基于实物期权的流域生态补偿机制研究
|
摘要
流域生态补偿是保持流域内经济平衡、维持经济可持续发展、实现社会公平的重要手段。三峡库区作为长江流域中上游地区的重要生态屏障区,其环境的好坏直接影响了当地经济发展以及下游地区的生产生活成本,如何协调好上下游经济利益以实现整个流域的福利最大化是本文研究的主旨。
本文通过对流域矿产资源补偿为切入点,利用实物期权方法研究了流域生态补偿的额度、分担率等关键因素,为实现流域生态补偿提供了理论基础。本文选择实物期权方法对流域生态补偿尤其是矿产资源价值的测算是行之有效的。分布在流域上游的矿产资源,对于当地的经济发展具有重要意义,但是由于顾全生态环境大局而放弃开采以达到整个流域生态的稳定平衡,受益的下游应该给予上游一定的补偿以弥补上游丧失的发展机会成本,补偿的额度必须合理,既要体现补偿机会成本又不能加重下游的经济负担,合理确定补偿额度成为流域生态补偿的关键。本文将选取流域范围内的矿产资源作为确定补偿额度的因素。但是由于矿产资源的价格等受到国家政策、经济环境以及其他资源价格等因素的影响而具有不确定性,传统的NPV方法方法已经无法解决不确定性带来的问题,而实物期权在解决不确定性问题方面具有独特的优势,被越来越多的应用于解决此类不确定性问题。本文在考察了矿产资源价格变化的基础上,确定了实物期权方法在解决矿产资源补偿方面的适用性。
本文得出的结论主要有以下几个方面:
①本文提出简化的基于实物期权的矿产价值评估模型,并将这一简化的模型应用于流域生态补偿。在罗吉斯生长曲线确定的分担率的框架下,确定了流域下游对上游生态补偿标准。通过建立基于实物期权的流域矿产资源开发生态补偿的总体框架,弥补了传统流域生态补偿额度测定方法无法计算矿产资源的附加价值和补偿分担率不足的问题。
②文章又考虑了矿产资源价格分布在具有离散性的条件下,通过实物期权二叉树方法对价格不确定的矿产资源价值进行了分析计算,得出了相应的价值计算方法。流域矿产资源的开发对区域经济发展产生的影响,不仅仅体现在矿产资源的实体价值上,其开发利用对区域经济的发展具有相对于实体价值扩大或缩小的效应。生态补偿机制的根本就是平衡区际经济发展,弥补由于不能开发资源而对区域经济产生的负面影响。因此,本文还充分考虑了这种扩大或缩小的效应,在生态补偿额的确定过程中引入了矿产资源对区域经济发展的影响因子。通过对重庆地区各类资源的数据分析,最终得出了适合三峡库区流域矿产资源补偿的各个补偿因子及最终补偿额度。
③本文通过观察分析障碍期权的特点,发现流域矿产资源限制开采补偿具有上升敲出期权的特性,结合流域矿产资源补偿的具体情况,利用障碍期权理论方法给出了下游补偿定价模型及求解,分析了上游开采成本和下游治污成本两个关键因素对补偿价值的影响。
④从流域生态补偿的角度,阐述了补偿资金的来源和分担机制。文章分析在制定流域生态补偿机制过程中,生态补偿额度在流域上下游地区之间分担有两种方式即市场交易形式与政府调控形式。作为市场交易形式,文章通过罗吉斯生长曲线模型,根据流域干流上下游地区的恩格尔系数、生态价值支付意愿模型来确定各受益对象的支付意愿,即间接收益系数;并可由上游和下游从流域干流的取水量比重来反映直接收益系数,进而解决了流域生态补偿额度分担率的问题。作为政府调控的形式,文章提出了设立三峡库区生态补偿基金。生态补偿基金的规模主要由三峡库区年度生态保护的投入与发展机会成本来确定,而生态补偿基金的分担比例则主要由三峡库区、下游地区发展差异水平来确定,同时中央政府从全国范围生态受益角度也应承担相应比例。
⑤提出了构建三峡库区生态补偿机制相关建议。
论文的主要创新点体现在以下三方面:
①论文针对确定生态补偿标准的难处在于发展机会成本的测算,分别运用实物期权理论的二叉树模型和Black-Scholes期权定价模型对矿产资源价值不确定性进行了分析,制定了相应的价值计算方法,根据三峡库区矿产资源分布状况,提出了矿产资源限制性开发的生态补偿额度测算方式。
②论文通过观察分析障碍期权的特点,发现流域矿产资源限制开采补偿具有上升敲出期权的特性,结合流域矿产资源补偿的具体情况,利用障碍期权理论方法给出了下游补偿定价模型及求解,分析了上游开采成本和下游治污成本两个关键因素对补偿价值的影响。
③论文根据三峡库区具有流域补偿、重要生态功能区的双重特征,建立以政府补偿为主导,流域补偿、市场补偿为补充的生态补偿体系,提出了设立三峡库区生态补偿基金及其基本框架,包括生态补偿基金的规模主要由三峡库区年度生态保护的投入与发展机会成本来确定,而生态补偿基金的分担比例则主要由三峡库区、下游地区发展差异水平来确定,同时鉴于中央政府从全国范围生态受益角度也应承担相应比例。
Three gorges reservoir area’s ecological compensation is the way of keeping basic economic balance, sustainable economic development and social justice. The three gorges valley is taken as important ecological shelters for the environment of the upper and middle reaches of the Yangtze River. It has a direct impact on the local economic development and the production and living costs of the lower reaches of Yangtze River. How to appropriately adjust the economic benefits of the upper and middle reaches of the Yangtze River and how to maximize the welfare of the whole valley is the theme researched in this paper.
Taking the compensation for the basin’s mineral resources as breakthrough point, this paper has researched the Yangtze River basin’s ecological compensation amount, share rate and other key factors by the method of real options, which offers the theoretical basis for compensation mechanism for watershed ecology.
The real options method is effective for the basin’s ecological compensation, especially the estimation of the value of basin’s mineral resources. The mineral resources in upper reaches are significant for the local economical development. To reach overall ecological balances, exploiting the mineral resources is given up to save the ecological environment. So the compensation should be given by the lower reaches for the benefits of the upper reaches to make up for their development opportunity. The compensation quota must be reasonable. Not only can it compensate for opportunity, but also it cannot impose the extra burden on the lower. So it is critical to determine reasonable compensation quota. This paper will choose the mineral resources of Yangtze basin as a determinant factor for determine the compensation quota. But the price of mineral resources is influenced by the state policies, economic environment, other resources’price and some other factors so its price is uncertain. The traditional NPV method has been unable to approach the problems that uncertainty has brought. Real option method has unique advantages when solving the uncertainty problems and it has been extensively applied to solve this kind of problems. Based on the research of fluctuating price of mineral resources, this paper has verified the applicability of real option method in the work of the mineral resources compensation
The conclusions we have made from this paper are:
This paper has established a simplified model in evaluation the value of mineral resources based on real option method and the model has been applied on the compensation mechanism for watershed ecology.
①In the new share rate framework determined by Rogues growth curve, the standards of ecological compensation that lower reaches of basin should make for the upper reaches were identified. The overall framework of ecological compensation based on mineral resources exploiting by real option method resolved the problem that traditional ecological compensation quota cannot calculate the added value of mineral resources and inadequate compensation share rate.
