农地城市流转与经济增长的交互作用及其尺度效应
|
摘要
作为经济增长过程中不可避免的代价性损失,农地城市流转是社会经济发展过程中不可避免的一种社会现象,两者间具有非常密切的关系。一方面,农地城市流转能增加非农建设用地的投入量,在经济增长仍处于要素投入阶段的我国,确实能有效的促进经济增长；但另一方面农地城市流转也会造成农用地资源尤其是耕地资源的损失,从而危及粮食安全、生态环境和社会安定,并最终成为经济发展的瓶颈。如何协调两者间的关系,在经济增长和农用地保护这一“两难境地”下作出正确的选择,是实现可持续发展的关键。两者的相关关系同时还具有较为明显的尺度效应,一方面,虽然各地的经济增长都表现出了与农地城市流转的明显相关关系,但相关关系的强弱却存在明显空间差异；另一方面,在不同规模尺度下对两者关系进行考察所得出的结论也存在较大差别,某一空间尺度下所揭示出的两者相互作用关系放在更大或更小尺度下则并不适用。为更全面地揭示两者间的相互作用机制,为以协调经济增长与农地城市流转关系为目的的公共政策调整提供依据,本文以经济增长理论和生产要素理论为基础,基于脉冲响应分析、多层次建模技术和C-D生产函数模型,以武汉城市圈为例,对两者的相互作用机制及其尺度效应进行了分析。研究主要从以下3个方面进行：
(1)农地城市流转与经济增长的相关关系。研究首先对农地城市流转与经济增长的相互作用过程进行了一个理论分析,认为经济增长来自于要素投入量的增加和使用效率的提升,土地是重要的生产要素之一,经济增长必然会引发对其需求量的增加,且引致的土地需求主要表现为非农业用地需求,从而引发农地城市流转；反过来,农地城市流转会通过刺激资本投入要素的增加而间接作用于经济增长,其所刺激的资本投入数量和质量决定了其对经济增长的贡献率。其次,采用时间序列数据单位根检验、协整关系检验和脉冲响应分析对武汉城市圈两者的长期均衡和短期波动关系进行了检验,结果显示武汉城市圈农地城市流转与经济增长间既存在长期均衡关系也存在短期波动关系,短期波动服从于长期均衡；农地城市流转对经济增长冲击的响应要远大于经济增长对农地城市流转冲击的响应,说明农地城市流转对经济增长的贡献是有限的,城市圈整体可能已存在过度农地城市流转的风险。
(2)经济增长对农地城市流转的驱动力及其尺度效应。首先,从影响农地城市流转的社会经济因素出发,构建了一个农地城市流转经济驱动机制理论框架；其次,对农地城市流转各社会经济影响因子的空间尺度效应进行理论分析,并在此分析的基础上结合分层线性模型技术构建了多层次农地城市流转经济驱动机制理论模型；最后,采用HLM统计软件,基于多层次农地城市流转经济驱动机制理论模型对武汉城市圈市、县二维空间尺度下经济增长对县域农地城市流转的驱动作用进行了估计。研究结果显示,城市圈县域农地城市流转规模的差异有60.53%表现为市内差异,39.47%表现为市间差异；县域和市域尺度下的经济增长对于其县域农地城市流转都具有正向推动作用；除直接作用于县域经济增长外,市域尺度经济增长还会通过强化县域尺度经济增长对农地城市流转的正向驱动力间接作用于县域经济增长。
(3)农地城市流转对经济增长的贡献及其尺度效应。首先,对农地城市流转资源的配置方式和空间配置效率进行了理论分析,认为区域农地城市流转资源配置的空间效率均衡条件为区域内所有地区的农用地和城市用地边际收益相等；其次,采用基尼系数和泰尔指数分解的方法对农地城市流转对经济增长贡献的空间差异水平进行了初步判断；最后,将分层线性建模技术与C-D生产函数结合起来,构建了同时包括多个空间尺度因素的生产函数模型,对城市圈县域尺度农地城市流转对经济增长的贡献及市域尺度因素对其的影响进行了分析。研究显示,城市圈农地城市流转对经济增长贡献的差异主要表现为市内差异,市间差异占比较小但却呈持续增加态势,说明城市圈年度农地城市流转指标的空间配置上主要表现为县域尺度下的“不合理”,但市域尺度下的“不合理”度有增加的风险,也应引起重视；城市圈经济增长的空间尺度差异有63.20%属于县际差异,36.80%属于市际差异,市域因素对辖区内的县域经济增长作用不容忽视；农地城市流转对城市圈经济增长贡献的县域平均值为-1.36%,己存在“过度”农地城市流转的现象,未来经济的发展应更注重现有城市建设用地的内部挖潜；市域尺度的经济增长有助于提升其辖区内各县(市、区)农地城市流转对经济增长的贡献,但市域人口规模的增加和城镇化水平的提升反而对其辖区内各县(市、区)农地城市流转对经济增长的贡献具有负向影响。
As the expense loss caused by the need of the economic growth, rural-urban land conversion is inevitable in the process of economic development. It is also widely recognized that rural-urban land conversion and economic development are closely related. On the one hand, the input of urban construction land is necessary for economic growth, and the only way to increase it is rural-urban land conversion. Since China's economic growth in recent years relies heavily on factor inputs, rural-urban land conversion is strongly required. On the one hand, agricultural land, especially the arable land, will shrink in the process of rural-urban land conversion, which is a threat to food security, ecological environment preservation and social stability. Consequently, it will become the bottleneck of economic development. Thus, coordinating the relationship between economic growth and rural-urban land conversion is a key issue to sustainable development.
In addition, there are obvious scale effects between economic growth and rural-urban land conversion. For one thing, although economic growth of each city and county is related to the conversion of land from rural to urban, the degrees of the correlation are dissimilar. For another, when examining the correlation using different size scales, there are big gaps between conclusions. Conclusions get from study in a certain scale cannot be applied in a larger or smaller scale.
Based on economic growth theory and production factor theory, this research selects Wuhan Metropolitan Area as study area. Impulse response analysis, multi-level modeling, and Cobb-Douglas production function are employed to reveal the mechanism of interaction between economic growth and rural-urban land conversion as well as to analyze their scale effect. The conclusions can be taken to provide suggestions for public policies. The research focuses on three aspects:
The first one is about the correlation between economic growth and rural-urban land conversion. This research conducts a theoretical analysis of the interaction between economic growth and rural-urban land conversion. It is reported that economic growth depends on the increasing input and utilization of factors of production. Since land is one of the important factors, the growing economy will inevitably lead to high demand for land. The demand mainly concentrates on non-agricultural land, which causes land conversion from rural to urban. Rural-urban land conversion also has an effect on economic growth by stimulating the capital inputs. Therefore, the contribution of rural-urban land conversion to economic growth depends on the quantity and quality of capital inputs stimulated by it. Then, the research performs unit root test, co-integration regression, and impulse response analysis to examine the long-term equilibrium and short-term fluctuations of the interaction between economic growth and rural-urban land conversion in Wuhan Metropolitan Area. The results show that both long-term equilibrium and short-term fluctuations exist in study area, and short-term fluctuations do not have a great effect on the long-term equilibrium. Besides, the response of land conversion to the fluctuation of economic growth is stronger than that of economic growth to the fluctuation of land conversion. It means the contribution of land conversion to economic growth is limited, and the metropolitan area is facing the risk of excessive land conversion.
