条件价值评估法下公益林生态效益补偿研究
|
摘要
林业分工论将森林分为商品林和公益林两种类型,在中国森林经营管理实践中,已将林地面积的52.41%区划为公益林。由于森林生产经营行为具有外部性特征,且公益林禁伐产生了机会成本,所以我国从1998年开始颁布、执行公益林生态效益补偿制度。到2010年我国公益林面积达到23.85亿亩,其中国家级重点公益林15.78亿亩,地方级公益林8.07亿亩；累计补偿资金454.3亿元,其中中央财政资金296亿元,地方财政资金158.3亿元。补偿金额的多少取决于补偿标准的制定,2010年国家级公益林补偿标准为国有林每年每亩5元,集体和个人所有林每年每亩10元；省市级公益林的补偿标准因地方财政实力不同而存在差异,如北京市补偿标准为每年每亩40元,而青海、新疆等省还未安排财政资金补偿。因此,森林生态效益补偿标准这个科学问题受到广泛的关注。现有文献分析发现,学者们主要从生产成本、机会成本、生态价值等方面对补偿标准进行了研究,为此本文从另外一个视角,即消费者需求角度,运用条件价值评估法(CVM)对补偿标准进行探讨,以达到丰富、创新森林生态效益补偿标准研究的目标。总括的看,论文通过CVM对广州、福州、昆明三个城市居民的公益林生态效益支付意愿进行了调查,分析、比较了居民支付意愿及其影响因素；根据居民支付意愿的研究结果,评估了城市公益林的生态效益价值；最后,在计量分析和理论探讨的基础上,为公益林补偿制度的研究构建一个全新的超边际经济学分析框架,为制定公益林的补偿标准提供了科学理论和方法。
根据经济学基本原理,意愿支付额与效用水平是直接相关的,研究居民公益林生态效益支付意愿就必须考虑森林生态效用的大小,所以本文从两方面对影响森林生态效用的条件进行了探讨,即CVM中的条件设计。一方面是森林生态效用的描述。现有的研究对森林生态功能的描述都从自然科学的角度进行,比如涵养水源、保持水土、防风固沙、固碳释氧等,缺乏从消费者需求角度进行的阐述。故此本文从衣、食、住、行四个方面描述森林的生态功能,使得城市居民对森林生态效用有直接和客观的认识。另一方面,通过对广东、福建、云南三省森林生态效益补偿制度的调查,概括出生态公益林的供给模式,采用支付方式的选择、支付金额的使用以及支付意愿可能产生的效果三个逻辑来形成CVM中的条件。
城市居民公益林生态效益支付意愿的调查工作主要围绕四个方面来进行：第一,调查地点的选择。根据全国主要城市居民人均可支配收入,将城市分为三类,每一类型分别选择一个城市进行调查。随机选择的结果为广州市(2010年居民人均可支配收入为30658.49元)、福州市(23245.98元)、昆明市(18875.65元)。第二,样本量的确定。在三城市共选择1539户家庭进行了访谈调查(其中广州489户、福州535户、昆明506户)。第三,调查方法的采用。按三城市各区常住人口数量的权重确定访谈对象的分布,采用随机原则对城市居民进行访谈。第四,调查步骤的安排。调查、研究工作经过了设计调查问卷、预调查、修改问卷和正式调查等四个步骤,最终完成了1469户家庭的正式调查(其中广州480户、福州506户、昆明483户)。
研究结果表明：广州、福州、昆明三城市居民公益林生态效益支付意愿平均值分别为每年每户238.38元、107.73元和102.18元。通过支付意愿平均值计算得到三城市公益林生态效益的年经济价值,其中广州为5.79亿元,福州为2.1亿元,昆明为1.92亿元。在以上总体分析基础上,论文按照性别、年龄、收入、户籍、职业、受教育程度、住房性质、环境关注度、环境满意度、公益林了解程度等10个特征对访谈户进行分类,并分别研究了不同特征下城市居民公益林生态效益支付意愿的分布,为支付意愿影响因素的研究奠定了基础。
论文采用Logistic模型对支付意愿影响因素进行了深入研究。结果显示：收入、受教育程度、户外锻炼时间、环境关注度、公益林了解程度是影响三城市居民支付意愿的共同因素,并且都与支付意愿呈现正相关关系,即收入越高、受教育程度越高、户外锻炼时间越长、环境关注度越高、公益林了解程度越深的被调查者支付意愿越强。经济学解释如下：①收入水平越高,消费其它商品数量越多,这些商品的边际效用递减,所以愿意支付价格获得森林生态效益的边际效用；并且,收入水平越高,户外锻炼时间越长,森林生态效用水平认同感越强烈,从而导致支付意愿就越多；②受教育程度、环境关注程度和公益林了解程度越高,就可以获得更多的关于森林生态效益、环境保护等信息,充分的信息对城市居民的支付配置产生了重要影响,信息越充分,对公益林生态效益的支付愿意就越高。
公益林生态效益支付意愿的评估,形成了公益林补偿标准的预算约束条件。接着通过分工角度,运用超边际经济学分析框架,指出公益林的补偿标准应介于生产者成本支出额和消费者对公益林生态效益支付意愿额之间,政府应在此范围内根据具体财力情况制定补偿标准进行补偿。
在分析公益林生态效益支付意愿影响因素的作用机理的基础上,论文提出了四点建议：第一,提高居民收入水平,调动居民参与公益林建设的积极性；第二,提高居民受教育程度、加大环保宣传力度；第三,加大以森林为主体的公共设施建设；第四,增强环境管理部门补偿资金管理能力,增加资金使用透明度。
According to the classified forestry theory, forest are divided into commercial forest and ecological forest. In China forest manangement practice,52.41% of the forest has been divided into ecological forest. Based on the externality of forest and opportunity cost of ecological forest, China implemented the compensation system of ecological forest since 1998. At the end of 2010, ecological forest has reached 159 million hm2, in which 105.2 million hm2 are state-level ecological forest, the rest are provincial-level ecological forest. The total funds of compensation reached 45430 million yuan until 2010, of which 29600 million yuan are central government funds, 15830 million yuan are the local's. The compensation standard of state-level ecological forest is 75 yuan per hm2 per year for state-owned, the collective and individual owned forest is 150 yuan. The compensation standard of provincial and municipal ecological forests are different with the local government financial strength. For example, its compensation has reached 600 yuan per hm2 per year in Beijing, but Qinghai, Xinjiang and so on have not arrangeded financial compensation for their. Therefor,compensation standard become the focus of scholars. they mainly studied it from the production cost, opportunity cost and forest ecological value. This reaseach adopted contingent valuation method(CVM) to analysis the compensation standard based on the consumer demand, a perspective which is different with the existing literature, The arcitle made an investigation on urban residents's willingness to pay for ecological forest in Guangzhou, Fuzhou, Kunming, assessed the value of ecological benefits of its, analyzed and compared the residents's willingness to pay and the factors which affected it.On the basis of investigation,the article structure an informarginal economics frame for compensation of ecological forest which provide a scientific theory and method for the development of compensation standards.
According to the basic principles of economics, the amount of willingness to pay is directly related to the utility of people.So study willingness to pay of residents for ecological benefit must consider the effectiveness of the forest ecosystem. The article discussed the conditions that affecting the effectiveness of the forest in two ways,whitch was named conditions of designing in using CVM. On the one hand is the description of the effectiveness of forest ecosystems. Existing research on the ecological functions of forests are described from the perspective of natural science, such as water conservation, water and soil protection, wind-averting,sand-fixing, fixing carbon and releasing oxygen, lacking of the elaboration of viewing angle from consumer's demand. Therefore, this article described the ecological functions of forests from clothing, food, housing and acting,making the residents have a direct effect on forest ecology and objective understanding. On the other hand, through studying the institutions of ecological forest compensation in Guangdong, Fujian, Kunming provinces, summarized the supply model of the ecological forest, and then selected the three logic which was method of payment, using of payment and effect of payment to format the conditions of CVM.
The investigation of willingness to pay for benefits of ecological forests in urban residents carried out around four main aspects.First is to select the location of investigation. According to the National Main disposable income of urban residents, the city is divided into three categories, each type of city was selected for investigation. The result of random selection are Guangzhou City (2009 per capita disposable income of 30,658.49 yuan), Fuzhou City(23,245.98 yuan), Kunming City (18,875.65 yuan). Second, the sample size determined. Three cities were selected the 1539 household to conduct interviews (489 in Guangzhou,535 in Fuzhou,506 in Kunming).The third, maked the survey methods sure. To determine the distribution of interviewees by the weight of the resident population in districts, using randomly assigned to interview the residents of the district. The last, the arrangements of the investigation. The research designed through questionnaires, pre-survey,improved questionnaire and a formal investigation, finally completed the 1469 formal investigation (480 in Guangzhou,506 in Fuzhou,483 in Kunming).