②Considering the price distribution of mineral resources is discrete, the value of mineral resources was analyzed and gained the corresponding value computational method by real option binary tree method. The influence on the region’s economic development made by the exploiting of mineral resources not only embodied in the value of mineral resources, but also it has expanded or reduced effect relative to the value on the region’s economic development. Ecological compensation mechanism's essence is to balance inter-regional economic development and compensate for the regional economical loss brought by not exploiting its mineral resources. Therefore, the expanded or reduced effects were also taken into full consideration in his paper. In the process of determining compensation amount, the influence factor of the mineral resources on regional economic development was proposed. In the final data analysis of all kinds of resources in Chongqing, the compensation factor and compensation amount appropriate for three gorges reservoir area were eventually fixed.
③By analyzing the characteristic of barrier option, the compensation for limiting exploiting mineral resources can be characterized by up on the option. The pricing model of compensation for lower reaches and its solution method were gained by barrier option method according to the detail conditions. The mining cost of the upper reaches and pollution treatment cost of the lower reaches were two key factors affecting compensation amount.
④The capital source and the mechanism of share were illustrated from the point of basin’s ecological compensation, In the process of establishing compensation mechanism, the ways of sharing ecological compensation between the upper reaches and lower reaches were governmental adjustment and market transaction. As the way of market transaction, the willingness to pay of all beneficiaries or indirect beneficial coefficient were determined by Rouges growth curve model according to Engel’s coefficient of the upper and lower reaches of the basin, and ecological value willingness-to- pay model. And the direct beneficial coefficient can be reflected by the quantity ratio of water collection of upper reaches and lower reaches. Then the problem of basin’s ecological compensation share rate was addressed. As the way of governmental adjustment, establishing the three gorges reservoir area’s ecological compensation fund was proposed in this paper. The scale of ecological compensation fund was mainly determined by three gorges reservoir area’s annual capital input for environmental protect and its development opportunity cost. While the share rate of compensation fund should be determined by the upper and lower reaches of three gorges reservoir area. The central government should also bear some amount for national ecological benefit.
⑤Some related recommendations on the compensation mechanism for watershed ecology were proposed.
The innovation spots of the paper as bellow:
①The difficulty in determining compensation standard lied in the estimating development opportunity cost. The uncertainty of mineral resources value was analyzed and corresponding computational method was set by the real option binary tree model and Black-Scholes option pricing model. The calculation method of ecological compensation amount for restricted mining of mineral resources was proposed according to the mineral resources distribution of three gorges reservoir area.
②Through observing and analyzing the characteristics of barrier option, up-on-the-option characteristic of the compensation for limiting exploiting mineral resources has been found. The pricing model of compensation for lower reaches and its solution method were gained by barrier option method according to the detail conditions. The mining cost of the upper reaches and pollution treatment cost of the lower reaches were two key factors affecting compensation amount.
③According that three gorges reservoir area can be characterized by ecological compensation and important eco-function areas, the compensation was led by government and supplemented by reservoir area and market. The establishing of three gorges reservoir area’s ecological compensation fund and its framework were proposed. To be specific, the scale of ecological compensation fund was mainly determined by three gorges reservoir area’s annual capital input for environmental protect and its development opportunity cost. While the share rate of compensation fund should be determined by the upper and lower reaches of three gorges reservoir area. The central government should also bear some amount for national ecological benefit.
本文通过对流域矿产资源补偿为切入点,利用实物期权方法研究了流域生态补偿的额度、分担率等关键因素,为实现流域生态补偿提供了理论基础。本文选择实物期权方法对流域生态补偿尤其是矿产资源价值的测算是行之有效的。分布在流域上游的矿产资源,对于当地的经济发展具有重要意义,但是由于顾全生态环境大局而放弃开采以达到整个流域生态的稳定平衡,受益的下游应该给予上游一定的补偿以弥补上游丧失的发展机会成本,补偿的额度必须合理,既要体现补偿机会成本又不能加重下游的经济负担,合理确定补偿额度成为流域生态补偿的关键。本文将选取流域范围内的矿产资源作为确定补偿额度的因素。但是由于矿产资源的价格等受到国家政策、经济环境以及其他资源价格等因素的影响而具有不确定性,传统的NPV方法方法已经无法解决不确定性带来的问题,而实物期权在解决不确定性问题方面具有独特的优势,被越来越多的应用于解决此类不确定性问题。本文在考察了矿产资源价格变化的基础上,确定了实物期权方法在解决矿产资源补偿方面的适用性。
本文得出的结论主要有以下几个方面:
①本文提出简化的基于实物期权的矿产价值评估模型,并将这一简化的模型应用于流域生态补偿。在罗吉斯生长曲线确定的分担率的框架下,确定了流域下游对上游生态补偿标准。通过建立基于实物期权的流域矿产资源开发生态补偿的总体框架,弥补了传统流域生态补偿额度测定方法无法计算矿产资源的附加价值和补偿分担率不足的问题。
②文章又考虑了矿产资源价格分布在具有离散性的条件下,通过实物期权二叉树方法对价格不确定的矿产资源价值进行了分析计算,得出了相应的价值计算方法。流域矿产资源的开发对区域经济发展产生的影响,不仅仅体现在矿产资源的实体价值上,其开发利用对区域经济的发展具有相对于实体价值扩大或缩小的效应。生态补偿机制的根本就是平衡区际经济发展,弥补由于不能开发资源而对区域经济产生的负面影响。因此,本文还充分考虑了这种扩大或缩小的效应,在生态补偿额的确定过程中引入了矿产资源对区域经济发展的影响因子。通过对重庆地区各类资源的数据分析,最终得出了适合三峡库区流域矿产资源补偿的各个补偿因子及最终补偿额度。
③本文通过观察分析障碍期权的特点,发现流域矿产资源限制开采补偿具有上升敲出期权的特性,结合流域矿产资源补偿的具体情况,利用障碍期权理论方法给出了下游补偿定价模型及求解,分析了上游开采成本和下游治污成本两个关键因素对补偿价值的影响。
④从流域生态补偿的角度,阐述了补偿资金的来源和分担机制。文章分析在制定流域生态补偿机制过程中,生态补偿额度在流域上下游地区之间分担有两种方式即市场交易形式与政府调控形式。作为市场交易形式,文章通过罗吉斯生长曲线模型,根据流域干流上下游地区的恩格尔系数、生态价值支付意愿模型来确定各受益对象的支付意愿,即间接收益系数;并可由上游和下游从流域干流的取水量比重来反映直接收益系数,进而解决了流域生态补偿额度分担率的问题。作为政府调控的形式,文章提出了设立三峡库区生态补偿基金。生态补偿基金的规模主要由三峡库区年度生态保护的投入与发展机会成本来确定,而生态补偿基金的分担比例则主要由三峡库区、下游地区发展差异水平来确定,同时中央政府从全国范围生态受益角度也应承担相应比例。
⑤提出了构建三峡库区生态补偿机制相关建议。
论文的主要创新点体现在以下三方面:
①论文针对确定生态补偿标准的难处在于发展机会成本的测算,分别运用实物期权理论的二叉树模型和Black-Scholes期权定价模型对矿产资源价值不确定性进行了分析,制定了相应的价值计算方法,根据三峡库区矿产资源分布状况,提出了矿产资源限制性开发的生态补偿额度测算方式。
②论文通过观察分析障碍期权的特点,发现流域矿产资源限制开采补偿具有上升敲出期权的特性,结合流域矿产资源补偿的具体情况,利用障碍期权理论方法给出了下游补偿定价模型及求解,分析了上游开采成本和下游治污成本两个关键因素对补偿价值的影响。
③论文根据三峡库区具有流域补偿、重要生态功能区的双重特征,建立以政府补偿为主导,流域补偿、市场补偿为补充的生态补偿体系,提出了设立三峡库区生态补偿基金及其基本框架,包括生态补偿基金的规模主要由三峡库区年度生态保护的投入与发展机会成本来确定,而生态补偿基金的分担比例则主要由三峡库区、下游地区发展差异水平来确定,同时鉴于中央政府从全国范围生态受益角度也应承担相应比例。
Three gorges reservoir area’s ecological compensation is the way of keeping basic economic balance, sustainable economic development and social justice. The three gorges valley is taken as important ecological shelters for the environment of the upper and middle reaches of the Yangtze River. It has a direct impact on the local economic development and the production and living costs of the lower reaches of Yangtze River. How to appropriately adjust the economic benefits of the upper and middle reaches of the Yangtze River and how to maximize the welfare of the whole valley is the theme researched in this paper.