The second one is about the driving effect of economic growth on rural-urban land conversion and its scale effects. At first, social and economic factors affecting rural-urban land conversion are discussed and the framework of the economic driving forces of land conversion is built. Then, the spatial scale effects of all social and economic factors are analyzed. Based on the analysis, the linear hierarchical model of economic mechanism of land conversion is created. Finally, the model is applied at city and county level to measure the effect of economic growth on county land conversion. The results show that①60.53%of differences in land conversion in counties was attributed to the differences at the county level, the other39.47%dues to the differences at the city leve;②GDP growth at both county and municipal level have an positive effect on rural-urban land conversion at the county level;③Municipal GDP not only promotes the rural-urban land conversion at the county level in a direct way, but also has an indirect effect by enhancing the positive correlation between county GDP and land conversion.
The third one is about the contribution of rural-urban land conversion to economic growth and its scale effects. A theoretical analysis of land allocation between rural and urban and its efficiency is conducted. Then, regional spatial efficiency equilibrium conditions of rural-urban land allocation are proposed, which is the marginal revenue of rural land is equal to the marginal revenue of urban land in anywhere within the region. The next step is to employ GINI coefficient and Thayer index decomposition method to preliminarily estimate the spatial variations of the contributions of land conversion to economic growth. Finally, two methods, the hierarchical linear modeling and Cobb-Douglas production function, are combined to build a production function model that includes factors at multiple spatial scales. The model is used to analyze the contributions of rural-urban land conversion at the county level to economic growth as well as the influence of factors at the municipal level on land conversion at the county level. The results show thatヾifferences in counties'contribute of farmland conversion to economic growth mainly lie in county level, which means the distribution of farmland conversion need to be mainly relocated at county level with the purpose of improving the spatial allocation efficiency of farmland conversion in the metropolitan area. In addition, differences in counties' contribute of farmland conversion to economic growth at municipal level is increasing, which means the risk of unreasonable distribution of farmland conversion at municipal level may increase.②63.20%of differences in counties' economic growth is attributed to the differences at county level and the rest dues to the differences at the municipal level.③the average contribute of non-agricultural land to economic growth is-1.36%,which indicates that large amount of non-agricultural land are wasted and the risk of over-development existed.④the contribution of farmland conversion to economic growth in counties located in municipals with a higher GDP per capita is more than those in counties located in municipals with a relative lower GDP per capita, while the contribution in counties located in municipals with a larger population or a higher urbanization level is less than those in counties located in municipals with a relative smaller population or a lower urbanization level.
(1)农地城市流转与经济增长的相关关系。研究首先对农地城市流转与经济增长的相互作用过程进行了一个理论分析,认为经济增长来自于要素投入量的增加和使用效率的提升,土地是重要的生产要素之一,经济增长必然会引发对其需求量的增加,且引致的土地需求主要表现为非农业用地需求,从而引发农地城市流转；反过来,农地城市流转会通过刺激资本投入要素的增加而间接作用于经济增长,其所刺激的资本投入数量和质量决定了其对经济增长的贡献率。其次,采用时间序列数据单位根检验、协整关系检验和脉冲响应分析对武汉城市圈两者的长期均衡和短期波动关系进行了检验,结果显示武汉城市圈农地城市流转与经济增长间既存在长期均衡关系也存在短期波动关系,短期波动服从于长期均衡；农地城市流转对经济增长冲击的响应要远大于经济增长对农地城市流转冲击的响应,说明农地城市流转对经济增长的贡献是有限的,城市圈整体可能已存在过度农地城市流转的风险。
(2)经济增长对农地城市流转的驱动力及其尺度效应。首先,从影响农地城市流转的社会经济因素出发,构建了一个农地城市流转经济驱动机制理论框架；其次,对农地城市流转各社会经济影响因子的空间尺度效应进行理论分析,并在此分析的基础上结合分层线性模型技术构建了多层次农地城市流转经济驱动机制理论模型；最后,采用HLM统计软件,基于多层次农地城市流转经济驱动机制理论模型对武汉城市圈市、县二维空间尺度下经济增长对县域农地城市流转的驱动作用进行了估计。研究结果显示,城市圈县域农地城市流转规模的差异有60.53%表现为市内差异,39.47%表现为市间差异；县域和市域尺度下的经济增长对于其县域农地城市流转都具有正向推动作用；除直接作用于县域经济增长外,市域尺度经济增长还会通过强化县域尺度经济增长对农地城市流转的正向驱动力间接作用于县域经济增长。
(3)农地城市流转对经济增长的贡献及其尺度效应。首先,对农地城市流转资源的配置方式和空间配置效率进行了理论分析,认为区域农地城市流转资源配置的空间效率均衡条件为区域内所有地区的农用地和城市用地边际收益相等；其次,采用基尼系数和泰尔指数分解的方法对农地城市流转对经济增长贡献的空间差异水平进行了初步判断；最后,将分层线性建模技术与C-D生产函数结合起来,构建了同时包括多个空间尺度因素的生产函数模型,对城市圈县域尺度农地城市流转对经济增长的贡献及市域尺度因素对其的影响进行了分析。研究显示,城市圈农地城市流转对经济增长贡献的差异主要表现为市内差异,市间差异占比较小但却呈持续增加态势,说明城市圈年度农地城市流转指标的空间配置上主要表现为县域尺度下的“不合理”,但市域尺度下的“不合理”度有增加的风险,也应引起重视；城市圈经济增长的空间尺度差异有63.20%属于县际差异,36.80%属于市际差异,市域因素对辖区内的县域经济增长作用不容忽视；农地城市流转对城市圈经济增长贡献的县域平均值为-1.36%,己存在“过度”农地城市流转的现象,未来经济的发展应更注重现有城市建设用地的内部挖潜；市域尺度的经济增长有助于提升其辖区内各县(市、区)农地城市流转对经济增长的贡献,但市域人口规模的增加和城镇化水平的提升反而对其辖区内各县(市、区)农地城市流转对经济增长的贡献具有负向影响。
As the expense loss caused by the need of the economic growth, rural-urban land conversion is inevitable in the process of economic development. It is also widely recognized that rural-urban land conversion and economic development are closely related. On the one hand, the input of urban construction land is necessary for economic growth, and the only way to increase it is rural-urban land conversion. Since China's economic growth in recent years relies heavily on factor inputs, rural-urban land conversion is strongly required. On the one hand, agricultural land, especially the arable land, will shrink in the process of rural-urban land conversion, which is a threat to food security, ecological environment preservation and social stability. Consequently, it will become the bottleneck of economic development. Thus, coordinating the relationship between economic growth and rural-urban land conversion is a key issue to sustainable development.
In addition, there are obvious scale effects between economic growth and rural-urban land conversion. For one thing, although economic growth of each city and county is related to the conversion of land from rural to urban, the degrees of the correlation are dissimilar. For another, when examining the correlation using different size scales, there are big gaps between conclusions. Conclusions get from study in a certain scale cannot be applied in a larger or smaller scale.
