值。
研究的基础上，作者相应提出了组建农地保护的民间平台，增强农地保护的公众监管机制；增设农地保护专项补贴政策，激励农民保护农地的积极性；界定基本农田保护的价值内涵，建立区域基本农田保护补偿机制；构建农地保护的生态补偿标准及绿色国民核算体系等相关政策建议。并探讨论文在农地生态类型选择、价值评估方法等方面存在的局限与不足，对未来需要进一步深化的研究进行了展望。
Agricultural land provides not only food and fibre, but also different non-market commodities, with characteristics of externalities or public good. For example, agricultural land provides a variety of important environmental and social services including climate adjust, wildlife habitat, waste treatment, recreational opportunities, food security and so on. Because most of these services are public goods, the non-market value of agricultural land preservation cannot be directly obtained from market prices. So estimating the value of agricultural land is one of the focuses in the field of resources and environmental economics. It is very important to study the relationships between agricultural land ecological characteristics and value. On the one hand, it can not only provide the service for rural-urban land decision-making, but also delay the decrease in agricultural land. On the other hand, evaluating the value of agricultural land can reinforce and improve the content of agricultural land grade, can provide the important function for agricultural land management.
Hubei province is an important nationwide production base of grain, cotton and oil. So the research is very important to the food security in our country. And it also can protect the ecological system of Yangtze Rive; protect the ecological system of wetland in Jianghan plain; reconcile the conflicts between agricultural land protection and economic growth. The dissertation selects Hubei province as the basic point of research and studies in the different eco-regions, such as metropolis, Jianghan plain, the Middle Hilly Areas, the west mountain areas of Hubei Province. In this paper, there are three objectives. Firstly, through investigating the land use change and the characteristics of agricultural land in these regions, analyzing the main ecological factors which influencing the values of agricultural lands. Secondly, according to the results of statistical analyze of 1248 valid questionnaires, using the contingent valuation method (CVM) and income approach to evaluate the non-market values and market values of different ecotype agricultural lands in different eco-regions. Thirdly, comparing the results of values of different ecotype agricultural land in different regions, and making a summary of the relationships between agricultural land ecological characteristics and the value of agricultural land. The research results are as follows:
Firstly, it shows that the residents (including farmers and urban citizens) have cognized the non-market values of agricultural land base with the increase in agricultural land protection cognitions. According to the survey, about 78.09% of the respondents have realized the non-market values of agricultural land, recently 91.79% of the respondents have considered agricultural land protection as an urgent work in their region, and about 84.29% of the respondents have positive WTP to the protection of agricultural lands.
Secondly, in this paper, using CVM to estimate the value to local households of preserving different ecotype agricultural lands, such as cultivated land, horticultural land, forest and wetland. according to the residents willingness to pays for protecting local agricultural lands, the total economic values of preserving agricultural land are 56.5846×10~8 RMB Yuan every year, almost the non-market value of cultivated land is 16893 RMB Yuan per hectare. And the non-market value of different ecotype agricultural land is correlated with the endowment of agricultural land resources. When an agricultural land is abundant, its non-market value is lower than the agricultural land which is scarce. Whereas, when one type of agricultural land is scarce, and its non-market value is higher than other kinds of lands. In the different eco-regions, the non-market value of the same type of agricultural land is also different. The non-market value of Wuhan where has entered into the process of rapid urbanization and characterized with ecologically fragile is higher than Jianghan plain and the Middle Hilly Areas of Hubei Province, where have more agricultural land than Wuhan. The mountain areas of western Hubei Province, where agricultural land is scarce and its ecosystem are sensitive. And the non-market value of agricultural land in the west mountain areas of Hubei Province is higher than Jianghan plain and the Middle Hilly Areas of Hubei Province.
Thirdly, based on the responses of 896 valid questionnaires of households, we got the detailed and actual data which reflected the inputs and outputs of agricultural production. And according to it, using income approach to evaluate the different type of agricultural land in wuhan, in Jianghan plain, in the Middle Hilly Area of Hubei province, and in the west mountain areas of Hubei province. The result shows that the market value of agricultural land is related to the endowment of agricultural land and the system of farming.
Fourthly, integrating the results of CVM and income approach, we can evaluate the total value of different type of agricultural lands in Wuhan, Hubei Province, Jinmen, Yuchang and Hubei province. Nowadays, the total non-market values of agricultural lands are 2456.23×10~8 Yuan, which including cultivated land, horticultural land, forest and wetland. It is almost 40.67% of the whole province's GDP in 2004. Among that, the proportion of paddy field, dry cultivated land, horticultural land and wetland's non-market value in their total value is 8.54%、10.14%、13.64% and 5.48%. The non-market value is an important part of agricultural land resource values. The proportion of non-market value is related to the region's level of economic development, its ecological and environmental condition, and the endowment of agricultural land. The region with rapidly speed of agricultural land loss and fragile ecological system of agricultural land, its proportion of agricultural land's non-market value is higher than the proportions of those regions where have more agricultural land. And when the type of land is scarce, its proportion of non-market value is higher than the proportion of the agricultural land is abundant.
Fifthly, in this paper, the author analyzes the agricultural land use change and its value change in recent years.It shows that the loss of cultivated land is increasing in the rapid process of urbanization and industrialization. The value of cultivated land in whole province loss 442.53×10~8 Yuan, it is almost 47.05% of the agricultural GDP in 2004. However, influencing by the policy of ecological restoration and agricultural structure adjustment, the areas of forest, horticultural land and wetland are increasing, so the non-market value of agricultural land adds 7.53×10~8 Yuan in Hubei province.
Sixthly, we use Logit model and regressive equation model to analyze the related factors which influencing the respondents will and payments for preseving agricultural lands. Socio-economic variables of the respondents such as environmental attitude, anticipation of agricultural land loss, age, sex, income and family labors significantly influence the willing of respondents and the values of the WTP. This is consistent with the economic theory and verifies the reliability of the CVM.
Seventhly, the relationships between agricultural land ecological characteristics and.. its market value in different eco-regions have showed that in the same region the market value is depended on the system of farming, the endowment of agricultural land and the condition of irrigation. Take the rice as the norm crop of paddy field, the wheat as the basic crop of dry cultivated land, using Grey incidence analysis to evaluate the properties of the outputs of paddy fields and dry fields. And it shows that, the endowment of agricultural land, the construction of agricultural land, land form and the photo-temperature productivity of rice are the main ecological factors which influencing the outputs of paddy fields. However, only has Climate Productivity and the endowment of agricultural land significantly influenced the outputs of dry fields. Cluster analysis also shows that the market values of different eco-regions are being diversity. The output of paddy fields is decrease from plain to hill, to mountain. And the output of dry field is decrease from hill, plain, to mountain.
Eighthly, comparing the different eco-regions' respondents' willingness to pays for preserving agricultural lands and the non-market values of different agricultural lands, it shows that the residents' WTPs and will are different with ecological conditions, the endowment of agricultural land and the level of economic development of region. Among different ecotype of agricultural lands, the respondents" willingness to pays for preserving cultivated land is stronger than other agricultural lands. And in the eco-regions where with rapidly speed of agricultural land loss and fragile ecological system of agricultural land, or with scarce agricultural land and its ecosystem is sensitive, the respondents" willingness to pays for preservation agricultural lands or willingness to accepts for improving the agricultural lands are more higher than those respondents" willingness to pays or willingness to accepts, where agricultural land is more abundant and its ecosystem is better. For example, it is showed that at metropolis or in the west mountain areas of Hubei Province, respondents" average WTP or WTA is higher than the average WTP or WTA in Jianghan plain and the Middle Hilly Areas of Hubei Province.
Lastly, comparing the findings with that of Constanza's, whose research by evaluating the value of global ecosystem services in 1997 were very authoritative. In his research, the ecosystem services' value of cultivated land was 92 dollar per hectare per year, the ecosystem service' value of forest was 302 dollar per hectare per year, and the wetland's service value was 8498 dollar per hectare per year. And through the comparison, it shows that the non-market value of cultivated land is close to Constanza's value of cultivated land ecosystem service. However, the non-market value of wetland is six to one for his research. The non-market value of agricultural land at metropolis is close to Constanza's services' value of agricultural land at globe. So we can see that the non-market value is correlated to the level of economic development.
At the end of the dissertation, some suggestions for rational preservation and utilization of agricultural land were put forward. These actions are to improve the supervision mechanism for preserving agricultural land, to set up agricultural land protection fund, to analyses the value of basic farmlands and to put forward to form compensation mechanism for preserve agricultural land. At the end of this paper, the author discusses some issues which come from the valuation methods and the limits of data, points out the future work for this research.