Taking the compensation for the basin’s mineral resources as breakthrough point, this paper has researched the Yangtze River basin’s ecological compensation amount, share rate and other key factors by the method of real options, which offers the theoretical basis for compensation mechanism for watershed ecology.
The real options method is effective for the basin’s ecological compensation, especially the estimation of the value of basin’s mineral resources. The mineral resources in upper reaches are significant for the local economical development. To reach overall ecological balances, exploiting the mineral resources is given up to save the ecological environment. So the compensation should be given by the lower reaches for the benefits of the upper reaches to make up for their development opportunity. The compensation quota must be reasonable. Not only can it compensate for opportunity, but also it cannot impose the extra burden on the lower. So it is critical to determine reasonable compensation quota. This paper will choose the mineral resources of Yangtze basin as a determinant factor for determine the compensation quota. But the price of mineral resources is influenced by the state policies, economic environment, other resources’price and some other factors so its price is uncertain. The traditional NPV method has been unable to approach the problems that uncertainty has brought. Real option method has unique advantages when solving the uncertainty problems and it has been extensively applied to solve this kind of problems. Based on the research of fluctuating price of mineral resources, this paper has verified the applicability of real option method in the work of the mineral resources compensation
The conclusions we have made from this paper are:
This paper has established a simplified model in evaluation the value of mineral resources based on real option method and the model has been applied on the compensation mechanism for watershed ecology.
①In the new share rate framework determined by Rogues growth curve, the standards of ecological compensation that lower reaches of basin should make for the upper reaches were identified. The overall framework of ecological compensation based on mineral resources exploiting by real option method resolved the problem that traditional ecological compensation quota cannot calculate the added value of mineral resources and inadequate compensation share rate.
②Considering the price distribution of mineral resources is discrete, the value of mineral resources was analyzed and gained the corresponding value computational method by real option binary tree method. The influence on the region’s economic development made by the exploiting of mineral resources not only embodied in the value of mineral resources, but also it has expanded or reduced effect relative to the value on the region’s economic development. Ecological compensation mechanism's essence is to balance inter-regional economic development and compensate for the regional economical loss brought by not exploiting its mineral resources. Therefore, the expanded or reduced effects were also taken into full consideration in his paper. In the process of determining compensation amount, the influence factor of the mineral resources on regional economic development was proposed. In the final data analysis of all kinds of resources in Chongqing, the compensation factor and compensation amount appropriate for three gorges reservoir area were eventually fixed.
③By analyzing the characteristic of barrier option, the compensation for limiting exploiting mineral resources can be characterized by up on the option. The pricing model of compensation for lower reaches and its solution method were gained by barrier option method according to the detail conditions. The mining cost of the upper reaches and pollution treatment cost of the lower reaches were two key factors affecting compensation amount.
④The capital source and the mechanism of share were illustrated from the point of basin’s ecological compensation, In the process of establishing compensation mechanism, the ways of sharing ecological compensation between the upper reaches and lower reaches were governmental adjustment and market transaction. As the way of market transaction, the willingness to pay of all beneficiaries or indirect beneficial coefficient were determined by Rouges growth curve model according to Engel’s coefficient of the upper and lower reaches of the basin, and ecological value willingness-to- pay model. And the direct beneficial coefficient can be reflected by the quantity ratio of water collection of upper reaches and lower reaches. Then the problem of basin’s ecological compensation share rate was addressed. As the way of governmental adjustment, establishing the three gorges reservoir area’s ecological compensation fund was proposed in this paper. The scale of ecological compensation fund was mainly determined by three gorges reservoir area’s annual capital input for environmental protect and its development opportunity cost. While the share rate of compensation fund should be determined by the upper and lower reaches of three gorges reservoir area. The central government should also bear some amount for national ecological benefit.
⑤Some related recommendations on the compensation mechanism for watershed ecology were proposed.
The innovation spots of the paper as bellow:
①The difficulty in determining compensation standard lied in the estimating development opportunity cost. The uncertainty of mineral resources value was analyzed and corresponding computational method was set by the real option binary tree model and Black-Scholes option pricing model. The calculation method of ecological compensation amount for restricted mining of mineral resources was proposed according to the mineral resources distribution of three gorges reservoir area.
②Through observing and analyzing the characteristics of barrier option, up-on-the-option characteristic of the compensation for limiting exploiting mineral resources has been found. The pricing model of compensation for lower reaches and its solution method were gained by barrier option method according to the detail conditions. The mining cost of the upper reaches and pollution treatment cost of the lower reaches were two key factors affecting compensation amount.
③According that three gorges reservoir area can be characterized by ecological compensation and important eco-function areas, the compensation was led by government and supplemented by reservoir area and market. The establishing of three gorges reservoir area’s ecological compensation fund and its framework were proposed. To be specific, the scale of ecological compensation fund was mainly determined by three gorges reservoir area’s annual capital input for environmental protect and its development opportunity cost. While the share rate of compensation fund should be determined by the upper and lower reaches of three gorges reservoir area. The central government should also bear some amount for national ecological benefit.
引文
曹国华,蒋丹璐. 2009.流域跨区污染生态补偿机制分析[J].生态经济, (11):160-164.
常杪,邬亮.2005.流域生态补偿机制研究[J].环境保护, (12).60-62
陈美球,吕添贵,朱再昱,蔡海生. 2010.鄱阳湖流域生态补偿机制构建的设想[J].中国工程科学, (6).85-90
陈吉斌,刘胜祥,黄家文. 2008.金沙江攀枝花河段生态系统服务功能价值计算[J].亚热带水土保持,20(2):5—8
陈利顶,傅伯杰. 2000.长江流域可持续发展能力评价[J],地理科学,4:301-306
陈利顶,傅伯杰. 2000.长江流域可持续发展基本政策研究[J],长江流域资源与环境, 9(2):148-153
陈秀山,徐瑛. 2004.中国区域差距影响因素的实证研究[ J ].中国社会科学, ( 5) : 117～129
陈晓勤.2008.流域生态补偿中的地方政府合作[J].发展研究, (10).100-103
代明. 2008.流域环境保护与均衡发展的矛盾及其对策探析[J],环境科学学报. 28(1):197-203
段靖,严岩,王丹寅,董正举,代方舟. 2010.流域生态补偿标准中成本核算的原理分析与方法改进[J].生态学报, (1).221-227
段学军,虞孝感. 2002.长江流域可持续发展综合分析与评价[J],中国人口资源与环境, 12(2):75-80
范小杉,高吉喜,于勇. 2007.基于生态补偿实施的NSE生态服务功能分类体系及应用模型[J]. 生态经济, (04) 35-39
贺灿飞,梁进社.中国区域经济差异的时空变化:市场化、全球化与城市化[ J ].管理世界, (8) : 8～17
胡鞍钢,魏星. 2010.城乡分制、政府层级与地区发展差距[J].南京大学学报(哲学.人文科学.社会科学版),(1):35-42.
韩凌芬,胡熠,黎元生. 2009.基于博弈论视角的闽江流域生态补偿机制分析[J].中国水利, (11).78-80
黄东风,李卫华,范平,邱孝煊. 2010.闽江、九龙江等流域生态补偿机制的建立与实践[J].农业环境科学学报, (S1).324-329
黄锡生,潘璟.2008.流域生态补偿的内涵及其体系[J].水利经济, (5).65-69
傅春,周迪. 2010.建立鄱阳湖流域生态补偿机制的财税政策研究[J].生态经济, (1).151-153
葛颜祥,吴菲菲,王蓓蓓,梁丽娟. 2007.流域生态补偿:政府补偿与市场补偿比较与选择[J].山东农业大学学报(社会科学版), (4).48-53
耿涌,戚瑞,张攀. 2009.基于水足迹的流域生态补偿标准模型研究[J].中国人口.资源与环境, (6).11-17
李国英.2008.流域生态补偿机制研究[J].中国水利, (12).1-4
李立周,何艳梅.2007.构建流域生态补偿机制的障碍及对策分析[J].能源与环境, (4).74-76
梁丽娟,葛颜祥.2006.关于我国构建生态补偿机制的思考[J],软科学, 04:66-70
梁丽娟,葛颜祥,傅奇蕾.2006.流域生态补偿选择性激励机制——从博弈论视角的分析[J].农业科技管理, (4).49-53
黎实. 2004.企业投资行为不确定性与实物期权的实证分析[J].管理科学学报,7(2):32-39.
刘桂环,文一惠,张惠远.2010.基于生态系统服务的官厅水库流域生态补偿机制研究[J].资源科学, (5).856-863
刘玉,刘毅.2003.长江流域区域可持续发展态势与对策[J],长江流域资源与环境, 12(6):497-502
刘兆德,虞孝感.2006.长江流域新世纪可持续发展的重大问题[J],经济地理,02:304-307
刘兆德,虞孝感.2002.长江流域相对资源承载力与可持续发展研究[J],长江流域资源与环境, 01:10-15
刘兆德,虞孝感,谢红彬.2002.20世纪90年代长江流域经济发展过程分析[J],长江流域资源与环境,11(6):494-499
毛显强,钟瑜,张胜. 2002.生态补偿的理论探讨[J].中国人口·资源与环境,(4):38-41
欧名豪,宗臻铃,董元华,杨林章.区域生态重建的经济补偿办法探讨——以长江上游地区为例[J]. 南京农业大学学报,2000,(4). 109-112
潘文灿. 2003.21世纪初长江流域经济发展的资源战略对策[J].理论前沿,(7):38-40
齐安甜,张维. 2003.实物期权理论及在企业并购价值评估中的应用[J].中国软科学,7:129-132.
齐安甜,张维. 2004.实物期权框架下的企业并购价值评估[J].系统工程学报,19(4):403-407.
乔治,孙希华,单玉秀,.区域水土保持生态补偿定量计算方法探究——以淮河流域土石山区为例[J].中国水土保持,2009,(12).45-48
冉光和,徐继龙,于法稳.2009.政府主导型的长江流域生态补偿机制研究[J].生态经济(学术版), (2).372-374
阮本清,许凤冉,张春玲.2008.流域生态补偿研究进展与实践[J].水利学报, (10).1220-1225
王成新,解晓南,姚士谋.2003.循环经济,长江流域可持续发展的必由之路[J],长江流域资源与环境, 06:503-507
王慧.2010.新安江流域生态补偿机制构建[J].经济研究导刊, (4).155-156
王俊能,许振成,彭晓春,赵晓光.2010.流域生态补偿机制的进化博弈分析[J].环境保护科学, (1).37-44
王让会,薛英,宁虎森,张慧芝.2010.基于生态风险评价的流域生态补偿策略[J].干旱区资源与环境,(8).1-5
王翊,黄金玲. 2007.东西部地区公益林生态补偿资金需求分析[J].生态经济, (02) 58-61
王翊,黄金玲. 2007.东西部地区之间公益林生态补偿负担与分摊[J].生态经济, (03) 53-55
王新程.2006.经济补偿是控制流域污染的有效途径[J],环境保护, 6:59-62
王新程.2006.经济补偿时控制流域污染的有效途径[J],专家视点, 6:59-62
王儒述.2001.三峡工程促进西部开发与长江流域可持续发展[J],中国三峡建设, 5:5-6
徐大伟,郑海霞,刘民权.2008,.基于跨区域水质水量指标的流域生态补偿量测算方法研究[J].中国人口.资源与环境, (4).189-195
许晨阳,钱争鸣,李雍容,彭本荣.2009.流域生态补偿的环境责任界定模型研究[J].自然资源学报, (8).1488-1496
许月卿,蔡运龙. 2006.土壤侵蚀经济损失分析及价值估算——以贵州省猫跳河流域为例[J].长江流域资源与环境, (04) 470-474
言彦,李磊.2010.基于GIS的流域生态补偿机制研究[J].信息系统工程, (4).141-142
俞海,任勇.2007.流域生态补偿机制的关键问题分析——以南水北调中线水源涵养区为例[J].资源科学, (2).28-34
虞孝感,段学军。长江流域可持续发展综合分析与评价[J],中国人口资源与环境,2002,02:75-80
张惠远,刘桂环.2009.流域生态补偿与污染赔偿机制[J].世界环境, (2).34-35
张志强,徐中明,王建,程国栋. 2001.黑河流域生态系统服务的价值[J].冰川冻土, 23(4):360—366
张询书.2008.试论政府主导型流域生态补偿制度的建立和完善[J].广州环境科学, (2).44-48
张郁,丁四保.2008.基于主体功能区划的流域生态补偿机制[J].经济地理, (5).849-853
赵来军,朱道立,李怀祖. 2006.非畅流流域跨界水污染纠纷管理模型研究[J].管理科学学报, (04):18-26.
赵来军,李旭,朱道立,李怀祖.流域跨界污染纠纷排污权交易调控模型研究[J].系统工程学报,2005,(4).