The results show that:the average willingness to pay for ecological forests benefits of urban residents in Guangzhou is 238.38 yuan per household and per year, Fuzhou and Kunming city are 107.73 yuan and 102.18 yuan respectively. Calculated by the average willingness to pay, the city economic value of ecological forest benefits per year is 579 million in Guangzhou city,210 million in Fuzhou city and 192 million in Kunming city. Based on the overall analysis of the above, the paper classified interviewees by gender, age, income, residence, occupation, education, housing properties, degree of environmental concern, environmental satisfaction and the level of understanding ecological forests,then compared the distribution of willingness to pay of urban residents with three cities under the different characteristics,whitch established basis of analysing the impact factors of willingness to pay.
The paper studied the factors affecting willingness to pay by logistic model in depth. The results showed that:income, education, outdoor exercise time, degree of environmental concern and the level of understanding ecological forests are the key factors affecting the willingness to pay of urban residents in three cities,and whitch is the positive correlation between willingness to pay, just that the higher income and level of education, the longer of outdoor exercise time, the higher degree of environmental concerns, the deeper level of understanding the ecological forests, the stronger of willingness to pay. Specific mechanisms are:①If you have the higher income, the more consumption of other goods,then the number of marginal utility of these commodities diminished gradually, so you are willing to pay for obtaining the marginal utility of ecological forest;at the same time,the higher income levels, the outdoor exercise time is longer, the stronger sense of ecological forest benefits, which leads to the more willingness to pay;②If you have the higher level of education and degree of environmental concerns, the deeper level of understanding the ecological forests,you will get more information about forest ecology and environmental protection.the full Information will affect the payment configuration of urban residents significantly. the information is more fully, the higher willingness to pay.
Based on the assessment of willingness to pay,the article based on the angle of division the work, structured an informarginal economics frame for compensation of ecological forest which provided the compensation budget constraints:the compensation standard should be between producer costs and the consumer willingness to pay for the ecological forest. The government can adjust the compensation standards between them by public finance conditions.
On the mechanism of affecting factors of willingness to pay, the paper put forward four proposals:first is to increase people's income level and mobilize residents to participate the ecological forests; second, to improve the residents's educational level, increase environmental protection propaganda; the third, to increase the public facilities whitch centers on forest;the fourth, to strengthen the management capacity of forest management and increase the power of transparency.
根据经济学基本原理,意愿支付额与效用水平是直接相关的,研究居民公益林生态效益支付意愿就必须考虑森林生态效用的大小,所以本文从两方面对影响森林生态效用的条件进行了探讨,即CVM中的条件设计。一方面是森林生态效用的描述。现有的研究对森林生态功能的描述都从自然科学的角度进行,比如涵养水源、保持水土、防风固沙、固碳释氧等,缺乏从消费者需求角度进行的阐述。故此本文从衣、食、住、行四个方面描述森林的生态功能,使得城市居民对森林生态效用有直接和客观的认识。另一方面,通过对广东、福建、云南三省森林生态效益补偿制度的调查,概括出生态公益林的供给模式,采用支付方式的选择、支付金额的使用以及支付意愿可能产生的效果三个逻辑来形成CVM中的条件。
城市居民公益林生态效益支付意愿的调查工作主要围绕四个方面来进行：第一,调查地点的选择。根据全国主要城市居民人均可支配收入,将城市分为三类,每一类型分别选择一个城市进行调查。随机选择的结果为广州市(2010年居民人均可支配收入为30658.49元)、福州市(23245.98元)、昆明市(18875.65元)。第二,样本量的确定。在三城市共选择1539户家庭进行了访谈调查(其中广州489户、福州535户、昆明506户)。第三,调查方法的采用。按三城市各区常住人口数量的权重确定访谈对象的分布,采用随机原则对城市居民进行访谈。第四,调查步骤的安排。调查、研究工作经过了设计调查问卷、预调查、修改问卷和正式调查等四个步骤,最终完成了1469户家庭的正式调查(其中广州480户、福州506户、昆明483户)。
研究结果表明：广州、福州、昆明三城市居民公益林生态效益支付意愿平均值分别为每年每户238.38元、107.73元和102.18元。通过支付意愿平均值计算得到三城市公益林生态效益的年经济价值,其中广州为5.79亿元,福州为2.1亿元,昆明为1.92亿元。在以上总体分析基础上,论文按照性别、年龄、收入、户籍、职业、受教育程度、住房性质、环境关注度、环境满意度、公益林了解程度等10个特征对访谈户进行分类,并分别研究了不同特征下城市居民公益林生态效益支付意愿的分布,为支付意愿影响因素的研究奠定了基础。
论文采用Logistic模型对支付意愿影响因素进行了深入研究。结果显示：收入、受教育程度、户外锻炼时间、环境关注度、公益林了解程度是影响三城市居民支付意愿的共同因素,并且都与支付意愿呈现正相关关系,即收入越高、受教育程度越高、户外锻炼时间越长、环境关注度越高、公益林了解程度越深的被调查者支付意愿越强。经济学解释如下：①收入水平越高,消费其它商品数量越多,这些商品的边际效用递减,所以愿意支付价格获得森林生态效益的边际效用；并且,收入水平越高,户外锻炼时间越长,森林生态效用水平认同感越强烈,从而导致支付意愿就越多；②受教育程度、环境关注程度和公益林了解程度越高,就可以获得更多的关于森林生态效益、环境保护等信息,充分的信息对城市居民的支付配置产生了重要影响,信息越充分,对公益林生态效益的支付愿意就越高。
公益林生态效益支付意愿的评估,形成了公益林补偿标准的预算约束条件。接着通过分工角度,运用超边际经济学分析框架,指出公益林的补偿标准应介于生产者成本支出额和消费者对公益林生态效益支付意愿额之间,政府应在此范围内根据具体财力情况制定补偿标准进行补偿。
在分析公益林生态效益支付意愿影响因素的作用机理的基础上,论文提出了四点建议：第一,提高居民收入水平,调动居民参与公益林建设的积极性；第二,提高居民受教育程度、加大环保宣传力度；第三,加大以森林为主体的公共设施建设；第四,增强环境管理部门补偿资金管理能力,增加资金使用透明度。
According to the classified forestry theory, forest are divided into commercial forest and ecological forest. In China forest manangement practice,52.41% of the forest has been divided into ecological forest. Based on the externality of forest and opportunity cost of ecological forest, China implemented the compensation system of ecological forest since 1998. At the end of 2010, ecological forest has reached 159 million hm2, in which 105.2 million hm2 are state-level ecological forest, the rest are provincial-level ecological forest. The total funds of compensation reached 45430 million yuan until 2010, of which 29600 million yuan are central government funds, 15830 million yuan are the local's. The compensation standard of state-level ecological forest is 75 yuan per hm2 per year for state-owned, the collective and individual owned forest is 150 yuan. The compensation standard of provincial and municipal ecological forests are different with the local government financial strength. For example, its compensation has reached 600 yuan per hm2 per year in Beijing, but Qinghai, Xinjiang and so on have not arrangeded financial compensation for their. Therefor,compensation standard become the focus of scholars. they mainly studied it from the production cost, opportunity cost and forest ecological value. This reaseach adopted contingent valuation method(CVM) to analysis the compensation standard based on the consumer demand, a perspective which is different with the existing literature, The arcitle made an investigation on urban residents's willingness to pay for ecological forest in Guangzhou, Fuzhou, Kunming, assessed the value of ecological benefits of its, analyzed and compared the residents's willingness to pay and the factors which affected it.On the basis of investigation,the article structure an informarginal economics frame for compensation of ecological forest which provide a scientific theory and method for the development of compensation standards.
According to the basic principles of economics, the amount of willingness to pay is directly related to the utility of people.So study willingness to pay of residents for ecological benefit must consider the effectiveness of the forest ecosystem. The article discussed the conditions that affecting the effectiveness of the forest in two ways,whitch was named conditions of designing in using CVM. On the one hand is the description of the effectiveness of forest ecosystems. Existing research on the ecological functions of forests are described from the perspective of natural science, such as water conservation, water and soil protection, wind-averting,sand-fixing, fixing carbon and releasing oxygen, lacking of the elaboration of viewing angle from consumer's demand. Therefore, this article described the ecological functions of forests from clothing, food, housing and acting,making the residents have a direct effect on forest ecology and objective understanding. On the other hand, through studying the institutions of ecological forest compensation in Guangdong, Fujian, Kunming provinces, summarized the supply model of the ecological forest, and then selected the three logic which was method of payment, using of payment and effect of payment to format the conditions of CVM.
The investigation of willingness to pay for benefits of ecological forests in urban residents carried out around four main aspects.First is to select the location of investigation. According to the National Main disposable income of urban residents, the city is divided into three categories, each type of city was selected for investigation. The result of random selection are Guangzhou City (2009 per capita disposable income of 30,658.49 yuan), Fuzhou City(23,245.98 yuan), Kunming City (18,875.65 yuan). Second, the sample size determined. Three cities were selected the 1539 household to conduct interviews (489 in Guangzhou,535 in Fuzhou,506 in Kunming).The third, maked the survey methods sure. To determine the distribution of interviewees by the weight of the resident population in districts, using randomly assigned to interview the residents of the district. The last, the arrangements of the investigation. The research designed through questionnaires, pre-survey,improved questionnaire and a formal investigation, finally completed the 1469 formal investigation (480 in Guangzhou,506 in Fuzhou,483 in Kunming).
The results show that:the average willingness to pay for ecological forests benefits of urban residents in Guangzhou is 238.38 yuan per household and per year, Fuzhou and Kunming city are 107.73 yuan and 102.18 yuan respectively. Calculated by the average willingness to pay, the city economic value of ecological forest benefits per year is 579 million in Guangzhou city,210 million in Fuzhou city and 192 million in Kunming city. Based on the overall analysis of the above, the paper classified interviewees by gender, age, income, residence, occupation, education, housing properties, degree of environmental concern, environmental satisfaction and the level of understanding ecological forests,then compared the distribution of willingness to pay of urban residents with three cities under the different characteristics,whitch established basis of analysing the impact factors of willingness to pay.
The paper studied the factors affecting willingness to pay by logistic model in depth. The results showed that:income, education, outdoor exercise time, degree of environmental concern and the level of understanding ecological forests are the key factors affecting the willingness to pay of urban residents in three cities,and whitch is the positive correlation between willingness to pay, just that the higher income and level of education, the longer of outdoor exercise time, the higher degree of environmental concerns, the deeper level of understanding the ecological forests, the stronger of willingness to pay. Specific mechanisms are:①If you have the higher income, the more consumption of other goods,then the number of marginal utility of these commodities diminished gradually, so you are willing to pay for obtaining the marginal utility of ecological forest;at the same time,the higher income levels, the outdoor exercise time is longer, the stronger sense of ecological forest benefits, which leads to the more willingness to pay;②If you have the higher level of education and degree of environmental concerns, the deeper level of understanding the ecological forests,you will get more information about forest ecology and environmental protection.the full Information will affect the payment configuration of urban residents significantly. the information is more fully, the higher willingness to pay.
Based on the assessment of willingness to pay,the article based on the angle of division the work, structured an informarginal economics frame for compensation of ecological forest which provided the compensation budget constraints:the compensation standard should be between producer costs and the consumer willingness to pay for the ecological forest. The government can adjust the compensation standards between them by public finance conditions.
On the mechanism of affecting factors of willingness to pay, the paper put forward four proposals:first is to increase people's income level and mobilize residents to participate the ecological forests; second, to improve the residents's educational level, increase environmental protection propaganda; the third, to increase the public facilities whitch centers on forest;the fourth, to strengthen the management capacity of forest management and increase the power of transparency.
引文
[1]国家林业局植树造林司.全国生态公益林建设标准[M].北京：中国标准出版社,2001
[2]徐晋涛,曹轶瑛.退耕还林还草的可持续发展问题[J].国际经济评论,2002,Z2：56-60
[3]周金锋.森林生态效益补偿制度研究[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2003
[4]陈钦.公益林生态补偿研究[M].北京：中国林业出版社,2006
[5]谢高地,鲁春霞,成升魁.全球生态系统服务价值评估研究进展.资源科学,2001,23(6)：5-9
[6]欧阳志云,王如松,赵景柱.生态系统服务功能及其生态经济价值评价[J].应用生态学报,1999,10(5)：635-640
[7]周晓峰,蒋敏元.黑龙江省森林生态效益的计量、评价及补偿[J].林业科学,1999,35(3)：97-102
[8]中国可持续发展林业战略研究项目组.中国可持续发展林业战略研究总论[M].北京：中国林业出版社,2002
[9]马中.环境与自然资源经济学概论[M].北京：高等教育出版社,1999
[10]王建民,潘保田.青藏高原东部黄土沉积的基本特征及其环境[J].中国沙漠,1997,17(4)：395-402
[11]徐嵩龄.中国环境破坏的经济损失计量[M].北京：中国环境科学出版社,1997
[12]李文华.生态系统服务功能价值评估的理论、方法与运用[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2008
[13]梅纳德·胡弗斯密特等.环境、自然系统和发展：经济评价指南[M].北京：烃加工出版社,1988
[14]李周,徐智.森林效益货币计量的实质、意义和原则[J].林业经济,1984(3)：46-52
[15]粟娟.评估森林综合效益的新方法—能值分析法[J].世界林业研究,2000,13(1)：32-37
[16]胡涛.评Odum. H. T的ENERGY理论[J].见：青年生态学者论丛[M].北京：中国科学技术出版社,1991
[15]魏汉林.森林资源生态经济效益评估方法综述[J].河北林果研究,1997,12(3)：258-262
[17]侯元凯.森林生态环境价值计量问题浅析[J].林业经济,1996(4)：54-58
[18]]郑礼法,韩国康.关于建立森林生态效益补偿机制的思考[J].林业经济,2001(10)：38-41
[19]陈钦,陈春婵,陈贵松.试论公益林生态效益补偿措施[J].林业经济问题,2001,21(2)：83-90
[20]吴水荣,马天乐,赵伟.森林生态效益补偿政策进展与经济分析[J].林业经济,2001(4)：20-23
[21]侯元兆.中国森林环境价值核算[M].北京：中国林业出版社,1995
[22]赵景柱,肖寒,吴刚.生态系统服务的物理量与价值量评价方法的比较分析[J].应用生态学报,2000,11(2)：290-292
[23]张颖,郭春静.森林绿色核算中环境服务估价方法综述和比较[J].林业经济,2006(2)：20-23
[24]于政中.关于森林资源资产化和林地评估的意见[J].林业资源管理,1995(1)：20-26
[25]刘璨,吴水荣,赵云朝.森林资源与环境经济学研究的几个问题(续)[J].林业经济,2002(2)：32-35
[26]蔡剑辉.比较完备的森林生态体系之评价指标体系研究[J].林业经济问题,2000,20(1)：23-26
[27]郎奎建.森林生态效益价值核算的市场逼近理论和技术研究[J].林业科学,2003(6)：8-14
[28]和爱军等.浅析日本的森林公益机能经济价值评价[J].中南林业调查规划,2002,21(2)：48-54
[29]王树森.辽宁省森林生态效益的测评初探[J].林业经济,1999(1)：47-51
[30]李长荣.武陵源自然保护区森林生态系统服务功能及价值评估[J].林业科学,2004,40(2)：16-20
[31]王兵等.中国杉木林的生态系统服务价值评估[J].林业科学,2009,45(4)：124-130
[32]张小红,杨志峰等.广州市公益林生态效益价值分析及管理对策[J].林业科学,2004,40(4)：22-26
[33]康文星等.广州市城市森林涵养水源、固土保肥的功能及价值分析[J].林业科学,2008,44(1)：19-25
[34]万志芳,蒋敏元.林业生态工程生态效益经济计量的理论和方法研究[J].林业经济,2001(11)：24-27
[35]曹玉昆,刘希宋.森林生态效益补偿新视角研究[J].绿色中国,2004(12)：27-30
[36]庇古.福利经济学[M].台北台湾银行经济研究室,1971
[37]刘永春.安徽省森林生态效益补偿工作的实践与思考.生态效益补偿政策与国际经验研讨会,2002
[38]李金昌.生态价值论[M].重庆：重庆大学出版社,1999
[39]李文华,欧阳志云.生态系统服务功能研究[M].北京：气象出版社,2002
[40]赵同谦,欧阳志云.中国森林生态系统服务功能及其价值评价[J].自然资源学报,2004,18(3)：480-491
[41]谭荣,曲福田.补贴对林业生产及森林生态效益影响的经济学分析：一个定量分析模型[J].自然资源学报,2005,20(4)：605-612
[42]蒋延玲,周广胜.中国主要思路生态系统公益的评估[J].植物生态学报,1999,23(5)：426-432
[43]吴水荣,马天乐.水源涵养林生态补偿经济分析[J].林业资源管理,2001(1)：27-31
[44]刘璨.我国森林服务市场构建与私人参与的选择[J].自然资源报,2002,17(2)：247-252
[45]章铮.生态环境补偿费的若干基本问题[J].见：国家环境保护局自然保护司编.中国生态环境补偿费理论与实践.北京：中国环境科学出版社,1995：81-87
[46]王学军.生态环境补偿费征收的若干问题及实施效果预测研究[J].自然资源报,1996,11(1)：15-20
[47]李爱年.关于征收生态效益补偿费存在的立法问题及完善建议[J].中国软科学,2001(1)：40-47
[48]温作民.森林生态税的政策设计与政策效应[J].世界林业研究,2002(4)：15-20
[49]邢丽.谈我国生态税费框架的构建[J].税务研究,2005(6)：47-55
[50]费世民等.关于森林生态效益补偿问题的探讨[J].林业科学,2004(4)：171-179
[51]李扬裕.浅谈森林生态效益补偿及实施步骤[J].林业经济问题,2004,24(6)：369-371
[52]孔繁文.森林环境资源核算及补偿政策研究[J].林业经济,1994(4)：34-47
[53]张秀媚.浅谈建立森林生态效益补偿制度的理论依据[J].林业经济问题,1999(5)：44-46
[54]张秋根.浅析公益林生态效益补偿理论[J].中南林业调查规划,2001,20(2)：46-52
[55]张美华,叶谦吉.可持续生态林业补偿问题分析[J].林业经济问题,2000,20(5)：261-264
[56]段显明,许玫,林永兰.关于森林生态效益经济补偿机制的探讨[J].林业经济问题,2001,21(2)：79-82
[57]支玲,李怒云.西部退耕还林经济补偿机制研究[J].林业经济,2004,40(2)：2-8
[58]戴芳,刘勇.公益林供给主体分析[J].林业经济问题,2006(4)：370-373
[59]孔凡斌.退耕还林(草)工程生态补偿机制研究[J].林业科学,2007,43(1)：95-101
[60]陈钦,刘伟平.公益林生态效益补偿的制度变迁分析[J].林业经济,2000(4)：48-53
[61]姚顺波.林业补助与林木补偿制度研究[J].林业科学,2005,41(6)：85-88
[62]谷振宾,王立群.对森林资源价值及其补偿问题的思考[J].林业经济问题,2007,27(4)：299-302
[63]汪少凯,刘文禅.森林生态补偿机制的构建和完善[J].防护林科技,2008(4)：141-142
[64]夏自谦.论市场经济条件下的公益林建设[J].林业经济,1999(3)：41-45
[65]徐信俭,范立敏.关于建立森林生态效益补偿基金的思考[J].林业经济,2000(4)：54-57
[66]温作民,费勇.森林生态环境维护税的理论设计与实施对策[J].林业科学,2001(1)：107-111
[67]王冲,孟全省.生态公益林建设成本效益分析及政策建议[J].林业经.济问题,2007,27(2)：176-180
[68]孔凡斌.试论森林生态补偿制度的政策理论、对象和实现途径[J].西北林学院学报,2003,18(2)：101-104
[69]刘春发.竞争均衡下的森林外部性及其经济学意义[J].林业经济问题,2008,28(2)：109-112
[70]王聪.论BOT融资模式筹集森林生态效益补偿资金[J].绿色中国,2004(6)：36-37
[71]杨云仙,廖为明.公益林生态效益补偿研究-以江西铜鼓县为例[J].林业经济,2008(2)：49-52
[72]陈晓倩,陈建成.生态林业市场化筹资方式的思考[J].林业经济问题,2002,22(1)：19-21
[73]徐晴.森林生态系统服务市场化进程评述[J].林业经济,2007(10)：61-63
[74]温作民.森林生态资源配置的市场失灵及其对策[J].林业科学,1999,35(6)：110-114
[75]刘梅娟等.福建省生态公益林合理利用途径及保障措施分析-以建阳市为例[J].林业经济问题,2007,27(5)：429-434
[76]石道金.99中国会计学会林业分会南方片学术研讨会综述[J].林业财务与会计,1999(6)：3-4
[77]温作民.外在性与森林生态税研究[J].林业经济,2001(12)：41-45
[78]郎璞玫.森林减少水灾效益评价[J]Journal of Forestry Research,2001(1):71-73
[79]李文华,李芬,李世东,刘某承.森林生态补偿机制若干重点问题研究[J].中国人口.资源与环境,2007,17(2)：13-18
[80]高素萍,李美华.森林生态效益现实补偿费得计量[J].林业科学,2006,42(4)：88-92
[81]陈钦,黄和亮.试论林业外部性及补偿措施[J].林业经济问题,1999(3)：19-22
[82]蒋海.生态公益林补偿若干理论问题探讨[J].生态科学,1996(2)：66-71
[83]刘晖霞.我国森林生态效益补偿机制问题探讨[J].农林科技,2008,37(5)：79-80
[84]唐敏,罗泽真.生态公益林区划和农民利益的维护[J].林业经济问题,2008,28(4)：292-296
[85]姚顺波,郑少锋.政府采购公益林制度研究[J].绿色中国,2004(12)：24-26
[86]吴伟光,徐秀英.生态公益林“外部性”特征及解决途径[J].林业经济,2003(12)：40-42
[87]刘玉凡.生态公益林补偿机制探讨[J].防护林科技,1998(1)：37-38
[88]廖为明,陈飞平,陆金森.江西小城镇可持续发展研究[J].江西农业大学学报,2008,7(4)：79-81
[89]张涛.森林生态效益补偿机制研究[D].北京：中国林业科学研究院博士论文,2003
[90]温作民.森林生态税的政策设计[J].林业经济问题,2001,21(5)：343-347
[91]高志峰,赵金成.森林价格补偿体系的构建[J].林业经济,2002(5)：46-47
[92]科斯.企业的性质[J].见：现代制度经济学(上卷)[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2003
[93]张翼飞.城市内河生态系统服务的意愿价值评估—CVM有效性可靠性研究的视角[D].上海：复旦大学博士论文,2008
[94]杨开忠,白墨,李莹等.关于意愿调查价值评估法在我国环境领域应用的可行性探讨—以北京市居民支付意愿研究为例[J].地球科学进展,2002,17(3)：420-425
[95]徐中民,张志强,程国栋等.额济纳旗生态系统服务的总经济价值评估[J].地理学报,2002,57(1)：107-116
[96]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
[97]刘岩,张大柱,陈吉宁等.滇池流域农业非点源污染治理的收费政策研究[J].厦门大学学报(自然科学版),2003,42(6)：787-790
[98]王寿兵,王平建,胡泽原等.用意愿评估法评价生态系统景观服务价值——以上海苏州河为实例[J].复旦大学学报.2003,42(3)：463-467
[99]辛琨,肖笃宁.盘锦地区湿地生态系统服务功能价值估算[J].生态学报,2002,22(8)：1345-1349
[100]曹建华,郭小鹏.意愿调查法在评价森林资源环境价值上的运用[J].江西农业大学学报(自然科学版),2002,24(5)：645-648
[101]曹辉,陈平留.森林景观资产评估CVM研究[J].福建林学院学报,2003,23(1)：48-52
[102]李莹,白墨,杨开忠等.居民为改善北京市大气环境质量的支付意愿研究[J].城市环境与城市生态,2001,14(5)：6-8
[103]张明军,范建峰,虎陈霞等.兰州市改替大气环境质量的总经济价值评估[J].干早区资源与环境,2004,18(3)：28-32
[104]李金平,王志石.空气污染损害价值的WTP,WTA对比研究[J].地球科学进展.2006,21(3)：250-255
[105]杜亚平.改善东湖水质的经济分析.生态经济[J],1996(6)：15-21
[106]张俊杰,张悦等. 居民对再生水的支付意愿及其影响因素[J].中国给水排水,2003(19)：96-98
[107]张翼飞.居民对城市景观河流生态服务的支付意愿与有效需求研究——基于CVM应用的有效性实证分析[J].中国人口、资源与环境,2007,17(1)：66-69
[108]Kevin Chen等.对中国消费者非转基因菜油支付意愿的研究[J].浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),2004,34(3)：53-61
[109]张琦,陈兴宝.条件价值法在菌痢疫苗支付意愿研究中的应用[J].中国药房,2004,15(3)：161-163
[110]林逢春,陈静.条件价值评估法在上海城市轨道交通社会效益评估中的应用研究[J].华东师范大学学报,2005,37(1)：48-53.
[111]张茵.自然保护区生态旅游资源的价值评估——以九寨沟自然保护区为例[D].北京：北京大学,2004
[112]金建君,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
[113]宋敏,横川洋,胡柏.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
[114]张志强,徐中民,程国栋.条件价值评估法的发展与应用[J].地球科学进展,2003,18(3)：454-463
[115]李英.基于居民支付意愿的城市森林生态服务非政府供给研究[M].北京：中国林业出版社,2002
[116]洪燕真,刘伟平,戴永务.森林食物在人类营养结构中的贡献研究[J].林业经济问题,2009,29(5)：400-405
[117]徐中民,张志强,龙爱华等. 额济纳旗生态系统服务恢复价值评估方法的比较与应用[J].生态学报,2003,23(9)：1841-1849
[118]孙剑冰.苏州古典园林作为街区开放空间的价值评估——应用CVM价值评估法[J].城市发展研究,2009,16(8)：64-68
[119]梁爽,姜楠,谷树忠.城市水源地农户环境保护支付意愿及其影响因素分析——以首都水源地密云为例[J].中国农村经济,2005(5)：55-60.