湖北省是我国著名的商品粮棉油基地，对其农地生态与农地价值的关系研究对于全国的粮食安全、长江水域生态系统和两湖平原湿地生态系统的保护有着重要的现实意义，为协调地区经济发展和农地保护的现实关系、探寻两者的均衡提供重要的决策依据。论文以湖北省为研究范围，通过对城市区域、江汉平原、鄂中丘陵、鄂西山地等不同类型地区农地生态背景及土地利用变化效果进行全面调查，查明影响农地价值的主导性生态因子以及农地生态对农地价值的贡献程度；通过设计问卷、入户调查(有效问卷1248份)的方式取得详实、准确的农地经济产出、公众参与农地保护的响应意愿等相关基础数据，运用收益还原法、条件价值评估法分别估算不同类型农地的市场价值和非市场价值，科学地评估农地资源的总价值；科学地揭示湖北省不同区域、不同类型农地的生态特征值的动态变化过程与农地经济产出的互动关系，分析各主导生态因子对农地价值的贡献，揭示农地生态经济系统的快、中、慢变量和序参量，归纳出农地质量和价值变化的关系规律。调查及研究表明：
(1)随着农地保护意识的增强，全省平均78.09％的受访居民已经意识到农地资源非市场价值的存在，91.79％的受访居民认为所在地目前需要加强农地保护工作，84.29％的受访居民愿意以捐资或参加义务劳动的方式参与农地保护。
(2)运用CVM从居民参与农地保护的支付意愿出发，湖北省居民每年保护农地资源的支付意愿总价值56.5846亿元，折合单位公顷农地非市场价值16893元。并且不同生态类型农地非市场价值的高低与资源禀赋显著相关，资源越丰富、利用优势明显的农地类型，非市场价值愈低；反之，越稀缺的农地，非市场价值较高。在不同类型区域内，同一生态类型农地的非市场价值具有明显的地域差异。进入快速城市化进程、农地生态系统相对脆弱的武汉市的农地非市场价值明显高于农地资源丰富的鄂中丘陵、江汉平原，农地资源稀缺、水土流失严重、农田生态环境较为敏感的鄂西山地农地非市场价值也高于鄂中丘陵、江汉平原。
(3)通过对全省不同类型地区896户样本农户在不同的资源禀赋、耕作制度条件下的农业经营资料的调查，获取详实的基础数据，运用收益还原法估算出江汉平原、鄂中丘陵、鄂西山地、武汉市等不同生态类型地区农地的市场价值。研究表明，农地市场价值的高低与地区资源禀赋及耕作制度密切相关。结合农地利用优势度指标分析，研究区利用优势明显的农地资源，其经济产出价值相对较高。诸如，荆门地区水田资源优势明显，为此其水田经济产出价值在不同类型地区中最高；江汉平原地势平坦、水资源丰富，旱地和水域资源具有比较优势，其旱地和水域用地的经济产出价值也明显高于丘陵地区，高于鄂西山地；鄂西山地园地优势明显，其经济产值在不同类型地区中最高。
(4)综合收益还原法和条件价值评估法对不同生态类型地区农地价值的估算单价，较为系统、科学地评估出武汉市、江汉平原、荆门、宜昌、湖北省五个典型研究区现有农地资源的总价值，摸清农地资源的价值构成及其比例份额。估算结果表明，湖北省现有包括耕地、园地、林地、水域在内的农地资源的非市场价值达2456.23亿元，是全省2004年生产总值的40.67％。其中，水田、旱地、园地和水域的非市场价值在其资源价值构成中的贡献分别为8.54％、10.14％、13.64％和5.48％。非市场价值在资源总价值中的比例份额与地区经济发展水平、农地生态环境密切相关，与农地资源禀赋相关。在农地资源流失速度较快、农地生态系统脆弱、景观破碎度较高的特大城市，其农地资源非市场价值所占比例份额较高；农地生态环境敏感、资源相对稀缺的鄂西山地，其农地非市场价值的比例份额也明显高于资源相对丰富、生态环境较好的鄂中丘陵和江汉平原。从农地类型分析，越稀缺的农地资源，其非市场价值所占的比例份额越高，农地非市场价值与资源禀赋呈负相关关系。
(5)对近年来武汉、江汉平原、荆门、宜昌、湖北省五个典型研究地区农地资源景观变化及其价值变动进行分析。研究结果表明，近年来随着工业化、城市化进程的推进，湖北省耕地资源的流失速度加快，耕地资源价值损失442.53亿元，相当于2004年全省农业生产总值1020.09亿元的47.05％。同期受生态退耕及农业结构调整政策影响，园地、林地及水域用地呈增加趋势，为此全省农地资源的非市场价值增加7.53亿元。
(6)运用Logit和多元线性回归模型分析了武汉、江汉平原、荆门、宜昌、湖北省受访居民参与农地保护的响应意愿及支付数额的影响因素，分析结果表明，环境态度、影响预期、年龄、性别、收入、劳动力状况等社会经济信息对受访居民参与农地保护的响应意愿具有显著的影响，符合经济学理论，CVM的可靠性得到较好的验证。
(7)通过对江汉平原、鄂中丘陵、鄂西山地等不同类型地区农地生态与农地市场价值的研究，表明在同一区域范围内农地经济产出的高低主要取决于耕作制度、资源禀赋及灌溉保收条件。将水稻和小麦分别作为水田和旱地的基准作物，通过对湖北省58个市县水稻及小麦单产与其相关生态因子进行主成分分析，研究表明不同生态类型区域内基本农田建设情况、地区人均土地资源禀赋及地貌特征、光温生产潜力等是影响水田市场价值高低的主导性生态因子，影响早地的主导性生态因子仅有土地资源禀赋及气候生产潜力通过显著性检验。通过对湖北省70多个市县水稻和小麦单位产量的聚类分析，研究结果表明，不同类型地区农地的市场价值呈明显的地域分域规律。水田的市场价值呈现出由平原中心向丘陵及最外围山地依次递减的趋势，旱地的市场价值呈丘陵向平原及最外围山地递减的趋势。
(8)通过对江汉平原、鄂中丘陵、鄂西山地等不同类型区域农地生态与农地非市场价值的比较分析，研究表明在不同生态环境、资源禀赋、经济发展阶段地区的受访居民对各类型农地的偏好有明显的差异。从农地类型分析，居民普遍对当前流失速度较快的耕地资源保护意愿最强；从生态类型区域分析，生态环境敏感、脆弱、景观破碎度较大的城市、鄂西山地受访居民的支付意愿和维护改善农地资源的受偿意愿明显高于生态环境状况相对较好的江汉平原和鄂中丘陵。
(9)将农地资源非市场价值的估算结果与Constanza等的研究结果比较，结果表明在我国目前的经济水平下，耕地资源非市场价值的估算结果与Constanza等1997年的估算结果较为接近，水域用地则相对较低。从区域分析，武汉市当前耕地、林地的非市场价值与Constanza的研究结果最接近。估算结果有一定的借鉴和参考价值。
研究的基础上，作者相应提出了组建农地保护的民间平台，增强农地保护的公众监管机制；增设农地保护专项补贴政策，激励农民保护农地的积极性；界定基本农田保护的价值内涵，建立区域基本农田保护补偿机制；构建农地保护的生态补偿标准及绿色国民核算体系等相关政策建议。并探讨论文在农地生态类型选择、价值评估方法等方面存在的局限与不足，对未来需要进一步深化的研究进行了展望。
Agricultural land provides not only food and fibre, but also different non-market commodities, with characteristics of externalities or public good. For example, agricultural land provides a variety of important environmental and social services including climate adjust, wildlife habitat, waste treatment, recreational opportunities, food security and so on. Because most of these services are public goods, the non-market value of agricultural land preservation cannot be directly obtained from market prices. So estimating the value of agricultural land is one of the focuses in the field of resources and environmental economics. It is very important to study the relationships between agricultural land ecological characteristics and value. On the one hand, it can not only provide the service for rural-urban land decision-making, but also delay the decrease in agricultural land. On the other hand, evaluating the value of agricultural land can reinforce and improve the content of agricultural land grade, can provide the important function for agricultural land management.
Hubei province is an important nationwide production base of grain, cotton and oil. So the research is very important to the food security in our country. And it also can protect the ecological system of Yangtze Rive; protect the ecological system of wetland in Jianghan plain; reconcile the conflicts between agricultural land protection and economic growth. The dissertation selects Hubei province as the basic point of research and studies in the different eco-regions, such as metropolis, Jianghan plain, the Middle Hilly Areas, the west mountain areas of Hubei Province. In this paper, there are three objectives. Firstly, through investigating the land use change and the characteristics of agricultural land in these regions, analyzing the main ecological factors which influencing the values of agricultural lands. Secondly, according to the results of statistical analyze of 1248 valid questionnaires, using the contingent valuation method (CVM) and income approach to evaluate the non-market values and market values of different ecotype agricultural lands in different eco-regions. Thirdly, comparing the results of values of different ecotype agricultural land in different regions, and making a summary of the relationships between agricultural land ecological characteristics and the value of agricultural land. The research results are as follows:
Firstly, it shows that the residents (including farmers and urban citizens) have cognized the non-market values of agricultural land base with the increase in agricultural land protection cognitions. According to the survey, about 78.09% of the respondents have realized the non-market values of agricultural land, recently 91.79% of the respondents have considered agricultural land protection as an urgent work in their region, and about 84.29% of the respondents have positive WTP to the protection of agricultural lands.
Secondly, in this paper, using CVM to estimate the value to local households of preserving different ecotype agricultural lands, such as cultivated land, horticultural land, forest and wetland. according to the residents willingness to pays for protecting local agricultural lands, the total economic values of preserving agricultural land are 56.5846×10~8 RMB Yuan every year, almost the non-market value of cultivated land is 16893 RMB Yuan per hectare. And the non-market value of different ecotype agricultural land is correlated with the endowment of agricultural land resources. When an agricultural land is abundant, its non-market value is lower than the agricultural land which is scarce. Whereas, when one type of agricultural land is scarce, and its non-market value is higher than other kinds of lands. In the different eco-regions, the non-market value of the same type of agricultural land is also different. The non-market value of Wuhan where has entered into the process of rapid urbanization and characterized with ecologically fragile is higher than Jianghan plain and the Middle Hilly Areas of Hubei Province, where have more agricultural land than Wuhan. The mountain areas of western Hubei Province, where agricultural land is scarce and its ecosystem are sensitive. And the non-market value of agricultural land in the west mountain areas of Hubei Province is higher than Jianghan plain and the Middle Hilly Areas of Hubei Province.
Thirdly, based on the responses of 896 valid questionnaires of households, we got the detailed and actual data which reflected the inputs and outputs of agricultural production. And according to it, using income approach to evaluate the different type of agricultural land in wuhan, in Jianghan plain, in the Middle Hilly Area of Hubei province, and in the west mountain areas of Hubei province. The result shows that the market value of agricultural land is related to the endowment of agricultural land and the system of farming.
Fourthly, integrating the results of CVM and income approach, we can evaluate the total value of different type of agricultural lands in Wuhan, Hubei Province, Jinmen, Yuchang and Hubei province. Nowadays, the total non-market values of agricultural lands are 2456.23×10~8 Yuan, which including cultivated land, horticultural land, forest and wetland. It is almost 40.67% of the whole province's GDP in 2004. Among that, the proportion of paddy field, dry cultivated land, horticultural land and wetland's non-market value in their total value is 8.54%、10.14%、13.64% and 5.48%. The non-market value is an important part of agricultural land resource values. The proportion of non-market value is related to the region's level of economic development, its ecological and environmental condition, and the endowment of agricultural land. The region with rapidly speed of agricultural land loss and fragile ecological system of agricultural land, its proportion of agricultural land's non-market value is higher than the proportions of those regions where have more agricultural land. And when the type of land is scarce, its proportion of non-market value is higher than the proportion of the agricultural land is abundant.
Fifthly, in this paper, the author analyzes the agricultural land use change and its value change in recent years.It shows that the loss of cultivated land is increasing in the rapid process of urbanization and industrialization. The value of cultivated land in whole province loss 442.53×10~8 Yuan, it is almost 47.05% of the agricultural GDP in 2004. However, influencing by the policy of ecological restoration and agricultural structure adjustment, the areas of forest, horticultural land and wetland are increasing, so the non-market value of agricultural land adds 7.53×10~8 Yuan in Hubei province.
Sixthly, we use Logit model and regressive equation model to analyze the related factors which influencing the respondents will and payments for preseving agricultural lands. Socio-economic variables of the respondents such as environmental attitude, anticipation of agricultural land loss, age, sex, income and family labors significantly influence the willing of respondents and the values of the WTP. This is consistent with the economic theory and verifies the reliability of the CVM.
Seventhly, the relationships between agricultural land ecological characteristics and.. its market value in different eco-regions have showed that in the same region the market value is depended on the system of farming, the endowment of agricultural land and the condition of irrigation. Take the rice as the norm crop of paddy field, the wheat as the basic crop of dry cultivated land, using Grey incidence analysis to evaluate the properties of the outputs of paddy fields and dry fields. And it shows that, the endowment of agricultural land, the construction of agricultural land, land form and the photo-temperature productivity of rice are the main ecological factors which influencing the outputs of paddy fields. However, only has Climate Productivity and the endowment of agricultural land significantly influenced the outputs of dry fields. Cluster analysis also shows that the market values of different eco-regions are being diversity. The output of paddy fields is decrease from plain to hill, to mountain. And the output of dry field is decrease from hill, plain, to mountain.