赵来军,李怀祖.流域跨界水污染纠纷税收调控管理模型研究[J].中国管理科学,2004,(5)
赵玉山,朱桂香.2008.国外流域生态补偿的实践模式及对中国的借鉴意义[J].世界农业, (4).14-17
中国环境与发展国际合作委员会生态补偿机制课题组.2007.流域生态补偿机制[J].环境保护, (14).53-54
中国生态补偿机制与政策研究课题组.中国生态补偿机制与政策研究.科学出版社.2007.4
周婷,李晓耿.2004.建立长江上游地区生态环境建设的补偿机制[J],国土经济03:16-18
周雪玲,李耀初.2010.国内外流域生态补偿研究进展[J].生态经济(学术版), (1).311-313
宗臻铃,董元华,杨林章,欧名豪.2001.长江上游地区生态重建的经济补偿机制探析[J],长江流域资源与环境,01:22-27
Allen W. Burton, Walter E. Davis, Ecological task analysis utilizing intrinsic measures in research and practice, Human Movement Science, April 1996
Alvarez A O,Stenbacka J J.2001.Wetlan d Loss and Substitution by the Permit Program in SouthernCalifornia,US[J].Environmental Man agreement, 20(22):263—274.
Alvarez L H R and Keppo J. 2002.The impact of delivery lags on irreversible investment under uncertainty[J].European Journal of Operational Research,136(l): 173-180.
Alvarez L H R,2001.Stenbacka R.Adoption of uncertain multistage technology projects: A real options approach[J].Journal of Mathematical Economics, 35(l):71-97.
Bar-Ilan A and Strange W C. 1996.Investment lags[J].The American Economic Review, 86(3): 610-622.
Bertola E,Dixit R.R. 1989. Public preferences for biodiversity conservation and scenic beauty within a framework of environmental services payments[J].Forest Policy and Economics, (9):335—348. Brach M A.Real options in practice[M].Hoboken,NJ: John Wiley&Sons,Inc,2003.
Caballero R,Engel K J,Haltiwanger H.1995.Guidelines for ecological compensation associated with highways’[J].Biological Conservation, (90):41—51.
Carr P. 1988.The valuation of sequential exchange opportunities[J].Journal of Finance, 43(5):1235-1256.
Chung K and Charoenwong C. 1991.Investment options,assets in place,and the risk of stocks[J].Financial Management, 20(3):21-33.
Constanza R, d’ArgeR, RudolfdeGroot,et al. 1997.The value of the world’secosystem services and natural capital[J].Nature, 387:253-260.
Copeland T and Antikamv V.Real options: A practitioner’s guide[M].New York: Texere LLC,2001. Daily G. Nature’s service: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystem,M.Washington:Island Press,1997.
Dias MAG, Teixeira JP. Continuous-time option games: Review of models and extensions. Part 1: Duopoly under uncertainty[R]. 7th Annual International Real Options Conference:Washington DC, 2003.
Dixit A K and Pindyck R S.Investment under uncertainty[M].Princeton,NJ: Princeton University Press,1994.
Doraszelski U. 2004.Innovations, improvements, and the optimal adoption of new technologies [J].Journal of Economic Dynamics & Control, 28(7):1461-1480.
Doraszelski.2000.Ecological compensation of the impacts of a road[J]. Ecological Engineering, (7):327—349.
E. De Grandis, F. Battaglia, A. Pessagno, P. Liberati, P. Angelini, M. Conte, C. Gandolfo, G. Morana, M. Mancardi, E. Veneselli, IAP042 Opsoclonus-Myoclonus-Ataxia: neuropsychological and neuroradiological sequelae, European Journal of Paediatric Neurology, September 2007
Estelle Bienabe, Robert R. Hearne, Public preferences for biodiversity conservation and scenic beautywithin a framework of environmental services payments, Forest Policy and Economics, 31 December 2006
Farzin YH,Huisman K JM,et.al. 1998.Optimal timing of technology adoption[J].Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 22(5):779-799.
Farzin.1998.Agri-environment incentive payments and plant species richness under different management intensities in mountain meadows of Switzerland[J].Acta Oecolo, 31(2) 216—222.
Frank H.M. Verbeeten.2004.Do organizations adopt sophisticated capital budgeting practices[J]. Ecosystems and Environment, (10): 18—24.
Fudenberg D,Tirole J. 1985.Preemption and rent equalization in the adoption of new technology[J].Review of Economic Studies,52(3):383-401.
Grenadier and Neng Wang. 2005. Investment timing, agency, and information [J].Journal of Financial Economics, 75:493-533.
Grenadier S R,Weiss A M. 1997.Investment in technological innovations: An option pricing approach[J].Journal of Financial Economics,44(3):397-416.
Helmuth C,Firouz G.2004.Environmental taxation,tax competition and harmonization[J].Journal of Urban Economies, 55:21—45.
Herzog F,Dreier S,Hofer G,et a1. 2003. Effect of ecological compensation areas on floristic and breeding bird diversity in Swiss agricultural landscapes,A culture[J].Ecosystems and Environment, 189—204.
Huisman K JM,Kort P 1999.M.Effects of strategic interactions on the option value of waiting[R].working paper,No.9992,Center,Tilburg University.
John A L,Charles F M.2001.Optimal institution arrangements for transboundary polution in a Second—Best world:Evidence from a differential game with asymmetric playem[J].Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,42:277—296.
Lenos Trigeogis & Praeger.1995.An ecological-economic modeling procedure to design compensation payments for the efficient spatio-temporal allocation of species protection measures[J].Ecological Economics, (41):37—49.
J. Morris, D. J. G. Gowing, J. Mills, J. A. L. Dunderdale, Reconciling agricultural economic and environmental objectives: the case of recreating wetlands in the Fenland area of eastern England, Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, July 2000
Kaboski. 2005.Factor price uncertainty,technology choice and investment delay[J].Journal of Economic Dynamics $ Control, 29:509-527.
Kulatilaka N and Marks S. 1988.The strategic value of flexibility: Reducing the ability to compromise[J].American Economic Review,78(3):574-580.
KulatilakaN,Perotti E C. 1998.Strategic growth options[J].Management Science,44(8): 1021-1031.
Leonard-Barton D. 1988.Implementation as mutual adaptation of technology and organization [J].Research Policy, 17:251-67.
Macoougalla S L and pike R H. 2003.Consider your options changes to strategic value during implementation of advanced manufacturing technology[J].The Imitational Journal of Management Science,31(1): l-15.
Marcy E. Gallo, Andrea Porras-Alfaro, Kylea J. Odenbach, Robert L. Sinsabaugh, Photoacceleration of plant litter decomposition in an arid environment, Soil Biology and Biochemistry, July 2009
Mauer and Sarkar. 2005. Real options, agency conflicts, and optimal capital structure[J].Journal of Banking & Finance, 29:1405-1428.
McDonald R and Siegel D. 1985. Investment and the valuation of firms when there is an option to shut down[J].International Economic Review,26(2):333-349.
McDonald R and Siegel D. 1986.The value of waiting to invest[J].Quarterly Journal of Economics,101(4):707-727.
Moms J,Gowing D J G,Mills J,et a1. 2000. Reconciling agricultural economic and environmental objectives : the ease of recreating wetlands in the Fenland area of eastern England[J].Agriculture,Ecosystems and Environment, (79):245—257.