[120]李莹,白墨,张巍等.改善北京市大气环境质量中居民支付意愿的影响因素分析[J]. 中国人口资源与环境,2002,12(6)：123-126
[121]白晓峰,谭向勇,郭志超.森林资源生态价值支付意愿的实证分析—以“京津唐—承”区域为例[J].技术经济,2009,28(5)：47-53
[122]张培,董谦,许月明.白洋淀湿地非使用价值个人支付意愿及影响因素分析[J].乡镇经济,2008(4)：16-19
[123]张明军,孙美平,姚晓军,石培基,刘光琇,常学亮,连富城.不确定性影响下的平均支付意愿参数估计[J].生态学报,2007,27(9)：3852-3859
[124]卫立冬.公众对城市河流污染的环保意识及支付意愿调查[J].衡水学院学报,2008,10(4)：75-77
[125]梁勇,成升魁,阂庆文等.居民对改善城市水环境支付意愿的研究[J].水利学报,2005,36(5)：613-618.
[126]李莹.意愿调查价值评估法的问卷设计技术[J].环境保护科学,2001,27(6)：25-28.
[127]庄大昌.基于CVM的洞庭湖湿地资源非使用价值评估[J].地域研究与开发,2006,25(2)：105-110
[128]王艳,张宜升,刘斌.青岛市居民减少空气污染致病的支付意愿调查[J].环境与健康,2008,25(4)：326-330
[129]蔡志坚,张巍巍.南京市公众对长江水质改善的支付意愿及支付方式的调查[J].生态经济,2007(2)：116-119
[130]周玲强,程兴火,周天斌.生态旅游认证产品支付意愿研究—基于浙江省四个景区旅游者的实证分析,经济地理,2006,26(1)：140-144
[131]李英.基于条件价值评估法的居民参与城市森林生态服务供给的实证分析[J].林业科技,2008,33(4)：75-77
[132]倪秋菊,倪星.政府官员的“经济人”角色及其行为模式分析[J].武汉大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2004,57(2)：260-267
[133]杨小凯.经济学原理[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1998
[134]Leopold A. A Sandy County Almanac and Sketches from Here and There. New York: Cambridge University Press,1949.
[135]Daily G C et al. Nature's Services:Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. San Francisco :Island Press,1997.
[136]Costanza R etc. The value of the world's environmental services and natural capital[J]. Nature ,1997, (387):253-260
[137]Pearce D W, Moran D. The Economic Value of Biodiversity[M]. Cambridge,1994
[138]De Groot R S, Wilson M A, and Boumans R M J. A Typology for The Classification, Description, and Valuation of Ecosystem Functions, Goods, and Services [J]. Ecological Economics ,2002 (41):393-408.
[139]Farber S C, et al. Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem ervices[J]. Ecological Economics,2002, (41):375-392
[140]Howarth R B, Farher S. Accounting for the value of ecosystem services[J]. Ecological Economics,2002, (41):421-429
[141]Mitchell D C, Carson R. T. Using Survey to Value Public Goods:the Coutingent Valuation Method, Washington DC:Resource of the Future,1989
[142]Pearce, David W. The Political Economy of the Global Environment[J]. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol,1997,44(4):462-83
[143]Clawson M. Methods of measure the demand for and value of outdoor recreations[J]. Resource for the Future Reprint,1959
[1441]Yung En Chee. An ecological perspective on the valuation of services[J]. Biological conservation,2004(120):549-565
[145]Thomas P. Holmes et al. Contingent valuation, net marginal benefits, and the scale of riparian Ecosystem restoration[J]. Ecological Economics,2004(49):19-30
[146]Matthew A, Wilson, Richard B, Howarth. Discourse-based valuation of ecosystem services :establishing fair outcomes through group deilberation[J]. Ecological Economics,2002(41):431-443
[147]Michael D. Kaplowitz. Assessing mangrove products and services at the local level:the use of focus groups and individual interviews[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning,2001(56):53-60
[148]Michael D, Kaplowitz, John P, Hoehn. Do focus groups and individual interviews reveal the same information for natural resource valuation [J]. Ecological Economics,2001(36):237-247
[149]Anne M, Alexander et al. Amethod for valuing global ecosystem services[J]. Ecological Economics,1998(27):161-170.
[150]Roger A, Sedjo. Forest carbon sequestration:some issues for forest investments. resource for the future. Edward Ayensu, Daniel R,2001.
[151]Edward Ayensu, Daniel R. Claasen, Xu Guanhua, et al. International ecosystem assessment[J] . Science,1999(286):685-686
[152]G Philip Robertson, Eldor A Paul and Richard R Harwood. Greenhousre gases in intensive agriculture:contributions of individual gases to the radiative forcing of the atmosphere[J]. Science ,2000(289):1922-1925
[153]Arnold J G, and P M Allen. Estimating hydrologic budgets for three Illinois watershed[J]. Hydrology,1996(176):57-77
[154]Qiu Z, and T Prato. Economic evaluation of riparian buffers in an agricultural watershed[J]. American Water Resources Association,1998,34(4):877-890.
[155]Santhi C, J G Arnold, J R Williams, W A Duga, and L Hauck. Uaiidation of the SWAT model on a large river basin with point and nonpoint sources[J]. American Water Resources Association, 2001,37(5):1169-1188
[156]Echavarria M, and L Lochman. Policy mechanisms for watershed conservation:Case studies Arlington, Virginia[J]. The Nature conservancy,1999.
[157]Reid W V. Capturing the value of ecosystem services to protect biodiversity. In Managing human dominated ecosystems, eds[M]. G. Chichilenisky, G C Daily, P Ehrlich, Q Heal J S Miller . St Louis:Missouri Botanical Garden Press,2001
[158]Bator. F. M. The Anatomy of Market Failure. Quarterly Journal of Economics,1958(72) :79-351
[159]Head J G. Public Goods and Public Policy. Public Finance,1962(17):197-219
[160]Bird P J. The Transferablility and Deleteability of Environmental Economics and Management ,1987(14):54-57
[161]Sara Scherr, Andy White Arvind Khare. The Current Status and Potential of Markets for Ecosystem Services Provided by Tropical Series No 21,2004
[162]Davis R. The value of outdoor recreation:an economic study of the marine woods. [D]Ph. D . Thesis. Boston:Harvard University.1963
[163]Anthony F, Krutilla J. Determination of optimal capacity of resource-based recreation facilities[J]. Natural Resources Journal,1972, (12):417-444.
[164]Loomis J B. Contingent valuation methodology and the US institutional framework[A]. In: Bateman I J, Willis K G, eds. Valuing Environmental Preferences:Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU and Developing Countries[C]. New York:Oxford University Press:1999.613-627.