Eighthly, comparing the different eco-regions' respondents' willingness to pays for preserving agricultural lands and the non-market values of different agricultural lands, it shows that the residents' WTPs and will are different with ecological conditions, the endowment of agricultural land and the level of economic development of region. Among different ecotype of agricultural lands, the respondents" willingness to pays for preserving cultivated land is stronger than other agricultural lands. And in the eco-regions where with rapidly speed of agricultural land loss and fragile ecological system of agricultural land, or with scarce agricultural land and its ecosystem is sensitive, the respondents" willingness to pays for preservation agricultural lands or willingness to accepts for improving the agricultural lands are more higher than those respondents" willingness to pays or willingness to accepts, where agricultural land is more abundant and its ecosystem is better. For example, it is showed that at metropolis or in the west mountain areas of Hubei Province, respondents" average WTP or WTA is higher than the average WTP or WTA in Jianghan plain and the Middle Hilly Areas of Hubei Province.
Lastly, comparing the findings with that of Constanza's, whose research by evaluating the value of global ecosystem services in 1997 were very authoritative. In his research, the ecosystem services' value of cultivated land was 92 dollar per hectare per year, the ecosystem service' value of forest was 302 dollar per hectare per year, and the wetland's service value was 8498 dollar per hectare per year. And through the comparison, it shows that the non-market value of cultivated land is close to Constanza's value of cultivated land ecosystem service. However, the non-market value of wetland is six to one for his research. The non-market value of agricultural land at metropolis is close to Constanza's services' value of agricultural land at globe. So we can see that the non-market value is correlated to the level of economic development.
At the end of the dissertation, some suggestions for rational preservation and utilization of agricultural land were put forward. These actions are to improve the supervision mechanism for preserving agricultural land, to set up agricultural land protection fund, to analyses the value of basic farmlands and to put forward to form compensation mechanism for preserve agricultural land. At the end of this paper, the author discusses some issues which come from the valuation methods and the limits of data, points out the future work for this research.
引文
1．万广华，程恩江．规模经济、土地细碎化与我国的粮食生产[J]．中国农村观察，1996(3)：31-36．
2．马思新，李昂．基于Hedonic模型的北京住宅价格影响因素分析[J]．土木工程学报，2003，36(9)，59-65．
3．王凤仙．农田系统潜在危机及调控之见[J]．农业环境保护，1995，14(1)：34-36．
4．王学军等．国外生态环境补偿费征收情况调查报告．国家环境保护局自然保护司编．中国生态环境补偿费的理论与实践[M]．北京：中国环境科学出版社，1995，118-131．
5．王宪礼，胡礼满，布仁包．辽河三角洲湿地的景观变化分析[J]．地理科学，1996，16(3)：260-265．
6．王克忠，李国荣．“土地商品论”值得商榷[J]．房地产经济，1989，1．
7．王昭正，陈益壮，林建信．奥万大森林游乐区游客会费意愿分析—多指标多因子模式之应用[J]．农业经济半年刊，2001，70(2)：91-115．
8．王晓鸿．鄱阳湖湿地生态系统评估[M]．北京：科学出版社，2004．
9．王瑞雪．耕地非市场价值评估理论方法与实践(博士论文)．华中农业大学，2005．
10．王瑞雪，张安录，颜延武．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．
11．王瑞雪，赵学涛，张安录．农地非市场价值条件评估法及其应用[J]．资源科学，2005，27(3)：105-110．
12．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．
13．王丰年．论生态补偿的原则和机制．[J]自然辨证法研究，2006，22(1)：31-35．
14．田树君．两种土壤生态系统固氮菌和磷细菌的生物多样性研究(硕士论文)．中国农业大学，2002．6
15．孙昌金，陈晓倩．关于森林生态补偿基金的几点感想冲国环境与发展国际合作委员会林草问题课题组．生态环境效益补偿政策与国际经验研讨会论文集[M]．北京：中国林业出版社，2002，28-32．
16．孙建平．秦岭北坡森林公园游憩价值及深层生态旅游开发(硕士论文)．陕西师范大学，2004．
17．世界银行．中国：空气、土地和水-新千年的环境优先领域[M]．北京：中国环境科学出版社，2001．
18．世界财经报道．忧：中国GDP能耗是日本的8倍．2006-03-13 09：00。http://finance.icxo.com/htmlnews/2006/03/13/777882_0.htm.
19．朱仁友．我国农地估价中运用收益还原法存在的问题与求解[J]．中国农村观察，2000(5)：25-29．
20．朱会义，李秀彬．关于区域土地利用变化指数模型方法的讨论[J]．地理学报，2003，58(5)：643-650．
21．朱宜萱等．凝眸中原—中国经济快速发展的第四板块(生态卷)[M]．北京：中央文献出版社，2003．12．
22．李百冠．土地物质、土地资本与土地价值关系探究．不动产纵横，1997(2)：14．
23．李金昌，姜文来，靳乐山，任勇编著．生态价值论[M]．重庆：重庆大学出版社，1999．
24．李国安．还原利率与使用权年限的关系及应用[J]．宁波大学学报(理工版)，1996，9(2)：27-33．
25．李仁东，程学军，隋晓丽．江汉平原土地利用的时空变化及驱动因素分析[J]．地理研究，2003，22(4)：423-430．
26．李巍，李文军．用改进的旅行费用法评估九寨沟的游憩价值[J]．北京大学学报(自然科学版)，2003，39(4)，548-555．
27．李仁安，邓建勋．江汉平原水资源保护与农业可持续发展研究[J]．武汉理工大学学报，2004，26(7)：91-93．
28．乔家君，许立民．山区耕地资源投入产出的高程因子分析—以河南吴沟村为例[J]．资源科学，2005，27(6)：53-57
29．乔家君．中国中部农区村域人地关系系统定量研究—河南省巩市市吴沟村、滹沱村、孝南村的实证分析(博士论文)．河南大学，2004．
30．乔家君，熊剑．村域农田生态经济系统投入产出特征研究—以河南省巩义市吴沟村为例．中国生态农业学报，2006，14(1)：226-229．
31．刘卫东等．湖北省中亚热带与北亚热带自然地理界线的划分．地理集刊，(21)．北京：科学出版社，1990．
32．刘卫东．江汉平原土地类型与综合自然区划[J]．地理学报，1994，49(12)：73-82．
33．刘书楷．马克思劳动价值观与西方非劳动价值观土地价值与价格理论[J]．中国土地科学，1995，9(6)：6-10．
34．刘书楷．论当前我国土地价值与价格研究涉及的基础理论概念问题[J]．不动产纵横，1997(2)
35．刘绍明，吴文良．县域农业生态经济系统的分析—功能和效益[J]．农业环境科学学报，2003，22(1)：78-81．
36．刘坤，杨东．旅游资源的经济价值评价[J]．曲阜师范大学学报(自然科学版)，2001，27(3)：103-107．
37．刘彦随，彭留英，王大伟．东南沿海地区土地利用转换态势与机制分析[J]．自然资源学报，2005，20(3)：333-339．
38．朱俊林．三峡工程和江汉平原农业持续发展[J]．生态学杂志，1997，16(2)：36-41．
39．全国土地估价师资格考试委员会．土地估价理论与方法[M]．北京：地质出版社，2004．
40．光明日报．破解“三农”问题的一把钥匙——如何理解工业反哺农业、城市支持农村的方针，2005／8／22／．
41．陈应发，陈放鸣．国外森林游憩价值评估的两种流行方法[J]．北京林业大学学报，1994(3)，97-105．
42．陈应发．旅行费用法—国外最流行的森林游憩价值评估方法[J]．生态经济，1996(4)，35-39．
43．陈伟琪，刘岩，洪华生，等．厦门岛东部海岸旅游娱乐价值的评估[J]．厦门大学学报(自然科学版)，2001，40(4)：914-921．
44．陈江龙．经济快速增长阶段农地非农化问题研究(博士论文)．南京农业大学，2003．
45．陈会广．经济发展中土地非农化的制度响应与政府征用绩效研究：理论框架与来自常州、马鞍山的经验(硕士论文)．南京农业大学，2004．
46．陈恭钧．关渡沼泽区的保护效益评估—假设性市场评价法之应用(硕士论文)．台湾大学经济学研究所，1994．
47．陈凯俐．台湾湿地的价值评估—生态评估与经济评估之结合．自然资源与环境经济学—理论基础与本土案例分析[M]．台北：双业书廊，2003．
48．陈钦奇．离岛地区民众对淡化水的愿付金额之探讨[J]．台湾土地金融季刊，2003，40(1)： 229-253．
49．陈锡文．中国将坚持实施最严格的耕地保护制度．2006-2-23．http://finance.people.com.cn/GB/1037/4133689.html.
50．杨凯，赵军．城市河流生态系统服务的CVM估值及其偏差分析[J]．生态学报，2005，25(6)：1391-1396．
51．余家林．农业多元试验统计[M]．北京：北京农业大学出版社，1993
52．张跃庆，张连城著．城市土地经济问题(M)。北京：光明日报出版社，1990
53．张安录．城乡生态经济交错区农地城市流转机制与制度创新[J]．中国农村经济，1999(7)：43-49．
54．张安录．城乡生态经济交错区土地资源可持续利用与管理研究(博士论文)．华中农业大学，1999．
55．张安录．农地城市流转与土地一级市场流转[J]．华中师范大学学报(自然科学版)，2000，6(2)：232-236．
56．张帆．环境与自然资源经济学[M]．上海：上海人民出版社，1998．
57．张志强，徐中明．黑河流域张掖地区生态系统服务恢复的条件价值评估[J]．生态学报，2002，22(6)：885-893．
58．张芳．黑龙江省耕地资源价值核算[J]．农场经济管理，2003(6)：26-27．
59．张茵，蔡运龙．基于分区的多目的地TCM模型及其在游憩资源价值评估中的应用—以九寨沟自然保护区为例[J]．自然资源学报，2004，19(5)：651-661．
60．张沽暇，郝晋珉，段瑞娟．现代农业生态系统能值演替分析—以河北省曲周县为例[J]．水土保持学报，2005，19(6)：141-144．
61．张耀启，李一清，潘羿．自然与环境资源价值评估的误区[J]．自然资源学报，2005，20(3)453-460．
62．张士功．耕地资源与粮食安全(博士论文)．中国农业科学院，2005
63．吴佩瑛，苏明达．60亿元的由来—垦丁国家公园资源经济价值评估[M]．台北：前卫出版社，2001．
64．宋敏，横川洋等．用假设市场评价法(CVM)评价农地的外部效益[J]．中国土地科学，2000，14(3)：19-22
65．汪峰．农地价值评估及其社会保障功能研究(硕士论文)．浙江大学，2001
66．严茂超，李海涛，程鸿等．中国农林牧渔业主要产品的能值分析与评估[J]．北京林业大学学报，2003，23(6)：66-69．
67．苏明达，吴佩瑛．愿意支付价值最佳效率指标之建构与验证[J]．农业经济丛刊，2004，9(2)：27-60．
68．苏国麟，李谋召，蓝盛芳，陈飞鹏．广东三水市种植业系统的能值分析及其可持续发展[J]．农业现代化研究，1999，20(6)：359-361．
69．尚杰．农业生态经济学[M]．北京：中国农业出版社，2000，65-66．
70．周诚．土地经济学原理[M]．北京：商务印书馆，2003
71．罗伊·普罗斯特曼，李平，蒂姆·汉斯达德．中国农业的规模经营：政策适当吗?[J]．中国农村观察，1996(6)：17-29．
72．罗必良．农地经营规模的效益决定[J]．中国农村观察，2000(5)：18-24．
73．金健君，王志石．澳门固体废物管理的经济价值评估—选择试验模型法和条件价值法的比较[J]．中国环境科学，2005，25(6)：751-755．
74．赵军．生态系统服务的条件价值评估：理论、方法与应用(硕士论文)．华东师范大学，2005
75．国土资源部地籍管理司．《全国土地利用变更调查报告2002》．中国大地出版社，2003
76．国家环境保护总局．《2004年中国环境状况公报》[ED／OL]http://www.zhb.gov.cn/eic/649368307484327936/20050602/8215.shtml
77．河北农业报．三部委负责人谈建设新农村．2006-03-08．http://nmb.hebeidaily.com.cn/20060107/ca592929.htm.