Myers S C and Majd S. 1990.Abandonment value and project life[J].Advances in Futures and Options Research,4:1-21.
Nicholas Bloom.2001.Quantifying public preferences for a -environmental policy in Scotland:a comparison of methods[J].Ecological Economics, 63(1):42—53. Pauli Murto,Jussi Keppo. 2006. Timing of investments in oligopoly under projects[J],Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering,December, 54(3-4):129-139.
Paxson and Pinto. 2005.Rivalry under price and quantity uncertainty[J].Review of Financial Economics, 14:209-224.
Pawlina G,Kort P M. 2002.Real options in an asymmetric duopoly: Who benefits from your competitive disadvantage?[R].Working Paper, No2001-95,Center, Tilburg University.
Pindyck R S. 1988.Irreversible investment,capacity choice,and the value of the Firm[J].The American Economic Review,78(5):969-985.
Pindyck R S.1989.Selling forest environmental services:market based mechanism for conservation and development,London, UK:Earth scan.
Rendleman,R.,and B.Bartter, 2000. Two-State Option Pricing[J]. The Journal of Finance, 23(5):80-85. Richard Harthan, Michael Hendrickson.1999.Can Payments for Environmental Services Help Reduce
Poveay An Exploration of the Issue and the Evidence to Date from Latin America[J].WorldDevelopment, 33(2):237—253.
Ruud Cuperus, Kees J. Canters, Annette A. G. Piepers, Ecological compensation of the impacts of a road. Preliminary method for the A50 road link (Eindhoven-Oss, The Netherlands, Ecological Engineering, December 1996
Ruud Cuperus, Kees J. Canters, Helias A. Udo de Haes, Debra S. Friedman, Guidelines for ecological compensation associated with highways, Biological Conservation, August 1999
Shackleton, Tsekrekos and Wojakowski.2004.Strategic entry and market leadership in a two-player real options game[J].Journal of Banking & Finance, 28:179-201.
Sierra R,Russman E.2006. 0n the efficiency of environmental service payments:A forest conservation assessment in the Osa Peninsula,Costa Rica[J].Ecological Economics, (59):l3l一141.
Trigeorgis L.Real options-managerial flexibility and strategy in resource allocation[M]. Cambridge,MA:MIT Press,1996.
Trigeorgis L and Mason S 1987.P.Valuing managerial flexibility,Midland corporate[J].Financial Journal,5(l):14-21.
Tunaru, Clark and Viney.2005.An option pricing framework for valuation of football players[J].Review of Financial Economics, 14:281-295.
T. Smith, J. Kunkle, J. Castelaz, S. Thomson, Z. Burstein, A. Bernstein, L. Rosenberg, M. Heffner, J. King, The effects of a hydrogen environment on the lifetime of small-diameter drift chamber anode wires, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment, 11 September 2005
William D. Sunderlin, Arild Angelsen, Brian Belcher, Paul Burgers, Robert Nasi, Levania Santoso, Sven Wunder, Livelihoods, forests, and conservation in developing countries: An Overview, World Development, September 2005
Wunder S.2005. Payments for environmental services:Some nuts an d bolts[J].Cifor Occasional Paper, 3—8.
Zbinden S,Lee D R.2005. Paying for Environmental Services:An Analysis Of Participation in Costa Rica s PSA Program[J].World Development, 33(2):255—272.
常杪,邬亮.2005.流域生态补偿机制研究[J].环境保护, (12).60-62
陈美球,吕添贵,朱再昱,蔡海生. 2010.鄱阳湖流域生态补偿机制构建的设想[J].中国工程科学, (6).85-90
陈吉斌,刘胜祥,黄家文. 2008.金沙江攀枝花河段生态系统服务功能价值计算[J].亚热带水土保持,20(2):5—8
陈利顶,傅伯杰. 2000.长江流域可持续发展能力评价[J],地理科学,4:301-306
陈利顶,傅伯杰. 2000.长江流域可持续发展基本政策研究[J],长江流域资源与环境, 9(2):148-153
陈秀山,徐瑛. 2004.中国区域差距影响因素的实证研究[ J ].中国社会科学, ( 5) : 117～129
陈晓勤.2008.流域生态补偿中的地方政府合作[J].发展研究, (10).100-103
代明. 2008.流域环境保护与均衡发展的矛盾及其对策探析[J],环境科学学报. 28(1):197-203
段靖,严岩,王丹寅,董正举,代方舟. 2010.流域生态补偿标准中成本核算的原理分析与方法改进[J].生态学报, (1).221-227
段学军,虞孝感. 2002.长江流域可持续发展综合分析与评价[J],中国人口资源与环境, 12(2):75-80
范小杉,高吉喜,于勇. 2007.基于生态补偿实施的NSE生态服务功能分类体系及应用模型[J]. 生态经济, (04) 35-39
贺灿飞,梁进社.中国区域经济差异的时空变化:市场化、全球化与城市化[ J ].管理世界, (8) : 8～17
胡鞍钢,魏星. 2010.城乡分制、政府层级与地区发展差距[J].南京大学学报(哲学.人文科学.社会科学版),(1):35-42.
韩凌芬,胡熠,黎元生. 2009.基于博弈论视角的闽江流域生态补偿机制分析[J].中国水利, (11).78-80
黄东风,李卫华,范平,邱孝煊. 2010.闽江、九龙江等流域生态补偿机制的建立与实践[J].农业环境科学学报, (S1).324-329
黄锡生,潘璟.2008.流域生态补偿的内涵及其体系[J].水利经济, (5).65-69
傅春,周迪. 2010.建立鄱阳湖流域生态补偿机制的财税政策研究[J].生态经济, (1).151-153
葛颜祥,吴菲菲,王蓓蓓,梁丽娟. 2007.流域生态补偿:政府补偿与市场补偿比较与选择[J].山东农业大学学报(社会科学版), (4).48-53
耿涌,戚瑞,张攀. 2009.基于水足迹的流域生态补偿标准模型研究[J].中国人口.资源与环境, (6).11-17
李国英.2008.流域生态补偿机制研究[J].中国水利, (12).1-4
李立周,何艳梅.2007.构建流域生态补偿机制的障碍及对策分析[J].能源与环境, (4).74-76
梁丽娟,葛颜祥.2006.关于我国构建生态补偿机制的思考[J],软科学, 04:66-70
梁丽娟,葛颜祥,傅奇蕾.2006.流域生态补偿选择性激励机制——从博弈论视角的分析[J].农业科技管理, (4).49-53
黎实. 2004.企业投资行为不确定性与实物期权的实证分析[J].管理科学学报,7(2):32-39.
刘桂环,文一惠,张惠远.2010.基于生态系统服务的官厅水库流域生态补偿机制研究[J].资源科学, (5).856-863
刘玉,刘毅.2003.长江流域区域可持续发展态势与对策[J],长江流域资源与环境, 12(6):497-502
刘兆德,虞孝感.2006.长江流域新世纪可持续发展的重大问题[J],经济地理,02:304-307
刘兆德,虞孝感.2002.长江流域相对资源承载力与可持续发展研究[J],长江流域资源与环境, 01:10-15
刘兆德,虞孝感,谢红彬.2002.20世纪90年代长江流域经济发展过程分析[J],长江流域资源与环境,11(6):494-499
毛显强,钟瑜,张胜. 2002.生态补偿的理论探讨[J].中国人口·资源与环境,(4):38-41
欧名豪,宗臻铃,董元华,杨林章.区域生态重建的经济补偿办法探讨——以长江上游地区为例[J]. 南京农业大学学报,2000,(4). 109-112
潘文灿. 2003.21世纪初长江流域经济发展的资源战略对策[J].理论前沿,(7):38-40
齐安甜,张维. 2003.实物期权理论及在企业并购价值评估中的应用[J].中国软科学,7:129-132.