[165]Loomis J B, Walsh R G. Recreation Economic Decisions, Comparing Benefits and Costs[M] . second edition Stale College PennevlvaniaVentlure Publishing Inc,1997
[166]Arrow K J, Solow R, Portnev P B L, etal. Report of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NO-AA) Panelon Contingent Valuation. Federal Register,1993(58):4016-4614
[163]Bateman I J, Willis K G, eds. Valuing Environmental Preferences:Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing Countries[M]. New York:Oxford University Press,1999
[167]Bonnieux F, Rainelli P. Contingent valuation methodology and the EU institutional frame work In:Bateman I J and Willis K G eds. Valuing Environm ental Preferences, Theory and Practice of the Continget Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing Countries[M]. New York Oxford University Pess,1999
[168]Carson R T. Valuation of ropical rainforests philosophical and practical issues in the use of contingent valuation[J]. Ecological Economics,1998(24):15-29
[169]Randall A, Ives B, Eastman C. Bidding games for valuation of aesthetic environmental improvements[J]. Jonrnal of Environmental Economics and Management,1974(1):132-149
[170]Loomis J B, Kent P, Strange L, et al. Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin:results from a contingent valuation survey[J]. Ecological Economics,2000(33):103-117
[171]Jorgenson B S, Wilson M A, Heberlein T A. Fairness in the contingent valuation of environmental public goods:attitude toward paying for environmental improvements at two levels of scope [J]. Ecological Economics,2001,36(1):133-148
[172]Hanemann W M. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses [J]. American Journal of Agricultural Economics,1984,66(3):332-341
[173]Bishop, R. G., and Heberlein, T. A. Measuring values of extra-market goods:are indirect measures biased[J]. American Journal of Agricultural Economics,1979(61):926-930
[174]Haneamann W M., The economic theory of WTP and WTA[A]. In:Bateman I J, Willis K G , eds. Valuing Environmental Preferences:Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing Countries[C]. New York:Oxford University Press,1999.42-96
[175]Ryan H Wiser. Using contingent valuation to explore willingness to pay for renewable energy :A comparison of collective and voluntary payment vehicles. Ecological Economics,2007,62(3-4):419-432
[176]Felix Schlapfer. Survey protocol and income effects in the contingent valuation of public goods :Ameta-analysis. Ecological Economics,2006,57(3):415-429
[177]Felix Schlapfer, Anna Roschewitz, Nick Hanley. Validation of stated preferences for public goods:a comparison of contingent valuation survey response and voting behavior. Ecological Economics,2004,51(1-2):1 - 16
[178]Dominic Moran, Alistair McVittie, David J. Allcroft, et al. Quantifying public preferences for agri-environmental policy in Scotland:A comparison of methods. Ecological Economics,2007,63(1) :42-45
[179]Jayanath Ananada, Gamini Herath. Multi-attribute preference modelling and regional land-use planning. Ecological Economics, Available online 10 August 2007
[180]Hoehn, J P. Valuing the multidimensional impacts of environmental policy:theory and methods[J]. American Journal of Agricultural Economics,1991(73):289-299
[181]Kritrm B. Spike models in contingent valuation[J]. American Journal of Agricultural Economics ,1997 (79):1013 - 1023
[182]Ready R C, Buzby J C, and Hu D. Differences between continuous and discrete contingent value estimates[J]. Land Economics,1996(72):397-411
[2]徐晋涛,曹轶瑛.退耕还林还草的可持续发展问题[J].国际经济评论,2002,Z2：56-60
[3]周金锋.森林生态效益补偿制度研究[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2003
[4]陈钦.公益林生态补偿研究[M].北京：中国林业出版社,2006
[5]谢高地,鲁春霞,成升魁.全球生态系统服务价值评估研究进展.资源科学,2001,23(6)：5-9
[6]欧阳志云,王如松,赵景柱.生态系统服务功能及其生态经济价值评价[J].应用生态学报,1999,10(5)：635-640
[7]周晓峰,蒋敏元.黑龙江省森林生态效益的计量、评价及补偿[J].林业科学,1999,35(3)：97-102
[8]中国可持续发展林业战略研究项目组.中国可持续发展林业战略研究总论[M].北京：中国林业出版社,2002
[9]马中.环境与自然资源经济学概论[M].北京：高等教育出版社,1999
[10]王建民,潘保田.青藏高原东部黄土沉积的基本特征及其环境[J].中国沙漠,1997,17(4)：395-402
[11]徐嵩龄.中国环境破坏的经济损失计量[M].北京：中国环境科学出版社,1997
[12]李文华.生态系统服务功能价值评估的理论、方法与运用[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2008
[13]梅纳德·胡弗斯密特等.环境、自然系统和发展：经济评价指南[M].北京：烃加工出版社,1988
[14]李周,徐智.森林效益货币计量的实质、意义和原则[J].林业经济,1984(3)：46-52
[15]粟娟.评估森林综合效益的新方法—能值分析法[J].世界林业研究,2000,13(1)：32-37
[16]胡涛.评Odum. H. T的ENERGY理论[J].见：青年生态学者论丛[M].北京：中国科学技术出版社,1991
[15]魏汉林.森林资源生态经济效益评估方法综述[J].河北林果研究,1997,12(3)：258-262
[17]侯元凯.森林生态环境价值计量问题浅析[J].林业经济,1996(4)：54-58
[18]]郑礼法,韩国康.关于建立森林生态效益补偿机制的思考[J].林业经济,2001(10)：38-41
[19]陈钦,陈春婵,陈贵松.试论公益林生态效益补偿措施[J].林业经济问题,2001,21(2)：83-90
[20]吴水荣,马天乐,赵伟.森林生态效益补偿政策进展与经济分析[J].林业经济,2001(4)：20-23
[21]侯元兆.中国森林环境价值核算[M].北京：中国林业出版社,1995
[22]赵景柱,肖寒,吴刚.生态系统服务的物理量与价值量评价方法的比较分析[J].应用生态学报,2000,11(2)：290-292
[23]张颖,郭春静.森林绿色核算中环境服务估价方法综述和比较[J].林业经济,2006(2)：20-23
[24]于政中.关于森林资源资产化和林地评估的意见[J].林业资源管理,1995(1)：20-26
[25]刘璨,吴水荣,赵云朝.森林资源与环境经济学研究的几个问题(续)[J].林业经济,2002(2)：32-35
[26]蔡剑辉.比较完备的森林生态体系之评价指标体系研究[J].林业经济问题,2000,20(1)：23-26
[27]郎奎建.森林生态效益价值核算的市场逼近理论和技术研究[J].林业科学,2003(6)：8-14
[28]和爱军等.浅析日本的森林公益机能经济价值评价[J].中南林业调查规划,2002,21(2)：48-54
[29]王树森.辽宁省森林生态效益的测评初探[J].林业经济,1999(1)：47-51
[30]李长荣.武陵源自然保护区森林生态系统服务功能及价值评估[J].林业科学,2004,40(2)：16-20
[31]王兵等.中国杉木林的生态系统服务价值评估[J].林业科学,2009,45(4)：124-130
[32]张小红,杨志峰等.广州市公益林生态效益价值分析及管理对策[J].林业科学,2004,40(4)：22-26
[33]康文星等.广州市城市森林涵养水源、固土保肥的功能及价值分析[J].林业科学,2008,44(1)：19-25
[34]万志芳,蒋敏元.林业生态工程生态效益经济计量的理论和方法研究[J].林业经济,2001(11)：24-27