78．宜昌市国土资源局，宜昌市国土资源概况．http://www.yclr.gov.cn/AboutUs.asp.
79．高映轸、潘家华、顾志明．土地经济问题再认识．南京：南京出版社，1996
80．高吉喜．可持续发展理论探索—可持续生态承载理论、方法与应用[M]．北京：中国环境科学出版社，2001
81．高云峰．北京山区森林资源价值评估(博士论文)．中国农业大学，2005
82．黄宗煌．台湾地区国家公园之游憩效益的评估[J]．台湾银行季刊，1990，41(3)：282-304．
83．黄书礼．生态系统理论在区域研究之应用[J]．都市与计划，2002，29(2)：187-215
84．黄贤金．中国耕地资源价值量核算研究[J]．农业经济问题，1997(3)：40-42
85．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)：55-59
86．黄雅玲，陈明健．厨餘回收及其经济效益之评估-以台中市社区为例[J]．台湾土地金融季刊，2004，41(3)：99-119．
87．萧景楷．农地资源保育效益之评价[J]．水土保持研究，1999，6(3)：60-71．
88．赵学涛．城市边缘区农地城市流转决策(硕士论文)．华中农业大学，2003
89．武燕丽．农用土地资源价值测度方法研究(硕士论文)．山西农业大学，2005
90．金丽娟．香山公园森林游憩价值评估与旅游管理对策研究(硕士论文)．北京林业大学，2005
91．郑捷奋．城市轨道交通与周边房地产价值关系研究(博士论文)．清华大学，2004．
92．郑惠燕，林政德．条件价值评估法之嵌入效果：台湾野生动物保护区之验证[J]．农业经济半年刊，1997，64：125-139
93．贺锡苹，张小华．耕地资产核算方法及实例分析[J]．中国土地科学，1994，8(6)：23-27
94．姜文来，杨瑞珍．资源资产论[M]．北京：科学出版社，2003
95．郭剑英，王乃昂．敦煌旅游资源非使用价值评估[J]．资源科学，2005，27(5)：187-192．
96．姚志勇等．环境经济学[M]．北京：中国发展出版社，2002
97．高智晟．野生动物价值评估与定价研究(博士论文)．东北林业大学，2005
98．唐焱，吴群，刘友兆等．基于C—D生产函数的农用地估价实证研究[J]．南京农业大学学报，2003，26(3)：101-105．
99．唐建荣．生态经济学[M]．北京：化学工业出版社，2005．
100．钱忠好．中国农地保护：理论与政策分析[J]．管理世界，2003(10)：60-70
101．夏伦旺．农田生态系统的概念、组成和特性[J]．生物学通报，2000，35(3)：18
102．徐中明，张志强，程国栋．生态经济学理论方法与应用[M]．郑州：黄河水利出版社，2003
103．徐中明，张志强，程国栋等．额济纳旗生态系统恢复的总经济价值评估[J]．地理学报，2002，57(1)：107-116
104．靳乐山．用旅行费用法评价圆明园的环境服务价值[J]．环境保护，1999(4)，31-34．
105．黄有光．福利经济学[M]．中国友谊出版公司，1991：345．
106．黄恒学．公共经济学[M]．北京：北京大学出版社，2002：106．
107．曹辉，兰思仁．福州国家森林公园景观游憩效益评估[J]．林业经济问题，2001，21(5)：296-298．
108．曹辉，陈平留．森林景观资产评估CVM法研究[J]．福建林学院学报，2003(1)：48-52．
109．温铁军．中国的“城镇化”道路与相关制度问题[ED／OL]，http://www.cei.gov.cn/forum50/,2002/5/22.
110．温海珍，贾生华．住宅的特征与特征的价格—基于特征价格模型的分析[J]．浙江大学学报(工学版)，2004，38(10)：1338-1342．
111．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)：189-195．
112．谢静琪，简士豪．环境敏感地区之保育价值[J]．台湾土地金融季刊，2003，40(1)：1-21．
113．蓝盛芳，钦佩，陆宏芳．生态经济系统能值分析[M]．北京：化学工业出版社，2002．
114．董孝斌，高旺盛，严茂超．黄土高原典型流域农业生态系统生产力的能值分析[J]．地理学报，59(2)：223-229．
115．蔡运龙．中国经济高速发展中的耕地问题[J]．资源科学，2000，22(3)：22-28．
116．蔡剑辉．论森林资源定价的理论基础[J]．北京林业大学学报(社会科学版)，2004，3(3)：41-44．
117．蔡银莺，张安录．武汉市农地城市流转的基本态势及区域差异[J]．国土资源科技管理，2004，21(4)：1-4．
118．蔡银莺，张安录．武汉市耕地资源非农化过程的时空变化特征分析[J]．中国人口、资源与环境，2004，14(6)：115-119．
119．蔡银莺，张安录．新时期武汉市加强耕地保护的政策及技术措施[J]．国土与自然资源研究，2005(1)：24-25．
120．蔡银莺．城市区域基本农田保护的思考与定位[J]．国土资源科技管理，2005，22(1)：67-71．
121．蔡银莺，李晓云，张安录．农地城市流转对区域生态系统服务价值的影响[J]．农业现代化研究，2005，26(3)：186-189．
122．蔡银莺，张安录．耕地资源流失与经济发展的关系分析[J]．中国人口·资源与环境，2005，15(5)：51-55．
123．蔡银莺，张安录．农地城市流转合理配置的可能性边界分析[J]．生态经济，2005(8)：28-31
124．霍雅勤，蔡运龙．耕地资源价值的评估与重建—以甘肃省会宁县为例．干旱区资源与环境，2003，17(5)：81-85．
125．霍雅勤，蔡运龙，王瑛．耕地对农民的效用考察及耕地功能分析[J]．中国人口资源与环境，2004，14(3)：105-108．
126．戴星翼，俞厚未，董梅．生态服务的价值实现[M]．北京：科学出版社，2005．
127．薛达元，包浩生，李文华．长白山自然保护区森林生态系统间接经济价值评估[J]．中国环境科学，1999，19(3)：247-252．
128．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．
129．McNeely J A，K R Miller，W V Reid，et al．1990．Conserving the World Biological Diversity．薛达元等译．保护世界的生物多样性[M]．北京：中国环境科学出版社，1991．
130．Myrick Freeman A．The measurement of environmental and resource values．曾贤刚译．环境与资源价值评估—理论与方法[M]．北京：中国人民大学出版社，2002．
131. Albers, H J, A C Fisher, and W M Hanemann. Valuation of tropical forests: implications of uncertainty and irreversibility. Environmental and Resource Economics, 1996, 8(1): 39-61.
132. Arguea N M, C Hsiao. Econometric issues of estimating hedonic price functions-with an application to the U.S. market for automobiles. Journal of Econometrics, 1993, 56(1):243-267.
133. Arrow K, R Solow, P Portney, E Learner, R Radner, H Schuman. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Report to the General Council of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Washington D C: Resource for the Future, 1993.
134. Arrow, K J and AC Fisher. Environmental preservation, uncertainty, and irreversibility. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1974,88(2):312-319.
135. Baltas, G and J Freeman. Hedonic price methods and the structure of high-technology Industrial markets: an empirical analysis. Industrial Marketing Management, 2001,30(7):599-607.
136. Barnes, J I. Changes in the economic use value of elephant in Botswana: The effect of international trade prohibition. Ecological Economics, 1996,18(3):215-230.
137. Bateman, I J and I H Langford. Non-users willingness to pay for a national park: an application and critique of the contingent valuation method. Regional Studies, 1997,31(6):571-582.
138. Bennett, J W. Using direct questioning to value the existence benefits of preserved natural areas. Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1984,28(2): 136-152.
139. Bennett, R Y and D Larson. Contingent valuation of the perceived benefits of farm animal welfare legislation: an exploratory survey. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1996, 47(2):224-235
140. Bergstrom, J C, K Boyle, and G Poe (Eds) .The economic valuation of water quality. Edward Elgar Publishers, Cheltenham, U. K., 2000.
141. Bishop, R C. Option value: an exposition and extention.Land Economics, 1982,58(1):1-15.
142. Bowker, J M and J R Stoll. Use of dichotomous choice nonmarket methods to value the whooping crane resource. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1988,70(2):372-381.
143. Bockstael, N E, W M Hanemann, and C L Kling. Estimating the value of water quality improvements in a recreational demand framework. Water Resources Research, 1987, 23(5):951-960.
144. Bong-Koo K, C Yongsung, and K Jae Eun. Estimation of WTP for water quality improvements in Paldang reservoir using contingent valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics Review, 2001,10 (3):433-459.
145. Boyle, K J and R C Bishop. Valuing wildlife in benefit-cost analysis: a case study involving endangered species. Water Resources Research, 1987,23(5):943-950.
146. Boyle, K H and R C Bishop. Toward total valuation of Great Lakes fishery resources. Water Resources Research, 1987,5: 943-950.
147. Bonnetain, P. A hedonic price model for islands. Journal of Urban Economics. 2003, 54(2):368-377.
148. Blomquist G C and J C Whitehead. Resource quality information and validity of willingness to pay in contingent valuation. Resource and Energy Economics, 1998, 20(2):179-196.
149. Brown, T C, I Ajzen, and D Hrubes. Further tests of entreaties to avoid hypothetical bias in referendum contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 2003, 46(2): 353-361.
150. Burt, O. Econometric modeling of the capitalization formula for farmland price. American Journal of Agricultural Economy, 1986, 68(2):10-26.
151. Campbell D E. Emergy analysis of human carrying capacity and regional sustainability:an example using the state of Maine. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 1998, 51(1-2): 531-569.
152. Carson, R T and R C Mitchell. Sequencing and nesting in contingent valuation surveys. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management.1995,28(2):155-173.