Based on economic growth theory and production factor theory, this research selects Wuhan Metropolitan Area as study area. Impulse response analysis, multi-level modeling, and Cobb-Douglas production function are employed to reveal the mechanism of interaction between economic growth and rural-urban land conversion as well as to analyze their scale effect. The conclusions can be taken to provide suggestions for public policies. The research focuses on three aspects:
The first one is about the correlation between economic growth and rural-urban land conversion. This research conducts a theoretical analysis of the interaction between economic growth and rural-urban land conversion. It is reported that economic growth depends on the increasing input and utilization of factors of production. Since land is one of the important factors, the growing economy will inevitably lead to high demand for land. The demand mainly concentrates on non-agricultural land, which causes land conversion from rural to urban. Rural-urban land conversion also has an effect on economic growth by stimulating the capital inputs. Therefore, the contribution of rural-urban land conversion to economic growth depends on the quantity and quality of capital inputs stimulated by it. Then, the research performs unit root test, co-integration regression, and impulse response analysis to examine the long-term equilibrium and short-term fluctuations of the interaction between economic growth and rural-urban land conversion in Wuhan Metropolitan Area. The results show that both long-term equilibrium and short-term fluctuations exist in study area, and short-term fluctuations do not have a great effect on the long-term equilibrium. Besides, the response of land conversion to the fluctuation of economic growth is stronger than that of economic growth to the fluctuation of land conversion. It means the contribution of land conversion to economic growth is limited, and the metropolitan area is facing the risk of excessive land conversion.
The second one is about the driving effect of economic growth on rural-urban land conversion and its scale effects. At first, social and economic factors affecting rural-urban land conversion are discussed and the framework of the economic driving forces of land conversion is built. Then, the spatial scale effects of all social and economic factors are analyzed. Based on the analysis, the linear hierarchical model of economic mechanism of land conversion is created. Finally, the model is applied at city and county level to measure the effect of economic growth on county land conversion. The results show that①60.53%of differences in land conversion in counties was attributed to the differences at the county level, the other39.47%dues to the differences at the city leve;②GDP growth at both county and municipal level have an positive effect on rural-urban land conversion at the county level;③Municipal GDP not only promotes the rural-urban land conversion at the county level in a direct way, but also has an indirect effect by enhancing the positive correlation between county GDP and land conversion.
The third one is about the contribution of rural-urban land conversion to economic growth and its scale effects. A theoretical analysis of land allocation between rural and urban and its efficiency is conducted. Then, regional spatial efficiency equilibrium conditions of rural-urban land allocation are proposed, which is the marginal revenue of rural land is equal to the marginal revenue of urban land in anywhere within the region. The next step is to employ GINI coefficient and Thayer index decomposition method to preliminarily estimate the spatial variations of the contributions of land conversion to economic growth. Finally, two methods, the hierarchical linear modeling and Cobb-Douglas production function, are combined to build a production function model that includes factors at multiple spatial scales. The model is used to analyze the contributions of rural-urban land conversion at the county level to economic growth as well as the influence of factors at the municipal level on land conversion at the county level. The results show thatヾifferences in counties'contribute of farmland conversion to economic growth mainly lie in county level, which means the distribution of farmland conversion need to be mainly relocated at county level with the purpose of improving the spatial allocation efficiency of farmland conversion in the metropolitan area. In addition, differences in counties' contribute of farmland conversion to economic growth at municipal level is increasing, which means the risk of unreasonable distribution of farmland conversion at municipal level may increase.②63.20%of differences in counties' economic growth is attributed to the differences at county level and the rest dues to the differences at the municipal level.③the average contribute of non-agricultural land to economic growth is-1.36%,which indicates that large amount of non-agricultural land are wasted and the risk of over-development existed.④the contribution of farmland conversion to economic growth in counties located in municipals with a higher GDP per capita is more than those in counties located in municipals with a relative lower GDP per capita, while the contribution in counties located in municipals with a larger population or a higher urbanization level is less than those in counties located in municipals with a relative smaller population or a lower urbanization level.
引文
1. A. Veldkamp, L.O. Fresco. Reconstructing land use drivers and their spatial dependence for Costa Rica (1973 and 1984). Agricultural Systems,1996,55(1):19-43.
2. Alberti M. The Effects of Urban Patterns on Ecosystem Function. International Regional Science Review,2005,28(2):168-192.
3. Arrow K J, Fisher A C. Environmental Preservation, Uncertainty and Irreversibility. Quarterly Journal of Economics,1974,88(2):312-319.
4. Bouman B A M. Tools for land use analysis on different scale:with case studies for Costa Rica, Kluwer Academic publishers,2000.
5. Brueckner J K, Fansler D. The Economics of Urban Sprawl:Theory and Evidence on the Spatial Size of Cities. Review of Economics and Statistics,1983,65(3):479-482.
6. Bruns D F W, Schmidt J A. City Edges in Germany:Quality Growth and Urban Design. Landscape and Urban Planning,1997,36(4):347-356.
7. Buitelaar E. The Cost of Land Use Decisions:Applying Transaction Cost Economics to Planning and Development. Blackwell Publisher,2007.
8. Cao W, Zhu H, Chen S. Impacts of Urbanization on Topsoil Nutrient Balance---A Case Study at Provincial Scale from Fujian, China. Catena,2006,69:36-43.
9. Carmen C F, Irwin E G. Determinants of Residential Land Conversion and Sprawl at the Rural-Urban Fringe. American Journal of Agricultural Economy,2004,86(4):889-904.
10. Castella J C, Kam S P, Quang D D, Verburg P H, Hoanh C T. Combining top-down and bottom-up modelling approaches of land use/cover change to support public policies:Application to sustainable management of natural resources in northern Vietnam. Land Use Policy,2007, 24(3):531-545.
11. Chakir R, Gallo J L. Predicting Land Use Allocation in France:A Spatial Panel Data Analysis. Ecological Economics,2013,92:114-125.
12. Chen J. Rapid Urbanization in China:A Real Challenge to Soil Protection and Food Security. Catena,2007,69(1):1-15.
13. Colin V, Rich I. Analyzing spatial hierarchies in remotely sensed data:Insights from a multilevel model of tropical deforestation. Land Use Policy,2006,23:226-236.
14. Collins J P, Kinzig A, Grimm N B. A New Urban Ecology. American Scientist,2000,88(5): 416-425.
15. Cunningham C R. Growth Control, Real Options and Land Development. The Review of Economics and Statistics,2007,89(2):343-358.
16. Deng X Z, Huang J K, Rozelle S, Uchida E. Growth, Population and Industrialization, and Urban Land Expansion of China. Journal of Urban Economics,2008,63(1):96-115.
17. Deng X Z, Huang J K, Rozelle S, Uchida E. Economic Growth and the Expansion of Urban Land in China. Urban Studies,2010,47(4):813-843.
18. Ding C R. Policy and Praxis of Land Acquisition in China. Land Use Policy,2007,24(1):1-13.
19. Ding C R. Land Policy Reform in China:Assessment and Prospects. Land Use Policy,2003, 20(2):109-120.
20. Gardner G. Shrinking Fields:Cropland Loss in a World of Eight Billion. Worldwatch Paper, USA:Worldwatch Institute,1996.
21. Guo G, Zhao H. Multilevel modeling for binary data, American Review of Sociology,2000,26: 441-462.
22. Haff C A. Land Market Understanding is the Basis for Smart Change, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Working Paper, USA:Lincoln Institute,2003.
23. Ho S P S, Lin G C S. Non-Agricultural Land Use in Post-Reform China. The China Quarterly, 2004, (179):758-781.
24. Hoshino S. Multilevel modeling on farmland distribution in Janpan. Land use Policy,2001,18: 75-90.
25. Jiang L, Deng X Z, Seto K C. Multi-Level Modeling of Urban Expansion and Cultivated Land Conversion for Urban Hotspot Counties in China. Landscape and Urban Planning,2012,108: 131-139.
26. Kline J D, Alig R J. Does Land Use Planning Slow Conversion of Forest and Farmlands?, Growth and Change,1999,30(1):3-22.