[35]曹玉昆,刘希宋.森林生态效益补偿新视角研究[J].绿色中国,2004(12)：27-30
[36]庇古.福利经济学[M].台北台湾银行经济研究室,1971
[37]刘永春.安徽省森林生态效益补偿工作的实践与思考.生态效益补偿政策与国际经验研讨会,2002
[38]李金昌.生态价值论[M].重庆：重庆大学出版社,1999
[39]李文华,欧阳志云.生态系统服务功能研究[M].北京：气象出版社,2002
[40]赵同谦,欧阳志云.中国森林生态系统服务功能及其价值评价[J].自然资源学报,2004,18(3)：480-491
[41]谭荣,曲福田.补贴对林业生产及森林生态效益影响的经济学分析：一个定量分析模型[J].自然资源学报,2005,20(4)：605-612
[42]蒋延玲,周广胜.中国主要思路生态系统公益的评估[J].植物生态学报,1999,23(5)：426-432
[43]吴水荣,马天乐.水源涵养林生态补偿经济分析[J].林业资源管理,2001(1)：27-31
[44]刘璨.我国森林服务市场构建与私人参与的选择[J].自然资源报,2002,17(2)：247-252
[45]章铮.生态环境补偿费的若干基本问题[J].见：国家环境保护局自然保护司编.中国生态环境补偿费理论与实践.北京：中国环境科学出版社,1995：81-87
[46]王学军.生态环境补偿费征收的若干问题及实施效果预测研究[J].自然资源报,1996,11(1)：15-20
[47]李爱年.关于征收生态效益补偿费存在的立法问题及完善建议[J].中国软科学,2001(1)：40-47
[48]温作民.森林生态税的政策设计与政策效应[J].世界林业研究,2002(4)：15-20
[49]邢丽.谈我国生态税费框架的构建[J].税务研究,2005(6)：47-55
[50]费世民等.关于森林生态效益补偿问题的探讨[J].林业科学,2004(4)：171-179
[51]李扬裕.浅谈森林生态效益补偿及实施步骤[J].林业经济问题,2004,24(6)：369-371
[52]孔繁文.森林环境资源核算及补偿政策研究[J].林业经济,1994(4)：34-47
[53]张秀媚.浅谈建立森林生态效益补偿制度的理论依据[J].林业经济问题,1999(5)：44-46
[54]张秋根.浅析公益林生态效益补偿理论[J].中南林业调查规划,2001,20(2)：46-52
[55]张美华,叶谦吉.可持续生态林业补偿问题分析[J].林业经济问题,2000,20(5)：261-264
[56]段显明,许玫,林永兰.关于森林生态效益经济补偿机制的探讨[J].林业经济问题,2001,21(2)：79-82
[57]支玲,李怒云.西部退耕还林经济补偿机制研究[J].林业经济,2004,40(2)：2-8
[58]戴芳,刘勇.公益林供给主体分析[J].林业经济问题,2006(4)：370-373
[59]孔凡斌.退耕还林(草)工程生态补偿机制研究[J].林业科学,2007,43(1)：95-101
[60]陈钦,刘伟平.公益林生态效益补偿的制度变迁分析[J].林业经济,2000(4)：48-53
[61]姚顺波.林业补助与林木补偿制度研究[J].林业科学,2005,41(6)：85-88
[62]谷振宾,王立群.对森林资源价值及其补偿问题的思考[J].林业经济问题,2007,27(4)：299-302
[63]汪少凯,刘文禅.森林生态补偿机制的构建和完善[J].防护林科技,2008(4)：141-142
[64]夏自谦.论市场经济条件下的公益林建设[J].林业经济,1999(3)：41-45
[65]徐信俭,范立敏.关于建立森林生态效益补偿基金的思考[J].林业经济,2000(4)：54-57
[66]温作民,费勇.森林生态环境维护税的理论设计与实施对策[J].林业科学,2001(1)：107-111
[67]王冲,孟全省.生态公益林建设成本效益分析及政策建议[J].林业经.济问题,2007,27(2)：176-180
[68]孔凡斌.试论森林生态补偿制度的政策理论、对象和实现途径[J].西北林学院学报,2003,18(2)：101-104
[69]刘春发.竞争均衡下的森林外部性及其经济学意义[J].林业经济问题,2008,28(2)：109-112
[70]王聪.论BOT融资模式筹集森林生态效益补偿资金[J].绿色中国,2004(6)：36-37
[71]杨云仙,廖为明.公益林生态效益补偿研究-以江西铜鼓县为例[J].林业经济,2008(2)：49-52
[72]陈晓倩,陈建成.生态林业市场化筹资方式的思考[J].林业经济问题,2002,22(1)：19-21
[73]徐晴.森林生态系统服务市场化进程评述[J].林业经济,2007(10)：61-63
[74]温作民.森林生态资源配置的市场失灵及其对策[J].林业科学,1999,35(6)：110-114
[75]刘梅娟等.福建省生态公益林合理利用途径及保障措施分析-以建阳市为例[J].林业经济问题,2007,27(5)：429-434
[76]石道金.99中国会计学会林业分会南方片学术研讨会综述[J].林业财务与会计,1999(6)：3-4
[77]温作民.外在性与森林生态税研究[J].林业经济,2001(12)：41-45
[78]郎璞玫.森林减少水灾效益评价[J]Journal of Forestry Research,2001(1):71-73
[79]李文华,李芬,李世东,刘某承.森林生态补偿机制若干重点问题研究[J].中国人口.资源与环境,2007,17(2)：13-18
[80]高素萍,李美华.森林生态效益现实补偿费得计量[J].林业科学,2006,42(4)：88-92
[81]陈钦,黄和亮.试论林业外部性及补偿措施[J].林业经济问题,1999(3)：19-22
[82]蒋海.生态公益林补偿若干理论问题探讨[J].生态科学,1996(2)：66-71
[83]刘晖霞.我国森林生态效益补偿机制问题探讨[J].农林科技,2008,37(5)：79-80
[84]唐敏,罗泽真.生态公益林区划和农民利益的维护[J].林业经济问题,2008,28(4)：292-296
[85]姚顺波,郑少锋.政府采购公益林制度研究[J].绿色中国,2004(12)：24-26
[86]吴伟光,徐秀英.生态公益林“外部性”特征及解决途径[J].林业经济,2003(12)：40-42
[87]刘玉凡.生态公益林补偿机制探讨[J].防护林科技,1998(1)：37-38
[88]廖为明,陈飞平,陆金森.江西小城镇可持续发展研究[J].江西农业大学学报,2008,7(4)：79-81
[89]张涛.森林生态效益补偿机制研究[D].北京：中国林业科学研究院博士论文,2003
[90]温作民.森林生态税的政策设计[J].林业经济问题,2001,21(5)：343-347
[91]高志峰,赵金成.森林价格补偿体系的构建[J].林业经济,2002(5)：46-47
[92]科斯.企业的性质[J].见：现代制度经济学(上卷)[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2003
[93]张翼飞.城市内河生态系统服务的意愿价值评估—CVM有效性可靠性研究的视角[D].上海：复旦大学博士论文,2008
[94]杨开忠,白墨,李莹等.关于意愿调查价值评估法在我国环境领域应用的可行性探讨—以北京市居民支付意愿研究为例[J].地球科学进展,2002,17(3)：420-425
[95]徐中民,张志强,程国栋等.额济纳旗生态系统服务的总经济价值评估[J].地理学报,2002,57(1)：107-116
[96]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
[97]刘岩,张大柱,陈吉宁等.滇池流域农业非点源污染治理的收费政策研究[J].厦门大学学报(自然科学版),2003,42(6)：787-790
[98]王寿兵,王平建,胡泽原等.用意愿评估法评价生态系统景观服务价值——以上海苏州河为实例[J].复旦大学学报.2003,42(3)：463-467
[99]辛琨,肖笃宁.盘锦地区湿地生态系统服务功能价值估算[J].生态学报,2002,22(8)：1345-1349
[100]曹建华,郭小鹏.意愿调查法在评价森林资源环境价值上的运用[J].江西农业大学学报(自然科学版),2002,24(5)：645-648
[101]曹辉,陈平留.森林景观资产评估CVM研究[J].福建林学院学报,2003,23(1)：48-52
[102]李莹,白墨,杨开忠等.居民为改善北京市大气环境质量的支付意愿研究[J].城市环境与城市生态,2001,14(5)：6-8
[103]张明军,范建峰,虎陈霞等.兰州市改替大气环境质量的总经济价值评估[J].干早区资源与环境,2004,18(3)：28-32
[104]李金平,王志石.空气污染损害价值的WTP,WTA对比研究[J].地球科学进展.2006,21(3)：250-255
[105]杜亚平.改善东湖水质的经济分析.生态经济[J],1996(6)：15-21
[106]张俊杰,张悦等. 居民对再生水的支付意愿及其影响因素[J].中国给水排水,2003(19)：96-98
[107]张翼飞.居民对城市景观河流生态服务的支付意愿与有效需求研究——基于CVM应用的有效性实证分析[J].中国人口、资源与环境,2007,17(1)：66-69
[108]Kevin Chen等.对中国消费者非转基因菜油支付意愿的研究[J].浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),2004,34(3)：53-61
[109]张琦,陈兴宝.条件价值法在菌痢疫苗支付意愿研究中的应用[J].中国药房,2004,15(3)：161-163
[110]林逢春,陈静.条件价值评估法在上海城市轨道交通社会效益评估中的应用研究[J].华东师范大学学报,2005,37(1)：48-53.
[111]张茵.自然保护区生态旅游资源的价值评估——以九寨沟自然保护区为例[D].北京：北京大学,2004
[112]金建君,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
[113]宋敏,横川洋,胡柏.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
[114]张志强,徐中民,程国栋.条件价值评估法的发展与应用[J].地球科学进展,2003,18(3)：454-463
[115]李英.基于居民支付意愿的城市森林生态服务非政府供给研究[M].北京：中国林业出版社,2002
[116]洪燕真,刘伟平,戴永务.森林食物在人类营养结构中的贡献研究[J].林业经济问题,2009,29(5)：400-405
[117]徐中民,张志强,龙爱华等. 额济纳旗生态系统服务恢复价值评估方法的比较与应用[J].生态学报,2003,23(9)：1841-1849
[118]孙剑冰.苏州古典园林作为街区开放空间的价值评估——应用CVM价值评估法[J].城市发展研究,2009,16(8)：64-68
[119]梁爽,姜楠,谷树忠.城市水源地农户环境保护支付意愿及其影响因素分析——以首都水源地密云为例[J].中国农村经济,2005(5)：55-60.
[120]李莹,白墨,张巍等.改善北京市大气环境质量中居民支付意愿的影响因素分析[J]. 中国人口资源与环境,2002,12(6)：123-126
[121]白晓峰,谭向勇,郭志超.森林资源生态价值支付意愿的实证分析—以“京津唐—承”区域为例[J].技术经济,2009,28(5)：47-53
[122]张培,董谦,许月明.白洋淀湿地非使用价值个人支付意愿及影响因素分析[J].乡镇经济,2008(4)：16-19
[123]张明军,孙美平,姚晓军,石培基,刘光琇,常学亮,连富城.不确定性影响下的平均支付意愿参数估计[J].生态学报,2007,27(9)：3852-3859
[124]卫立冬.公众对城市河流污染的环保意识及支付意愿调查[J].衡水学院学报,2008,10(4)：75-77
[125]梁勇,成升魁,阂庆文等.居民对改善城市水环境支付意愿的研究[J].水利学报,2005,36(5)：613-618.
[126]李莹.意愿调查价值评估法的问卷设计技术[J].环境保护科学,2001,27(6)：25-28.
[127]庄大昌.基于CVM的洞庭湖湿地资源非使用价值评估[J].地域研究与开发,2006,25(2)：105-110
[128]王艳,张宜升,刘斌.青岛市居民减少空气污染致病的支付意愿调查[J].环境与健康,2008,25(4)：326-330
[129]蔡志坚,张巍巍.南京市公众对长江水质改善的支付意愿及支付方式的调查[J].生态经济,2007(2)：116-119
[130]周玲强,程兴火,周天斌.生态旅游认证产品支付意愿研究—基于浙江省四个景区旅游者的实证分析,经济地理,2006,26(1)：140-144
[131]李英.基于条件价值评估法的居民参与城市森林生态服务供给的实证分析[J].林业科技,2008,33(4)：75-77
[132]倪秋菊,倪星.政府官员的“经济人”角色及其行为模式分析[J].武汉大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2004,57(2)：260-267
[133]杨小凯.经济学原理[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1998
[134]Leopold A. A Sandy County Almanac and Sketches from Here and There. New York: Cambridge University Press,1949.
[135]Daily G C et al. Nature's Services:Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. San Francisco :Island Press,1997.
[136]Costanza R etc. The value of the world's environmental services and natural capital[J]. Nature ,1997, (387):253-260
[137]Pearce D W, Moran D. The Economic Value of Biodiversity[M]. Cambridge,1994
[138]De Groot R S, Wilson M A, and Boumans R M J. A Typology for The Classification, Description, and Valuation of Ecosystem Functions, Goods, and Services [J]. Ecological Economics ,2002 (41):393-408.
[139]Farber S C, et al. Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem ervices[J]. Ecological Economics,2002, (41):375-392
[140]Howarth R B, Farher S. Accounting for the value of ecosystem services[J]. Ecological Economics,2002, (41):421-429
[141]Mitchell D C, Carson R. T. Using Survey to Value Public Goods:the Coutingent Valuation Method, Washington DC:Resource of the Future,1989
[142]Pearce, David W. The Political Economy of the Global Environment[J]. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol,1997,44(4):462-83
[143]Clawson M. Methods of measure the demand for and value of outdoor recreations[J]. Resource for the Future Reprint,1959
[1441]Yung En Chee. An ecological perspective on the valuation of services[J]. Biological conservation,2004(120):549-565
[145]Thomas P. Holmes et al. Contingent valuation, net marginal benefits, and the scale of riparian Ecosystem restoration[J]. Ecological Economics,2004(49):19-30
[146]Matthew A, Wilson, Richard B, Howarth. Discourse-based valuation of ecosystem services :establishing fair outcomes through group deilberation[J]. Ecological Economics,2002(41):431-443
[147]Michael D. Kaplowitz. Assessing mangrove products and services at the local level:the use of focus groups and individual interviews[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning,2001(56):53-60
[148]Michael D, Kaplowitz, John P, Hoehn. Do focus groups and individual interviews reveal the same information for natural resource valuation [J]. Ecological Economics,2001(36):237-247
[149]Anne M, Alexander et al. Amethod for valuing global ecosystem services[J]. Ecological Economics,1998(27):161-170.
[150]Roger A, Sedjo. Forest carbon sequestration:some issues for forest investments. resource for the future. Edward Ayensu, Daniel R,2001.
[151]Edward Ayensu, Daniel R. Claasen, Xu Guanhua, et al. International ecosystem assessment[J] . Science,1999(286):685-686
[152]G Philip Robertson, Eldor A Paul and Richard R Harwood. Greenhousre gases in intensive agriculture:contributions of individual gases to the radiative forcing of the atmosphere[J]. Science ,2000(289):1922-1925
[153]Arnold J G, and P M Allen. Estimating hydrologic budgets for three Illinois watershed[J]. Hydrology,1996(176):57-77
[154]Qiu Z, and T Prato. Economic evaluation of riparian buffers in an agricultural watershed[J]. American Water Resources Association,1998,34(4):877-890.
[155]Santhi C, J G Arnold, J R Williams, W A Duga, and L Hauck. Uaiidation of the SWAT model on a large river basin with point and nonpoint sources[J]. American Water Resources Association, 2001,37(5):1169-1188
[156]Echavarria M, and L Lochman. Policy mechanisms for watershed conservation:Case studies Arlington, Virginia[J]. The Nature conservancy,1999.
[157]Reid W V. Capturing the value of ecosystem services to protect biodiversity. In Managing human dominated ecosystems, eds[M]. G. Chichilenisky, G C Daily, P Ehrlich, Q Heal J S Miller . St Louis:Missouri Botanical Garden Press,2001
[158]Bator. F. M. The Anatomy of Market Failure. Quarterly Journal of Economics,1958(72) :79-351
[159]Head J G. Public Goods and Public Policy. Public Finance,1962(17):197-219
[160]Bird P J. The Transferablility and Deleteability of Environmental Economics and Management ,1987(14):54-57
[161]Sara Scherr, Andy White Arvind Khare. The Current Status and Potential of Markets for Ecosystem Services Provided by Tropical Series No 21,2004
[162]Davis R. The value of outdoor recreation:an economic study of the marine woods. [D]Ph. D . Thesis. Boston:Harvard University.1963
[163]Anthony F, Krutilla J. Determination of optimal capacity of resource-based recreation facilities[J]. Natural Resources Journal,1972, (12):417-444.
[164]Loomis J B. Contingent valuation methodology and the US institutional framework[A]. In: Bateman I J, Willis K G, eds. Valuing Environmental Preferences:Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU and Developing Countries[C]. New York:Oxford University Press:1999.613-627.
[165]Loomis J B, Walsh R G. Recreation Economic Decisions, Comparing Benefits and Costs[M] . second edition Stale College PennevlvaniaVentlure Publishing Inc,1997
[166]Arrow K J, Solow R, Portnev P B L, etal. Report of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NO-AA) Panelon Contingent Valuation. Federal Register,1993(58):4016-4614
[163]Bateman I J, Willis K G, eds. Valuing Environmental Preferences:Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing Countries[M]. New York:Oxford University Press,1999
[167]Bonnieux F, Rainelli P. Contingent valuation methodology and the EU institutional frame work In:Bateman I J and Willis K G eds. Valuing Environm ental Preferences, Theory and Practice of the Continget Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing Countries[M]. New York Oxford University Pess,1999
[168]Carson R T. Valuation of ropical rainforests philosophical and practical issues in the use of contingent valuation[J]. Ecological Economics,1998(24):15-29
[169]Randall A, Ives B, Eastman C. Bidding games for valuation of aesthetic environmental improvements[J]. Jonrnal of Environmental Economics and Management,1974(1):132-149
[170]Loomis J B, Kent P, Strange L, et al. Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin:results from a contingent valuation survey[J]. Ecological Economics,2000(33):103-117
[171]Jorgenson B S, Wilson M A, Heberlein T A. Fairness in the contingent valuation of environmental public goods:attitude toward paying for environmental improvements at two levels of scope [J]. Ecological Economics,2001,36(1):133-148
[172]Hanemann W M. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses [J]. American Journal of Agricultural Economics,1984,66(3):332-341
[173]Bishop, R. G., and Heberlein, T. A. Measuring values of extra-market goods:are indirect measures biased[J]. American Journal of Agricultural Economics,1979(61):926-930
[174]Haneamann W M., The economic theory of WTP and WTA[A]. In:Bateman I J, Willis K G , eds. Valuing Environmental Preferences:Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing Countries[C]. New York:Oxford University Press,1999.42-96
[175]Ryan H Wiser. Using contingent valuation to explore willingness to pay for renewable energy :A comparison of collective and voluntary payment vehicles. Ecological Economics,2007,62(3-4):419-432
[176]Felix Schlapfer. Survey protocol and income effects in the contingent valuation of public goods :Ameta-analysis. Ecological Economics,2006,57(3):415-429
[177]Felix Schlapfer, Anna Roschewitz, Nick Hanley. Validation of stated preferences for public goods:a comparison of contingent valuation survey response and voting behavior. Ecological Economics,2004,51(1-2):1 - 16
[178]Dominic Moran, Alistair McVittie, David J. Allcroft, et al. Quantifying public preferences for agri-environmental policy in Scotland:A comparison of methods. Ecological Economics,2007,63(1) :42-45
[179]Jayanath Ananada, Gamini Herath. Multi-attribute preference modelling and regional land-use planning. Ecological Economics, Available online 10 August 2007
[180]Hoehn, J P. Valuing the multidimensional impacts of environmental policy:theory and methods[J]. American Journal of Agricultural Economics,1991(73):289-299
[181]Kritrm B. Spike models in contingent valuation[J]. American Journal of Agricultural Economics ,1997 (79):1013 - 1023
[182]Ready R C, Buzby J C, and Hu D. Differences between continuous and discrete contingent value estimates[J]. Land Economics,1996(72):397-411