153. Carson, R T. Valuation of tropical rainforest: philosophical and practical issues in the use of contingent valuation. Ecological Economics, 1998,24 (1): 15-29.
154. Clawson, M and J Knetsch. Economics of Outdoor Recreation, Baltimore. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1966.
155. Common, M and C Perrings.Toward an ecological economics of Sustainability. Ecological Economics, 1992, 6(1):7-34.
156. Combris P, S Lecocq, M Visser. Estimation of a hedonic price equation for Bordeaux wine: does quality matter? The Economic Journal, 1997,107(3):390-402.
157. Constanza R, et al. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital.Nature, 1997, 387:253-260.
158. Cummings R G, P T Ganderton, and T Mcguckin.Substitution effects in CVM values.American Journal of agricultural Economics, 1994, 76(2):205-214.
159. Cummings, R G, and L O Taylor. Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: a cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. The American Economic Review. 1999, 89(3): 649 -665.
160. Choe, K A, D Whittington, D T Lauria. The economic benefits of surface water quality improvements in developing countries: a case study of Davao, Philippines. Land-Economics, 1996 72(4):519-537.
161. Drake, L. The non-market value of the Swedish agricultural landscape. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 1992,19(3):351-364.
162. Davis, R K. Recreation planning as an economic problem.Natural Resource Journal, 1963(3):239-249.
163. Emmert, J J. Income and substitution effects in the travel cost model: an application to Indiana state parks. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1999, 81(5):1330-1337.
164. Halstead, J M. Measuring the nonmarket value of Massachusetts agricultural land: a case study. Northeast Journal of Agriculture and Resource Economics, 1984,14(1): 12-19.
165. Harless, D W and F R Allen. Using the contingent valuation method to measure patron benefits of reference desk service in an academic library. College and Research Libraries, 1999, 60(1):56-69.
166. Harrison, G W, and E E Rutstrom. Experimental evidence on the existence of hypothetical bias in value elicitation methods. In Handbook of Results in Experimental Economics. Ed. Smith, V L New York: Elsevier Science, 2002.
167. Haurin, D R and D Brasington. School quality and real house prices: Inter-and intrametropolitan effects. Journal of Housing Economics, 1996,5(4):351-368.
168. Hoehn, J P and A Randall. The effect of resource quality information on resource injury perceptions and contingent values. Resource and Energy Economics, 2002,24(2): 13-33.
169. Holt, G E, D Elliott, and A Moore. Placing a value on public library services. Public Libraries, 1999,38 (2): 98-108.
170. Freeman, A.The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values-Theory and Methods. Washington.D.C. Resources for the Future, 1993.
171. Goodman, A C. Andrew Court and the invention of hedonic price analysis. Journal of Urban Economics, 1998, 44(2):291-298.
172. Gowdy, J M. The value of the biodiversity: markets, society and ecosystems. Land Economics, 1997, 73(1):25-41.
173. Griliches Z. The demand for fertilizer: an econoetric reinterpretation of a technical change. Journal of Farm Econoics. 1958, 40(2):591-606.
174. Hanley, N C, L Spash and L Walker. Problems in valuing the benefits of biodiversity protection. Environmental and Resource Economics.1995,5(3):249-272.
175. Hanemann, M. Willingness to pay and willingness to accept: how much can they differ?. American Economic Review, 1991,81(3):635-647.
176. Hammack J, G Brown. Waterfowl and wetlands: towards bioeconomic andlysis.Baltimor: Johns Hopkings University Press,1974
177. Hicks J. Value and capital. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1946.
178. Holling, C S and M A Goldberg. Ecology and planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planner, 1971(39):221-230.
179. Jordan, J L and A H Elnagheeb.Willingness to pay for improvements in drinking water quality. Water Reasources Research, 1993, 29(2):237-245.
180. Jokobsson, M Christin, E Eglar. Contingent valuation and endangered species: methodological issues and applications. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Press, 1996.
181. Jonathan I, Eisen-Hecht and Randall A K. A cost-benefit analysis of water quality protection in the Catawba basin. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 2002,38(2):453-465.
182. Kahneman, D, J Knetsch and R.Thaler. The endowment effect, loss aversion and status quobias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 1991(5):193-206.
183. Kahmeman, D and J L Knetsch. Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction.Joumal of Environmental Economics and Management, 1992,22(1):57-70.
184. Kahmeman, D and J L Knetsch. Reply: contingent valuation and the value of public goods. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 1992,22(1):90-94.
185. Kennedy, J. A travel cost analysis of the value of Carnarvon Gorge National park for recreational use: comment. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 1998,42(3): 263-65.
186. KnetschJ and J Sinden. Willingness to pay and compensation demanded: Experimental evidence of an unexpected disparity. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1984, 94(3):507-521.
187. Knetsch, J. The endowment effect and evidence of nonreversible indifference curves. American Economic Review, 1989, 79(5):1277-1284.
188. Kramer, R A. and D E Mercer. Valuing a global environmetal good: U.S. residents willingness to pay to protect tropical rain forests. Land Economics, 1997,73(2):196-210.
189. Lancaster, K J. A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economics, 1966, 74(2):132-157.
190. Ladd, G and V Suvannunt. A model of consumer goods characteristics. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1976,58(3):504-510.
191. Lee H S, et al. Estimation of information value on the internet: application of hedonic price model. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications.2003, 2(1):73-80.
192. Lockwood, M and K Tracy. Nonmarket economic evaluation of an urban recreation park Journal of Leisure Research, 1995, 27(2): 155-167.
193. Loomis J B, R G Walsh. Recreation Economic Decisions: Comparing Benefits and Costs.2nd editon. Venture Publishing Inc, 1997.
194. Loomis, J, V Rameker, and A Seidl. Potential non-market benefits of agricultural lands in Colorado: a review of the literature. Agricultural and Resource Policy Report, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, APR00-02, February 2000. http://dare.agsci.colostate.edu/csuagecon/extension/docsAanduse/agland.pdf.
195. Li Xiaoyun, Cai Yinying, Zhang Anlu. Agricultural land loss in China's urbanization process. Ecological Economy, 2006,2(1):32-42.
196. McHarg, I L. Design with Nature. New York: Natural History Press, 1969.
197. Meadows, D H, D L Meadows, T Randers, W W III Beherens. The limits to growth .New York: Universe Books, 1974.
198. Mitchell, R C and R T Carson. A contingent valuation estimate of national freshwater benefits. Technical report to the US Environmental Protection Agency.Washinton, D C, Resources for the future.Cited in Mitchell, R C and R T Carson.1984.
199. Mitchell, R, G Cameron and R T Carson. Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Washinton DC: Resource for the Future, 1989.
200. Noonan, D S. Contingent valuation and cultural resources: A meta-analytic review of the literature. Journal of Cultural Economics, 2003, 27(3-4): 159-176.
201. Norgaard, R B. Co-evolutionary development potential. Land Economics, 1984, 60(2):160-173.
202. Odum H T. Environmental accounting: emergy and environmental decision making.New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1996.
203. Olsen ER, RP Ramsey. A modified fracture dimension as a measure of landscape diversity. Photo Grammatik Engineering &Remote Sensing, 1993,53(10): 1517-1520.
204. Pearce, D W and D Moran. The economic value of biodiversity. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd, 1995.
205. Portney PR. The contingent valuation debate: why economists should care. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 1994, 8(4):3-17.
206. Pruckner, G J. Agricultural landscape cultivation in Austria: an application of the CVM.European Review of Agricultural Economics, 1999,22(2): 173-190.
207. Randall, A and J Stoll. Consumer's surplus in commodity space. American Economic Review, 1980,70(3):449-455.
208. Randall, A, J P Hoehn and D S Brookshire. Contingent valuation surveys for evaluation environment assets.Natural Resources. 1983, 23(6):35-48.
209. Ready, R, M Berger, and G Blomquist. Measuring amenity benefits from farmland: hedonic pricing vs. contingent valuation. Growth and Change, 1997,28(1):43-58.
210. Ribaudo, M O, D J Epp. The importance of sample discrimination in using the travel cost method to estimate the benefits of improved water quality. Land-Economics, 1984, 60(4): 397-403.
211. Rosen, S. Hedonistic prices and implicit markets: product differentiation in pure competition. Journal of Political Economy, 1974,82(1):34-55.
212. Rosenburger, S R and G R Walsh. Non-market valuation of western valley ranchland using contingent valuation. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 1997,22(2):296-309.
213. Rowe, R, R d' Arge and D Brookshire. An experiment on the economic value of visibility. Journal of Environment Economics and Management, 1980,7(3):1-19.
214. Samples,K C and J R Hollyer.Contingent valuation of wildlife resources in the presence of substitutes and complements. In Johnson,R.L.and GV.Johnson(eds).Economic valuation of natural resources:Issues, theory and applications. Westvies Press, 1990:177-192.
215. Sengupta, S and D E Osgood. The value of remoteness: a hedonic estimation of ranchette prices. Ecological Economics. 2003, 44(1):91-103.
216. Smith KV. Nonmarket valuation of environmental resources: an interpretative appraisal. Land Economics, 1993, 69(1):1-26.
217. Stanley L R, J Tschirhart. Hedonic prices for a nondurable good: the case of breakfast cereals. Review of Economics and Statistics, 1991, 73(3):537-541.
218. Turner K. Economics and wetland management. Ambio, 1991, 20(2):59-61.
219. Tobias D, R Mendelsohn. Valuing ecotourism in a tropical rainforest reserve. Ambio, 1991, 20(2):91-93.
220. Ulgiati, S, H T Odum, S Bastianoni. Emergy analysis of Italian agricultural system. The role of emergy quality and environmental inputs. In Trends in Ecological Physical Chemistry, Ed. By L Bonati, U Cosentino, M Lasagni, G Moro, D Pitea, and A Schiraldi, Elsecire, Amsterdam. 1993,187-215.
221. Venkatachalam, L. The contingent valuation method: a review. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 2004,24(1):89-124.
222. Vitousek P, P Ehrlich, A Enrich, P Matson. Human appropriation of the products of photosynthesis. Bioscience, 1986,36(6):368-373.
223. Wackernagel, W E Rees. Our ecological footprint: reducing human impact on the earth. Florida: St Lucie Press, 1997.
224. Wackernagel, L Onisto, P Bello, et al. Ecological footprints of nations: how much nature do they have. Commissioned by the earth council for the Rio+5 forums. International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives. Toronto. 1997:10-21.
225. Wackernagel, L Onisto, P Bello, et al. National natural capital accounting with the ecological footprint concept. Ecological Economics, 1999, 29(3):375-390.
226. Walsh, R, J Loomis and R Gillman.Valuing option existence and bequest demand for wilderness. Land Economics, 1984, 60(1):14-29.
227. Waugh, F V. Quality factors influencing vegetable prices. Journal of Farm Economics, 1928,10(2):185-196.
228. Meyerhoff, J. The influence of generaland specific attitudes on stated willingness to pay: a composite attitude- behavior- model. CSERGE and School of Environmental Science, University of EastAnglia, Norwich, 2002.