27. Knaap N, Moore T. Land Supply and Infrastructure Capacity Monitoring for Smart Urban Growth. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Working Paper, USA:Lincoln Institute,2000.
28. Koen P O, Peter H V. Multilevel modelling of land use from field to village level in the Philippines. Agrivultural Systems,2006,89:435-456.
29. Kok K. The Role of Population in Understanding Honduran Land Use Patterns. Journal of Environmental Management,2004,72(1-2):73-89.
30. Koning G H J, Veldkamp A, Fresco L O. Land use in Ecuador:a statistical analysis at different aggregation levels. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Envionment,1998,70:231-247.
31. Krugman P. Increasing Retums and Economic Geography. NBER (National Bureau of Economic Research) Working Paper Series,1990.
32. Kuminoff N V, Sokolow A D, Sumner D A. Farmland Conversion:Perceptions and Realities. Issues Brief (No.16), University of California:Agricultural Issues Center,2001.
33. Leroux A D, Creedy J. Optimal Land Conversion and Growth with Uncertain Biodiversity Cost, Ecological Economics,2007,61(2-3):542-549.
34. Lindley D V, Smith A F M. Bayes Estimates for the linearmodel. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (Series B),1972,34,1-41.
35. Long H L, Heilig G K, Li X B, Zhang M. Socio-economic Development and Land-Use Change: Analysis of Rural Housing Land Transition in the Transect of the Yangtse River, China. Land Use Policy,2007,24 (1):141-153.
36. Magliocca N, Safirova E, McConnell V, Walls M. An Economic Agent-based Model of Coupled Housing and Land Markets (CHALMS). Computers, Environment and Urban Systems,2011,35: 183-191.
37. Masek J G, Lindsay F E, Goward S N. Dynamics of Urban Growth in the Washington DC Metropolitan Area,1973-1996, from Landsat Observation. International Journal of Remote Sensing,2000,21(18):3473-3486.
38. McGrath D T. More Evidence on the Spatial Scale of Cities. Journal of Urban Economics,2005, 58(1):1-10.
39. Muth R M. Economic Change and Rural-Urban Land Conversions. Econometrica,1961,29(1): 1-23.
40. Nicolai. Modeling farmland conversion with new GIS data. Paper prepared for the annual meeting of the American agricultural economics association, Chicago,2001,8: 5-8.
41. Overmars K P, Verburg P H. Multi-level modelling of land use from field to village level in the Philippines. Agricultural Systems,2006,89(2-3):435-456.
42. Peter H V, Chen Y Q. Multiscale Characterization of Land-Use Patterns in China. Ecosystems, 2000,3:369-385.
43. Peterson J M, Boisvert R N. Optimal Land Conversion at the Rural-Urban Fringe with Positive and Negative Agricultural Externalities. Prepared for the American Agricultural Economics Association Meeting, Tampa, Florida, July 30-August 2,2000.
44. Plantinga A J. The Effect of Agricultural Policies on Land Use and Environmental Quality. American Journal of Agricultural Economics,1996,78(4):1082-1091.
45. Polsky C, Easterling III W E. Adaptation to climate variability and change in the US great Plains: a multi-scale analysis of Ricardian climate sensitivities. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment,2001,85:133-144.
46. Qu F T, Heerink N, Wang W M. Land Administration Reform in China:It's Impact on Land Allocation and Economic Development. Land Use Policy,1995,12(3):193-203.
47. Rudel T, Roper J. The Paths of Rain Forest Destruction:Crossnational Patterns of Tropical Deforestation. World Development,1997,25:53-65.
48. Seto K C, Kaufmann R K. Modeling the Drivers of Urban Land Use Change in the Pearl River Delta, China:Integrating Remote Sensing with Socioeconomic Data. Land Economics,2003, 79(1):106-121.
49. Shen J, Wong K, Feng Z. State-Sponsored and Spontaneous Urbanization in the Pearl River Delta of South China,1980-1998. Urban Geography,2002,23(7):674-694.
50. Snijders T A B, Bosker R J. Multi-level analysis:An introduction to basic and advanced multi-level modeling, London:SAGE Publications,1999.
51. Stephen J W, Thomas W C, William F W, et al., A multiscale analysis of LUCC and NDVI variation in Nang Rong district, northeast Thailand. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 2001,85:47-64.
52. Tan M H, Li X B, Xie H, Lu C H. Urban Land Expansion and Arable Land Loss in China-A Case Study Of Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Region. Land Use Policy,2005,22(3):187-196.
53. Tian G J, Ouyang Y, Quan Q, Wu J G. Simulating Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Urbanization with Multi-Agent Systems-A Case Study of the Phoenix Metropolitan Region, USA. Ecological Modelling,2011,222:1129-1138.
54. Towe C A, Nickerson C J, Bockstael N. An Empirical Examination of the Timing of Land Conversions in the Presence of Farmland Preservation Programs. American Journal of Agricultural Economics,2008,90(3):613-626.
55. Turne M A. A Simple Theory of Smart Growth and Sprawl. Journal of Urban Economics,2007, 61(1):21-44.
56. Turner B L, Meyer W B, Skole D L. Global land-use/land-cover change, towards an integrated study. Ambio,1995,23(1):91-95.
57. Tweeten L. Competing for Scarce Land:Food Security and Farmland Preservation, Occasional paper, Produced for the project:Competition for Land on the Rural-urban Interface,1998.
58. Valk A V D. The Dutch Planning Experience. Landscape and Urban Planning,2002,58(2-4): 201-210.
59. Veldkamp A, Fresco L O. Reconstructing Land Use Drivers and their Spatial Scale Dependence for Costa Rica. Agricultural System,1997,55(1):19-43.
60. Verburg P H, Schot P, Dijst M, Veldkamp A. Land use change modelling:Current Practice and research priorities. GeoJournal,2004,61(4):309-324.
61. Wang Y M, Scott S. Illegal Farmland Conversion in China's Urban Periphery:Local Regime and National Transitions. Urban Geography,2008,29(4):327-347.
62. Pan W K Y, Richard E B. The use of a multilevel statistical model to analyze factors influencing land use:a study of the Ecuadorian Amazon. Global and Planetary Change,2005,47:232-252.
63. Yang H, Li X B. Cultivated Land and Food Supply in China. Land Use Policy,2000,17(2): 73-88.
64. Zhang X Q. Urban Land Reform in China. Land Use Policy,1997,14(3):187-199.
65. (英)A.P.瑟尔沃.增长与发展(第6版)[M].北京：商务印书馆,1997,57.
66.E.多马.经济增长理论[M].北京：商务印书馆,1983,20.
67.阿瑟·刘易斯.经济增长理论[M]. (周师铭等译).北京：商务务书馆,1983.
68.保罗·萨缪尔森,威廉·诺德豪斯.经济学(第18版)[M]. (萧琛主译).北京：人民邮电出版社,2008.
69.蔡银莺,李晓云,张安录.农地城市流转对区域生态服务价值的影响——以大连市为例[J].农村现代化研究,2005,26(3)：186-189.
70.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)：52-57.
71.蔡运龙.土地利用/土地覆被变化研究：寻求新的综合途径[J].地理研究,2001,20(6)：645-652.
72.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)：24-28.
73.蔡运龙.中国农村转型与耕地保护机制[J].地理科学,2001,21(1)：1-6.
74.陈百明,杜红亮.试论耕地占用与GDP增长的脱钩研究[J].资源科学,2006,28(5)：36-42.
75.陈福军.我国城市生产函数的初步研究[J].东北财经大学学报,2001,(1)：13-15.
76.陈江龙,曲福田,陈雯.农地非农化效率的空间差异及其对土地利用政策调整的启示[J].管理世界,2004,(8)：37-42,155.
77.陈启佑,何英彬.论土地利用/覆盖变化研究中的尺度问题[J].经济地理,2005,25(2)：152-155.
78.陈秀山,张可云.区域经济理论[M].北京：商务印书馆,2003,12：109-110.
79.陈佑启,何英彬.论土地利用/覆盖变化研究中的尺度问题[J].经济地理,2005,25(2)：152-155.
80.陈竹,张安录.农地城市流转外部性研究进展评述[J].长江流域资源与环境,2013,22(5)：618-623.
81.邓祥征,战金艳.中国北方农牧交错带土地利用变化驱动力的尺度效应分析[J].地理与地理信息科学,2004,20(3)：64-68.
82.杜受祜,刘宇,郭晓鸣.中国粮食问题：现实分析与评价[J].中国农村观察,1996,(1)：22-26.
83.傅泽强,蔡运龙,杨友孝,戴尔阜.中国粮食安全与耕地资源变化的相关分析[J].自然资源学报,2001,16(4)：313-319.
84.高魏,闵捷,张安录.基于岭回归的农地城市流转影响因素分析[J].中国土地科学,2007,21(3)： 51-58.
85.高魏,闵捷,张安录.农地城市流转与城市化、经济增长动态关系的计量经济分析[J].资源科学,2010,32(3)：564-572.
86.郭贯成.耕地面积变化与经济发展水平的相关分析[J].长江流域资源与环境,2001,1 0(5)：440-447.
87.郭琳,严金明.中国建设占用耕地与经济增长的退耦研究[J].中国人口·资源与环境,2007,17(5)：48-53.
88.郭志达,方涛,杜培军,负疆.论复杂系统研究的等级结构与尺度推绎[J].中国矿业大学学报,2003,32(3)：213-217.
89.何英彬,姚艳敏,唐华俊,陈佑启,陈仲新,杨鹏,于士凯.土地利用/覆盖变化驱动力机制研究新进展[J].中国农学通报,2013,29(2)：190-195.
90.胡祖光.基尼系数理论最佳值及其简易计算公式研究[J].经济研究,2004,(9)：60-69.
91.简新华,黄锟.中国城镇化水平和速度的实证分析与前景预测[J].经济研究,2010,(3)：28-39.
92.简新华,张国胜.日本工业化、城市化进程中的“农地非农化”[J].中国人口·资源与环境,2006,16(6)：95-100.
93.李建强,童立里,肖洪安.成都市农地非农化空间效率差异分析[J].四川农业大学学报, 2008,26(3)：278-281.
94.李启增.新增长理论与贸易——增长问题[J].经济学动态,1994,(7)：54.
95.李实,罗楚亮.中国城乡居民收入差距的重新估计[J].北京大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2007,44(2)：111-120.
96.李秀彬.中国近20年来耕地面积的变化及其政策启示[J].自然资源学报,1999,14(4)：329-333.
97.李秀彬.土地利用变化的解释[J].地理科学进展,2002,21(3)：195-203.
98.李兆富,杨桂山.苏州市近50年耕地资源变化过程与经济发展关系研究[J].资源科学,2005,27(4)：50-55.
99.林毅夫,蔡防,李周.中国经济转型时期的地区差距分析[J].经济研究,1998,(6)：3-10.
100.刘庆,陈利根,张凤荣.中国1986年至2006年耕地非农化数量与经济发展关系的计量分析[J].资源科学,31(5)：787-793.
101.陆红生.土地管理学总论[M].北京：中国农村出版社,2002,114.
102.罗格平,张爱娟,尹昌应,鲁蕾.土地变化多尺度研究进展与展望[J].干晕区研究,2009,26(2)：187-193.
103.罗汉译.诺贝尔奖获得者演说文集(经济学奖)[M].北京：商务印书馆,1997,4.
104.孟向京,侯东民.我国耕地变动成因及占用水平评价[J].市场与人口分析,2001,7(3)：31-36.
105.闵捷,张安录,高魏,汪鹏.湖北省不同地貌类型城市农地城市流转驱动机制比较研究[J].资源科学,2009,31(7)：1125-1132.
106.闵捷,张安录,吴中元,蔡为民.农地城市流转驱动机制的时空尺度效应分析[J].自然资源学报,2008,23(5)：808-820.
107.潘士远,史晋川.内生经济增长理论：一个文献综述[J].经济学(季刊),2002,1(4)：753-786.
108.邱炳文,高建阳,陈崇成,随银波,崔红生.闵清县农业用地变化驱动力的尺度效应分析[J].华侨大学学报,2008,29(1)：124-128.
109.曲福田,陈江龙,陈雯.农地非农化经济驱动机制的理论分析与实证研究[J].自然资源学报,2005,20(2)：231-241.
110.曲福田,吴丽梅.经济增长与耕地非农化的库兹涅茨曲线假说及验证[J].资源科学,2004,26(5)：61-67.
111.邵景安,李阳兵,魏朝富,谢德体.区域土地利用变化驱动力研究前景展望[J].地球科学进展,2007,22(8)：798-809.
112.沈坤荣.体制转型期的中国经济增长[M].南京：南京大学出版社,1999.
113.谭荣,曲福田,郭忠兴.中国耕地非农化对经济增长贡献的地区差异分析[J].长江流域资源与环境,2005,14(3)：277-281.
114.谭荣,曲福田.农地非农化的空间配置效率与农地损失[J].中国软科学,2006,(5)：49-57.
115.谭荣,曲福田.中国农地非农化与农地资源保护：从两难到双赢[J].管理世界,2006,(12)：50-59,60.
116.谭荣.农地非农化的效率：资源配置、治理结构与制度环境.[博士学位论文].江苏南京：南京农业大学,2008.
117.王红茹.土地纠纷急催征地制度改革[J].中国经济周刊,2006,(9)：26-28.
118.王立宏.新经济增长理论的演化解说[J].辽宁大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2007,35(1)：117-122.
119.王鹏.新经济增长理论与台湾经济增长研究.[博士学位论文].福建夏门：夏门大学,2006.
120.王万茂.市场经济条件下土地资源配置的目标、原则和评价标准[J].自然资源,1996,(1)：24-28.
121.邬建国.景观生态学——概念与理论[J].生态学杂志,2000,19(1)：42-52.
122.邬建国.景观生态学——格局、过程、尺度与等级[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2000.
123.吴传钧,郭焕成.中国土地利用[M].北京：科学出版社,1994：92-99,149-151.
124.吴次芳,谭永忠.制度缺陷与耕地保护[J].中国农村经济,2002,(7)：69-73.
125.吴次芳,杨志荣.经济发达地区农地非农化的驱动因素比较研究：理论与实证[J].浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),2008,38(2)：29-37.
126.吴易风.马克思的经济增长理论模型[J].经济研究,2007,(9)：11-17,48.
127.杨桂山.土地利用/覆被变化与区域经济发展——长江三角洲近50年耕地数量变化研究的启示[J].地理学报(增刊),2004,59：41-46.
128.杨桂山.长江三角洲近50年耕地数量变化的过程与驱动机制研究[J].自然资源学报,2001,16(2)：121-127.
129.杨桂山.长江三角洲耕地数量变化趋势及总量动态平衡前景分析[J].自然资源学报,2002,17(5)：525-532.