齐安甜,张维. 2004.实物期权框架下的企业并购价值评估[J].系统工程学报,19(4):403-407.
乔治,孙希华,单玉秀,.区域水土保持生态补偿定量计算方法探究——以淮河流域土石山区为例[J].中国水土保持,2009,(12).45-48
冉光和,徐继龙,于法稳.2009.政府主导型的长江流域生态补偿机制研究[J].生态经济(学术版), (2).372-374
阮本清,许凤冉,张春玲.2008.流域生态补偿研究进展与实践[J].水利学报, (10).1220-1225
王成新,解晓南,姚士谋.2003.循环经济,长江流域可持续发展的必由之路[J],长江流域资源与环境, 06:503-507
王慧.2010.新安江流域生态补偿机制构建[J].经济研究导刊, (4).155-156
王俊能,许振成,彭晓春,赵晓光.2010.流域生态补偿机制的进化博弈分析[J].环境保护科学, (1).37-44
王让会,薛英,宁虎森,张慧芝.2010.基于生态风险评价的流域生态补偿策略[J].干旱区资源与环境,(8).1-5
王翊,黄金玲. 2007.东西部地区公益林生态补偿资金需求分析[J].生态经济, (02) 58-61
王翊,黄金玲. 2007.东西部地区之间公益林生态补偿负担与分摊[J].生态经济, (03) 53-55
王新程.2006.经济补偿是控制流域污染的有效途径[J],环境保护, 6:59-62
王新程.2006.经济补偿时控制流域污染的有效途径[J],专家视点, 6:59-62
王儒述.2001.三峡工程促进西部开发与长江流域可持续发展[J],中国三峡建设, 5:5-6
徐大伟,郑海霞,刘民权.2008,.基于跨区域水质水量指标的流域生态补偿量测算方法研究[J].中国人口.资源与环境, (4).189-195
许晨阳,钱争鸣,李雍容,彭本荣.2009.流域生态补偿的环境责任界定模型研究[J].自然资源学报, (8).1488-1496
许月卿,蔡运龙. 2006.土壤侵蚀经济损失分析及价值估算——以贵州省猫跳河流域为例[J].长江流域资源与环境, (04) 470-474
言彦,李磊.2010.基于GIS的流域生态补偿机制研究[J].信息系统工程, (4).141-142
俞海,任勇.2007.流域生态补偿机制的关键问题分析——以南水北调中线水源涵养区为例[J].资源科学, (2).28-34
虞孝感,段学军。长江流域可持续发展综合分析与评价[J],中国人口资源与环境,2002,02:75-80
张惠远,刘桂环.2009.流域生态补偿与污染赔偿机制[J].世界环境, (2).34-35
张志强,徐中明,王建,程国栋. 2001.黑河流域生态系统服务的价值[J].冰川冻土, 23(4):360—366
张询书.2008.试论政府主导型流域生态补偿制度的建立和完善[J].广州环境科学, (2).44-48
张郁,丁四保.2008.基于主体功能区划的流域生态补偿机制[J].经济地理, (5).849-853
赵来军,朱道立,李怀祖. 2006.非畅流流域跨界水污染纠纷管理模型研究[J].管理科学学报, (04):18-26.
赵来军,李旭,朱道立,李怀祖.流域跨界污染纠纷排污权交易调控模型研究[J].系统工程学报,2005,(4).
赵来军,李怀祖.流域跨界水污染纠纷税收调控管理模型研究[J].中国管理科学,2004,(5)
赵玉山,朱桂香.2008.国外流域生态补偿的实践模式及对中国的借鉴意义[J].世界农业, (4).14-17
中国环境与发展国际合作委员会生态补偿机制课题组.2007.流域生态补偿机制[J].环境保护, (14).53-54
中国生态补偿机制与政策研究课题组.中国生态补偿机制与政策研究.科学出版社.2007.4
周婷,李晓耿.2004.建立长江上游地区生态环境建设的补偿机制[J],国土经济03:16-18
周雪玲,李耀初.2010.国内外流域生态补偿研究进展[J].生态经济(学术版), (1).311-313
宗臻铃,董元华,杨林章,欧名豪.2001.长江上游地区生态重建的经济补偿机制探析[J],长江流域资源与环境,01:22-27
Allen W. Burton, Walter E. Davis, Ecological task analysis utilizing intrinsic measures in research and practice, Human Movement Science, April 1996
Alvarez A O,Stenbacka J J.2001.Wetlan d Loss and Substitution by the Permit Program in SouthernCalifornia,US[J].Environmental Man agreement, 20(22):263—274.
Alvarez L H R and Keppo J. 2002.The impact of delivery lags on irreversible investment under uncertainty[J].European Journal of Operational Research,136(l): 173-180.
Alvarez L H R,2001.Stenbacka R.Adoption of uncertain multistage technology projects: A real options approach[J].Journal of Mathematical Economics, 35(l):71-97.
Bar-Ilan A and Strange W C. 1996.Investment lags[J].The American Economic Review, 86(3): 610-622.
Bertola E,Dixit R.R. 1989. Public preferences for biodiversity conservation and scenic beauty within a framework of environmental services payments[J].Forest Policy and Economics, (9):335—348. Brach M A.Real options in practice[M].Hoboken,NJ: John Wiley&Sons,Inc,2003.
Caballero R,Engel K J,Haltiwanger H.1995.Guidelines for ecological compensation associated with highways’[J].Biological Conservation, (90):41—51.
Carr P. 1988.The valuation of sequential exchange opportunities[J].Journal of Finance, 43(5):1235-1256.
Chung K and Charoenwong C. 1991.Investment options,assets in place,and the risk of stocks[J].Financial Management, 20(3):21-33.
Constanza R, d’ArgeR, RudolfdeGroot,et al. 1997.The value of the world’secosystem services and natural capital[J].Nature, 387:253-260.
Copeland T and Antikamv V.Real options: A practitioner’s guide[M].New York: Texere LLC,2001. Daily G. Nature’s service: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystem,M.Washington:Island Press,1997.
Dias MAG, Teixeira JP. Continuous-time option games: Review of models and extensions. Part 1: Duopoly under uncertainty[R]. 7th Annual International Real Options Conference:Washington DC, 2003.
Dixit A K and Pindyck R S.Investment under uncertainty[M].Princeton,NJ: Princeton University Press,1994.
Doraszelski U. 2004.Innovations, improvements, and the optimal adoption of new technologies [J].Journal of Economic Dynamics & Control, 28(7):1461-1480.
Doraszelski.2000.Ecological compensation of the impacts of a road[J]. Ecological Engineering, (7):327—349.