229. Willis, K G Option value and non-user benefits of wildlife conservation. Journal of Rural Studies, 1989,5(3):245-256.
230. Willis, K G, G D Garrod. An individual travel cost method of evaluating forest recreation Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1991,42(1):33-42.
231. Willis, K G and G D Garrod. Valuing landscape: a contingent valuation approach. Journal of Environmental Management, 1993,37(1): 1-22.
232. Willis, K G and G D Garrod. An individual travel cost method of evaluating forest recreationJournal of Agricultural Economics, 1999,42(1):33-42.
233. Willing, R. Consumer 's surplus without apology. American Economic Review, 1976, 66(4):589-597.
234. Murphy, J J, T H Stevens, P G Allen, and D Weatherhead. A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Working paper, Amherst, MA: Univ.of Massachusetts, Dept. of Resource Economics, 2003.
235. Wood, S and A Trice.Measurement of recreation benefits.Land Economics, 1958,34(3):195-207.
236. Woodward, R T and Y S Wui. The economic value of wetland services: a meta-analysis.Ecological Economics, 2001,37(2):257-270.
2．马思新，李昂．基于Hedonic模型的北京住宅价格影响因素分析[J]．土木工程学报，2003，36(9)，59-65．
3．王凤仙．农田系统潜在危机及调控之见[J]．农业环境保护，1995，14(1)：34-36．
4．王学军等．国外生态环境补偿费征收情况调查报告．国家环境保护局自然保护司编．中国生态环境补偿费的理论与实践[M]．北京：中国环境科学出版社，1995，118-131．
5．王宪礼，胡礼满，布仁包．辽河三角洲湿地的景观变化分析[J]．地理科学，1996，16(3)：260-265．
6．王克忠，李国荣．“土地商品论”值得商榷[J]．房地产经济，1989，1．
7．王昭正，陈益壮，林建信．奥万大森林游乐区游客会费意愿分析—多指标多因子模式之应用[J]．农业经济半年刊，2001，70(2)：91-115．
8．王晓鸿．鄱阳湖湿地生态系统评估[M]．北京：科学出版社，2004．
9．王瑞雪．耕地非市场价值评估理论方法与实践(博士论文)．华中农业大学，2005．
10．王瑞雪，张安录，颜延武．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．
11．王瑞雪，赵学涛，张安录．农地非市场价值条件评估法及其应用[J]．资源科学，2005，27(3)：105-110．
12．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．
13．王丰年．论生态补偿的原则和机制．[J]自然辨证法研究，2006，22(1)：31-35．
14．田树君．两种土壤生态系统固氮菌和磷细菌的生物多样性研究(硕士论文)．中国农业大学，2002．6
15．孙昌金，陈晓倩．关于森林生态补偿基金的几点感想冲国环境与发展国际合作委员会林草问题课题组．生态环境效益补偿政策与国际经验研讨会论文集[M]．北京：中国林业出版社，2002，28-32．
16．孙建平．秦岭北坡森林公园游憩价值及深层生态旅游开发(硕士论文)．陕西师范大学，2004．
17．世界银行．中国：空气、土地和水-新千年的环境优先领域[M]．北京：中国环境科学出版社，2001．
18．世界财经报道．忧：中国GDP能耗是日本的8倍．2006-03-13 09：00。http://finance.icxo.com/htmlnews/2006/03/13/777882_0.htm.
19．朱仁友．我国农地估价中运用收益还原法存在的问题与求解[J]．中国农村观察，2000(5)：25-29．
20．朱会义，李秀彬．关于区域土地利用变化指数模型方法的讨论[J]．地理学报，2003，58(5)：643-650．
21．朱宜萱等．凝眸中原—中国经济快速发展的第四板块(生态卷)[M]．北京：中央文献出版社，2003．12．
22．李百冠．土地物质、土地资本与土地价值关系探究．不动产纵横，1997(2)：14．
23．李金昌，姜文来，靳乐山，任勇编著．生态价值论[M]．重庆：重庆大学出版社，1999．
24．李国安．还原利率与使用权年限的关系及应用[J]．宁波大学学报(理工版)，1996，9(2)：27-33．
25．李仁东，程学军，隋晓丽．江汉平原土地利用的时空变化及驱动因素分析[J]．地理研究，2003，22(4)：423-430．
26．李巍，李文军．用改进的旅行费用法评估九寨沟的游憩价值[J]．北京大学学报(自然科学版)，2003，39(4)，548-555．
27．李仁安，邓建勋．江汉平原水资源保护与农业可持续发展研究[J]．武汉理工大学学报，2004，26(7)：91-93．
28．乔家君，许立民．山区耕地资源投入产出的高程因子分析—以河南吴沟村为例[J]．资源科学，2005，27(6)：53-57
29．乔家君．中国中部农区村域人地关系系统定量研究—河南省巩市市吴沟村、滹沱村、孝南村的实证分析(博士论文)．河南大学，2004．
30．乔家君，熊剑．村域农田生态经济系统投入产出特征研究—以河南省巩义市吴沟村为例．中国生态农业学报，2006，14(1)：226-229．
31．刘卫东等．湖北省中亚热带与北亚热带自然地理界线的划分．地理集刊，(21)．北京：科学出版社，1990．
32．刘卫东．江汉平原土地类型与综合自然区划[J]．地理学报，1994，49(12)：73-82．
33．刘书楷．马克思劳动价值观与西方非劳动价值观土地价值与价格理论[J]．中国土地科学，1995，9(6)：6-10．
34．刘书楷．论当前我国土地价值与价格研究涉及的基础理论概念问题[J]．不动产纵横，1997(2)
35．刘绍明，吴文良．县域农业生态经济系统的分析—功能和效益[J]．农业环境科学学报，2003，22(1)：78-81．
36．刘坤，杨东．旅游资源的经济价值评价[J]．曲阜师范大学学报(自然科学版)，2001，27(3)：103-107．
37．刘彦随，彭留英，王大伟．东南沿海地区土地利用转换态势与机制分析[J]．自然资源学报，2005，20(3)：333-339．
38．朱俊林．三峡工程和江汉平原农业持续发展[J]．生态学杂志，1997，16(2)：36-41．
39．全国土地估价师资格考试委员会．土地估价理论与方法[M]．北京：地质出版社，2004．
40．光明日报．破解“三农”问题的一把钥匙——如何理解工业反哺农业、城市支持农村的方针，2005／8／22／．
41．陈应发，陈放鸣．国外森林游憩价值评估的两种流行方法[J]．北京林业大学学报，1994(3)，97-105．
42．陈应发．旅行费用法—国外最流行的森林游憩价值评估方法[J]．生态经济，1996(4)，35-39．
43．陈伟琪，刘岩，洪华生，等．厦门岛东部海岸旅游娱乐价值的评估[J]．厦门大学学报(自然科学版)，2001，40(4)：914-921．
44．陈江龙．经济快速增长阶段农地非农化问题研究(博士论文)．南京农业大学，2003．
45．陈会广．经济发展中土地非农化的制度响应与政府征用绩效研究：理论框架与来自常州、马鞍山的经验(硕士论文)．南京农业大学，2004．
46．陈恭钧．关渡沼泽区的保护效益评估—假设性市场评价法之应用(硕士论文)．台湾大学经济学研究所，1994．
47．陈凯俐．台湾湿地的价值评估—生态评估与经济评估之结合．自然资源与环境经济学—理论基础与本土案例分析[M]．台北：双业书廊，2003．
48．陈钦奇．离岛地区民众对淡化水的愿付金额之探讨[J]．台湾土地金融季刊，2003，40(1)： 229-253．
49．陈锡文．中国将坚持实施最严格的耕地保护制度．2006-2-23．http://finance.people.com.cn/GB/1037/4133689.html.
50．杨凯，赵军．城市河流生态系统服务的CVM估值及其偏差分析[J]．生态学报，2005，25(6)：1391-1396．
51．余家林．农业多元试验统计[M]．北京：北京农业大学出版社，1993
52．张跃庆，张连城著．城市土地经济问题(M)。北京：光明日报出版社，1990
53．张安录．城乡生态经济交错区农地城市流转机制与制度创新[J]．中国农村经济，1999(7)：43-49．
54．张安录．城乡生态经济交错区土地资源可持续利用与管理研究(博士论文)．华中农业大学，1999．
55．张安录．农地城市流转与土地一级市场流转[J]．华中师范大学学报(自然科学版)，2000，6(2)：232-236．
56．张帆．环境与自然资源经济学[M]．上海：上海人民出版社，1998．
57．张志强，徐中明．黑河流域张掖地区生态系统服务恢复的条件价值评估[J]．生态学报，2002，22(6)：885-893．
58．张芳．黑龙江省耕地资源价值核算[J]．农场经济管理，2003(6)：26-27．
59．张茵，蔡运龙．基于分区的多目的地TCM模型及其在游憩资源价值评估中的应用—以九寨沟自然保护区为例[J]．自然资源学报，2004，19(5)：651-661．
60．张沽暇，郝晋珉，段瑞娟．现代农业生态系统能值演替分析—以河北省曲周县为例[J]．水土保持学报，2005，19(6)：141-144．
61．张耀启，李一清，潘羿．自然与环境资源价值评估的误区[J]．自然资源学报，2005，20(3)453-460．
62．张士功．耕地资源与粮食安全(博士论文)．中国农业科学院，2005
63．吴佩瑛，苏明达．60亿元的由来—垦丁国家公园资源经济价值评估[M]．台北：前卫出版社，2001．
64．宋敏，横川洋等．用假设市场评价法(CVM)评价农地的外部效益[J]．中国土地科学，2000，14(3)：19-22
65．汪峰．农地价值评估及其社会保障功能研究(硕士论文)．浙江大学，2001
66．严茂超，李海涛，程鸿等．中国农林牧渔业主要产品的能值分析与评估[J]．北京林业大学学报，2003，23(6)：66-69．
67．苏明达，吴佩瑛．愿意支付价值最佳效率指标之建构与验证[J]．农业经济丛刊，2004，9(2)：27-60．
68．苏国麟，李谋召，蓝盛芳，陈飞鹏．广东三水市种植业系统的能值分析及其可持续发展[J]．农业现代化研究，1999，20(6)：359-361．
69．尚杰．农业生态经济学[M]．北京：中国农业出版社，2000，65-66．
70．周诚．土地经济学原理[M]．北京：商务印书馆，2003
71．罗伊·普罗斯特曼，李平，蒂姆·汉斯达德．中国农业的规模经营：政策适当吗?[J]．中国农村观察，1996(6)：17-29．
72．罗必良．农地经营规模的效益决定[J]．中国农村观察，2000(5)：18-24．
73．金健君，王志石．澳门固体废物管理的经济价值评估—选择试验模型法和条件价值法的比较[J]．中国环境科学，2005，25(6)：751-755．
74．赵军．生态系统服务的条件价值评估：理论、方法与应用(硕士论文)．华东师范大学，2005
75．国土资源部地籍管理司．《全国土地利用变更调查报告2002》．中国大地出版社，2003
76．国家环境保护总局．《2004年中国环境状况公报》[ED／OL]http://www.zhb.gov.cn/eic/649368307484327936/20050602/8215.shtml
77．河北农业报．三部委负责人谈建设新农村．2006-03-08．http://nmb.hebeidaily.com.cn/20060107/ca592929.htm.
78．宜昌市国土资源局，宜昌市国土资源概况．http://www.yclr.gov.cn/AboutUs.asp.
79．高映轸、潘家华、顾志明．土地经济问题再认识．南京：南京出版社，1996
80．高吉喜．可持续发展理论探索—可持续生态承载理论、方法与应用[M]．北京：中国环境科学出版社，2001
81．高云峰．北京山区森林资源价值评估(博士论文)．中国农业大学，2005
82．黄宗煌．台湾地区国家公园之游憩效益的评估[J]．台湾银行季刊，1990，41(3)：282-304．
83．黄书礼．生态系统理论在区域研究之应用[J]．都市与计划，2002，29(2)：187-215
84．黄贤金．中国耕地资源价值量核算研究[J]．农业经济问题，1997(3)：40-42
85．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)：55-59
86．黄雅玲，陈明健．厨餘回收及其经济效益之评估-以台中市社区为例[J]．台湾土地金融季刊，2004，41(3)：99-119．
87．萧景楷．农地资源保育效益之评价[J]．水土保持研究，1999，6(3)：60-71．
88．赵学涛．城市边缘区农地城市流转决策(硕士论文)．华中农业大学，2003
89．武燕丽．农用土地资源价值测度方法研究(硕士论文)．山西农业大学，2005
90．金丽娟．香山公园森林游憩价值评估与旅游管理对策研究(硕士论文)．北京林业大学，2005
91．郑捷奋．城市轨道交通与周边房地产价值关系研究(博士论文)．清华大学，2004．
92．郑惠燕，林政德．条件价值评估法之嵌入效果：台湾野生动物保护区之验证[J]．农业经济半年刊，1997，64：125-139
93．贺锡苹，张小华．耕地资产核算方法及实例分析[J]．中国土地科学，1994，8(6)：23-27
94．姜文来，杨瑞珍．资源资产论[M]．北京：科学出版社，2003
95．郭剑英，王乃昂．敦煌旅游资源非使用价值评估[J]．资源科学，2005，27(5)：187-192．
96．姚志勇等．环境经济学[M]．北京：中国发展出版社，2002
97．高智晟．野生动物价值评估与定价研究(博士论文)．东北林业大学，2005
98．唐焱，吴群，刘友兆等．基于C—D生产函数的农用地估价实证研究[J]．南京农业大学学报，2003，26(3)：101-105．
99．唐建荣．生态经济学[M]．北京：化学工业出版社，2005．
100．钱忠好．中国农地保护：理论与政策分析[J]．管理世界，2003(10)：60-70
101．夏伦旺．农田生态系统的概念、组成和特性[J]．生物学通报，2000，35(3)：18
102．徐中明，张志强，程国栋．生态经济学理论方法与应用[M]．郑州：黄河水利出版社，2003
103．徐中明，张志强，程国栋等．额济纳旗生态系统恢复的总经济价值评估[J]．地理学报，2002，57(1)：107-116
104．靳乐山．用旅行费用法评价圆明园的环境服务价值[J]．环境保护，1999(4)，31-34．
105．黄有光．福利经济学[M]．中国友谊出版公司，1991：345．
106．黄恒学．公共经济学[M]．北京：北京大学出版社，2002：106．
107．曹辉，兰思仁．福州国家森林公园景观游憩效益评估[J]．林业经济问题，2001，21(5)：296-298．
108．曹辉，陈平留．森林景观资产评估CVM法研究[J]．福建林学院学报，2003(1)：48-52．
109．温铁军．中国的“城镇化”道路与相关制度问题[ED／OL]，http://www.cei.gov.cn/forum50/,2002/5/22.
110．温海珍，贾生华．住宅的特征与特征的价格—基于特征价格模型的分析[J]．浙江大学学报(工学版)，2004，38(10)：1338-1342．
111．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)：189-195．
112．谢静琪，简士豪．环境敏感地区之保育价值[J]．台湾土地金融季刊，2003，40(1)：1-21．
113．蓝盛芳，钦佩，陆宏芳．生态经济系统能值分析[M]．北京：化学工业出版社，2002．
114．董孝斌，高旺盛，严茂超．黄土高原典型流域农业生态系统生产力的能值分析[J]．地理学报，59(2)：223-229．
115．蔡运龙．中国经济高速发展中的耕地问题[J]．资源科学，2000，22(3)：22-28．
116．蔡剑辉．论森林资源定价的理论基础[J]．北京林业大学学报(社会科学版)，2004，3(3)：41-44．
117．蔡银莺，张安录．武汉市农地城市流转的基本态势及区域差异[J]．国土资源科技管理，2004，21(4)：1-4．
118．蔡银莺，张安录．武汉市耕地资源非农化过程的时空变化特征分析[J]．中国人口、资源与环境，2004，14(6)：115-119．
119．蔡银莺，张安录．新时期武汉市加强耕地保护的政策及技术措施[J]．国土与自然资源研究，2005(1)：24-25．
120．蔡银莺．城市区域基本农田保护的思考与定位[J]．国土资源科技管理，2005，22(1)：67-71．
121．蔡银莺，李晓云，张安录．农地城市流转对区域生态系统服务价值的影响[J]．农业现代化研究，2005，26(3)：186-189．
122．蔡银莺，张安录．耕地资源流失与经济发展的关系分析[J]．中国人口·资源与环境，2005，15(5)：51-55．
123．蔡银莺，张安录．农地城市流转合理配置的可能性边界分析[J]．生态经济，2005(8)：28-31
124．霍雅勤，蔡运龙．耕地资源价值的评估与重建—以甘肃省会宁县为例．干旱区资源与环境，2003，17(5)：81-85．
125．霍雅勤，蔡运龙，王瑛．耕地对农民的效用考察及耕地功能分析[J]．中国人口资源与环境，2004，14(3)：105-108．
126．戴星翼，俞厚未，董梅．生态服务的价值实现[M]．北京：科学出版社，2005．
127．薛达元，包浩生，李文华．长白山自然保护区森林生态系统间接经济价值评估[J]．中国环境科学，1999，19(3)：247-252．
128．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．
129．McNeely J A，K R Miller，W V Reid，et al．1990．Conserving the World Biological Diversity．薛达元等译．保护世界的生物多样性[M]．北京：中国环境科学出版社，1991．
130．Myrick Freeman A．The measurement of environmental and resource values．曾贤刚译．环境与资源价值评估—理论与方法[M]．北京：中国人民大学出版社，2002．
131. Albers, H J, A C Fisher, and W M Hanemann. Valuation of tropical forests: implications of uncertainty and irreversibility. Environmental and Resource Economics, 1996, 8(1): 39-61.
132. Arguea N M, C Hsiao. Econometric issues of estimating hedonic price functions-with an application to the U.S. market for automobiles. Journal of Econometrics, 1993, 56(1):243-267.
133. Arrow K, R Solow, P Portney, E Learner, R Radner, H Schuman. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Report to the General Council of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Washington D C: Resource for the Future, 1993.
134. Arrow, K J and AC Fisher. Environmental preservation, uncertainty, and irreversibility. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1974,88(2):312-319.
135. Baltas, G and J Freeman. Hedonic price methods and the structure of high-technology Industrial markets: an empirical analysis. Industrial Marketing Management, 2001,30(7):599-607.
136. Barnes, J I. Changes in the economic use value of elephant in Botswana: The effect of international trade prohibition. Ecological Economics, 1996,18(3):215-230.
137. Bateman, I J and I H Langford. Non-users willingness to pay for a national park: an application and critique of the contingent valuation method. Regional Studies, 1997,31(6):571-582.
138. Bennett, J W. Using direct questioning to value the existence benefits of preserved natural areas. Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1984,28(2): 136-152.
139. Bennett, R Y and D Larson. Contingent valuation of the perceived benefits of farm animal welfare legislation: an exploratory survey. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1996, 47(2):224-235
140. Bergstrom, J C, K Boyle, and G Poe (Eds) .The economic valuation of water quality. Edward Elgar Publishers, Cheltenham, U. K., 2000.
141. Bishop, R C. Option value: an exposition and extention.Land Economics, 1982,58(1):1-15.
142. Bowker, J M and J R Stoll. Use of dichotomous choice nonmarket methods to value the whooping crane resource. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1988,70(2):372-381.
143. Bockstael, N E, W M Hanemann, and C L Kling. Estimating the value of water quality improvements in a recreational demand framework. Water Resources Research, 1987, 23(5):951-960.
144. Bong-Koo K, C Yongsung, and K Jae Eun. Estimation of WTP for water quality improvements in Paldang reservoir using contingent valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics Review, 2001,10 (3):433-459.
145. Boyle, K J and R C Bishop. Valuing wildlife in benefit-cost analysis: a case study involving endangered species. Water Resources Research, 1987,23(5):943-950.
146. Boyle, K H and R C Bishop. Toward total valuation of Great Lakes fishery resources. Water Resources Research, 1987,5: 943-950.
147. Bonnetain, P. A hedonic price model for islands. Journal of Urban Economics. 2003, 54(2):368-377.
148. Blomquist G C and J C Whitehead. Resource quality information and validity of willingness to pay in contingent valuation. Resource and Energy Economics, 1998, 20(2):179-196.
149. Brown, T C, I Ajzen, and D Hrubes. Further tests of entreaties to avoid hypothetical bias in referendum contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 2003, 46(2): 353-361.
150. Burt, O. Econometric modeling of the capitalization formula for farmland price. American Journal of Agricultural Economy, 1986, 68(2):10-26.
151. Campbell D E. Emergy analysis of human carrying capacity and regional sustainability:an example using the state of Maine. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 1998, 51(1-2): 531-569.
152. Carson, R T and R C Mitchell. Sequencing and nesting in contingent valuation surveys. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management.1995,28(2):155-173.
153. Carson, R T. Valuation of tropical rainforest: philosophical and practical issues in the use of contingent valuation. Ecological Economics, 1998,24 (1): 15-29.
154. Clawson, M and J Knetsch. Economics of Outdoor Recreation, Baltimore. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1966.
155. Common, M and C Perrings.Toward an ecological economics of Sustainability. Ecological Economics, 1992, 6(1):7-34.
156. Combris P, S Lecocq, M Visser. Estimation of a hedonic price equation for Bordeaux wine: does quality matter? The Economic Journal, 1997,107(3):390-402.
157. Constanza R, et al. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital.Nature, 1997, 387:253-260.
158. Cummings R G, P T Ganderton, and T Mcguckin.Substitution effects in CVM values.American Journal of agricultural Economics, 1994, 76(2):205-214.
159. Cummings, R G, and L O Taylor. Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: a cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. The American Economic Review. 1999, 89(3): 649 -665.
160. Choe, K A, D Whittington, D T Lauria. The economic benefits of surface water quality improvements in developing countries: a case study of Davao, Philippines. Land-Economics, 1996 72(4):519-537.
161. Drake, L. The non-market value of the Swedish agricultural landscape. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 1992,19(3):351-364.
162. Davis, R K. Recreation planning as an economic problem.Natural Resource Journal, 1963(3):239-249.
163. Emmert, J J. Income and substitution effects in the travel cost model: an application to Indiana state parks. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1999, 81(5):1330-1337.
164. Halstead, J M. Measuring the nonmarket value of Massachusetts agricultural land: a case study. Northeast Journal of Agriculture and Resource Economics, 1984,14(1): 12-19.
165. Harless, D W and F R Allen. Using the contingent valuation method to measure patron benefits of reference desk service in an academic library. College and Research Libraries, 1999, 60(1):56-69.
166. Harrison, G W, and E E Rutstrom. Experimental evidence on the existence of hypothetical bias in value elicitation methods. In Handbook of Results in Experimental Economics. Ed. Smith, V L New York: Elsevier Science, 2002.
167. Haurin, D R and D Brasington. School quality and real house prices: Inter-and intrametropolitan effects. Journal of Housing Economics, 1996,5(4):351-368.
168. Hoehn, J P and A Randall. The effect of resource quality information on resource injury perceptions and contingent values. Resource and Energy Economics, 2002,24(2): 13-33.
169. Holt, G E, D Elliott, and A Moore. Placing a value on public library services. Public Libraries, 1999,38 (2): 98-108.
170. Freeman, A.The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values-Theory and Methods. Washington.D.C. Resources for the Future, 1993.
171. Goodman, A C. Andrew Court and the invention of hedonic price analysis. Journal of Urban Economics, 1998, 44(2):291-298.
172. Gowdy, J M. The value of the biodiversity: markets, society and ecosystems. Land Economics, 1997, 73(1):25-41.
173. Griliches Z. The demand for fertilizer: an econoetric reinterpretation of a technical change. Journal of Farm Econoics. 1958, 40(2):591-606.
174. Hanley, N C, L Spash and L Walker. Problems in valuing the benefits of biodiversity protection. Environmental and Resource Economics.1995,5(3):249-272.
175. Hanemann, M. Willingness to pay and willingness to accept: how much can they differ?. American Economic Review, 1991,81(3):635-647.
176. Hammack J, G Brown. Waterfowl and wetlands: towards bioeconomic andlysis.Baltimor: Johns Hopkings University Press,1974
177. Hicks J. Value and capital. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1946.
178. Holling, C S and M A Goldberg. Ecology and planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planner, 1971(39):221-230.
179. Jordan, J L and A H Elnagheeb.Willingness to pay for improvements in drinking water quality. Water Reasources Research, 1993, 29(2):237-245.
180. Jokobsson, M Christin, E Eglar. Contingent valuation and endangered species: methodological issues and applications. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Press, 1996.
181. Jonathan I, Eisen-Hecht and Randall A K. A cost-benefit analysis of water quality protection in the Catawba basin. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 2002,38(2):453-465.
182. Kahneman, D, J Knetsch and R.Thaler. The endowment effect, loss aversion and status quobias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 1991(5):193-206.
183. Kahmeman, D and J L Knetsch. Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction.Joumal of Environmental Economics and Management, 1992,22(1):57-70.
184. Kahmeman, D and J L Knetsch. Reply: contingent valuation and the value of public goods. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 1992,22(1):90-94.
185. Kennedy, J. A travel cost analysis of the value of Carnarvon Gorge National park for recreational use: comment. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 1998,42(3): 263-65.
186. KnetschJ and J Sinden. Willingness to pay and compensation demanded: Experimental evidence of an unexpected disparity. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1984, 94(3):507-521.
187. Knetsch, J. The endowment effect and evidence of nonreversible indifference curves. American Economic Review, 1989, 79(5):1277-1284.
188. Kramer, R A. and D E Mercer. Valuing a global environmetal good: U.S. residents willingness to pay to protect tropical rain forests. Land Economics, 1997,73(2):196-210.
189. Lancaster, K J. A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economics, 1966, 74(2):132-157.
190. Ladd, G and V Suvannunt. A model of consumer goods characteristics. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1976,58(3):504-510.
191. Lee H S, et al. Estimation of information value on the internet: application of hedonic price model. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications.2003, 2(1):73-80.
192. Lockwood, M and K Tracy. Nonmarket economic evaluation of an urban recreation park Journal of Leisure Research, 1995, 27(2): 155-167.
193. Loomis J B, R G Walsh. Recreation Economic Decisions: Comparing Benefits and Costs.2nd editon. Venture Publishing Inc, 1997.
194. Loomis, J, V Rameker, and A Seidl. Potential non-market benefits of agricultural lands in Colorado: a review of the literature. Agricultural and Resource Policy Report, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, APR00-02, February 2000. http://dare.agsci.colostate.edu/csuagecon/extension/docsAanduse/agland.pdf.
195. Li Xiaoyun, Cai Yinying, Zhang Anlu. Agricultural land loss in China's urbanization process. Ecological Economy, 2006,2(1):32-42.
196. McHarg, I L. Design with Nature. New York: Natural History Press, 1969.
197. Meadows, D H, D L Meadows, T Randers, W W III Beherens. The limits to growth .New York: Universe Books, 1974.
198. Mitchell, R C and R T Carson. A contingent valuation estimate of national freshwater benefits. Technical report to the US Environmental Protection Agency.Washinton, D C, Resources for the future.Cited in Mitchell, R C and R T Carson.1984.
199. Mitchell, R, G Cameron and R T Carson. Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Washinton DC: Resource for the Future, 1989.
200. Noonan, D S. Contingent valuation and cultural resources: A meta-analytic review of the literature. Journal of Cultural Economics, 2003, 27(3-4): 159-176.
201. Norgaard, R B. Co-evolutionary development potential. Land Economics, 1984, 60(2):160-173.
202. Odum H T. Environmental accounting: emergy and environmental decision making.New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1996.
203. Olsen ER, RP Ramsey. A modified fracture dimension as a measure of landscape diversity. Photo Grammatik Engineering &Remote Sensing, 1993,53(10): 1517-1520.
204. Pearce, D W and D Moran. The economic value of biodiversity. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd, 1995.
205. Portney PR. The contingent valuation debate: why economists should care. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 1994, 8(4):3-17.
206. Pruckner, G J. Agricultural landscape cultivation in Austria: an application of the CVM.European Review of Agricultural Economics, 1999,22(2): 173-190.
207. Randall, A and J Stoll. Consumer's surplus in commodity space. American Economic Review, 1980,70(3):449-455.
208. Randall, A, J P Hoehn and D S Brookshire. Contingent valuation surveys for evaluation environment assets.Natural Resources. 1983, 23(6):35-48.
209. Ready, R, M Berger, and G Blomquist. Measuring amenity benefits from farmland: hedonic pricing vs. contingent valuation. Growth and Change, 1997,28(1):43-58.
210. Ribaudo, M O, D J Epp. The importance of sample discrimination in using the travel cost method to estimate the benefits of improved water quality. Land-Economics, 1984, 60(4): 397-403.
211. Rosen, S. Hedonistic prices and implicit markets: product differentiation in pure competition. Journal of Political Economy, 1974,82(1):34-55.
212. Rosenburger, S R and G R Walsh. Non-market valuation of western valley ranchland using contingent valuation. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 1997,22(2):296-309.
213. Rowe, R, R d' Arge and D Brookshire. An experiment on the economic value of visibility. Journal of Environment Economics and Management, 1980,7(3):1-19.
214. Samples,K C and J R Hollyer.Contingent valuation of wildlife resources in the presence of substitutes and complements. In Johnson,R.L.and GV.Johnson(eds).Economic valuation of natural resources:Issues, theory and applications. Westvies Press, 1990:177-192.
215. Sengupta, S and D E Osgood. The value of remoteness: a hedonic estimation of ranchette prices. Ecological Economics. 2003, 44(1):91-103.
216. Smith KV. Nonmarket valuation of environmental resources: an interpretative appraisal. Land Economics, 1993, 69(1):1-26.
217. Stanley L R, J Tschirhart. Hedonic prices for a nondurable good: the case of breakfast cereals. Review of Economics and Statistics, 1991, 73(3):537-541.
218. Turner K. Economics and wetland management. Ambio, 1991, 20(2):59-61.
219. Tobias D, R Mendelsohn. Valuing ecotourism in a tropical rainforest reserve. Ambio, 1991, 20(2):91-93.
220. Ulgiati, S, H T Odum, S Bastianoni. Emergy analysis of Italian agricultural system. The role of emergy quality and environmental inputs. In Trends in Ecological Physical Chemistry, Ed. By L Bonati, U Cosentino, M Lasagni, G Moro, D Pitea, and A Schiraldi, Elsecire, Amsterdam. 1993,187-215.
221. Venkatachalam, L. The contingent valuation method: a review. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 2004,24(1):89-124.
222. Vitousek P, P Ehrlich, A Enrich, P Matson. Human appropriation of the products of photosynthesis. Bioscience, 1986,36(6):368-373.
223. Wackernagel, W E Rees. Our ecological footprint: reducing human impact on the earth. Florida: St Lucie Press, 1997.
224. Wackernagel, L Onisto, P Bello, et al. Ecological footprints of nations: how much nature do they have. Commissioned by the earth council for the Rio+5 forums. International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives. Toronto. 1997:10-21.
225. Wackernagel, L Onisto, P Bello, et al. National natural capital accounting with the ecological footprint concept. Ecological Economics, 1999, 29(3):375-390.
226. Walsh, R, J Loomis and R Gillman.Valuing option existence and bequest demand for wilderness. Land Economics, 1984, 60(1):14-29.
227. Waugh, F V. Quality factors influencing vegetable prices. Journal of Farm Economics, 1928,10(2):185-196.
228. Meyerhoff, J. The influence of generaland specific attitudes on stated willingness to pay: a composite attitude- behavior- model. CSERGE and School of Environmental Science, University of EastAnglia, Norwich, 2002.
229. Willis, K G Option value and non-user benefits of wildlife conservation. Journal of Rural Studies, 1989,5(3):245-256.
230. Willis, K G, G D Garrod. An individual travel cost method of evaluating forest recreation Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1991,42(1):33-42.
231. Willis, K G and G D Garrod. Valuing landscape: a contingent valuation approach. Journal of Environmental Management, 1993,37(1): 1-22.
232. Willis, K G and G D Garrod. An individual travel cost method of evaluating forest recreationJournal of Agricultural Economics, 1999,42(1):33-42.
233. Willing, R. Consumer 's surplus without apology. American Economic Review, 1976, 66(4):589-597.
234. Murphy, J J, T H Stevens, P G Allen, and D Weatherhead. A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Working paper, Amherst, MA: Univ.of Massachusetts, Dept. of Resource Economics, 2003.
235. Wood, S and A Trice.Measurement of recreation benefits.Land Economics, 1958,34(3):195-207.
236. Woodward, R T and Y S Wui. The economic value of wetland services: a meta-analysis.Ecological Economics, 2001,37(2):257-270.