130.杨志荣,吴次芳,刘勇.中国东、中、西部地区农地非农化进程的影响因素[J].经济地理,2008,28(2)：286-290,371.
131.叶忱,黄贤金.江苏省经济发展及人口增长与耕地资源动态变化研究[J].华中农业大学学报(社会科学版),2000,(2)：1-4.
132.叶艳妹,吴次芳.我国土地产权制度与耕地保护问题研究[J].农业经济问题,1997,(6)： 32-37.
133.尹锋,李慧中.建设用地、资本产出比率与经济增长——基于1999-2005年中国省际面板数据的分析[J].世界经济文汇,2008,(2)：13-27.
134.岳天祥,刘纪远.生态地理建模中的多尺度问题[J].第四纪研究,2003,23(3)：256-261.
135.张安录,杨钢桥.美国城市化过程中农地城市流转与农地保护[J].中国农村经济,1998,(11),74-80.
136.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.
137.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.[博士学位论文].湖北武汉：华中农业大学,1999.
138.张大维,刘博,刘琪.Eviews数据统计与分析教程[M].北京：清华大学出版社,2010.
139.张基凯,吴群,黄秀欣.耕地非农化对经济增长贡献的区域差异研究——基于山东省17个地级市面板数据的分析[J].资源科学,2010,32(5)：959-969.
140.张正栋.35a来海南岛耕地变化与人口经济发展间的相关分析[J].中国沙漠,2005,25(5)：757-763.
141.赵小风,黄贤金,钟太洋,彭佳雯,赵雲泰,吕晓.江苏省开发区土地集约利用的分层线性模型实证研究[J].地理研究,2012,31(9)：1611-1620.
142.朱红波.论粮食安全与耕地资源安全[J].农业现代化研究,2006,27(3)：161-164.
143.朱勇.新增长理论M].北京：商务印书馆,1999.
2. Alberti M. The Effects of Urban Patterns on Ecosystem Function. International Regional Science Review,2005,28(2):168-192.
3. Arrow K J, Fisher A C. Environmental Preservation, Uncertainty and Irreversibility. Quarterly Journal of Economics,1974,88(2):312-319.
4. Bouman B A M. Tools for land use analysis on different scale:with case studies for Costa Rica, Kluwer Academic publishers,2000.
5. Brueckner J K, Fansler D. The Economics of Urban Sprawl:Theory and Evidence on the Spatial Size of Cities. Review of Economics and Statistics,1983,65(3):479-482.
6. Bruns D F W, Schmidt J A. City Edges in Germany:Quality Growth and Urban Design. Landscape and Urban Planning,1997,36(4):347-356.
7. Buitelaar E. The Cost of Land Use Decisions:Applying Transaction Cost Economics to Planning and Development. Blackwell Publisher,2007.
8. Cao W, Zhu H, Chen S. Impacts of Urbanization on Topsoil Nutrient Balance---A Case Study at Provincial Scale from Fujian, China. Catena,2006,69:36-43.
9. Carmen C F, Irwin E G. Determinants of Residential Land Conversion and Sprawl at the Rural-Urban Fringe. American Journal of Agricultural Economy,2004,86(4):889-904.
10. Castella J C, Kam S P, Quang D D, Verburg P H, Hoanh C T. Combining top-down and bottom-up modelling approaches of land use/cover change to support public policies:Application to sustainable management of natural resources in northern Vietnam. Land Use Policy,2007, 24(3):531-545.
11. Chakir R, Gallo J L. Predicting Land Use Allocation in France:A Spatial Panel Data Analysis. Ecological Economics,2013,92:114-125.
12. Chen J. Rapid Urbanization in China:A Real Challenge to Soil Protection and Food Security. Catena,2007,69(1):1-15.
13. Colin V, Rich I. Analyzing spatial hierarchies in remotely sensed data:Insights from a multilevel model of tropical deforestation. Land Use Policy,2006,23:226-236.
14. Collins J P, Kinzig A, Grimm N B. A New Urban Ecology. American Scientist,2000,88(5): 416-425.
15. Cunningham C R. Growth Control, Real Options and Land Development. The Review of Economics and Statistics,2007,89(2):343-358.
16. Deng X Z, Huang J K, Rozelle S, Uchida E. Growth, Population and Industrialization, and Urban Land Expansion of China. Journal of Urban Economics,2008,63(1):96-115.
17. Deng X Z, Huang J K, Rozelle S, Uchida E. Economic Growth and the Expansion of Urban Land in China. Urban Studies,2010,47(4):813-843.
18. Ding C R. Policy and Praxis of Land Acquisition in China. Land Use Policy,2007,24(1):1-13.
19. Ding C R. Land Policy Reform in China:Assessment and Prospects. Land Use Policy,2003, 20(2):109-120.
20. Gardner G. Shrinking Fields:Cropland Loss in a World of Eight Billion. Worldwatch Paper, USA:Worldwatch Institute,1996.
21. Guo G, Zhao H. Multilevel modeling for binary data, American Review of Sociology,2000,26: 441-462.
22. Haff C A. Land Market Understanding is the Basis for Smart Change, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Working Paper, USA:Lincoln Institute,2003.
23. Ho S P S, Lin G C S. Non-Agricultural Land Use in Post-Reform China. The China Quarterly, 2004, (179):758-781.
24. Hoshino S. Multilevel modeling on farmland distribution in Janpan. Land use Policy,2001,18: 75-90.
25. Jiang L, Deng X Z, Seto K C. Multi-Level Modeling of Urban Expansion and Cultivated Land Conversion for Urban Hotspot Counties in China. Landscape and Urban Planning,2012,108: 131-139.
26. Kline J D, Alig R J. Does Land Use Planning Slow Conversion of Forest and Farmlands?, Growth and Change,1999,30(1):3-22.
27. Knaap N, Moore T. Land Supply and Infrastructure Capacity Monitoring for Smart Urban Growth. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Working Paper, USA:Lincoln Institute,2000.
28. Koen P O, Peter H V. Multilevel modelling of land use from field to village level in the Philippines. Agrivultural Systems,2006,89:435-456.
29. Kok K. The Role of Population in Understanding Honduran Land Use Patterns. Journal of Environmental Management,2004,72(1-2):73-89.
30. Koning G H J, Veldkamp A, Fresco L O. Land use in Ecuador:a statistical analysis at different aggregation levels. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Envionment,1998,70:231-247.
31. Krugman P. Increasing Retums and Economic Geography. NBER (National Bureau of Economic Research) Working Paper Series,1990.
32. Kuminoff N V, Sokolow A D, Sumner D A. Farmland Conversion:Perceptions and Realities. Issues Brief (No.16), University of California:Agricultural Issues Center,2001.
33. Leroux A D, Creedy J. Optimal Land Conversion and Growth with Uncertain Biodiversity Cost, Ecological Economics,2007,61(2-3):542-549.
34. Lindley D V, Smith A F M. Bayes Estimates for the linearmodel. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (Series B),1972,34,1-41.
35. Long H L, Heilig G K, Li X B, Zhang M. Socio-economic Development and Land-Use Change: Analysis of Rural Housing Land Transition in the Transect of the Yangtse River, China. Land Use Policy,2007,24 (1):141-153.
36. Magliocca N, Safirova E, McConnell V, Walls M. An Economic Agent-based Model of Coupled Housing and Land Markets (CHALMS). Computers, Environment and Urban Systems,2011,35: 183-191.
37. Masek J G, Lindsay F E, Goward S N. Dynamics of Urban Growth in the Washington DC Metropolitan Area,1973-1996, from Landsat Observation. International Journal of Remote Sensing,2000,21(18):3473-3486.
38. McGrath D T. More Evidence on the Spatial Scale of Cities. Journal of Urban Economics,2005, 58(1):1-10.
39. Muth R M. Economic Change and Rural-Urban Land Conversions. Econometrica,1961,29(1): 1-23.
40. Nicolai. Modeling farmland conversion with new GIS data. Paper prepared for the annual meeting of the American agricultural economics association, Chicago,2001,8: 5-8.
41. Overmars K P, Verburg P H. Multi-level modelling of land use from field to village level in the Philippines. Agricultural Systems,2006,89(2-3):435-456.
42. Peter H V, Chen Y Q. Multiscale Characterization of Land-Use Patterns in China. Ecosystems, 2000,3:369-385.
43. Peterson J M, Boisvert R N. Optimal Land Conversion at the Rural-Urban Fringe with Positive and Negative Agricultural Externalities. Prepared for the American Agricultural Economics Association Meeting, Tampa, Florida, July 30-August 2,2000.
44. Plantinga A J. The Effect of Agricultural Policies on Land Use and Environmental Quality. American Journal of Agricultural Economics,1996,78(4):1082-1091.
45. Polsky C, Easterling III W E. Adaptation to climate variability and change in the US great Plains: a multi-scale analysis of Ricardian climate sensitivities. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment,2001,85:133-144.
46. Qu F T, Heerink N, Wang W M. Land Administration Reform in China:It's Impact on Land Allocation and Economic Development. Land Use Policy,1995,12(3):193-203.
47. Rudel T, Roper J. The Paths of Rain Forest Destruction:Crossnational Patterns of Tropical Deforestation. World Development,1997,25:53-65.
48. Seto K C, Kaufmann R K. Modeling the Drivers of Urban Land Use Change in the Pearl River Delta, China:Integrating Remote Sensing with Socioeconomic Data. Land Economics,2003, 79(1):106-121.
49. Shen J, Wong K, Feng Z. State-Sponsored and Spontaneous Urbanization in the Pearl River Delta of South China,1980-1998. Urban Geography,2002,23(7):674-694.
50. Snijders T A B, Bosker R J. Multi-level analysis:An introduction to basic and advanced multi-level modeling, London:SAGE Publications,1999.
51. Stephen J W, Thomas W C, William F W, et al., A multiscale analysis of LUCC and NDVI variation in Nang Rong district, northeast Thailand. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 2001,85:47-64.
52. Tan M H, Li X B, Xie H, Lu C H. Urban Land Expansion and Arable Land Loss in China-A Case Study Of Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Region. Land Use Policy,2005,22(3):187-196.
53. Tian G J, Ouyang Y, Quan Q, Wu J G. Simulating Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Urbanization with Multi-Agent Systems-A Case Study of the Phoenix Metropolitan Region, USA. Ecological Modelling,2011,222:1129-1138.
54. Towe C A, Nickerson C J, Bockstael N. An Empirical Examination of the Timing of Land Conversions in the Presence of Farmland Preservation Programs. American Journal of Agricultural Economics,2008,90(3):613-626.
55. Turne M A. A Simple Theory of Smart Growth and Sprawl. Journal of Urban Economics,2007, 61(1):21-44.
56. Turner B L, Meyer W B, Skole D L. Global land-use/land-cover change, towards an integrated study. Ambio,1995,23(1):91-95.
57. Tweeten L. Competing for Scarce Land:Food Security and Farmland Preservation, Occasional paper, Produced for the project:Competition for Land on the Rural-urban Interface,1998.
58. Valk A V D. The Dutch Planning Experience. Landscape and Urban Planning,2002,58(2-4): 201-210.
59. Veldkamp A, Fresco L O. Reconstructing Land Use Drivers and their Spatial Scale Dependence for Costa Rica. Agricultural System,1997,55(1):19-43.
60. Verburg P H, Schot P, Dijst M, Veldkamp A. Land use change modelling:Current Practice and research priorities. GeoJournal,2004,61(4):309-324.
61. Wang Y M, Scott S. Illegal Farmland Conversion in China's Urban Periphery:Local Regime and National Transitions. Urban Geography,2008,29(4):327-347.
62. Pan W K Y, Richard E B. The use of a multilevel statistical model to analyze factors influencing land use:a study of the Ecuadorian Amazon. Global and Planetary Change,2005,47:232-252.
63. Yang H, Li X B. Cultivated Land and Food Supply in China. Land Use Policy,2000,17(2): 73-88.
64. Zhang X Q. Urban Land Reform in China. Land Use Policy,1997,14(3):187-199.
65. (英)A.P.瑟尔沃.增长与发展(第6版)[M].北京：商务印书馆,1997,57.
66.E.多马.经济增长理论[M].北京：商务印书馆,1983,20.
67.阿瑟·刘易斯.经济增长理论[M]. (周师铭等译).北京：商务务书馆,1983.
68.保罗·萨缪尔森,威廉·诺德豪斯.经济学(第18版)[M]. (萧琛主译).北京：人民邮电出版社,2008.
69.蔡银莺,李晓云,张安录.农地城市流转对区域生态服务价值的影响——以大连市为例[J].农村现代化研究,2005,26(3)：186-189.
70.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)：52-57.
71.蔡运龙.土地利用/土地覆被变化研究：寻求新的综合途径[J].地理研究,2001,20(6)：645-652.
72.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)：24-28.
73.蔡运龙.中国农村转型与耕地保护机制[J].地理科学,2001,21(1)：1-6.
74.陈百明,杜红亮.试论耕地占用与GDP增长的脱钩研究[J].资源科学,2006,28(5)：36-42.
75.陈福军.我国城市生产函数的初步研究[J].东北财经大学学报,2001,(1)：13-15.
76.陈江龙,曲福田,陈雯.农地非农化效率的空间差异及其对土地利用政策调整的启示[J].管理世界,2004,(8)：37-42,155.
77.陈启佑,何英彬.论土地利用/覆盖变化研究中的尺度问题[J].经济地理,2005,25(2)：152-155.
78.陈秀山,张可云.区域经济理论[M].北京：商务印书馆,2003,12：109-110.
79.陈佑启,何英彬.论土地利用/覆盖变化研究中的尺度问题[J].经济地理,2005,25(2)：152-155.
80.陈竹,张安录.农地城市流转外部性研究进展评述[J].长江流域资源与环境,2013,22(5)：618-623.
81.邓祥征,战金艳.中国北方农牧交错带土地利用变化驱动力的尺度效应分析[J].地理与地理信息科学,2004,20(3)：64-68.
82.杜受祜,刘宇,郭晓鸣.中国粮食问题：现实分析与评价[J].中国农村观察,1996,(1)：22-26.
83.傅泽强,蔡运龙,杨友孝,戴尔阜.中国粮食安全与耕地资源变化的相关分析[J].自然资源学报,2001,16(4)：313-319.
84.高魏,闵捷,张安录.基于岭回归的农地城市流转影响因素分析[J].中国土地科学,2007,21(3)： 51-58.
85.高魏,闵捷,张安录.农地城市流转与城市化、经济增长动态关系的计量经济分析[J].资源科学,2010,32(3)：564-572.
86.郭贯成.耕地面积变化与经济发展水平的相关分析[J].长江流域资源与环境,2001,1 0(5)：440-447.
87.郭琳,严金明.中国建设占用耕地与经济增长的退耦研究[J].中国人口·资源与环境,2007,17(5)：48-53.
88.郭志达,方涛,杜培军,负疆.论复杂系统研究的等级结构与尺度推绎[J].中国矿业大学学报,2003,32(3)：213-217.
89.何英彬,姚艳敏,唐华俊,陈佑启,陈仲新,杨鹏,于士凯.土地利用/覆盖变化驱动力机制研究新进展[J].中国农学通报,2013,29(2)：190-195.
90.胡祖光.基尼系数理论最佳值及其简易计算公式研究[J].经济研究,2004,(9)：60-69.
91.简新华,黄锟.中国城镇化水平和速度的实证分析与前景预测[J].经济研究,2010,(3)：28-39.
92.简新华,张国胜.日本工业化、城市化进程中的“农地非农化”[J].中国人口·资源与环境,2006,16(6)：95-100.
93.李建强,童立里,肖洪安.成都市农地非农化空间效率差异分析[J].四川农业大学学报, 2008,26(3)：278-281.
94.李启增.新增长理论与贸易——增长问题[J].经济学动态,1994,(7)：54.
95.李实,罗楚亮.中国城乡居民收入差距的重新估计[J].北京大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2007,44(2)：111-120.
96.李秀彬.中国近20年来耕地面积的变化及其政策启示[J].自然资源学报,1999,14(4)：329-333.
97.李秀彬.土地利用变化的解释[J].地理科学进展,2002,21(3)：195-203.
98.李兆富,杨桂山.苏州市近50年耕地资源变化过程与经济发展关系研究[J].资源科学,2005,27(4)：50-55.
99.林毅夫,蔡防,李周.中国经济转型时期的地区差距分析[J].经济研究,1998,(6)：3-10.
100.刘庆,陈利根,张凤荣.中国1986年至2006年耕地非农化数量与经济发展关系的计量分析[J].资源科学,31(5)：787-793.
101.陆红生.土地管理学总论[M].北京：中国农村出版社,2002,114.
102.罗格平,张爱娟,尹昌应,鲁蕾.土地变化多尺度研究进展与展望[J].干晕区研究,2009,26(2)：187-193.
103.罗汉译.诺贝尔奖获得者演说文集(经济学奖)[M].北京：商务印书馆,1997,4.
104.孟向京,侯东民.我国耕地变动成因及占用水平评价[J].市场与人口分析,2001,7(3)：31-36.
105.闵捷,张安录,高魏,汪鹏.湖北省不同地貌类型城市农地城市流转驱动机制比较研究[J].资源科学,2009,31(7)：1125-1132.
106.闵捷,张安录,吴中元,蔡为民.农地城市流转驱动机制的时空尺度效应分析[J].自然资源学报,2008,23(5)：808-820.
107.潘士远,史晋川.内生经济增长理论：一个文献综述[J].经济学(季刊),2002,1(4)：753-786.
108.邱炳文,高建阳,陈崇成,随银波,崔红生.闵清县农业用地变化驱动力的尺度效应分析[J].华侨大学学报,2008,29(1)：124-128.
109.曲福田,陈江龙,陈雯.农地非农化经济驱动机制的理论分析与实证研究[J].自然资源学报,2005,20(2)：231-241.
110.曲福田,吴丽梅.经济增长与耕地非农化的库兹涅茨曲线假说及验证[J].资源科学,2004,26(5)：61-67.
111.邵景安,李阳兵,魏朝富,谢德体.区域土地利用变化驱动力研究前景展望[J].地球科学进展,2007,22(8)：798-809.
112.沈坤荣.体制转型期的中国经济增长[M].南京：南京大学出版社,1999.
113.谭荣,曲福田,郭忠兴.中国耕地非农化对经济增长贡献的地区差异分析[J].长江流域资源与环境,2005,14(3)：277-281.
114.谭荣,曲福田.农地非农化的空间配置效率与农地损失[J].中国软科学,2006,(5)：49-57.
115.谭荣,曲福田.中国农地非农化与农地资源保护：从两难到双赢[J].管理世界,2006,(12)：50-59,60.
116.谭荣.农地非农化的效率：资源配置、治理结构与制度环境.[博士学位论文].江苏南京：南京农业大学,2008.
117.王红茹.土地纠纷急催征地制度改革[J].中国经济周刊,2006,(9)：26-28.
118.王立宏.新经济增长理论的演化解说[J].辽宁大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2007,35(1)：117-122.
119.王鹏.新经济增长理论与台湾经济增长研究.[博士学位论文].福建夏门：夏门大学,2006.
120.王万茂.市场经济条件下土地资源配置的目标、原则和评价标准[J].自然资源,1996,(1)：24-28.
121.邬建国.景观生态学——概念与理论[J].生态学杂志,2000,19(1)：42-52.
122.邬建国.景观生态学——格局、过程、尺度与等级[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2000.
123.吴传钧,郭焕成.中国土地利用[M].北京：科学出版社,1994：92-99,149-151.
124.吴次芳,谭永忠.制度缺陷与耕地保护[J].中国农村经济,2002,(7)：69-73.
125.吴次芳,杨志荣.经济发达地区农地非农化的驱动因素比较研究：理论与实证[J].浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),2008,38(2)：29-37.
126.吴易风.马克思的经济增长理论模型[J].经济研究,2007,(9)：11-17,48.
127.杨桂山.土地利用/覆被变化与区域经济发展——长江三角洲近50年耕地数量变化研究的启示[J].地理学报(增刊),2004,59：41-46.
128.杨桂山.长江三角洲近50年耕地数量变化的过程与驱动机制研究[J].自然资源学报,2001,16(2)：121-127.
129.杨桂山.长江三角洲耕地数量变化趋势及总量动态平衡前景分析[J].自然资源学报,2002,17(5)：525-532.
130.杨志荣,吴次芳,刘勇.中国东、中、西部地区农地非农化进程的影响因素[J].经济地理,2008,28(2)：286-290,371.
131.叶忱,黄贤金.江苏省经济发展及人口增长与耕地资源动态变化研究[J].华中农业大学学报(社会科学版),2000,(2)：1-4.
132.叶艳妹,吴次芳.我国土地产权制度与耕地保护问题研究[J].农业经济问题,1997,(6)： 32-37.
133.尹锋,李慧中.建设用地、资本产出比率与经济增长——基于1999-2005年中国省际面板数据的分析[J].世界经济文汇,2008,(2)：13-27.
134.岳天祥,刘纪远.生态地理建模中的多尺度问题[J].第四纪研究,2003,23(3)：256-261.
135.张安录,杨钢桥.美国城市化过程中农地城市流转与农地保护[J].中国农村经济,1998,(11),74-80.
136.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.
137.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.[博士学位论文].湖北武汉：华中农业大学,1999.
138.张大维,刘博,刘琪.Eviews数据统计与分析教程[M].北京：清华大学出版社,2010.
139.张基凯,吴群,黄秀欣.耕地非农化对经济增长贡献的区域差异研究——基于山东省17个地级市面板数据的分析[J].资源科学,2010,32(5)：959-969.
140.张正栋.35a来海南岛耕地变化与人口经济发展间的相关分析[J].中国沙漠,2005,25(5)：757-763.
141.赵小风,黄贤金,钟太洋,彭佳雯,赵雲泰,吕晓.江苏省开发区土地集约利用的分层线性模型实证研究[J].地理研究,2012,31(9)：1611-1620.
142.朱红波.论粮食安全与耕地资源安全[J].农业现代化研究,2006,27(3)：161-164.
143.朱勇.新增长理论M].北京：商务印书馆,1999.