E. De Grandis, F. Battaglia, A. Pessagno, P. Liberati, P. Angelini, M. Conte, C. Gandolfo, G. Morana, M. Mancardi, E. Veneselli, IAP042 Opsoclonus-Myoclonus-Ataxia: neuropsychological and neuroradiological sequelae, European Journal of Paediatric Neurology, September 2007
Estelle Bienabe, Robert R. Hearne, Public preferences for biodiversity conservation and scenic beautywithin a framework of environmental services payments, Forest Policy and Economics, 31 December 2006
Farzin YH,Huisman K JM,et.al. 1998.Optimal timing of technology adoption[J].Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 22(5):779-799.
Farzin.1998.Agri-environment incentive payments and plant species richness under different management intensities in mountain meadows of Switzerland[J].Acta Oecolo, 31(2) 216—222.
Frank H.M. Verbeeten.2004.Do organizations adopt sophisticated capital budgeting practices[J]. Ecosystems and Environment, (10): 18—24.
Fudenberg D,Tirole J. 1985.Preemption and rent equalization in the adoption of new technology[J].Review of Economic Studies,52(3):383-401.
Grenadier and Neng Wang. 2005. Investment timing, agency, and information [J].Journal of Financial Economics, 75:493-533.
Grenadier S R,Weiss A M. 1997.Investment in technological innovations: An option pricing approach[J].Journal of Financial Economics,44(3):397-416.
Helmuth C,Firouz G.2004.Environmental taxation,tax competition and harmonization[J].Journal of Urban Economies, 55:21—45.
Herzog F,Dreier S,Hofer G,et a1. 2003. Effect of ecological compensation areas on floristic and breeding bird diversity in Swiss agricultural landscapes,A culture[J].Ecosystems and Environment, 189—204.
Huisman K JM,Kort P 1999.M.Effects of strategic interactions on the option value of waiting[R].working paper,No.9992,Center,Tilburg University.
John A L,Charles F M.2001.Optimal institution arrangements for transboundary polution in a Second—Best world:Evidence from a differential game with asymmetric playem[J].Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,42:277—296.
Lenos Trigeogis & Praeger.1995.An ecological-economic modeling procedure to design compensation payments for the efficient spatio-temporal allocation of species protection measures[J].Ecological Economics, (41):37—49.
J. Morris, D. J. G. Gowing, J. Mills, J. A. L. Dunderdale, Reconciling agricultural economic and environmental objectives: the case of recreating wetlands in the Fenland area of eastern England, Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, July 2000
Kaboski. 2005.Factor price uncertainty,technology choice and investment delay[J].Journal of Economic Dynamics $ Control, 29:509-527.
Kulatilaka N and Marks S. 1988.The strategic value of flexibility: Reducing the ability to compromise[J].American Economic Review,78(3):574-580.
KulatilakaN,Perotti E C. 1998.Strategic growth options[J].Management Science,44(8): 1021-1031.
Leonard-Barton D. 1988.Implementation as mutual adaptation of technology and organization [J].Research Policy, 17:251-67.
Macoougalla S L and pike R H. 2003.Consider your options changes to strategic value during implementation of advanced manufacturing technology[J].The Imitational Journal of Management Science,31(1): l-15.
Marcy E. Gallo, Andrea Porras-Alfaro, Kylea J. Odenbach, Robert L. Sinsabaugh, Photoacceleration of plant litter decomposition in an arid environment, Soil Biology and Biochemistry, July 2009
Mauer and Sarkar. 2005. Real options, agency conflicts, and optimal capital structure[J].Journal of Banking & Finance, 29:1405-1428.
McDonald R and Siegel D. 1985. Investment and the valuation of firms when there is an option to shut down[J].International Economic Review,26(2):333-349.
McDonald R and Siegel D. 1986.The value of waiting to invest[J].Quarterly Journal of Economics,101(4):707-727.
Moms J,Gowing D J G,Mills J,et a1. 2000. Reconciling agricultural economic and environmental objectives : the ease of recreating wetlands in the Fenland area of eastern England[J].Agriculture,Ecosystems and Environment, (79):245—257.
Myers S C and Majd S. 1990.Abandonment value and project life[J].Advances in Futures and Options Research,4:1-21.
Nicholas Bloom.2001.Quantifying public preferences for a -environmental policy in Scotland:a comparison of methods[J].Ecological Economics, 63(1):42—53. Pauli Murto,Jussi Keppo. 2006. Timing of investments in oligopoly under projects[J],Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering,December, 54(3-4):129-139.
Paxson and Pinto. 2005.Rivalry under price and quantity uncertainty[J].Review of Financial Economics, 14:209-224.
Pawlina G,Kort P M. 2002.Real options in an asymmetric duopoly: Who benefits from your competitive disadvantage?[R].Working Paper, No2001-95,Center, Tilburg University.
Pindyck R S. 1988.Irreversible investment,capacity choice,and the value of the Firm[J].The American Economic Review,78(5):969-985.
Pindyck R S.1989.Selling forest environmental services:market based mechanism for conservation and development,London, UK:Earth scan.
Rendleman,R.,and B.Bartter, 2000. Two-State Option Pricing[J]. The Journal of Finance, 23(5):80-85. Richard Harthan, Michael Hendrickson.1999.Can Payments for Environmental Services Help Reduce
Poveay An Exploration of the Issue and the Evidence to Date from Latin America[J].WorldDevelopment, 33(2):237—253.
Ruud Cuperus, Kees J. Canters, Annette A. G. Piepers, Ecological compensation of the impacts of a road. Preliminary method for the A50 road link (Eindhoven-Oss, The Netherlands, Ecological Engineering, December 1996
Ruud Cuperus, Kees J. Canters, Helias A. Udo de Haes, Debra S. Friedman, Guidelines for ecological compensation associated with highways, Biological Conservation, August 1999
Shackleton, Tsekrekos and Wojakowski.2004.Strategic entry and market leadership in a two-player real options game[J].Journal of Banking & Finance, 28:179-201.
Sierra R,Russman E.2006. 0n the efficiency of environmental service payments:A forest conservation assessment in the Osa Peninsula,Costa Rica[J].Ecological Economics, (59):l3l一141.
Trigeorgis L.Real options-managerial flexibility and strategy in resource allocation[M]. Cambridge,MA:MIT Press,1996.
Trigeorgis L and Mason S 1987.P.Valuing managerial flexibility,Midland corporate[J].Financial Journal,5(l):14-21.
Tunaru, Clark and Viney.2005.An option pricing framework for valuation of football players[J].Review of Financial Economics, 14:281-295.
T. Smith, J. Kunkle, J. Castelaz, S. Thomson, Z. Burstein, A. Bernstein, L. Rosenberg, M. Heffner, J. King, The effects of a hydrogen environment on the lifetime of small-diameter drift chamber anode wires, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment, 11 September 2005
William D. Sunderlin, Arild Angelsen, Brian Belcher, Paul Burgers, Robert Nasi, Levania Santoso, Sven Wunder, Livelihoods, forests, and conservation in developing countries: An Overview, World Development, September 2005
Wunder S.2005. Payments for environmental services:Some nuts an d bolts[J].Cifor Occasional Paper, 3—8.
Zbinden S,Lee D R.2005. Paying for Environmental Services:An Analysis Of Participation in Costa Rica s PSA Program[J].World Development, 33(2):255—272.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |