三江源草地生态保护中牧户的福利变化及补偿研究
|
摘要
三江源是我国江河中下游地区和东南亚国家生态环境安全和区域可持续发展的生态屏障,但在近几十年的全球气候变化和人类活动的双重影响下,三江源区源区草地植被退化退化严重已经使源头水源涵养能力急剧减退,并已直接威胁到了长江、黄河流域、乃至东南亚诸国的生态安全,国家自2005年始在三江源区大规模实施生态移民和限制放牧等工程以缓解草地退化的格局、并逐渐恢复和保护三江源生态环境。三江源生态保护及补偿工作至今已7年有余,源区草地植被和湿地生态环境得到了一定程度的恢复和改善,但与此同时也出现了一些影响生态经济和社会和谐、稳定、健康发展的问题,其中以依赖当地草地资源而生存、三江源区的最主要经济主体——牧户的福利和发展是尤为重要且最紧迫的问题之一。三江源生态保护工作的开展离不开牧户的积极响应、支持和参与,而牧户愿意参与生态保护计划的前提是牧户的福利不下降或得到科学合理的补偿,在补偿不到位或补偿机制不健全的情况下,牧户参与三江源生态保护行为将极有可能使牧户的经济收入和生活受到很大的影响,许多牧户的生活甚至陷入贫困化的威胁,既不符合公平原则和可持续发展原则,又容易挫伤牧户参与生态保护行为的积极性,影响三江源草地生态恢复及保护的效果和速度。因此,研究牧户在三江源生态保护中的福利内涵及变化情况,以牧户福利得到改善为目标制定补偿标准和调整补偿机制,激励牧户继续参与生态保护行为,对最终持续推进三江源区中后期的生态保护开展和维护社会经济可持续发展至关重要。本文结合福利经济学理论和千年生态系统报告的核心思想,界定了生态系统服务变化中人类福利的内涵,并对三江源草地生态保护中牧户的福利变化进行了评价和分析,在牧户福利优化的基础上核算了三江源草地生态保护过程的补偿标准,并以行政区划为界线提出了各县的补偿次序、不同补偿性质的补偿标准和不同的发展保护模式。
本文结合森的能力框架探讨了福利的内涵,界定了生态系统服务及其功能对人类福利的内涵,指人类在生态系统生产和利用中的自由选择和能力,而贫穷指可行性能力和发展的受限,即福利的下降。生态系统的退化和破坏将严重威胁人类福利(尤其是穷人的福利),关注强烈依赖于生态系统服务的贫困人群的福利,并科学有效的实施生态补偿通过外部效应内部化,以激励生态保护的行为进而实现生态保护和人类福利改善的双赢。本文以三江源草地生态保护中的牧户为研究对象,分别以参与三江源草地的生态移民和参与草地限制放牧的牧户为例,分析了不同类型的牧户参与生态保护行为中的生活、健康、安全、社会关系、环境、社会适应、自由、生活实现和幸福等9项功能的状况,并结合马斯洛需要层次理论确定了不同层次功能的权重,并认为福利各功能之间是递进式的即低阶功能的实现程度会促进高阶功能的实现,最后分别评价了三江源移民和限制放牧的牧户在参与生态保护行为前后的福利变化情况。研究表明,三江源移民在参与生态保护行为后福利水平下降,主要是由于失去草地使用权后导致收入的下降、资源使用和参与环境管理的自由受到严重的影响、移民以前在草地放牧生活中形成的地缘和血缘关系被割裂使社会关系的支持功能下降、移民的生存技能未得到提升进而影响到了如社会适应、生活实现和幸福感等高阶功能的实现,使移民的福利功能下降；牧户参与限制放牧后的福利水平略有提升,是由于牧户限制放牧后虽然使其收入水平有了一定的下降,但居住条件和医疗保障等各功能的提升使生活、健康、安全和社会关系、坏境等各功能均得到了很大程度的提升、并且牧户使用草地的权益比移民限制程度小、并且牧户并未大规模迁徙因而社会适应能力受损不明显,使限制放牧牧户的福利水平略有提升。可见,牧户参与三江源草地生态保护行为使其收入水平受到了一定的影响,当收入水平能维持日常的生活所需时,牧户的其他福利功能的改善能使牧户的福利水平得到一定程度的提高；但当收入水平下降显著,而牧户的其他生活能力未得到提高和其他福利功能尚不能实现时,牧户的福利往往会明显的下降,甚至陷入贫困化。因此,参与生态保护行为中牧户的收入能力和自然资源产权承载的其他福利功能都是牧户福利的重要组成部分,在补偿过程中均应该被重视、被补偿,尤其应该在低阶福利功能如收入被补偿的基础上,关注自由和生活实现等高阶功能的补偿和提升。
本文通过三江源生态保护中牧户的福利均衡分析发现,要使牧户的福利水平不下降或改善牧户的福利水平,则必须提高补偿标准和减少牧户对草地资源的依赖性。因此,在提高补偿标准的基础上,更要考虑如何通过区域的经济发展方式转变和结构调整来创造就业机会,通过提高牧户的文化教育水平和层次、加强职业技能培训等提升牧户的就业技能和可行性能力,让牧户通过自身的努力和政府的帮助通过非放牧式的生计方式转变和其他多种途径经营来获取经济收入,获得比放牧收入更高的收入才有可能会逐渐带动牧户逐渐减少和放弃对草地的依赖和利用,从而从根本上实现草地生态环境的保护,进而形成牧户的可行性能力的提高和生态环境改善的互相促进的良性循环。
本文通过文献分析认为生态补偿是贫困减缓的重要机制,在生态保护行为意愿和福利损失的基础上制定生态补偿标准,明确界定利益相关方和区域的生态保护责任,构建科学的生态补偿机制才能实现福利均衡,才能引导牧户实现主动参与式保护,才能真正实现生态保护——人类福利提高——可持续发展的多赢局面。本文基于三江源地区2002-2010年的气候因子数据,模拟了近十年以来三江源草地生态保护后的植被覆盖度(NPP)变化情况,并进一步核算了自2005年保护以后三江源各县的草地生态系统服务功能价值及增加情况；研究表明,三江源草地的生态服务功能在2005—2010年表现出先缓慢下降而后逐渐上升的趋势,说明三江源草地生态恢复及保护行为在逐渐起效,体现出三江源草地生态由降低退化的速度演变为生态环境逐步恢复及改善的趋势特征；三江源草地生态保护效益增加值在区域上表现出极大的差异性,海拔比较高、气候比较恶劣和退化严重的区域草地生态恢复比较慢、保护效益增加值比较小,增加幅度最大的是甘德县,单位面积草地生态服务价值增加了1.086万元/km2,唐古拉乡和曲玛莱县的草地生态服务价值增加量分别为0.221万元/km2和0.637万元/km2,增加量最小；自2005年保护以来的5年中,三江源区每单位面积草地的保护效益增加值为0.902万元/km2,并拟将各县的草地生态保护效益增加量作为激励三江源牧户主动参与生态保护的奖励性补偿标准。
本文分别计算了三江源牧户参与生态保护行为中,因草地资源使用权被禁止或被限制而在实际和理论上损失的经济收入(机会成本)和各项参与成本。牧户的福利损失是理论上应该补偿给牧户以保持福利均衡的,三江源移民和牧户实际机会成本损失价值分别为4.2846万元／户和1.6478万元／户；基于草地理论载畜量而核算得到的三江源牧户平均参与成本为3001.63元/hm2,平均机会成本损失为750.458元/hm2,由于各县的海拔高度、草地退化程度和交通通达度不同而使三江源各县的参与成本和机会成本存在比较大的差异,因此补偿的过程中应该被补偿的参与成本内容和标准各不相同。
本文基于消费者剩余理论和外部性理论,结合牧户的参与生态保护行为的意愿,研究了牧户在参与生态保护行为中为避免使福利受损而应该获得的最小受偿意愿额度,并作为牧户参与生态保护行为保持福利不下降的参考补偿标准。研究表明,三江源牧户中约66.7%的牧户表示愿意参与生态保护行为,牧户参与保护行为后福利水平至少不变或不下降是牧户参与保护意愿概率提高的重要保障,区域工作机会较多、生计方式比较丰富和生态保护外部性认知水平高的牧户参与生态保护响应的意愿较高。可见,让牧户分享生态保护的外部性效益、促进牧户生计多样化水平和提升牧户的就业水平让牧户的收入水平得以保障并提高,是促进牧户的保护积极性的关键。三江源生态移民基于平均值和中位值的受偿意愿额分别为1.2886万元／年·户和2.05668万元／年·户,限制放牧的牧户基于平均值和中位值的最小受偿意愿额分别为0.6733万元／年·户和1.14316万元／年·户,移民因草地生态保护行为中草地使用权被限制程度大(被禁止)和损失比较高,因此移民的受偿意愿高于限制放牧的牧户。
本文以三江源的行政区划为界线,基于草地生态恢复效益和补偿效率计算了补偿优先度,结合三江源草地的生态退化恢复难度而划分了补偿区域的优先次序,并探讨了各区域的补偿标准和发展模式。将保护效益增加最明显和优先度最高的三江源杂多县、达日县和玛多县列为优先补偿区,该区域通过生态移民来达到生态保护的目的,而移民得到最高的激励性质的补偿标准,即按照生态保护效益增加值与参与成本之和来补偿,同时应该参照移民的最小受偿意愿额2.05668万元／年·户；将保护优先度最低和恢复难度最大的唐古拉乡、称多县和治多县划为重点保护补偿区,同样通过生态移民来保护,并按照生态保护效益增加值和实施成本作为鼓励兼补偿性质的补偿标准,并使补偿标准参照移民的WTA；将优先度次之的久治县、班玛县、曲玛莱县和玉树县列为次级补偿区,实施限制放牧,并按照生态保护效益增加值与机会成本之和来补偿牧户的福利损失,并使补偿标准参照牧户的WTA即1.14316万元／年·户；将保护效果疲软的其他区域列为潜在补偿区域,可以在限制放牧的过程中适当发展绿色经济,在资金充足的情况下按照生态保护效益增加值与交易成本之和来补偿,以改善牧户福利和实现生态经济可持续发展。
根据三江源牧户福利优化为目标,提出了应该对牧户在三江源生态保护中的经济收入损失和各种福利功能进行补偿,并核算了三江源区域可持续的、激励性质的补偿标准,以期望通过提高补偿标准和实施差异化的补偿,在改善牧户福利水平的基础上,提高牧户主动参与生态保护的积极性,实现三江源保护区生态经济的全面可持续发展,实现社会福利最大化。但在今后考虑如何提升牧户的可行性能力和加强公众参与环境管理,并构建整个三江源源头和三江流域的生态补偿机制以解决补偿资金不足和实现福利均衡,是实现可持续保护和区域间平衡发展的重要举措,也是进一步的研究方向。
Sanjiangyuan region is an ecological barrier of the ecological environmental security and regional sustainable development in the middle and lower reaches of Chinese rivers and south-east Asian nations, however in recent decades, grassland vegetation of Sanjiangyuan region serious degraded by the twofold influences of the global climate change and human activities,which led to nourishing capacity of source water diminished sharply, and which directly threatened the environmental security of the Yangtze river, Yellow River basin and south-east Asian nations. Since2005, Chinese government began to implement the ecological migration and limiting grazing grassland in Sanjiangyuan region to alleviate the situation of grassland degradation, and gradually restore and protect the ecological environment. The ecological protection and compensatory work for Sanjiangyuan region has been carried on for more than7years, the grassland vegetation and the marshy ecological environment have acquired recovery and improvement in some degree, but at the same time, some problems have appeared that impact ecological economy and social harmony, stability and healthy development, which depend on the local grassland resources to live, the main economic subject of Sanjiangyuan region-herdsman, their well-being and development is one of the most pressing problem. The ecological protection of Sanjiangyuan region depends on herdsman's active response, support and participation, however the herdsman willing to participate in ecological protection plan provided that the well-being of the herdsman does not drop or get scientific and reasonable compensation. In the case of the compensation is not enough or the compensation mechanism is not perfect, herdsman participate behavior of the ecological protection will likely reduce their income and greatly impact their life, many herdsman will even face to threat of poverty, these don't accord to fair and sustainable developmental principle, and it is easy to frustrate enthusiasm that herdsman participate the ecological protection program, even affect the speed and efficiency of grassland ecological restoration and protection in Sanjiangyuan region. Therefore, to research herdsman's well-being connotation and the changing situation of in the ecological protection,toherdsman's well-being improvement as the goal to establish the compensation standard and adjust the compensation mechanism, and encourage herdsman to Continued participate behavior of the ecological protection, which are very important to eventually continue to promote the ecological protection to carry out the latter part of the Sanjiangyuan region,and is crucial to maintain social and economic sustainable development.
This paper combine welfare economics theory and the core idea of Millennium Ecosystem Report, defined the connotation of human well-being in ecosystem services changes, evaluate and analyse herdsman's well-being changes.By stating the meaning of the well-being on the basis of Sen's capability framework, It Revealed that, The connotation of the human well-being on ecosystem services was the Freedom of choice and capability of the human, poverty was Capability and development of the human to be limited. Ecosystem degradation or destruction will seriously threat to human well-being, particularly involved well-being of the poor. We should focus on the human well-being of the poor who depended on ecosystem services, and effectively implement the ecological compensation through the internalization of external effects, to stimulate the behavior of the ecological protection, and then to realize a win-win between ecological proted and human well-being improved. This paper made the herdsman in the grassland ecological protection as research object, respectively gave an example for the ecological migration in Sanjiangyuan grassland and the herdsman who were limited to graze for grassland, to analyse nine functional indexes in different kinds of herdsman participate the behavior of the ecological protection, they are life, health, safety, social relations, environment, social adaption, liberty, and happiness. It combine with maslow's demand theory of hierarchy to determine the importance of different grade function, and deem that among the well-being of each function is the progressive type, the realized degree of the low level function will promote the realization of the high level function. Last, to respectively evaluate the well-being change situation between beginning and end for immigrants in Sanjiangyuan region and herdsman who were limited to graze in participating the behavior of eco-protection. Some studies indicated that the immigrant well-being levels have declined after participating the behavior of ecological protection, it mainly due to the loss of herdsman's right for using grassland that lead to reduce their income, their freedom is affected in using resource and participating environmental management, immigrant geographical and blood relationship that are formed in grazing life, this relationships are divided that make the supporting function in social relationship to decline, and the survival skills of immigrants did not get promoted which affected the realization of the high level function such as social adaptation, happiness etc. On the contrary, the herdsman's well-being levels have slightly increased after participating limited graze, although herdsman's income had a certain falling, such as residential conditions and health care etc various functional promotion that make different functions such as life, health, safety, social relations, and environment have greatly improvement, and the herdsman's restrictions are less than immigrant in using the right of grassland, and the herdsman didn't have large scale migration, so the damage for the ability of social adaptation is not obvious, and then the herdsman's well-being levels has slight increase. Obviously, herdsman's income levels are certainly influenced through they participated in the behavior of ecological protection, on the one hand, when their income levels can sustain daily living requirements, and other well-being functional improvement can make well-being levels improve in a certain extent; On the other hand, while their income levels are visibly descend, and their other living abilities are not improved and other well-being functions are not implemented, so herdsman's well-being often obvious drop, even can fall into pauperization. As a result, the herdsman's income ability among in the behavior of ecological protection and other well-being functions are important ingredients, which should be emphasized, and compensated, especially, on the basis of lower level well-being function such as welcome is compensated, we should focus on compensation and ascension for the high level function such as freedom and living reality etc.
This paper analyzed the herdsman's well-being equilibrium of the ecological protection in Sanjiangyuan region, the results indicate that if don't want to make the herdsman's well-being decline, we must improve the compensation standard and reduce herdsman's dependence for grassland resources. Therefore, on the base of improving the compensation standard, we need to consider how to create employment opportunities through transformation of regional economic developmental pattern and structural adjustment, to strengthen herdsman's employment skills and feasible ability through improving the herdsman's cultural educational level, professional skill training etc, and make the herdsman obtain more economic income in their own efforts and with the help of the government by the living transformation of non-grazing livelihood means and other more kinds of management approach. Only in this way can herdsman gradually reduce dependence and utilization for grassland, so to fundamentally achieve the ecological environment protection, and then to form the virtuous cycle between the raise of herdsman's feasible ability and the ecological environment improvement.
After literature analysis, this paper took ecological compensation as an important mechanism for poverty alleviation. Only if we formulate the ecological compensation standards based on ecological protection behavioral intentions and well-being loss, clearly defined the ecological protection responsibility of stakeholders and region, and built a scientific ecological compensation mechanism, can we achieve welfare equilibrium, guide the herdsman to active participatory protection, and truly achieve the win-win situation of ecological protection-improved human well-being-sustainable development. Based on the climate factor data from2002to2010in Sanjiangyuan region, this paper simulated the change of NPP of Sanjiangyuan region for the past ten years after protecting grassland ecological, and accounted the grassland ecosystem service value of the counties in Sanjiangyuan region after2005. The studies showed that the ecological service function of Sanjiangyuan region declined slowly at first and then rose gradually from2005to2010, which showed the restoration and protective behaviors had taken into effect, grassland ecosystem of Sanjiangyuan region was gradually restoring and improving; The added value of ecological protection effectiveness in Sanjiangyuan region showed great regional differences:the grassland ecosystem recovery was slow in the region with relatively high altitude, bad climate and severe degradation, and the region with the greatest increase was Gande County, whose added value of grassland ecosystem service was10.860thousand yuan/km2, but Tanggula village and Qumalai County was only2,210thousand yuan/km2and6,370yuan/km2repectively, with the minimum amount; in the past five years since protection in2005, the added value per unit area in Sanjiangyuan region was9,020thousand yuan/km, and added value of grassland conservation benefits was regarded as an incentive compensation standard to inspire the herdsman protect the ecological environment.
This paper calculated the practical and theoretical loss of income (opportunity cost) and the cost of participation because the grass resource use rights was prohibited or restricted when the herdsman of Sanjiangyuan region participated in ecological protection. The loss of the well-being of herdsman should theoretically be compensated in order to maintain the well-being balance. The loss of actual opportunity costs were42.846thousand yuan/household and16.478thousand yuan/household for the immigrants and herdsman in Sanjiangyuan region. The average participation cost was3001.63yuan/hm2for the herdsman in Sanjiangyuan region based on the theoretical stocking rate of grass, and the average loss of opportunity cost was750.458yuan/hm2. Due to the different altitude, different degree of grassland degradation and different transport accessibility, the counties in Sanjiangyuan region showed great differences in participation costs and opportunity costs, so compensation content and standards should be different too.
Based on consumer surplus theory and externality theory,combined with the herdsman's willingness to participate in eco-protection behavior, we analyzed herdsman's the minimum compensation standards which make the herdsman willing to participate in eco-protective behaviors and to avoid the well-being damaged.It shows that. Approximately66.7%of the herdsman expressed their willingness to participate in eco-protection behavior, An important guarantee which Herdsman's probability of participate in eco-protective behaviors was increased, was the Herdsman's well-being will at least does not decrease. If herdsman has more opportunity of regional jobs, more abundant diversification of lilvelihood, High level of external awareness of ecological protection, they would be more willingness to participate in ecological protection response. This reveals that,the key to promote the herdsman energeticly participate in ecological protection response, is herdsman could be sharing the external benefits of ecological protection, Promote the herdsman level of diversification of livelihoods and enhance the level of employment of the herdsman. The migration's willingness to accept which based on the mean and median compensation, amounted to12.886thousand yuan/household and20.5668thousand yuan/household. The grazing restricted herdsman's willingness to accept which based on the mean and median compensation, amounted to6.733thousand yuan/household and11.4316thousand yuan/household. The migration's WTA is higher than restrict grazing herdsman's WTA, the reason is that, compared with the restrict grazing herdsman, Immigration's well-being was Suffered of relatively higher losses and their grassland use rights was limited in a larger extent.
In this paper, using the administrative divisions of each county as spatial boundaries of payment for ecosystem services and taking the degree of payment for ecosystem services, We divided the priorities of the compensation area and explored the regional compensation standards and development models, based on the Ecological Restoration effective and compensation efficient,calculated the priority degree of payment for ecosystem services, and conbined the difficulty of grassland ecological rehabilitation and degradation. Zaduo County, Dari and Madoi were classified as priority compensation area, which has Conservation benefits increased the most obvious and priority to the highest degree, The region to achieve ecological protection through ecological migrants, the feature of migrants s compensation standards was incentive and the highest one, the value of compensation standards was summation of the ecological conservation benefits added and the participation cost, and standards shuould not be less than the minimum willingness to accept compensation amount, that is20.5668thousand yuan/household.Tanggula township, Chengduo county and Zhiduo county were designated as key protection compensation, which has the lowest priority and the most difficult of ecology restore, the region also should enforce ecological migrants to achieve ecological protection. Characteristic of migrants's compensation standards was encouraged and compensated, the vaule of migrants's compensation standards was summation of the ecological conservation benefits added and the implementation cost, it also should be more than20.5668thousand yuan/household. Jiuzhi county, Banma county, the Qumalai county, Yushu county were classified as secondary compensation areas, which has the second priority and impose restrictions on grazing to achieve ecological protection, the herdsman's compensation standards was summation of the ecological conservation benefits added and the opportunity cost, it also should be more than11.4316thousand yuan/household. Regions of third priority defined as potential compensation areas, which could be restricted grazing and in the proper development of the green economy, in order to improve the well-being of the herdsman and relaize ecological and economic sustainable development. In the case of sufficient funds, the herdsman's compensation standards should be summation of the ecological conservation benefits added and the transaction costs.
Aim to optimize the well-being of herdsman, it not only Proposed that herdsman's loss of economic income and well-being function all should be compensated, but also verified the Sustainable and motivating compensation standards, by raising the compensation standards and implementing differentiated compensation to improve the well-being of the herdsman, and then to enhance the herdsman's enthusiasm and initiative of taking participate in eco-protection, and realized that the economic sustainable be developmented and social well-being be maximized in Sanjiangyuan regions.
本文结合森的能力框架探讨了福利的内涵,界定了生态系统服务及其功能对人类福利的内涵,指人类在生态系统生产和利用中的自由选择和能力,而贫穷指可行性能力和发展的受限,即福利的下降。生态系统的退化和破坏将严重威胁人类福利(尤其是穷人的福利),关注强烈依赖于生态系统服务的贫困人群的福利,并科学有效的实施生态补偿通过外部效应内部化,以激励生态保护的行为进而实现生态保护和人类福利改善的双赢。本文以三江源草地生态保护中的牧户为研究对象,分别以参与三江源草地的生态移民和参与草地限制放牧的牧户为例,分析了不同类型的牧户参与生态保护行为中的生活、健康、安全、社会关系、环境、社会适应、自由、生活实现和幸福等9项功能的状况,并结合马斯洛需要层次理论确定了不同层次功能的权重,并认为福利各功能之间是递进式的即低阶功能的实现程度会促进高阶功能的实现,最后分别评价了三江源移民和限制放牧的牧户在参与生态保护行为前后的福利变化情况。研究表明,三江源移民在参与生态保护行为后福利水平下降,主要是由于失去草地使用权后导致收入的下降、资源使用和参与环境管理的自由受到严重的影响、移民以前在草地放牧生活中形成的地缘和血缘关系被割裂使社会关系的支持功能下降、移民的生存技能未得到提升进而影响到了如社会适应、生活实现和幸福感等高阶功能的实现,使移民的福利功能下降；牧户参与限制放牧后的福利水平略有提升,是由于牧户限制放牧后虽然使其收入水平有了一定的下降,但居住条件和医疗保障等各功能的提升使生活、健康、安全和社会关系、坏境等各功能均得到了很大程度的提升、并且牧户使用草地的权益比移民限制程度小、并且牧户并未大规模迁徙因而社会适应能力受损不明显,使限制放牧牧户的福利水平略有提升。可见,牧户参与三江源草地生态保护行为使其收入水平受到了一定的影响,当收入水平能维持日常的生活所需时,牧户的其他福利功能的改善能使牧户的福利水平得到一定程度的提高；但当收入水平下降显著,而牧户的其他生活能力未得到提高和其他福利功能尚不能实现时,牧户的福利往往会明显的下降,甚至陷入贫困化。因此,参与生态保护行为中牧户的收入能力和自然资源产权承载的其他福利功能都是牧户福利的重要组成部分,在补偿过程中均应该被重视、被补偿,尤其应该在低阶福利功能如收入被补偿的基础上,关注自由和生活实现等高阶功能的补偿和提升。
本文通过三江源生态保护中牧户的福利均衡分析发现,要使牧户的福利水平不下降或改善牧户的福利水平,则必须提高补偿标准和减少牧户对草地资源的依赖性。因此,在提高补偿标准的基础上,更要考虑如何通过区域的经济发展方式转变和结构调整来创造就业机会,通过提高牧户的文化教育水平和层次、加强职业技能培训等提升牧户的就业技能和可行性能力,让牧户通过自身的努力和政府的帮助通过非放牧式的生计方式转变和其他多种途径经营来获取经济收入,获得比放牧收入更高的收入才有可能会逐渐带动牧户逐渐减少和放弃对草地的依赖和利用,从而从根本上实现草地生态环境的保护,进而形成牧户的可行性能力的提高和生态环境改善的互相促进的良性循环。
本文通过文献分析认为生态补偿是贫困减缓的重要机制,在生态保护行为意愿和福利损失的基础上制定生态补偿标准,明确界定利益相关方和区域的生态保护责任,构建科学的生态补偿机制才能实现福利均衡,才能引导牧户实现主动参与式保护,才能真正实现生态保护——人类福利提高——可持续发展的多赢局面。本文基于三江源地区2002-2010年的气候因子数据,模拟了近十年以来三江源草地生态保护后的植被覆盖度(NPP)变化情况,并进一步核算了自2005年保护以后三江源各县的草地生态系统服务功能价值及增加情况；研究表明,三江源草地的生态服务功能在2005—2010年表现出先缓慢下降而后逐渐上升的趋势,说明三江源草地生态恢复及保护行为在逐渐起效,体现出三江源草地生态由降低退化的速度演变为生态环境逐步恢复及改善的趋势特征；三江源草地生态保护效益增加值在区域上表现出极大的差异性,海拔比较高、气候比较恶劣和退化严重的区域草地生态恢复比较慢、保护效益增加值比较小,增加幅度最大的是甘德县,单位面积草地生态服务价值增加了1.086万元/km2,唐古拉乡和曲玛莱县的草地生态服务价值增加量分别为0.221万元/km2和0.637万元/km2,增加量最小；自2005年保护以来的5年中,三江源区每单位面积草地的保护效益增加值为0.902万元/km2,并拟将各县的草地生态保护效益增加量作为激励三江源牧户主动参与生态保护的奖励性补偿标准。
本文分别计算了三江源牧户参与生态保护行为中,因草地资源使用权被禁止或被限制而在实际和理论上损失的经济收入(机会成本)和各项参与成本。牧户的福利损失是理论上应该补偿给牧户以保持福利均衡的,三江源移民和牧户实际机会成本损失价值分别为4.2846万元／户和1.6478万元／户；基于草地理论载畜量而核算得到的三江源牧户平均参与成本为3001.63元/hm2,平均机会成本损失为750.458元/hm2,由于各县的海拔高度、草地退化程度和交通通达度不同而使三江源各县的参与成本和机会成本存在比较大的差异,因此补偿的过程中应该被补偿的参与成本内容和标准各不相同。
本文基于消费者剩余理论和外部性理论,结合牧户的参与生态保护行为的意愿,研究了牧户在参与生态保护行为中为避免使福利受损而应该获得的最小受偿意愿额度,并作为牧户参与生态保护行为保持福利不下降的参考补偿标准。研究表明,三江源牧户中约66.7%的牧户表示愿意参与生态保护行为,牧户参与保护行为后福利水平至少不变或不下降是牧户参与保护意愿概率提高的重要保障,区域工作机会较多、生计方式比较丰富和生态保护外部性认知水平高的牧户参与生态保护响应的意愿较高。可见,让牧户分享生态保护的外部性效益、促进牧户生计多样化水平和提升牧户的就业水平让牧户的收入水平得以保障并提高,是促进牧户的保护积极性的关键。三江源生态移民基于平均值和中位值的受偿意愿额分别为1.2886万元／年·户和2.05668万元／年·户,限制放牧的牧户基于平均值和中位值的最小受偿意愿额分别为0.6733万元／年·户和1.14316万元／年·户,移民因草地生态保护行为中草地使用权被限制程度大(被禁止)和损失比较高,因此移民的受偿意愿高于限制放牧的牧户。
本文以三江源的行政区划为界线,基于草地生态恢复效益和补偿效率计算了补偿优先度,结合三江源草地的生态退化恢复难度而划分了补偿区域的优先次序,并探讨了各区域的补偿标准和发展模式。将保护效益增加最明显和优先度最高的三江源杂多县、达日县和玛多县列为优先补偿区,该区域通过生态移民来达到生态保护的目的,而移民得到最高的激励性质的补偿标准,即按照生态保护效益增加值与参与成本之和来补偿,同时应该参照移民的最小受偿意愿额2.05668万元／年·户；将保护优先度最低和恢复难度最大的唐古拉乡、称多县和治多县划为重点保护补偿区,同样通过生态移民来保护,并按照生态保护效益增加值和实施成本作为鼓励兼补偿性质的补偿标准,并使补偿标准参照移民的WTA；将优先度次之的久治县、班玛县、曲玛莱县和玉树县列为次级补偿区,实施限制放牧,并按照生态保护效益增加值与机会成本之和来补偿牧户的福利损失,并使补偿标准参照牧户的WTA即1.14316万元／年·户；将保护效果疲软的其他区域列为潜在补偿区域,可以在限制放牧的过程中适当发展绿色经济,在资金充足的情况下按照生态保护效益增加值与交易成本之和来补偿,以改善牧户福利和实现生态经济可持续发展。
根据三江源牧户福利优化为目标,提出了应该对牧户在三江源生态保护中的经济收入损失和各种福利功能进行补偿,并核算了三江源区域可持续的、激励性质的补偿标准,以期望通过提高补偿标准和实施差异化的补偿,在改善牧户福利水平的基础上,提高牧户主动参与生态保护的积极性,实现三江源保护区生态经济的全面可持续发展,实现社会福利最大化。但在今后考虑如何提升牧户的可行性能力和加强公众参与环境管理,并构建整个三江源源头和三江流域的生态补偿机制以解决补偿资金不足和实现福利均衡,是实现可持续保护和区域间平衡发展的重要举措,也是进一步的研究方向。
Sanjiangyuan region is an ecological barrier of the ecological environmental security and regional sustainable development in the middle and lower reaches of Chinese rivers and south-east Asian nations, however in recent decades, grassland vegetation of Sanjiangyuan region serious degraded by the twofold influences of the global climate change and human activities,which led to nourishing capacity of source water diminished sharply, and which directly threatened the environmental security of the Yangtze river, Yellow River basin and south-east Asian nations. Since2005, Chinese government began to implement the ecological migration and limiting grazing grassland in Sanjiangyuan region to alleviate the situation of grassland degradation, and gradually restore and protect the ecological environment. The ecological protection and compensatory work for Sanjiangyuan region has been carried on for more than7years, the grassland vegetation and the marshy ecological environment have acquired recovery and improvement in some degree, but at the same time, some problems have appeared that impact ecological economy and social harmony, stability and healthy development, which depend on the local grassland resources to live, the main economic subject of Sanjiangyuan region-herdsman, their well-being and development is one of the most pressing problem. The ecological protection of Sanjiangyuan region depends on herdsman's active response, support and participation, however the herdsman willing to participate in ecological protection plan provided that the well-being of the herdsman does not drop or get scientific and reasonable compensation. In the case of the compensation is not enough or the compensation mechanism is not perfect, herdsman participate behavior of the ecological protection will likely reduce their income and greatly impact their life, many herdsman will even face to threat of poverty, these don't accord to fair and sustainable developmental principle, and it is easy to frustrate enthusiasm that herdsman participate the ecological protection program, even affect the speed and efficiency of grassland ecological restoration and protection in Sanjiangyuan region. Therefore, to research herdsman's well-being connotation and the changing situation of in the ecological protection,toherdsman's well-being improvement as the goal to establish the compensation standard and adjust the compensation mechanism, and encourage herdsman to Continued participate behavior of the ecological protection, which are very important to eventually continue to promote the ecological protection to carry out the latter part of the Sanjiangyuan region,and is crucial to maintain social and economic sustainable development.
This paper combine welfare economics theory and the core idea of Millennium Ecosystem Report, defined the connotation of human well-being in ecosystem services changes, evaluate and analyse herdsman's well-being changes.By stating the meaning of the well-being on the basis of Sen's capability framework, It Revealed that, The connotation of the human well-being on ecosystem services was the Freedom of choice and capability of the human, poverty was Capability and development of the human to be limited. Ecosystem degradation or destruction will seriously threat to human well-being, particularly involved well-being of the poor. We should focus on the human well-being of the poor who depended on ecosystem services, and effectively implement the ecological compensation through the internalization of external effects, to stimulate the behavior of the ecological protection, and then to realize a win-win between ecological proted and human well-being improved. This paper made the herdsman in the grassland ecological protection as research object, respectively gave an example for the ecological migration in Sanjiangyuan grassland and the herdsman who were limited to graze for grassland, to analyse nine functional indexes in different kinds of herdsman participate the behavior of the ecological protection, they are life, health, safety, social relations, environment, social adaption, liberty, and happiness. It combine with maslow's demand theory of hierarchy to determine the importance of different grade function, and deem that among the well-being of each function is the progressive type, the realized degree of the low level function will promote the realization of the high level function. Last, to respectively evaluate the well-being change situation between beginning and end for immigrants in Sanjiangyuan region and herdsman who were limited to graze in participating the behavior of eco-protection. Some studies indicated that the immigrant well-being levels have declined after participating the behavior of ecological protection, it mainly due to the loss of herdsman's right for using grassland that lead to reduce their income, their freedom is affected in using resource and participating environmental management, immigrant geographical and blood relationship that are formed in grazing life, this relationships are divided that make the supporting function in social relationship to decline, and the survival skills of immigrants did not get promoted which affected the realization of the high level function such as social adaptation, happiness etc. On the contrary, the herdsman's well-being levels have slightly increased after participating limited graze, although herdsman's income had a certain falling, such as residential conditions and health care etc various functional promotion that make different functions such as life, health, safety, social relations, and environment have greatly improvement, and the herdsman's restrictions are less than immigrant in using the right of grassland, and the herdsman didn't have large scale migration, so the damage for the ability of social adaptation is not obvious, and then the herdsman's well-being levels has slight increase. Obviously, herdsman's income levels are certainly influenced through they participated in the behavior of ecological protection, on the one hand, when their income levels can sustain daily living requirements, and other well-being functional improvement can make well-being levels improve in a certain extent; On the other hand, while their income levels are visibly descend, and their other living abilities are not improved and other well-being functions are not implemented, so herdsman's well-being often obvious drop, even can fall into pauperization. As a result, the herdsman's income ability among in the behavior of ecological protection and other well-being functions are important ingredients, which should be emphasized, and compensated, especially, on the basis of lower level well-being function such as welcome is compensated, we should focus on compensation and ascension for the high level function such as freedom and living reality etc.
This paper analyzed the herdsman's well-being equilibrium of the ecological protection in Sanjiangyuan region, the results indicate that if don't want to make the herdsman's well-being decline, we must improve the compensation standard and reduce herdsman's dependence for grassland resources. Therefore, on the base of improving the compensation standard, we need to consider how to create employment opportunities through transformation of regional economic developmental pattern and structural adjustment, to strengthen herdsman's employment skills and feasible ability through improving the herdsman's cultural educational level, professional skill training etc, and make the herdsman obtain more economic income in their own efforts and with the help of the government by the living transformation of non-grazing livelihood means and other more kinds of management approach. Only in this way can herdsman gradually reduce dependence and utilization for grassland, so to fundamentally achieve the ecological environment protection, and then to form the virtuous cycle between the raise of herdsman's feasible ability and the ecological environment improvement.
After literature analysis, this paper took ecological compensation as an important mechanism for poverty alleviation. Only if we formulate the ecological compensation standards based on ecological protection behavioral intentions and well-being loss, clearly defined the ecological protection responsibility of stakeholders and region, and built a scientific ecological compensation mechanism, can we achieve welfare equilibrium, guide the herdsman to active participatory protection, and truly achieve the win-win situation of ecological protection-improved human well-being-sustainable development. Based on the climate factor data from2002to2010in Sanjiangyuan region, this paper simulated the change of NPP of Sanjiangyuan region for the past ten years after protecting grassland ecological, and accounted the grassland ecosystem service value of the counties in Sanjiangyuan region after2005. The studies showed that the ecological service function of Sanjiangyuan region declined slowly at first and then rose gradually from2005to2010, which showed the restoration and protective behaviors had taken into effect, grassland ecosystem of Sanjiangyuan region was gradually restoring and improving; The added value of ecological protection effectiveness in Sanjiangyuan region showed great regional differences:the grassland ecosystem recovery was slow in the region with relatively high altitude, bad climate and severe degradation, and the region with the greatest increase was Gande County, whose added value of grassland ecosystem service was10.860thousand yuan/km2, but Tanggula village and Qumalai County was only2,210thousand yuan/km2and6,370yuan/km2repectively, with the minimum amount; in the past five years since protection in2005, the added value per unit area in Sanjiangyuan region was9,020thousand yuan/km, and added value of grassland conservation benefits was regarded as an incentive compensation standard to inspire the herdsman protect the ecological environment.
This paper calculated the practical and theoretical loss of income (opportunity cost) and the cost of participation because the grass resource use rights was prohibited or restricted when the herdsman of Sanjiangyuan region participated in ecological protection. The loss of the well-being of herdsman should theoretically be compensated in order to maintain the well-being balance. The loss of actual opportunity costs were42.846thousand yuan/household and16.478thousand yuan/household for the immigrants and herdsman in Sanjiangyuan region. The average participation cost was3001.63yuan/hm2for the herdsman in Sanjiangyuan region based on the theoretical stocking rate of grass, and the average loss of opportunity cost was750.458yuan/hm2. Due to the different altitude, different degree of grassland degradation and different transport accessibility, the counties in Sanjiangyuan region showed great differences in participation costs and opportunity costs, so compensation content and standards should be different too.
Based on consumer surplus theory and externality theory,combined with the herdsman's willingness to participate in eco-protection behavior, we analyzed herdsman's the minimum compensation standards which make the herdsman willing to participate in eco-protective behaviors and to avoid the well-being damaged.It shows that. Approximately66.7%of the herdsman expressed their willingness to participate in eco-protection behavior, An important guarantee which Herdsman's probability of participate in eco-protective behaviors was increased, was the Herdsman's well-being will at least does not decrease. If herdsman has more opportunity of regional jobs, more abundant diversification of lilvelihood, High level of external awareness of ecological protection, they would be more willingness to participate in ecological protection response. This reveals that,the key to promote the herdsman energeticly participate in ecological protection response, is herdsman could be sharing the external benefits of ecological protection, Promote the herdsman level of diversification of livelihoods and enhance the level of employment of the herdsman. The migration's willingness to accept which based on the mean and median compensation, amounted to12.886thousand yuan/household and20.5668thousand yuan/household. The grazing restricted herdsman's willingness to accept which based on the mean and median compensation, amounted to6.733thousand yuan/household and11.4316thousand yuan/household. The migration's WTA is higher than restrict grazing herdsman's WTA, the reason is that, compared with the restrict grazing herdsman, Immigration's well-being was Suffered of relatively higher losses and their grassland use rights was limited in a larger extent.
In this paper, using the administrative divisions of each county as spatial boundaries of payment for ecosystem services and taking the degree of payment for ecosystem services, We divided the priorities of the compensation area and explored the regional compensation standards and development models, based on the Ecological Restoration effective and compensation efficient,calculated the priority degree of payment for ecosystem services, and conbined the difficulty of grassland ecological rehabilitation and degradation. Zaduo County, Dari and Madoi were classified as priority compensation area, which has Conservation benefits increased the most obvious and priority to the highest degree, The region to achieve ecological protection through ecological migrants, the feature of migrants s compensation standards was incentive and the highest one, the value of compensation standards was summation of the ecological conservation benefits added and the participation cost, and standards shuould not be less than the minimum willingness to accept compensation amount, that is20.5668thousand yuan/household.Tanggula township, Chengduo county and Zhiduo county were designated as key protection compensation, which has the lowest priority and the most difficult of ecology restore, the region also should enforce ecological migrants to achieve ecological protection. Characteristic of migrants's compensation standards was encouraged and compensated, the vaule of migrants's compensation standards was summation of the ecological conservation benefits added and the implementation cost, it also should be more than20.5668thousand yuan/household. Jiuzhi county, Banma county, the Qumalai county, Yushu county were classified as secondary compensation areas, which has the second priority and impose restrictions on grazing to achieve ecological protection, the herdsman's compensation standards was summation of the ecological conservation benefits added and the opportunity cost, it also should be more than11.4316thousand yuan/household. Regions of third priority defined as potential compensation areas, which could be restricted grazing and in the proper development of the green economy, in order to improve the well-being of the herdsman and relaize ecological and economic sustainable development. In the case of sufficient funds, the herdsman's compensation standards should be summation of the ecological conservation benefits added and the transaction costs.
Aim to optimize the well-being of herdsman, it not only Proposed that herdsman's loss of economic income and well-being function all should be compensated, but also verified the Sustainable and motivating compensation standards, by raising the compensation standards and implementing differentiated compensation to improve the well-being of the herdsman, and then to enhance the herdsman's enthusiasm and initiative of taking participate in eco-protection, and realized that the economic sustainable be developmented and social well-being be maximized in Sanjiangyuan regions.
引文
1. 蔡银莺,李晓云,张安录.湖北省农地资源价值研究[J].自然资源学报,2007,22(1)：122-129.
2. 曹世雄,陈莉,余新晓.陕北农民对退耕还林的意愿评价[J].应用生态学报,2009,20(2),426-434
3. 陈春阳,陶泽兴,戴君虎.三江源地区草地生态系统服务价值评估[J].地理科学进展,2012,31(7)：978-984
4. 陈润政,黄上志,宋松泉,等.植物生理学[M].广州：中山大学出版社.1998
5. 陈曜,贺灿星.对福利水平指数评价效率的研究一兼与蔡增正先生商榷[J].贵州财经学院学报.2004,(1)：28-31
6. 戴其文,赵雪雁.生态补偿机制中若干关键科学问题一以甘南藏族自治州草地生态系统为例[J].地理学报,2010,65(4)：494-506
7. 戴其文.生态补偿对象的空间选择研究一以甘南藏族自治州草地生态系统的水源涵养服务为例[J].自然资源学报,2010,25(3)：415-425
8. 方福前,吕文惠.中国城镇居民福利水平影响因素分析——基于阿马蒂亚森的能力方法和结构模型[J].管理世界,2009,(4)：17-26
9. 冯凌.基于产权经济学“交易费用”理论的生态补偿机制建设[J].地理科学进展,2010,29(5)：515-522
10.高进云,乔荣锋农地城市流转福利优化的动态分析[J].数学的实践与认识,2010,40(6)：21-29.
11.高进云,乔荣锋,张安录.农地城市流转前后农户福利变化的模糊评价——基于森的可行能力理论[J].管理世界,2007,(6)：45-55
12.胡涵钧,俞萌.环境经济研究的福利标准[J].复旦学报社会科学版,2001(2)：51-56
13.姜宏瑶,温亚利.基于社会经济发展影响的湿地生态补偿研究[J].林业经济,2010,(8)：95-99
14.姜立鹏,覃志豪,谢雯,等.中国草地生态系统服务功能价值遥感估算研究[J].自然资源学报,2007,22(2)：161-170
15.姜永华,江洪.森林生态系统服务价值的遥感估算——以杭州市余杭区为例[J].测绘科学,2009,34(6)：155-158
16.贾卓,陈兴鹏,善孝玺.草地生态系统生态补偿标准和优先度研究——以甘肃省玛曲县为例[J].资源科学,2012,34(10)：1951-1958
17.赖力,黄贤金,刘伟良,等.生态补偿理论、方法研究进展[J].生态学报,2008,28(6)：2870-2876.
18.李芬,甄霖,黄河清等.鄱阳湖区农户生态补偿意愿影响因素实证研究[J].资源科学,2010,32(5)；824-830
19.李惠梅,张安录,高泽兵,等.青海湖地区生态系统服务价值变化分析[J].地理科学进展,2012,3](12)：1747-1754
20.李惠梅,张安录.基于福利视角的生态补偿研究[J].生态学报,2013,33(4)：1065-1077
21.李惠梅,张安录.生态保护和福利[J].生态学报,2013,33(3)：0825-0833
22.李惠梅,张安录.生态系统服务研究的问题与展望[J].生态环境学报,2011,20(10)：1562-1568.
23.李惠梅.三江源地区气候生产力评估[J].安徽农业科学.2010,(12)：6414-6416
24.李文华,李芬,李世东等.森林生态效益补偿的研究现状与展望[J].自然资源学报,2006,21(5)：677-688.
25.李文华.探索建立中国式生态补偿机制[J].环境保护,2006,(10)：1-5.
26.李晓光,苗鸿,郑华等.机会成本法在确定生态补偿标准中的应用一以海南中部山区为例[J].生态学报,2009,29(9)：4875-48831
27.李屹峰,罗玉珠,郑华,等.青海省三江源自然保护区生态移民补偿标准[J].生态学报,2013,33(3)：0764-0770
28.李英年,王启基,赵新全,等.气候变暖对高寒草甸气候生产潜力的影响[J].草地学报,2000,8(1)：23-29
29.李镇清,刘振国,陈佐忠,杨宗贵.中国典型草原区气候变化及其对生产力的影响[J].草业学报,2003,12(1)：4-10
30.刘玉龙,胡鹏.基于帕累托最优的新安江流域生态补偿标准[J].水利学报,2009,40(6)：703-708
31.吕明权,王继军,周伟.基于最小数据方法的滦河流域生态补偿研究[J].资源科学,2012,34(1)：166-172
32.马新辉,孙根年,任志远.西安市植被净化大气物质量的测定及其价值评价[J].干旱区资源与环境,2002,16(4)：83-86
33.毛锋,曾香.生态补偿的机理与准则[J].生态学报,2006,26(11)：3841-3846
34.孟庆春,王剑敏.考虑货币测度社会福利函数的社会福利最大化[J].中国管理科学,2001,9(6)：21-25
35.聂鑫,汪晗,张安录.基于公平思想的失地农民福利补偿一以江汉平原城市为例[J].中国土地科学.2010,24(6)；62-67
36.欧阳志云,王效科,苗鸿.中国陆地生态系统服务功能及其生态经济价值的初步研究[J].生态学报,1999,19(5)：607-613.
37.彭晓春,刘强,周丽旋等.基于利益相关方意愿调查的东江流域生态补偿机制探讨[J].生态环境学报,2010,19(7)：1605-1610
38.邵全琴,赵志平,刘纪远,樊江文.近30年来三江源地区土地覆被与宏观生态变化特征[J].地理研究,2010,29(8)：1439-1451
39.田国强,杨立岩.对“幸福—收入之谜”的一个解答[J].经济研究,2006,(11)：4-15
40.汪诗平.青海省“三江源”地区植被退化原因及其保护策略.草业学报,2003,12(6)：1-9
41.王静,尉元明,孙旭映.过牧对草地生态系统服务价值的影响：以甘肃省玛曲县为例[J].自然资源学报,2006,21：109-117.
42.王军邦,刘纪远,邵全琴,等.基于遥感-过程耦合模型的1988-2004年青海三江源区净初级生产力模拟[J].植物生态学报,2009,33(2)254-269
43.王振波,于杰,刘晓雯.生态系统服务功能与生态补偿关系的研究[J].中国人口·资源与环境,2009,19(6)：17-22
44.谢高地,鲁春霞,冷允法等.青藏高原生态资产的价值评估[J].自然资源学报,2003,18(2)：189-196.
45.邢占军.我国居民收入与幸福感关系的研究[J].社会学研究,2011,(1)：196-246
46.熊鹰,王克林,蓝万练,齐恒.洞庭湖区湿地恢复的生态补偿评估[J].地理学报,2004,59(5)：773-780
47.徐兴奎,陈红.气候变暖背景下青藏高原植被覆盖特征的时空变化及其成因分析[J].科学通报,2008,53(4)：456-462
48.许晨阳,钱争鸣,李雍容等.流域生态补偿的环境责任界定模型研究[J].自然资源学报,2009,24(8)：1488-1496
49.杨光梅,闵庆文,李文华,甄霖.我国生态补偿研究中的科学问题[J].生态学报,2007,27(10)：4289-4300.
50.杨莉,甄霖,李芬,魏云洁,姜鲁光,曹晓昌,龙鑫.黄土高原生态系统服务变化对人类福利的影响初探[J].资源科学,2010,32(5)：849-855.
51.杨缅昆.社会福利指数构造的理论和方法初探[J].统计研究,2009,26(7)：37-42
52.叶茂,徐海量,王小平,等.新疆草地生态系统服务功能与价值初步评价.草业学报,2006,15(5)：122-128
53.尹奇,马璐璐,王庆日.基于森的功能和能力福利理论的失地农民福利水平评价[J].中国土地科学,2010,21,(4)：41-46
54.俞海,任勇.流域生态补偿机制的关键问题分析——以南水北调中线水源涵养区为例[J].资源科学,2007,29(2)：28-331
55.张峰.基于产权残缺理论的生态利益补偿机制研究[J].重庆工商大学学报(社会科学版),2012,29(4)：8-13
56.张效军,欧名豪,李景刚,臧俊梅.耕地保护区域补偿机制的应用研究一以黑龙江省和福建省为例[J].华中农业大学学报(社会科学版),2010,85(1)：76-81
57.章铮.生态环境补偿费的若干基本问题[A]：中国生态环境补偿费的理论与实践.北京：中国环境科学出版社,1995.81-87.
58.赵翠薇,王世杰.生态补偿效益、标准一国际经验及对我国的启示[J].地理研究,2010,29(4)：597-606
59.赵骅,龙树发.社会福利博弈模型成立的条件分析[J].重庆大学学报(自然科学版).2006,29,(10)：139-142
60.赵军,杨凯,刘兰岚,等.环境与生态系统服务价值的WTA/WTP不对称[J].环境科学学报,2007,27(5)：854-860
61.赵亮,古松,杜明远,等.海北高寒草甸辐射能量的收支及植物生物量季节变化[J].草地学报,2004,12(1)：65-69
62.赵士洞,张永民.生态系统评估的概念,内涵及挑战——介绍《生态系统与人类福利：评估框架》[J].地球科学进展,2004,19(4)：650-657
63.赵同谦,欧阳志云,贾良清,等.中国草地生态系统服务功能间接价值评价[J].生态学报,2004,24(6)：1101-1110
64.赵雪雁.黄河首曲地区草地退化的人文因素分析一以甘肃省玛曲县为例[J].资源科学,2007,29(5)：50-56
65.赵雪雁.牧民对高寒牧区生态环境的感知研究——以甘南牧区为例[J].生态学报,2009,29(5)：2427-2436.
66.甄霖,谢高地,杨丽等.基于参与式社区评估法的泾河流域景观管理问题分析[J].中国人口·资源与环境,2007,17(3)：129-331
67.郑海霞,张陆彪.流域生态服务补偿定量标准研究[J].环境保护,2006,(1)：42-46.
68.朱文泉,高清竹,段敏捷,等.藏西北高寒草原生态资产价值评估[J].自然资源学报,2011,26(3)：419-428
69. J. R. Hicks. The Four Consumer's Surpluses. [J] The Review of Economic Studies,1943, 11(1):31-1
70. Paul Anand.New directions in the economics of welfare:Special issue celebrating Nobel LaureateAmartya Sen's 75th birthday[J]. Journal of Public Economics,2011 (95):191-192
71. Alkire, S. Why the capability approach[J]. Journal of Human Development,2005,6 (1):115-134.
72. Anand Paul, Krishnakumar Jaya, Ngoc Bich Tran.Measuring welfare:Latent variable models for happiness and capabilities in the presence of unobservable heterogeneity[J]. JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ECONOMICS.2011,95(3-4):205-215
73. Andam K S, Ferraro P J, Pfaff A, Sanchez-Azofeifa G A, Robalino J A. Measuring the effectiveness of protected area networks in reducing deforestation[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,2008,105(42):16089-16094.
74. Andrew J. Leach. The welfare implications of climate change policy[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,2009, (57):151-165
75. Antle,JM.Valdivia,R.O. Modeling the supply of ecosystem services from agriculture:a minimum data approach[J]. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics,2006,50 (1): 1-15
76. Arrow, J.K., Dasgupta, P., Maler, K.-G.Evaluating projects and assessin g sustainable development in im perfect economies[J]. Environmental and Resource Economics,2003,(26):647-685
77. Boadway, R.The welfare foundations of cost-benefit analysis[J]. Econ. J.1974,(84):926-939.
78. Boarini, R., Johansson, A., Mira d'Ercole, M. Alternative Measures of Well-Being, OECD Economics Department, Working Papers No.476,30.01.2006,53pp
79. B6s D./C. Seidl (Hg.):Welfare Economics of the Second Best. Wien u.a.1986.280 S
80. Boyden, S. Biohistory:the interplay between human society and the biosphere. UNESCO Man and the biosphere series v.8, Parthenon, Pearl River NY.1992
81. Bratt Rachel.Housing and Family Well-Being[J].Housing Studies,2002,14 (1):13-26
82. Brendan Fisher,Treg Christopher. Poverty and biodiversity:Measuring the overlap of human poverty and the biodiversity hotspots[J].Ecological Economics,2007,62(1):93-101
83. Brendan,Fisher.Stephen,Polasky.Thomas,Sterner. Conservation and Human Welfare:Economic Analysis of Ecosystem Services[J]. Environ Resource Econ,2011,48:151-159
84. Bryan B A, Grandgirard A, Ward J R. Quantifying and exploring strategic regional prioritiesfor managing natural capital and ecosystem services given multiple stakeholder perspectives[J]. Ecosystems,2010,13(4):539-555.
85. Carpenter S R, Mooney H A, Agard J, et al. Science for managing ecosystemservices:beyond the millennium ecosystem assessment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,2009,106(5):1305-1312
86. Cerioli, A., Zani S. "A Fuzzy Approach to the Measurement of Poverty", in Dagum, C. and Zenga, M. (eds), In-come and Wealth Distribution, Inequality and Poverty, Studies in Contemporary Economics[J].Springer Verlag, Berlin,1990:272-284.
87. ChapinⅢ F S, Carpenter S R, Kofinas G P,et al. Ecosystem steward ship:sustainability strategies for arapidly changing planet. TrendsinEcologyand Evolution,2009,25(4):241-249
88. Cheli, B., Lemmi, A. "A' Totally' Fuzzy and Relative Approach to the Multidimensional Analysis of Poverty"[J]. Economic Notes,1995,24 (1):115-133
89. CLAASSEN R, CATTANEO A, JOHANSSON R. Cost-effective design of agri-environmental payment programs:U.S. experience in theory and practice[J]. Ecological Economics,2008,65: 737-752.
90. Clark D A.Sen's capability approach and the many spaces of human well-being[J].Journal of Development Studies,2005,41(8):1339-1368.
91. Cleaver K M, Schreiber G A. Reversing the Spiral:The Population, Agriculture and Environment Nexusin Sub-Saharan Africa. Washington, DC:WorldBank,1994.
92. Cleaver K M, Schreiber G A. Reversing the Spiral:The Population, Agriculture and Environment Nexusin Sub-Saharan Africa. Washington, DC:WorldBank,1994
93. Comim F, Kumar P, Sirven N. Poverty and environment links:an illustration from Africa Journal of International Development,2009,21 (3):447-469.
94. Costanza R, d'Arge R, de Groot R,et al. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature,1997a,387:253-260
95. Costello C,Gaines S D,Lynham J.Can catch shares prevent fisheries collapse? [J] Science 2008,321:1678-1681
96. Daily G C,Polasky S,Goldstein J,et al. Ecosystemservicesin decision making:time to deliver. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment,2009,7(1):21-28.
97. Daly, H., Cobb, J. For the Common Good. Beacon Press,,1990. Boston.
98. David A. Clark.Concepts and Perceptions of Human Well-being:Some Evidence from South Africa. Oxford Development Studies,2003,31(2):173-196
99. David M. Winch. Consumer's Surplus and the Compensation Principle[J].The American Economic Review,1965,55(3):395-423
100. de Groot R S, Wilson M A, Boumans R M J. Atypology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics,2002,41(3):393-408.
101. Diener E, Eunkook M S, Richard E et al. Subjective Well-Being:Three Decades of Progress. Psychology Bulletin,1999,125(2):276-294
102. Dimitra Vouvaki,Anastasios Xepapadeas. Changes in social welfare and sustainability:Theoretical issues and empirical evidence[J]. Ecological Economics,2008, (67):473-484
103. Dodds S. Towardsa'science of sustainability':improving the way ecological economics understands human well-being[J]. Ecological Economics,1997,23(2):95-111.
104. EBERT U. Approximating WTP and WTA for environmental goods from marginal willingness to pay functions[J]. Ecological Economics,2008,66:270-274
105.Enrica Chiappero Martinett. A MULTIDIMENSIONAL ASSESSMENT OF WELL-BEING BASED ON SEN'S FUNCTIONING APPROACH. Forthcoming in Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Sociali,2000
106. Eran,Hanany.The ordinal Nash social welfare function[J].Journal of Mathematical Economics, 2008,(44):405-422
107. Eric Schokkaert.The Capability Approach, Center for Economic Studies-Disscuion Papers ces0734,Katholieke Universiteit Leuven,2007
108. Erwin,H.Bulte.Payments for ecosystem services and poverty reduction:Concepts, issues and empirical perspectives[J]. Environment and Development Economics,2008,13:245-254
109. Ferrer-i-Carbonell A, Gowdy J M. Environmental degradation and happiness[J]. Ecological Economics,2007,60(3):509-516.
110. Fisher B, Polasky S, Sterner T. Conservation and human welfare:economic analysis of ecosystemservices [J]. Environmental and Resource Economics,2011,48(2):151-159
111. Fisher B, Turner R K. Ecosystemservices:classification for valuation[J]. Biological Conservation, 2008,141(5):1167-1169.
112. Fritz Machlup. Professor Hicks' Statics[J].The Quarterly Journal of Economics,1940,54(2): 277-297
113. Fritz Machlup.Professor Hicks' Revision of Demand Theory [J].The American Economic Review, 1957,47, (1):119-135
114. Gjertsen H. Can habitat protection lead to improvements in human well-being? Evidence frommarine protected areas in the Philippines[J]. World Development,2005,33(2):199-217.
115. GrassoMarco.A Dynamic operationalization of sen,s capibility approch.14th coference of the italan society for pubilic Economics SIEP-Pavia,2002
116. Grieg-Gran M, Porras I,Wunder S. How can market mechanisms for forest environmental services help the poor? Preliminary lessons from Latin America[J]. World Dev,2005, (33):1511-1527
117. Griffin, J. Well-being:Its Meaning, Measurement, and Moral Importance. Oxford University Press, New York.1986.
118. Henderson. A.Consumer's Surplus and the Compensating Variation[J].The Review of Economic Studies,1941,8(2):117-121
119. Hicks, J. The valuation of social income[J]. Economica 1940,(7):104-124
120. Ingrid Robeyns, Sen's Capability Approach and Gender Inequality:Selecting Relevant Capabilities, Feminist conomics,2003,9(2-3):61-92.
121. Islam, S. Optimal Growth Economics. North-Holland, Amsterdam.,2001
122. Islam, S., Clarke, M.,2000. Social welfare and GDP:can we still use GDP for welfare measurement? Paper presented at the Centre for Strategic Economic Studies, Victoria University, Melbourne..
123. J. R. Hicks. The Rehabilitation of Consumers' Surplus[J].The Review of Economic Studies,1941, 8(2):108-116
124. Jennifer,lix.Garcia,Alain de J anvry,Elisabet Sadoulet.The role of deforestation risk and calibrated compensation in designing payment s for environmental services[J]. Environment and Development Economics,2008,(13):375-394.
125. John F. Tomer.Human Well-Being:A New Approach Based on Overall and Ordinary Functionings[J]. Review of social economy,2002,60:1,23-45
126. Jorge Garce's, Francisco Ro'denas, Vicente Sanjose'. Towards a new welfare state:the social sustainability principle and health care strategies [J]. Health Policy,2003 (65):201-215
127. Jorgenson, D. Welfare, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.,1997. vol.2
128. Kelly J. Wendland, Miroslav Honzak.Targeting and implementing payments for ecosystem services:Opportunities for bundling biodiversity conservation with carbon and water services in Madagascar[J]. Ecological Economics,2010,69(11):2093-2107
129. Kelsey B. Jack, Carolyn Kousky, Katharine R.Sims. Designing payments for ecosystem services: lessons from previous experience with incentive-based mechanisms[J].Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,2008,105(28):9465-9470
130. Kerr J. Watershed development, environmental services, and poverty alleviation in India[J]. World Dev,2002,(30):1387-1400
131.Konishi Y, Coggins J S. Environmental risk and welfare valuation under imperfect information[J].Resource and Energy Economics,2008.30(2):150-169.
132. Kuklys,W.AmartyaSen,s Capability Approach:Theoretical Insights and Emperiacal Applications. Berlin:SPringer Verlag pessm,2005
133. Luc Van Ootegem, Sophie Spillemaeckers.With a focus on well-being and capabilities[J]. The Journal of Socio-Economics,2010, (39):384-390
134. Macmillan D C,Harley D,Morrison R.Cost-effectiveness analysis of woodland ecosystem restoration[J].Ecological Economics,1998,27:313-34
135. Marshall, A. Principles of economics,8th edn. (Macmillan, London),1920,
136. Maslow,Abraham H.Motivation and Personality,1954 New York:Harper
137. Matthew Clarke, Sardar M.N. Islam. Measuring social welfare:application of social choice theory[J]. Journal of Socio-Economics,2003 (32):1-15
138. Max-Neef, M.,. Human Scale Development:Conception, Application and Further Reflections. Apex Press, New York and London.1991
139. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.Ecosystems and Human Well-Being:A Framework for Assessment. Washington, DC:Island Press,2003.
140. Morris, M. Measuring the Condition of the World's Poor:The Physical Quality of Life Index. Pergamon Press,1979. New York.
141. Nam K M, Selin N E, Reilly J M, Paltsev S. Measuring welfare loss caused by air pollution in Europe:a CGE analysis[J]. Energy Policy,2010,38(9):5059-5071
142. Ng, Yew-Kwang Welfare Economics. London:Macmillan,1979
143. Ng, Yew-Kwang,Bentham or Bergson? Finite sensibility, utility functions, and social welfarefunctions[J]. Review of Economic Studies,1975, (42):545-570.
144. Ng, Yew-Kwang.'Quasi-Pareto social improvements[J].American Economic Reviee,1984b (94):1033-50.
145. Nordhaus, W., Tobin, J. Is growth obsolete? [J].In:Moss, M. (Ed.), The Measurement of Economic and Social Planning, Economic Growth. National Bureau of Economic Research, 1973.New York
146. Nussbaum, M. Non-relative virtues. In:Nussbaum, M., Sen, A. (Eds.), The Quality of Life. World Institute of Development Economics/Clarendon Press, Oxford,1993.
147. Nussbaum, M.C. Women and Human Development:The Capabilities Approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.,2000.
148. Pagiola S, Arcenas A, Platais G.Can payments for environmental services help reduce poverty? [J].An exploration of the issues and the evidence to date from Latin America. World Dev,2005,33:237-253;
149. Pagiola S, Rios A R, Arcenas A. Poor household participation in payments for environmental services:lessons fromthe silvopastoral project in Quindio,colombia[J].. Environmental and Resource Economics,2010,47(3):371-394
150. Pagiola, S., Landell-Mills, N., & Bishop, J.Making market-based mechanisms work for forests and people. In:Selling forest environmental services:market-based mechanisms for conservation and development[M].London, UK:Earthscan.2002:261-290
151. Paul Dolan, Aki Tsuchiya. The social welfare function and individual responsibility:Some theoretical issues and empirical evidence[J]. Journal of Health Economics,2009 (28):210-220
152. Pearce D. Economic values and the natural world. London:Earchscan,1993
153. Pigou, A. The Economics of Welfare[M]. London:Macmillian,1962
154. Pigou, A.C. The Economics of Welfare. Macmillan, London.,1932
155. Pires M. Watershed protection for aworld city:The case ofNew York [J].Land UsePolicy,2004, 21(1):161-175
156. R, CATTANEO A, JOHANSSON R. Cost-effective design of agri-environmental payment programs:U.S. experience in theory and practice[J]. Ecological Economics,2008,65:737-752.
157. Robeyns, I. The capability approach in practice[J]. The Journal of Political Philosophy,2006,14 (3), 351-376.
158. Robeyns,I.The capability approach:a theoretical survey[J]. Journal of Human Development,2005,6(1):93-114.
159. Robeyns.Selecting Capabilities for Quality of Life Measurement[J]. Social Indicators research, 2005b,(74):191-215
160. Rodrigo Sierra, Eric Russman. On the efficiency of environmental service payments:A forest conservation assessment in the Osa Peninsula, Costa Rica[J].Ecological Economics, 2006,(59):131-141
161. Ruut Veenhoven.Capability and happiness:Conceptual difference and reality links[J]. The Journal of Socio-Economics,2010, (39):344-350
162. Sara Lelli,Factor Analysis vs. Fuzzy sets Theory:Assessing the Influence of Different Techniques on Sen's Functioning Approach,CES Diseussion Paper Series,21,Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. 2001
163. SAZ-SALAZAR S D, HERNANDEZ-SANCHO F, SALA-GARRIDOR. The social benefits of restoring water quality in the context of the Water Framework Directive:A comparison of willingness to pay and willingness to accept[J]. Science of the Total Environment,2009, 407:4574-4583.
164. Schokkaert E. The capabilities approach//Anand P, Puppe C,Pattanaik P, eds.The Hand book of Rational andSocial Choice. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2009:542-566.
165. Sen, A. Capability and well-being. In:Nussbaum, M., Sen, A. (Eds.).The Quality of Life. Oxford:World Institute of Development Economics/Clarendon Press,1993.
166. Sen, A. Collective Choice and Social Welfare. North-Holland, Amsterdam.,1970.
167. Sen, A. Commodities and Capabilities. Oxford University Press, Oxford,1985.
168. Sen, A. Development as Freedom, Knopf, New York:Oxord University Press,1999,
169. Sen, A. The welfare basis of real income comparisons:a survey[J]. Journal of Economic Literature, 1979,(17):1-45
170. Sen, A..The possibility of social choice[J]. The American Economic Review,1999,(1):349-378
171. Stefano,Pagiola.Ana R. Rios.Agustin Arcenas.Poor Household Participation in Payments for Environmental Services:Lessons from the Silvopastoral Project in Quindio, Colombia[J]. Environ Resource Econ,2010,47:371-394
172. Tommas,M.L.Measuring the wellbeing of children using capibility approch an application to India data. Web site:http://www.child-centre.it
173. Tschakert P. Environmental services and poverty reduction:options for small holders in the Sahel[J]. Agricultural Systems,2007,94(1):75-86.
174. Uchida, Emi, Xu, Jintao, Rozelle, Scott. Grainfor green:cost-effectiveness and sustainability of China's conservation set-aside program[J]. Land Economics,2005,81(2),247-264.
175. Udo Ebert Approximating WTP and WTA for environmental goods from marginal willingness to pay functions[J]. Ecologicale Economics,2008,(66)-210-214
176. UNDP, The Human Development Report. United Nations Development Program,1990. New York.
177. Van Ootegem L, Spillemaeckers S. With a focuson well-being and capabilities[J]. Journal of Socio-Economics,2010,39(3):384-390
178. Veenhoven, R. The four qualities of life:ordering concepts and measures of the good life[J]. Journal of Happiness Studies,2000,(1):1-39.
179. VladimirL.Levin.On social welfare functionals:Representation theorems and equivalence classes[J]. Mathematical Social Sciences,2010, (59):299-305
180. Water Immezeel, Jetse Stoorvogel, John Antle. Can payments for ecosystem services secure the water tower of Tibet? [J]. Agricultural Systems,2008,96(1-3):52-63
181.Welsch H. Environmental welfareanalysis:alife satisfaction approach. Ecological Economics, 2007,62(3/4):544-551
182. Werner Hediger. Sustainable development and social welfare[J]. Ecological Economics,2000,(32): 481-492
183. Wilson,W.Correlates of avowed happiness[J].Psychological Bulletin,1967,67:297-306
184. Ziberman D, Lipper L,McCarthy N.When could payments for environmental services benefit the poor? [J].Environ Dev Econ,2008, (13):255-278
2. 曹世雄,陈莉,余新晓.陕北农民对退耕还林的意愿评价[J].应用生态学报,2009,20(2),426-434
3. 陈春阳,陶泽兴,戴君虎.三江源地区草地生态系统服务价值评估[J].地理科学进展,2012,31(7)：978-984
4. 陈润政,黄上志,宋松泉,等.植物生理学[M].广州：中山大学出版社.1998
5. 陈曜,贺灿星.对福利水平指数评价效率的研究一兼与蔡增正先生商榷[J].贵州财经学院学报.2004,(1)：28-31
6. 戴其文,赵雪雁.生态补偿机制中若干关键科学问题一以甘南藏族自治州草地生态系统为例[J].地理学报,2010,65(4)：494-506
7. 戴其文.生态补偿对象的空间选择研究一以甘南藏族自治州草地生态系统的水源涵养服务为例[J].自然资源学报,2010,25(3)：415-425
8. 方福前,吕文惠.中国城镇居民福利水平影响因素分析——基于阿马蒂亚森的能力方法和结构模型[J].管理世界,2009,(4)：17-26
9. 冯凌.基于产权经济学“交易费用”理论的生态补偿机制建设[J].地理科学进展,2010,29(5)：515-522
10.高进云,乔荣锋农地城市流转福利优化的动态分析[J].数学的实践与认识,2010,40(6)：21-29.
11.高进云,乔荣锋,张安录.农地城市流转前后农户福利变化的模糊评价——基于森的可行能力理论[J].管理世界,2007,(6)：45-55
12.胡涵钧,俞萌.环境经济研究的福利标准[J].复旦学报社会科学版,2001(2)：51-56
13.姜宏瑶,温亚利.基于社会经济发展影响的湿地生态补偿研究[J].林业经济,2010,(8)：95-99
14.姜立鹏,覃志豪,谢雯,等.中国草地生态系统服务功能价值遥感估算研究[J].自然资源学报,2007,22(2)：161-170
15.姜永华,江洪.森林生态系统服务价值的遥感估算——以杭州市余杭区为例[J].测绘科学,2009,34(6)：155-158
16.贾卓,陈兴鹏,善孝玺.草地生态系统生态补偿标准和优先度研究——以甘肃省玛曲县为例[J].资源科学,2012,34(10)：1951-1958
17.赖力,黄贤金,刘伟良,等.生态补偿理论、方法研究进展[J].生态学报,2008,28(6)：2870-2876.
18.李芬,甄霖,黄河清等.鄱阳湖区农户生态补偿意愿影响因素实证研究[J].资源科学,2010,32(5)；824-830
19.李惠梅,张安录,高泽兵,等.青海湖地区生态系统服务价值变化分析[J].地理科学进展,2012,3](12)：1747-1754
20.李惠梅,张安录.基于福利视角的生态补偿研究[J].生态学报,2013,33(4)：1065-1077
21.李惠梅,张安录.生态保护和福利[J].生态学报,2013,33(3)：0825-0833
22.李惠梅,张安录.生态系统服务研究的问题与展望[J].生态环境学报,2011,20(10)：1562-1568.
23.李惠梅.三江源地区气候生产力评估[J].安徽农业科学.2010,(12)：6414-6416
24.李文华,李芬,李世东等.森林生态效益补偿的研究现状与展望[J].自然资源学报,2006,21(5)：677-688.
25.李文华.探索建立中国式生态补偿机制[J].环境保护,2006,(10)：1-5.
26.李晓光,苗鸿,郑华等.机会成本法在确定生态补偿标准中的应用一以海南中部山区为例[J].生态学报,2009,29(9)：4875-48831
27.李屹峰,罗玉珠,郑华,等.青海省三江源自然保护区生态移民补偿标准[J].生态学报,2013,33(3)：0764-0770
28.李英年,王启基,赵新全,等.气候变暖对高寒草甸气候生产潜力的影响[J].草地学报,2000,8(1)：23-29
29.李镇清,刘振国,陈佐忠,杨宗贵.中国典型草原区气候变化及其对生产力的影响[J].草业学报,2003,12(1)：4-10
30.刘玉龙,胡鹏.基于帕累托最优的新安江流域生态补偿标准[J].水利学报,2009,40(6)：703-708
31.吕明权,王继军,周伟.基于最小数据方法的滦河流域生态补偿研究[J].资源科学,2012,34(1)：166-172
32.马新辉,孙根年,任志远.西安市植被净化大气物质量的测定及其价值评价[J].干旱区资源与环境,2002,16(4)：83-86
33.毛锋,曾香.生态补偿的机理与准则[J].生态学报,2006,26(11)：3841-3846
34.孟庆春,王剑敏.考虑货币测度社会福利函数的社会福利最大化[J].中国管理科学,2001,9(6)：21-25
35.聂鑫,汪晗,张安录.基于公平思想的失地农民福利补偿一以江汉平原城市为例[J].中国土地科学.2010,24(6)；62-67
36.欧阳志云,王效科,苗鸿.中国陆地生态系统服务功能及其生态经济价值的初步研究[J].生态学报,1999,19(5)：607-613.
37.彭晓春,刘强,周丽旋等.基于利益相关方意愿调查的东江流域生态补偿机制探讨[J].生态环境学报,2010,19(7)：1605-1610
38.邵全琴,赵志平,刘纪远,樊江文.近30年来三江源地区土地覆被与宏观生态变化特征[J].地理研究,2010,29(8)：1439-1451
39.田国强,杨立岩.对“幸福—收入之谜”的一个解答[J].经济研究,2006,(11)：4-15
40.汪诗平.青海省“三江源”地区植被退化原因及其保护策略.草业学报,2003,12(6)：1-9
41.王静,尉元明,孙旭映.过牧对草地生态系统服务价值的影响：以甘肃省玛曲县为例[J].自然资源学报,2006,21：109-117.
42.王军邦,刘纪远,邵全琴,等.基于遥感-过程耦合模型的1988-2004年青海三江源区净初级生产力模拟[J].植物生态学报,2009,33(2)254-269
43.王振波,于杰,刘晓雯.生态系统服务功能与生态补偿关系的研究[J].中国人口·资源与环境,2009,19(6)：17-22
44.谢高地,鲁春霞,冷允法等.青藏高原生态资产的价值评估[J].自然资源学报,2003,18(2)：189-196.
45.邢占军.我国居民收入与幸福感关系的研究[J].社会学研究,2011,(1)：196-246
46.熊鹰,王克林,蓝万练,齐恒.洞庭湖区湿地恢复的生态补偿评估[J].地理学报,2004,59(5)：773-780
47.徐兴奎,陈红.气候变暖背景下青藏高原植被覆盖特征的时空变化及其成因分析[J].科学通报,2008,53(4)：456-462
48.许晨阳,钱争鸣,李雍容等.流域生态补偿的环境责任界定模型研究[J].自然资源学报,2009,24(8)：1488-1496
49.杨光梅,闵庆文,李文华,甄霖.我国生态补偿研究中的科学问题[J].生态学报,2007,27(10)：4289-4300.
50.杨莉,甄霖,李芬,魏云洁,姜鲁光,曹晓昌,龙鑫.黄土高原生态系统服务变化对人类福利的影响初探[J].资源科学,2010,32(5)：849-855.
51.杨缅昆.社会福利指数构造的理论和方法初探[J].统计研究,2009,26(7)：37-42
52.叶茂,徐海量,王小平,等.新疆草地生态系统服务功能与价值初步评价.草业学报,2006,15(5)：122-128
53.尹奇,马璐璐,王庆日.基于森的功能和能力福利理论的失地农民福利水平评价[J].中国土地科学,2010,21,(4)：41-46
54.俞海,任勇.流域生态补偿机制的关键问题分析——以南水北调中线水源涵养区为例[J].资源科学,2007,29(2)：28-331
55.张峰.基于产权残缺理论的生态利益补偿机制研究[J].重庆工商大学学报(社会科学版),2012,29(4)：8-13
56.张效军,欧名豪,李景刚,臧俊梅.耕地保护区域补偿机制的应用研究一以黑龙江省和福建省为例[J].华中农业大学学报(社会科学版),2010,85(1)：76-81
57.章铮.生态环境补偿费的若干基本问题[A]：中国生态环境补偿费的理论与实践.北京：中国环境科学出版社,1995.81-87.
58.赵翠薇,王世杰.生态补偿效益、标准一国际经验及对我国的启示[J].地理研究,2010,29(4)：597-606
59.赵骅,龙树发.社会福利博弈模型成立的条件分析[J].重庆大学学报(自然科学版).2006,29,(10)：139-142
60.赵军,杨凯,刘兰岚,等.环境与生态系统服务价值的WTA/WTP不对称[J].环境科学学报,2007,27(5)：854-860
61.赵亮,古松,杜明远,等.海北高寒草甸辐射能量的收支及植物生物量季节变化[J].草地学报,2004,12(1)：65-69
62.赵士洞,张永民.生态系统评估的概念,内涵及挑战——介绍《生态系统与人类福利：评估框架》[J].地球科学进展,2004,19(4)：650-657
63.赵同谦,欧阳志云,贾良清,等.中国草地生态系统服务功能间接价值评价[J].生态学报,2004,24(6)：1101-1110
64.赵雪雁.黄河首曲地区草地退化的人文因素分析一以甘肃省玛曲县为例[J].资源科学,2007,29(5)：50-56
65.赵雪雁.牧民对高寒牧区生态环境的感知研究——以甘南牧区为例[J].生态学报,2009,29(5)：2427-2436.
66.甄霖,谢高地,杨丽等.基于参与式社区评估法的泾河流域景观管理问题分析[J].中国人口·资源与环境,2007,17(3)：129-331
67.郑海霞,张陆彪.流域生态服务补偿定量标准研究[J].环境保护,2006,(1)：42-46.
68.朱文泉,高清竹,段敏捷,等.藏西北高寒草原生态资产价值评估[J].自然资源学报,2011,26(3)：419-428
69. J. R. Hicks. The Four Consumer's Surpluses. [J] The Review of Economic Studies,1943, 11(1):31-1
70. Paul Anand.New directions in the economics of welfare:Special issue celebrating Nobel LaureateAmartya Sen's 75th birthday[J]. Journal of Public Economics,2011 (95):191-192
71. Alkire, S. Why the capability approach[J]. Journal of Human Development,2005,6 (1):115-134.
72. Anand Paul, Krishnakumar Jaya, Ngoc Bich Tran.Measuring welfare:Latent variable models for happiness and capabilities in the presence of unobservable heterogeneity[J]. JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ECONOMICS.2011,95(3-4):205-215
73. Andam K S, Ferraro P J, Pfaff A, Sanchez-Azofeifa G A, Robalino J A. Measuring the effectiveness of protected area networks in reducing deforestation[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,2008,105(42):16089-16094.
74. Andrew J. Leach. The welfare implications of climate change policy[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,2009, (57):151-165
75. Antle,JM.Valdivia,R.O. Modeling the supply of ecosystem services from agriculture:a minimum data approach[J]. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics,2006,50 (1): 1-15
76. Arrow, J.K., Dasgupta, P., Maler, K.-G.Evaluating projects and assessin g sustainable development in im perfect economies[J]. Environmental and Resource Economics,2003,(26):647-685
77. Boadway, R.The welfare foundations of cost-benefit analysis[J]. Econ. J.1974,(84):926-939.
78. Boarini, R., Johansson, A., Mira d'Ercole, M. Alternative Measures of Well-Being, OECD Economics Department, Working Papers No.476,30.01.2006,53pp
79. B6s D./C. Seidl (Hg.):Welfare Economics of the Second Best. Wien u.a.1986.280 S
80. Boyden, S. Biohistory:the interplay between human society and the biosphere. UNESCO Man and the biosphere series v.8, Parthenon, Pearl River NY.1992
81. Bratt Rachel.Housing and Family Well-Being[J].Housing Studies,2002,14 (1):13-26
82. Brendan Fisher,Treg Christopher. Poverty and biodiversity:Measuring the overlap of human poverty and the biodiversity hotspots[J].Ecological Economics,2007,62(1):93-101
83. Brendan,Fisher.Stephen,Polasky.Thomas,Sterner. Conservation and Human Welfare:Economic Analysis of Ecosystem Services[J]. Environ Resource Econ,2011,48:151-159
84. Bryan B A, Grandgirard A, Ward J R. Quantifying and exploring strategic regional prioritiesfor managing natural capital and ecosystem services given multiple stakeholder perspectives[J]. Ecosystems,2010,13(4):539-555.
85. Carpenter S R, Mooney H A, Agard J, et al. Science for managing ecosystemservices:beyond the millennium ecosystem assessment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,2009,106(5):1305-1312
86. Cerioli, A., Zani S. "A Fuzzy Approach to the Measurement of Poverty", in Dagum, C. and Zenga, M. (eds), In-come and Wealth Distribution, Inequality and Poverty, Studies in Contemporary Economics[J].Springer Verlag, Berlin,1990:272-284.
87. ChapinⅢ F S, Carpenter S R, Kofinas G P,et al. Ecosystem steward ship:sustainability strategies for arapidly changing planet. TrendsinEcologyand Evolution,2009,25(4):241-249
88. Cheli, B., Lemmi, A. "A' Totally' Fuzzy and Relative Approach to the Multidimensional Analysis of Poverty"[J]. Economic Notes,1995,24 (1):115-133
89. CLAASSEN R, CATTANEO A, JOHANSSON R. Cost-effective design of agri-environmental payment programs:U.S. experience in theory and practice[J]. Ecological Economics,2008,65: 737-752.
90. Clark D A.Sen's capability approach and the many spaces of human well-being[J].Journal of Development Studies,2005,41(8):1339-1368.
91. Cleaver K M, Schreiber G A. Reversing the Spiral:The Population, Agriculture and Environment Nexusin Sub-Saharan Africa. Washington, DC:WorldBank,1994.
92. Cleaver K M, Schreiber G A. Reversing the Spiral:The Population, Agriculture and Environment Nexusin Sub-Saharan Africa. Washington, DC:WorldBank,1994
93. Comim F, Kumar P, Sirven N. Poverty and environment links:an illustration from Africa Journal of International Development,2009,21 (3):447-469.
94. Costanza R, d'Arge R, de Groot R,et al. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature,1997a,387:253-260
95. Costello C,Gaines S D,Lynham J.Can catch shares prevent fisheries collapse? [J] Science 2008,321:1678-1681
96. Daily G C,Polasky S,Goldstein J,et al. Ecosystemservicesin decision making:time to deliver. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment,2009,7(1):21-28.
97. Daly, H., Cobb, J. For the Common Good. Beacon Press,,1990. Boston.
98. David A. Clark.Concepts and Perceptions of Human Well-being:Some Evidence from South Africa. Oxford Development Studies,2003,31(2):173-196
99. David M. Winch. Consumer's Surplus and the Compensation Principle[J].The American Economic Review,1965,55(3):395-423
100. de Groot R S, Wilson M A, Boumans R M J. Atypology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics,2002,41(3):393-408.
101. Diener E, Eunkook M S, Richard E et al. Subjective Well-Being:Three Decades of Progress. Psychology Bulletin,1999,125(2):276-294
102. Dimitra Vouvaki,Anastasios Xepapadeas. Changes in social welfare and sustainability:Theoretical issues and empirical evidence[J]. Ecological Economics,2008, (67):473-484
103. Dodds S. Towardsa'science of sustainability':improving the way ecological economics understands human well-being[J]. Ecological Economics,1997,23(2):95-111.
104. EBERT U. Approximating WTP and WTA for environmental goods from marginal willingness to pay functions[J]. Ecological Economics,2008,66:270-274
105.Enrica Chiappero Martinett. A MULTIDIMENSIONAL ASSESSMENT OF WELL-BEING BASED ON SEN'S FUNCTIONING APPROACH. Forthcoming in Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Sociali,2000
106. Eran,Hanany.The ordinal Nash social welfare function[J].Journal of Mathematical Economics, 2008,(44):405-422
107. Eric Schokkaert.The Capability Approach, Center for Economic Studies-Disscuion Papers ces0734,Katholieke Universiteit Leuven,2007
108. Erwin,H.Bulte.Payments for ecosystem services and poverty reduction:Concepts, issues and empirical perspectives[J]. Environment and Development Economics,2008,13:245-254
109. Ferrer-i-Carbonell A, Gowdy J M. Environmental degradation and happiness[J]. Ecological Economics,2007,60(3):509-516.
110. Fisher B, Polasky S, Sterner T. Conservation and human welfare:economic analysis of ecosystemservices [J]. Environmental and Resource Economics,2011,48(2):151-159
111. Fisher B, Turner R K. Ecosystemservices:classification for valuation[J]. Biological Conservation, 2008,141(5):1167-1169.
112. Fritz Machlup. Professor Hicks' Statics[J].The Quarterly Journal of Economics,1940,54(2): 277-297
113. Fritz Machlup.Professor Hicks' Revision of Demand Theory [J].The American Economic Review, 1957,47, (1):119-135
114. Gjertsen H. Can habitat protection lead to improvements in human well-being? Evidence frommarine protected areas in the Philippines[J]. World Development,2005,33(2):199-217.
115. GrassoMarco.A Dynamic operationalization of sen,s capibility approch.14th coference of the italan society for pubilic Economics SIEP-Pavia,2002
116. Grieg-Gran M, Porras I,Wunder S. How can market mechanisms for forest environmental services help the poor? Preliminary lessons from Latin America[J]. World Dev,2005, (33):1511-1527
117. Griffin, J. Well-being:Its Meaning, Measurement, and Moral Importance. Oxford University Press, New York.1986.
118. Henderson. A.Consumer's Surplus and the Compensating Variation[J].The Review of Economic Studies,1941,8(2):117-121
119. Hicks, J. The valuation of social income[J]. Economica 1940,(7):104-124
120. Ingrid Robeyns, Sen's Capability Approach and Gender Inequality:Selecting Relevant Capabilities, Feminist conomics,2003,9(2-3):61-92.
121. Islam, S. Optimal Growth Economics. North-Holland, Amsterdam.,2001
122. Islam, S., Clarke, M.,2000. Social welfare and GDP:can we still use GDP for welfare measurement? Paper presented at the Centre for Strategic Economic Studies, Victoria University, Melbourne..
123. J. R. Hicks. The Rehabilitation of Consumers' Surplus[J].The Review of Economic Studies,1941, 8(2):108-116
124. Jennifer,lix.Garcia,Alain de J anvry,Elisabet Sadoulet.The role of deforestation risk and calibrated compensation in designing payment s for environmental services[J]. Environment and Development Economics,2008,(13):375-394.
125. John F. Tomer.Human Well-Being:A New Approach Based on Overall and Ordinary Functionings[J]. Review of social economy,2002,60:1,23-45
126. Jorge Garce's, Francisco Ro'denas, Vicente Sanjose'. Towards a new welfare state:the social sustainability principle and health care strategies [J]. Health Policy,2003 (65):201-215
127. Jorgenson, D. Welfare, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.,1997. vol.2
128. Kelly J. Wendland, Miroslav Honzak.Targeting and implementing payments for ecosystem services:Opportunities for bundling biodiversity conservation with carbon and water services in Madagascar[J]. Ecological Economics,2010,69(11):2093-2107
129. Kelsey B. Jack, Carolyn Kousky, Katharine R.Sims. Designing payments for ecosystem services: lessons from previous experience with incentive-based mechanisms[J].Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,2008,105(28):9465-9470
130. Kerr J. Watershed development, environmental services, and poverty alleviation in India[J]. World Dev,2002,(30):1387-1400
131.Konishi Y, Coggins J S. Environmental risk and welfare valuation under imperfect information[J].Resource and Energy Economics,2008.30(2):150-169.
132. Kuklys,W.AmartyaSen,s Capability Approach:Theoretical Insights and Emperiacal Applications. Berlin:SPringer Verlag pessm,2005
133. Luc Van Ootegem, Sophie Spillemaeckers.With a focus on well-being and capabilities[J]. The Journal of Socio-Economics,2010, (39):384-390
134. Macmillan D C,Harley D,Morrison R.Cost-effectiveness analysis of woodland ecosystem restoration[J].Ecological Economics,1998,27:313-34
135. Marshall, A. Principles of economics,8th edn. (Macmillan, London),1920,
136. Maslow,Abraham H.Motivation and Personality,1954 New York:Harper
137. Matthew Clarke, Sardar M.N. Islam. Measuring social welfare:application of social choice theory[J]. Journal of Socio-Economics,2003 (32):1-15
138. Max-Neef, M.,. Human Scale Development:Conception, Application and Further Reflections. Apex Press, New York and London.1991
139. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.Ecosystems and Human Well-Being:A Framework for Assessment. Washington, DC:Island Press,2003.
140. Morris, M. Measuring the Condition of the World's Poor:The Physical Quality of Life Index. Pergamon Press,1979. New York.
141. Nam K M, Selin N E, Reilly J M, Paltsev S. Measuring welfare loss caused by air pollution in Europe:a CGE analysis[J]. Energy Policy,2010,38(9):5059-5071
142. Ng, Yew-Kwang Welfare Economics. London:Macmillan,1979
143. Ng, Yew-Kwang,Bentham or Bergson? Finite sensibility, utility functions, and social welfarefunctions[J]. Review of Economic Studies,1975, (42):545-570.
144. Ng, Yew-Kwang.'Quasi-Pareto social improvements[J].American Economic Reviee,1984b (94):1033-50.
145. Nordhaus, W., Tobin, J. Is growth obsolete? [J].In:Moss, M. (Ed.), The Measurement of Economic and Social Planning, Economic Growth. National Bureau of Economic Research, 1973.New York
146. Nussbaum, M. Non-relative virtues. In:Nussbaum, M., Sen, A. (Eds.), The Quality of Life. World Institute of Development Economics/Clarendon Press, Oxford,1993.
147. Nussbaum, M.C. Women and Human Development:The Capabilities Approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.,2000.
148. Pagiola S, Arcenas A, Platais G.Can payments for environmental services help reduce poverty? [J].An exploration of the issues and the evidence to date from Latin America. World Dev,2005,33:237-253;
149. Pagiola S, Rios A R, Arcenas A. Poor household participation in payments for environmental services:lessons fromthe silvopastoral project in Quindio,colombia[J].. Environmental and Resource Economics,2010,47(3):371-394
150. Pagiola, S., Landell-Mills, N., & Bishop, J.Making market-based mechanisms work for forests and people. In:Selling forest environmental services:market-based mechanisms for conservation and development[M].London, UK:Earthscan.2002:261-290
151. Paul Dolan, Aki Tsuchiya. The social welfare function and individual responsibility:Some theoretical issues and empirical evidence[J]. Journal of Health Economics,2009 (28):210-220
152. Pearce D. Economic values and the natural world. London:Earchscan,1993
153. Pigou, A. The Economics of Welfare[M]. London:Macmillian,1962
154. Pigou, A.C. The Economics of Welfare. Macmillan, London.,1932
155. Pires M. Watershed protection for aworld city:The case ofNew York [J].Land UsePolicy,2004, 21(1):161-175
156. R, CATTANEO A, JOHANSSON R. Cost-effective design of agri-environmental payment programs:U.S. experience in theory and practice[J]. Ecological Economics,2008,65:737-752.
157. Robeyns, I. The capability approach in practice[J]. The Journal of Political Philosophy,2006,14 (3), 351-376.
158. Robeyns,I.The capability approach:a theoretical survey[J]. Journal of Human Development,2005,6(1):93-114.
159. Robeyns.Selecting Capabilities for Quality of Life Measurement[J]. Social Indicators research, 2005b,(74):191-215
160. Rodrigo Sierra, Eric Russman. On the efficiency of environmental service payments:A forest conservation assessment in the Osa Peninsula, Costa Rica[J].Ecological Economics, 2006,(59):131-141
161. Ruut Veenhoven.Capability and happiness:Conceptual difference and reality links[J]. The Journal of Socio-Economics,2010, (39):344-350
162. Sara Lelli,Factor Analysis vs. Fuzzy sets Theory:Assessing the Influence of Different Techniques on Sen's Functioning Approach,CES Diseussion Paper Series,21,Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. 2001
163. SAZ-SALAZAR S D, HERNANDEZ-SANCHO F, SALA-GARRIDOR. The social benefits of restoring water quality in the context of the Water Framework Directive:A comparison of willingness to pay and willingness to accept[J]. Science of the Total Environment,2009, 407:4574-4583.
164. Schokkaert E. The capabilities approach//Anand P, Puppe C,Pattanaik P, eds.The Hand book of Rational andSocial Choice. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2009:542-566.
165. Sen, A. Capability and well-being. In:Nussbaum, M., Sen, A. (Eds.).The Quality of Life. Oxford:World Institute of Development Economics/Clarendon Press,1993.
166. Sen, A. Collective Choice and Social Welfare. North-Holland, Amsterdam.,1970.
167. Sen, A. Commodities and Capabilities. Oxford University Press, Oxford,1985.
168. Sen, A. Development as Freedom, Knopf, New York:Oxord University Press,1999,
169. Sen, A. The welfare basis of real income comparisons:a survey[J]. Journal of Economic Literature, 1979,(17):1-45
170. Sen, A..The possibility of social choice[J]. The American Economic Review,1999,(1):349-378
171. Stefano,Pagiola.Ana R. Rios.Agustin Arcenas.Poor Household Participation in Payments for Environmental Services:Lessons from the Silvopastoral Project in Quindio, Colombia[J]. Environ Resource Econ,2010,47:371-394
172. Tommas,M.L.Measuring the wellbeing of children using capibility approch an application to India data. Web site:http://www.child-centre.it
173. Tschakert P. Environmental services and poverty reduction:options for small holders in the Sahel[J]. Agricultural Systems,2007,94(1):75-86.
174. Uchida, Emi, Xu, Jintao, Rozelle, Scott. Grainfor green:cost-effectiveness and sustainability of China's conservation set-aside program[J]. Land Economics,2005,81(2),247-264.
175. Udo Ebert Approximating WTP and WTA for environmental goods from marginal willingness to pay functions[J]. Ecologicale Economics,2008,(66)-210-214
176. UNDP, The Human Development Report. United Nations Development Program,1990. New York.
177. Van Ootegem L, Spillemaeckers S. With a focuson well-being and capabilities[J]. Journal of Socio-Economics,2010,39(3):384-390
178. Veenhoven, R. The four qualities of life:ordering concepts and measures of the good life[J]. Journal of Happiness Studies,2000,(1):1-39.
179. VladimirL.Levin.On social welfare functionals:Representation theorems and equivalence classes[J]. Mathematical Social Sciences,2010, (59):299-305
180. Water Immezeel, Jetse Stoorvogel, John Antle. Can payments for ecosystem services secure the water tower of Tibet? [J]. Agricultural Systems,2008,96(1-3):52-63
181.Welsch H. Environmental welfareanalysis:alife satisfaction approach. Ecological Economics, 2007,62(3/4):544-551
182. Werner Hediger. Sustainable development and social welfare[J]. Ecological Economics,2000,(32): 481-492
183. Wilson,W.Correlates of avowed happiness[J].Psychological Bulletin,1967,67:297-306
184. Ziberman D, Lipper L,McCarthy N.When could payments for environmental services benefit the poor? [J].Environ Dev Econ,2008, (13):255-278
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |