福州土地生态系统服务价值空间异质性及其与城市化耦合的关系
|
摘要
土地生态系统服务功能评价是目前国际上生态学和经济学界研究的热点。国外对土地生态系统服务功能的评价，绝大部分都是沿用Costanza等关于全球生态系统服务功能价值的估算方法，国内主要还是采用谢高地等的中国陆地生态系统单位面积服务价值表对生态系统服务功能价值进行评价。我国正处于经济转型的特殊发展阶段，生态环境与社会经济发展的矛盾日益凸现。由于受经济发展水平和社会文明程度等条件的限制，土地生态系统服务功能评价的研究相对滞后，主要存在如下问题：对土地生态系统服务价值的评估处于静态评估阶段，忽略了不同历史时期和不同生态资源稀缺程度下人们对生态资产的支付意愿不同；评估模型未考虑建设用地的服务价值，一般都假设为零；主要分析某个时间段某个区域或某种类型生态系统服务功能的价值总量，而对空间分异特征的研究较薄弱；对土地生态系统服务功能价值变化内在机制，尤其是在人类活动（如城镇化过程）对土地生态系统服务功能的影响机制的研究鲜见报道。鉴于此，本文在借鉴国际、国内相关研究成果基础上，以海峡西岸经济区中心城市—福州市为研究对象，借助福州市历年土地利用变更数据以及1985年和2007年两期SPOT5遥感影像图等数据源，运用改进的土地生态系统服务功能价值评估模型对福州市的土地生态系统服务功能价值进行核算，在此基础上，分析了福州市土地生态系统服务功能价值的时空变异特征规律，探讨了土地生态系统与城市化系统之间的耦合关系。主要研究内容和结果如下：
（1）根据Costanza等人以及谢高地等人的研究成果，结合福州市的实际情况，并运用防治和替代成本法估算城市建设用地对生态系统服务功能的影响价值，修正土地生态系统服务静态总价值。在此基础上，对研究区的生态系统服务功能价值变化情况进行对比分析。结果表明：1985年、1996年、2007年土地利用程度综合指数逐渐增大，分别为2.14、2.19和2.21，而土地生态系统服务价值却逐渐降低，1985年为8748708.78万元，1996年为7456746.33万元，2007年为7438150.86万元。在各种土地生态系统类型中，历年林地生态系统产生的服务价值均最大，约占总价值的71.21%~84.04%，且比例呈逐年增加的趋势。在各项服务功能中，土壤形成与保护、气体调节和水源涵养产生的价值最大，三者合计约占总价值的46%。
（2）在总结了土地生态系统服务功能价值估算方法的基础上，对估算方法的修正进展进行了较系统的分析，指出评估模型必须考虑空间异质性、社会发展阶段和资源稀缺性等因素。结合福州市“山多地少”的实际情况，以耕地和林地两者的生物量来修正区域差异对土地生态系统服务价值的影响，构建了空间异质系数，以恩格尔系数和城镇化率共同构建了社会发展系数，以人口密度构建了资源稀缺系数，从而构建了土地生态系统服务功能价值动态估算模型。基于改进的动态估算模型，以福州市为例，估算出2009年土地生态系统服务功能的静态价值为389.48×108元，相当于当年GDP的14.77%；土地生态系统服务功能的动态价值为270.32×108元，相当于当年GDP的10.25%；福州市单位面积土地生态系统服务功能动态价值的空间分布为：市区＞福清市＞闽侯县＞平潭县＞长乐市＞连江县＞闽清县＞永泰县=罗源县；而人均土地生态系统服务功能动态价值的空间分布为：永泰县＞闽清县=闽侯县＞罗源县＞福清市＞连江县＞市区＞平潭县＞长乐市。改进后的动态估算模型计算结果更符合福州市各县（市）区的实际，可为区域土地生态系统保护和经济发展综合决策提供更加及时、准确的有益信息，对区域的生态环境建设和保护具有重要的现实意义。
（3）应用目前评价非使用价值较成熟的条件价值法(CVM)，首先对该方法可能存在的偏差进行分析并提出处理措施，在此基础上，以福州市中心城区公园绿地和内河生态系统为研究对象,采用实地调研的方式，运用支付意愿问卷调查的形式，结合数据相关分析和回归分析的方法，分析了公园绿地和内河生态系统服务功能的支付意愿及其影响因素。共发放支付卡式CVM问卷1000份，回收有效问卷836份，获得支付意愿的分布形态和规律。结果表明：福州市中心城区公园绿地和内河生态系统的服务功能总价值为21431.39×10~4元·a-1，占中心城区2009年生态系统服务功能总价值515097.98×104元·a-1的4.2%，其值不可忽视；通过多元统计分析得到在公园绿地和内河生态系统恢复计划调研中，受访者的支付意愿主要受到收入水平、职业、到公园（内河）距离等因素的影响。进一步对“问卷内容依赖性”的问题进行考察，结果表明“部分—整体效应”和“嵌入性效应”在本研究案例中存在，而“顺序效应”不存在，同时在本研究中存在“均等效应”新现象。
（4）运用分室理论对未来30a福州市在不同干扰程度下土地生态系统服务功能价值变化进行了模拟分析。结果表明：在1985~2007年期间，福州市土地利用景观结构发生了较大的变化，其中发生变化的土地利用景观面积为46578.45hm~2，占福州市土地利用景观总面积的4%；不同干扰程度下土地生态系统服务功能价值变化模拟结果表明了福州市土地生态系统服务功能价值随着干扰强度的增大而降低，从而提出了城市化快速进程下土地利用对策。
（5）根据1993、2004、2009三个时期福州市各种土地利用类型的面积以及前文所提供的单位面积生态系统服务价值，分别计算了福州市9个县市（区）的生态系统服务价值。结果表明：①福州市各县市（区）的生态系统服务价值存在较大的差异，其中永泰县、闽候县和福清市的生态系统服务价值位居前三，而市区、长乐市和平潭县的生态系统服务价值位居倒三；从单位面积服务价值来看，平潭县、连江县和福清市等沿海区域较高，而永泰县、闽清县和罗源县等山区城市较低。②根据福州市各县市（区）用地利用结构将福州市生态功能划分为3个区：人工调控生态区、半自然半人工恢复生态区和自然调控生态区。
（6）根据“力矩平衡点”法计算得到福州市土地生态系统服务功能价值分布重心，结果表明：福州市不同类型土地生态系统服务功能价值的重心均分布在福州市的行政中心和地理中心附近。总价值重心从1993年至2004年有由东向西、由南向北移动的趋势；从2004年至2009年有由西向东的趋势，而在南北方向变化不大。
（7）由于以土地利用面积指标计算结构信息熵忽略了不同土地利用类型功能（生态功能）的差异，可能导致结果的偏差。本文以土地生态系统服务功能价值指标替代面积指标计算土地利用结构信息熵，结果表明：福州市各县市（区）土地生态系统服务功能结构信息熵由大到小依次为：长乐市＞福清市＞连江县＞平潭县＞闽候县＞市区＞罗源县＞闽清县＞永泰县；福州市各土地利用类型生态系统服务空间结构信息熵值由大到小依次为未利用土地＞草地＞耕地＞建设用地＞林地＞水域＞园地；通过Pearson相关分析表明林地、水域、草地和建设用地等土地利用类型是影响福州市土地生态系统服务功能结构信息熵的主要因素。采用逐步多元回归分析法进行城镇化对功能结构信息熵的影响因素分析表明：人口密度、城镇居民人均可支配收入和第三产业占GDP百分比是最显著的3个影响因子。
（8）基于改进的土地空间分布洛伦兹曲线，绘制福州市不同时期的各类型土地生态服务功能空间结构、不同利用强度土地生态系统服务功能空间和生态经济协调等的洛伦兹曲线，结果表明：
①水域和建设用地生态系统服务功能空间分布较不均衡，而其它类型土地生态系统服务功能空间分布均处于相对合理及以上状态；各类型土地生态服务功能的人均指标空间分布洛伦兹曲线曲率均较高，只有均林地和园地的人均生态服务功能空间分布处于“警戒线”以内，而耕地、草地、未利用土地、建设用地和水域的人均生态服务功能价值空间分布均处于“差距偏大”或以上状态。②不同利用强度土地生态系统服务功能空间分布洛伦兹曲线及基尼系数结果表明：土地利用强度2的生态服务功能空间分布洛伦兹曲线均几乎接近绝对均匀线，空间分布均衡且稳定；土地利用强度3的生态服务功能空间分布处于“绝对平均”状态；土地利用强度1的空间分布处于“比较平均”状态；而土地利用强度4的生态服务功能空间分布在“警戒线”左右徘徊。③以福州市2009年各县（市）区GDP占全市GDP的累计百分比为横轴，以2009年各县（市）区土地生态系统服务功能价值占全市土地生态系统服务功能总价值的累计百分比为纵轴，绘制洛伦兹曲线。结果表明洛伦兹曲线曲率较大，远离绝对平均线，基尼系数为0.613，集中系数为1.480，生态经济对比处于高度不协调状态。
（9）运用STIRPAT模型研究福州市土地生态系统服务功能价值变化的驱动力因素。结果表明：STIRPAT模型能较好地拟合土地生态系统服务功能价值与社会经济发展指标间的关系，反映人口、富裕度、产业结构和城市化率等对服务功能价值变化的影响；影响土地生态系统服务功能价值（尤其对人均服务功能价值）的最主要因素是人口的增长。
（10）利用回归分析探讨了土地生态系统服务价值与人口、经济发展、社会发展之间的关系，结果表明：福州市生态系统服务价值与人口、城镇化率、GDP以及人均GDP之间存在着较好的线性正相关关系，相关系数R均大于0.580，福州市生态系统服务价值与城镇化率的线性相关度＞与GDP的相关度＞与人均GDP的相关度＞与人口的相关度；而福州市人均生态系统服务价值与人口、城镇化率、GDP以及人均GDP之间存在着较好的线性负相关关系，相关系数R均大于0.879，且福州市人均生态系统服务价值与人口的线性相关度＞与GDP的相关度＞与人均GDP的相关度＞与城镇化率的相关度。
（11）将研究期分为2000-2009年、2000-2004年和2005-2009年3个时间段，分别计算3个时间段的生态经济协调度，结果表明：当以单位面积作为计算指标衡量时，2000-2009年、2000-2004年和2005-2009年3个时间段的生态经济协调度EEH值分别为0.006、-0.0003和0.014，表明研究区处于生态经济轻度协调状态，其中前期处于轻度冲突状态，而后期处于轻度协调状态；当以人均作为计算指标衡量时，2000-2009年、2000-2004年和2005-2009年3个时间段的生态经济协调度EEH值分别为-0.104、-0.057和-0.155，表明研究区处于生态经济轻度冲突状态，且后期比前期冲突更加严重。连江县和平潭县的生态经济处于中度协调水平；市区的生态经济处于轻度冲突水平；其他县市（区）的生态经济均处在轻度协调的边缘。
（12）采用6种序参量上下限确定方案分别计算研究区的耦合度和耦合协调度值，并以其平均值代表研究区的耦合度和耦合协调度最终值。结果表明：福州市历年的耦合度数值均较大，介于0.65~1之间，只有2000年处于磨合阶段，而后进入高水平的耦合阶段；耦合协调度和动态耦合模型的计算结果与耦合度计算结果基本一致。
For about30years the valuation of ecosystem services has been the focus of ecologicaleconomics and environmental economics, and China began the study since later1990s. In foreignresearches of land ecosystem services estimation，mostly follow the method of the Costanza’s;While in domestic studies, mostly follow the method of Xie Gao-de’s land unit area of theecosystem service value. China is in the special stage of the economic transformation, the conflictbetween ecological environment and socio-economic development is becoming increasinglyapparent. Due to the level of economic development and social civilization degree, the assessmentof land ecosystem services has been lagged behind. There are several problems exiting in this field.Firstly, assessment of land ecosystem service value is in static evaluation stage, ignoring thewillingness to pay of the different historical periods and different ecological resources scarcities andecological assets. Secondly, assessment model does not consider the services value of constructionland, which are generally assumed to be zero. Thirdly, most of researches analyzed of the totalecosystem service in a special region during a special period, while the spatial variationcharacteristics studies of ecosystem service is relatively weak. Fourth, internal mechanism of thechanges in the value of the land ecosystem services, especially the impact of human activities (suchas the process of urbanization) on the land ecosystem services mechanism is rarely reported. Inview of this, on the basis of international and domestic researches, taking the central city of theEconomic Zone on the Western Coast-Fuzhou as the research object, it use calendar year land usechange data as well as the1985and2007two SPOT5remote sensing image map of Fuzhou city asdata sources, then several parts of researches have been carried out in this thesis, main contents andresults are as follows:
（1）According to global ecosystem and Chinese terrestrial ecosystem services valueevaluation results obtained by Costanza et al. and Xie Gao-di et al., and the state of the study area,this paper used substitution cost methods and prevented cost methods to estimate the influencingvalues of constructive lands on ecosystem services to analyze the change of ecosystem servicesvalue in Fuzhou. The results showed that the degree of land use increased, while the ecosystemservice values decreased, which was87,487.0878million RMB in1985，74,567.4633million RMBin1996,74,381.5086million RMB in2007. Woodland contributed over70％of the total servicevalue among the land use types．The value of soil formation and disposition, air regulation and airwater conservation occupied about46%of the total service value.
（2）The evaluation of land ecosystem service is the hotspot of ecological economics andenvironmental economics. On the basis of reviewing the evaluation methods of ecosystem servicefunction valuation, analyzing the research progress of the evaluation methods correction, it putforward that the factors such as spatial heterogeneity, social development and resource scarcityshould be taken into account in the ecosystem service evaluation model. Based on the former studies and the characteristics of the research area, it took both cultivated and forest lands’ biomassto build coefficient of spatial heterogeneity, both Engel's coefficient and urbanization to buildcoefficient of social development, population density to build coefficient of resource scarcity. Thenthe improved dynamic evaluation models were make up from the three coefficients. It took FuzhouCity as the study area. The effects showed that the annual static value of the land ecosystemservices in the city was estimated as38.948billion yuan, equal to14.77%of the local GDP in2009.The annual dynamic value was27.032billion yuan. The results showed that the output of theapproved model was more in accordance with the actual situation of all counties. Which couldprovide timely, exact and helpful information in decision making of land ecosystem conservationand social development, and had practical significance for land ecosystem construction andenvironment protection.
（3）The relatively mature method-Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) was used to beassociated with a questionnaire survey to evaluate the valuation of the ecosystem services of publicgreen spaces and rivers in center area of Fuzhou city. Using field research methods and thequestionnaire survey with the form of willingness to pay (WTP), we evaluated the influencingfactors to pay for the public green spaces and rivers ecosystem services combined with correlationanalysis and regression analysis. As a case study,1000payment card CVM questionnaires weresurveyed and836as useful quesionnaires were feed back. Distribution shape and rule of willingnessto pay were probed. The results showed that total value of the public green spaces and riversecosystem services was214.31million yuan, accounting for4.2%of the total value of the centralcity. T hrough multivariate statistical analysis in the case of public green spaces and riversecosystem recovery, some key factors were found to be quite important to WTP, such as the incomelevel, occupation and the distance between home and study area. Then the content dependency wereresearched in this thesis. The results showed that the “part-whole effect” and the”embedding effect" in this case study existed, but”sequencing effects "did not. There was a new effect as well, thatwas “equal effect”.
（4）The compartment theory was applied to simulate land ecosystem service value dynamicsunder different disturbance scenarios in the next three decades. The results showed that landscapestructure has undergone large changes, among which the changing land area was4.66million hm2from1985to2007, accounting for4%of the total area of Fuzhou. In different degree ofinterference, land ecosystem services changes were simulated using compartment theory. Theresults showed that the land ecosystem services value decreased with the increase of disturbanceintensity. On the basis of which, it proposed some land use strategies during the process of rapidurbanization.
（5）According to each types of land use area of1993,2004and2009in Fuzhou city, andusing the unit ecosystem services value supplied by the former study, it calculated ecosystemservice value of the nine counties of Fuzhou. The results showed that:①There were large differences of ecosystem service value existing in the nine counties, in which the ecosystem servicevalue in the top three were Yongtai County, Mminhou County and Fuqing City, while, themunicipal districts, Changle City and Pingtan County were ranked down; from the service value ofper unit area, the coastal areas of Pingtan County, Lianjiang County and Fuqing City were higher,while the mountain area of Yongtai County, Minqing County and Luoyuan County were lower.②Based on the former study, Fuzhou was divided into three districts: the artificial regulation ofecological zones, semi-natural artificial restoration of ecological zones and natural regulation ofecological zones.
（6）Using torque equilibrium point method to calculate the distribution center of Landecosystem services value. The results showed that the center of gravity of the different types of landecosystem services values were located near the administrative center and the geographic center ofFuzhou City. The moving trends of the gravity center of total value were from east to west,andsouth to north during1993to2004; while the trends were from west to east during2004to2009,and little change in the north-south direction.
（7）Shannon entropy of land ecosystem services structure in each counties sequenced:Changle City, Fuqing City, Liangjiang County, Pingtan County, Minhou County, the City districts,Luoyuan County, Minqing County and Yongtai County. Shannon entropy of each types of landecosystem services structure sequenced: unused land, grass land, arable land, construction land,forest land, water land, and garden land. Pearson correlation analysis showed that the forest lands,waters land, grass land and construction land and other types were the main factors that affectingthe structure of information entropy of land ecosystem services. Using stepwise multiple regressionto analyze the impact of urbanization on information entropy of functional structure, it showed thatpopulation density, per capita disposable income of urban residents and the proportion of tertiaryindustry to GDP were the most significant three impact factors.
（8）The Lorenz curve and Gini coefficient of various types of land ecosystem services indifferent periods in Fuzhou were studied in this paper. The results showed that:
①the ecosystem services spatial distribution of waters land and construction land were notrelatively balanced in each counties, while the spatial distribution of other types of land were in thereasonable state. The curvature of the various types land Lorenz curves were high in differentperiods In fuzhou, when taking per capita land ecosystem services into account. Wood land andgarden land were the only two types of land which’s spatial distribution of per capita ecologicalservice functions were within the cordon, while the spatial distribution of arable land, grass land,unused land, construction land and water land per capita value of ecosystem services were all in thestate of “too large gap” or above.
②The Lorenz curve and Gini coefficient of ecosystem services of different land use intensityin different periods in Fuzhou were studied in this paper. The results showed that the ecosystemservices Lorenz curve of land use intensity2was almost close to the absolutely uniform line, which’s spatial distribution was balanced and stable; the ecosystem services spatial distribution ofthe land use intensity3was in the state of "absolute average"; the land use intensity1was in theaverage state; while the land use intensity4was wandering around in the "cordon".
③Using the cumulative percentage of the counties GDP against the Fuzhou city’s GDP in2009as the horizontal axis, and the cumulative percentage of the counties land ecosystem servicesvalue against the Fuzhou city’s in2009as the vertical axis, it drew the Lorenz curve. The resultsshowed that the curvature of the Lorentz curve was far away from the absolute average line, and theGini coefficient was0.613, the concentration factor was1.480, which meant ecological system andeconomic system were in a highly uncoordinated state.
（9）Using STIRPAT model to study driving force factors of the Land ecosystem servicesvalue. The results showed that the STIRPAT model was fitted well to fit the relationship betweenthe land ecosystem services value and socio-economic indicators, which reflected that thepopulation, affluent degree, industrial structure and the urbanization rate would affect land ecologyservice value. To the land ecology service value (per capita service value in particular), the mostimportant factor was population growth.
（10）The relationships between land ecosystem service value and population, economic,social were explored here using regression analysis. The results showed that land ecosystem servicevalue has good relationship with population, urbanization rate, GDP and per capita GDP, and all thecoefficient R were greater than0.580. The most relevant fator to land ecosystem service value wasurbanization rate, the second was GDP, the third was per capita GDP, and the fourth was population.While per capita ecosystem services value has linear negative correlation with population,urbanization rate, GDP and per capita GDP, all the coefficient R were greater than0.879. The mostrelevant fator to per capita ecosystem services value was population, the second was GDP, the thirdwas per capita GDP, and the fourth was urbanization rate.
（11）The study period was divided into three periods,2000-2009,2000-2004and2005-2009,the coordination value of eco-economic were calculated for the three periods. The results showedthat: when the unit area as the calculation indicators to measure, the eco-economic coordinationvalue of the three periods were0.006,-0.0003and0.014, which meant that the ecological andeconomic in the study area was in mild coordination state, among which the early period was in themild state of conflict, but the late period was in the mild coordination state. When the per capita asthe calculation indicators to measure, the eco-economic coordination value of the three periods were-0.104,-0.057and-0.155, which meant that the ecological and economic in the study area was inmild conflict status, and the latter period was more serious than the former period. Among the ninecounties, the ecological and economic of Liangjiang County and Pingtan County were in amoderate level of coordination state; municipal districts was in a mild levels of conflict; while theother counties were in edge of the mild coordination.
（12）Six kinds of upper and lower limits to order parameter were adopting in this paper, and then each kinds of coupling degree and coupling coordination degree according to respectiveupper and lower limits were calculated. Using there average represented the coupling degree andcoupling coordination degree of the study area, it showed that the values were high, which rangeswere between0.65and1, among which the relationship between ecology and economic in2000was in the run-in phase, and then it went into a high level of coupling phase. The results of couplingcoordination and dynamic coupling model were in agreement.
（1）根据Costanza等人以及谢高地等人的研究成果，结合福州市的实际情况，并运用防治和替代成本法估算城市建设用地对生态系统服务功能的影响价值，修正土地生态系统服务静态总价值。在此基础上，对研究区的生态系统服务功能价值变化情况进行对比分析。结果表明：1985年、1996年、2007年土地利用程度综合指数逐渐增大，分别为2.14、2.19和2.21，而土地生态系统服务价值却逐渐降低，1985年为8748708.78万元，1996年为7456746.33万元，2007年为7438150.86万元。在各种土地生态系统类型中，历年林地生态系统产生的服务价值均最大，约占总价值的71.21%~84.04%，且比例呈逐年增加的趋势。在各项服务功能中，土壤形成与保护、气体调节和水源涵养产生的价值最大，三者合计约占总价值的46%。
（2）在总结了土地生态系统服务功能价值估算方法的基础上，对估算方法的修正进展进行了较系统的分析，指出评估模型必须考虑空间异质性、社会发展阶段和资源稀缺性等因素。结合福州市“山多地少”的实际情况，以耕地和林地两者的生物量来修正区域差异对土地生态系统服务价值的影响，构建了空间异质系数，以恩格尔系数和城镇化率共同构建了社会发展系数，以人口密度构建了资源稀缺系数，从而构建了土地生态系统服务功能价值动态估算模型。基于改进的动态估算模型，以福州市为例，估算出2009年土地生态系统服务功能的静态价值为389.48×108元，相当于当年GDP的14.77%；土地生态系统服务功能的动态价值为270.32×108元，相当于当年GDP的10.25%；福州市单位面积土地生态系统服务功能动态价值的空间分布为：市区＞福清市＞闽侯县＞平潭县＞长乐市＞连江县＞闽清县＞永泰县=罗源县；而人均土地生态系统服务功能动态价值的空间分布为：永泰县＞闽清县=闽侯县＞罗源县＞福清市＞连江县＞市区＞平潭县＞长乐市。改进后的动态估算模型计算结果更符合福州市各县（市）区的实际，可为区域土地生态系统保护和经济发展综合决策提供更加及时、准确的有益信息，对区域的生态环境建设和保护具有重要的现实意义。
（3）应用目前评价非使用价值较成熟的条件价值法(CVM)，首先对该方法可能存在的偏差进行分析并提出处理措施，在此基础上，以福州市中心城区公园绿地和内河生态系统为研究对象,采用实地调研的方式，运用支付意愿问卷调查的形式，结合数据相关分析和回归分析的方法，分析了公园绿地和内河生态系统服务功能的支付意愿及其影响因素。共发放支付卡式CVM问卷1000份，回收有效问卷836份，获得支付意愿的分布形态和规律。结果表明：福州市中心城区公园绿地和内河生态系统的服务功能总价值为21431.39×10~4元·a-1，占中心城区2009年生态系统服务功能总价值515097.98×104元·a-1的4.2%，其值不可忽视；通过多元统计分析得到在公园绿地和内河生态系统恢复计划调研中，受访者的支付意愿主要受到收入水平、职业、到公园（内河）距离等因素的影响。进一步对“问卷内容依赖性”的问题进行考察，结果表明“部分—整体效应”和“嵌入性效应”在本研究案例中存在，而“顺序效应”不存在，同时在本研究中存在“均等效应”新现象。
（4）运用分室理论对未来30a福州市在不同干扰程度下土地生态系统服务功能价值变化进行了模拟分析。结果表明：在1985~2007年期间，福州市土地利用景观结构发生了较大的变化，其中发生变化的土地利用景观面积为46578.45hm~2，占福州市土地利用景观总面积的4%；不同干扰程度下土地生态系统服务功能价值变化模拟结果表明了福州市土地生态系统服务功能价值随着干扰强度的增大而降低，从而提出了城市化快速进程下土地利用对策。
（5）根据1993、2004、2009三个时期福州市各种土地利用类型的面积以及前文所提供的单位面积生态系统服务价值，分别计算了福州市9个县市（区）的生态系统服务价值。结果表明：①福州市各县市（区）的生态系统服务价值存在较大的差异，其中永泰县、闽候县和福清市的生态系统服务价值位居前三，而市区、长乐市和平潭县的生态系统服务价值位居倒三；从单位面积服务价值来看，平潭县、连江县和福清市等沿海区域较高，而永泰县、闽清县和罗源县等山区城市较低。②根据福州市各县市（区）用地利用结构将福州市生态功能划分为3个区：人工调控生态区、半自然半人工恢复生态区和自然调控生态区。
（6）根据“力矩平衡点”法计算得到福州市土地生态系统服务功能价值分布重心，结果表明：福州市不同类型土地生态系统服务功能价值的重心均分布在福州市的行政中心和地理中心附近。总价值重心从1993年至2004年有由东向西、由南向北移动的趋势；从2004年至2009年有由西向东的趋势，而在南北方向变化不大。
（7）由于以土地利用面积指标计算结构信息熵忽略了不同土地利用类型功能（生态功能）的差异，可能导致结果的偏差。本文以土地生态系统服务功能价值指标替代面积指标计算土地利用结构信息熵，结果表明：福州市各县市（区）土地生态系统服务功能结构信息熵由大到小依次为：长乐市＞福清市＞连江县＞平潭县＞闽候县＞市区＞罗源县＞闽清县＞永泰县；福州市各土地利用类型生态系统服务空间结构信息熵值由大到小依次为未利用土地＞草地＞耕地＞建设用地＞林地＞水域＞园地；通过Pearson相关分析表明林地、水域、草地和建设用地等土地利用类型是影响福州市土地生态系统服务功能结构信息熵的主要因素。采用逐步多元回归分析法进行城镇化对功能结构信息熵的影响因素分析表明：人口密度、城镇居民人均可支配收入和第三产业占GDP百分比是最显著的3个影响因子。
（8）基于改进的土地空间分布洛伦兹曲线，绘制福州市不同时期的各类型土地生态服务功能空间结构、不同利用强度土地生态系统服务功能空间和生态经济协调等的洛伦兹曲线，结果表明：
①水域和建设用地生态系统服务功能空间分布较不均衡，而其它类型土地生态系统服务功能空间分布均处于相对合理及以上状态；各类型土地生态服务功能的人均指标空间分布洛伦兹曲线曲率均较高，只有均林地和园地的人均生态服务功能空间分布处于“警戒线”以内，而耕地、草地、未利用土地、建设用地和水域的人均生态服务功能价值空间分布均处于“差距偏大”或以上状态。②不同利用强度土地生态系统服务功能空间分布洛伦兹曲线及基尼系数结果表明：土地利用强度2的生态服务功能空间分布洛伦兹曲线均几乎接近绝对均匀线，空间分布均衡且稳定；土地利用强度3的生态服务功能空间分布处于“绝对平均”状态；土地利用强度1的空间分布处于“比较平均”状态；而土地利用强度4的生态服务功能空间分布在“警戒线”左右徘徊。③以福州市2009年各县（市）区GDP占全市GDP的累计百分比为横轴，以2009年各县（市）区土地生态系统服务功能价值占全市土地生态系统服务功能总价值的累计百分比为纵轴，绘制洛伦兹曲线。结果表明洛伦兹曲线曲率较大，远离绝对平均线，基尼系数为0.613，集中系数为1.480，生态经济对比处于高度不协调状态。
（9）运用STIRPAT模型研究福州市土地生态系统服务功能价值变化的驱动力因素。结果表明：STIRPAT模型能较好地拟合土地生态系统服务功能价值与社会经济发展指标间的关系，反映人口、富裕度、产业结构和城市化率等对服务功能价值变化的影响；影响土地生态系统服务功能价值（尤其对人均服务功能价值）的最主要因素是人口的增长。
（10）利用回归分析探讨了土地生态系统服务价值与人口、经济发展、社会发展之间的关系，结果表明：福州市生态系统服务价值与人口、城镇化率、GDP以及人均GDP之间存在着较好的线性正相关关系，相关系数R均大于0.580，福州市生态系统服务价值与城镇化率的线性相关度＞与GDP的相关度＞与人均GDP的相关度＞与人口的相关度；而福州市人均生态系统服务价值与人口、城镇化率、GDP以及人均GDP之间存在着较好的线性负相关关系，相关系数R均大于0.879，且福州市人均生态系统服务价值与人口的线性相关度＞与GDP的相关度＞与人均GDP的相关度＞与城镇化率的相关度。
（11）将研究期分为2000-2009年、2000-2004年和2005-2009年3个时间段，分别计算3个时间段的生态经济协调度，结果表明：当以单位面积作为计算指标衡量时，2000-2009年、2000-2004年和2005-2009年3个时间段的生态经济协调度EEH值分别为0.006、-0.0003和0.014，表明研究区处于生态经济轻度协调状态，其中前期处于轻度冲突状态，而后期处于轻度协调状态；当以人均作为计算指标衡量时，2000-2009年、2000-2004年和2005-2009年3个时间段的生态经济协调度EEH值分别为-0.104、-0.057和-0.155，表明研究区处于生态经济轻度冲突状态，且后期比前期冲突更加严重。连江县和平潭县的生态经济处于中度协调水平；市区的生态经济处于轻度冲突水平；其他县市（区）的生态经济均处在轻度协调的边缘。
（12）采用6种序参量上下限确定方案分别计算研究区的耦合度和耦合协调度值，并以其平均值代表研究区的耦合度和耦合协调度最终值。结果表明：福州市历年的耦合度数值均较大，介于0.65~1之间，只有2000年处于磨合阶段，而后进入高水平的耦合阶段；耦合协调度和动态耦合模型的计算结果与耦合度计算结果基本一致。
For about30years the valuation of ecosystem services has been the focus of ecologicaleconomics and environmental economics, and China began the study since later1990s. In foreignresearches of land ecosystem services estimation，mostly follow the method of the Costanza’s;While in domestic studies, mostly follow the method of Xie Gao-de’s land unit area of theecosystem service value. China is in the special stage of the economic transformation, the conflictbetween ecological environment and socio-economic development is becoming increasinglyapparent. Due to the level of economic development and social civilization degree, the assessmentof land ecosystem services has been lagged behind. There are several problems exiting in this field.Firstly, assessment of land ecosystem service value is in static evaluation stage, ignoring thewillingness to pay of the different historical periods and different ecological resources scarcities andecological assets. Secondly, assessment model does not consider the services value of constructionland, which are generally assumed to be zero. Thirdly, most of researches analyzed of the totalecosystem service in a special region during a special period, while the spatial variationcharacteristics studies of ecosystem service is relatively weak. Fourth, internal mechanism of thechanges in the value of the land ecosystem services, especially the impact of human activities (suchas the process of urbanization) on the land ecosystem services mechanism is rarely reported. Inview of this, on the basis of international and domestic researches, taking the central city of theEconomic Zone on the Western Coast-Fuzhou as the research object, it use calendar year land usechange data as well as the1985and2007two SPOT5remote sensing image map of Fuzhou city asdata sources, then several parts of researches have been carried out in this thesis, main contents andresults are as follows:
（1）According to global ecosystem and Chinese terrestrial ecosystem services valueevaluation results obtained by Costanza et al. and Xie Gao-di et al., and the state of the study area,this paper used substitution cost methods and prevented cost methods to estimate the influencingvalues of constructive lands on ecosystem services to analyze the change of ecosystem servicesvalue in Fuzhou. The results showed that the degree of land use increased, while the ecosystemservice values decreased, which was87,487.0878million RMB in1985，74,567.4633million RMBin1996,74,381.5086million RMB in2007. Woodland contributed over70％of the total servicevalue among the land use types．The value of soil formation and disposition, air regulation and airwater conservation occupied about46%of the total service value.
（2）The evaluation of land ecosystem service is the hotspot of ecological economics andenvironmental economics. On the basis of reviewing the evaluation methods of ecosystem servicefunction valuation, analyzing the research progress of the evaluation methods correction, it putforward that the factors such as spatial heterogeneity, social development and resource scarcityshould be taken into account in the ecosystem service evaluation model. Based on the former studies and the characteristics of the research area, it took both cultivated and forest lands’ biomassto build coefficient of spatial heterogeneity, both Engel's coefficient and urbanization to buildcoefficient of social development, population density to build coefficient of resource scarcity. Thenthe improved dynamic evaluation models were make up from the three coefficients. It took FuzhouCity as the study area. The effects showed that the annual static value of the land ecosystemservices in the city was estimated as38.948billion yuan, equal to14.77%of the local GDP in2009.The annual dynamic value was27.032billion yuan. The results showed that the output of theapproved model was more in accordance with the actual situation of all counties. Which couldprovide timely, exact and helpful information in decision making of land ecosystem conservationand social development, and had practical significance for land ecosystem construction andenvironment protection.
（3）The relatively mature method-Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) was used to beassociated with a questionnaire survey to evaluate the valuation of the ecosystem services of publicgreen spaces and rivers in center area of Fuzhou city. Using field research methods and thequestionnaire survey with the form of willingness to pay (WTP), we evaluated the influencingfactors to pay for the public green spaces and rivers ecosystem services combined with correlationanalysis and regression analysis. As a case study,1000payment card CVM questionnaires weresurveyed and836as useful quesionnaires were feed back. Distribution shape and rule of willingnessto pay were probed. The results showed that total value of the public green spaces and riversecosystem services was214.31million yuan, accounting for4.2%of the total value of the centralcity. T hrough multivariate statistical analysis in the case of public green spaces and riversecosystem recovery, some key factors were found to be quite important to WTP, such as the incomelevel, occupation and the distance between home and study area. Then the content dependency wereresearched in this thesis. The results showed that the “part-whole effect” and the”embedding effect" in this case study existed, but”sequencing effects "did not. There was a new effect as well, thatwas “equal effect”.
（4）The compartment theory was applied to simulate land ecosystem service value dynamicsunder different disturbance scenarios in the next three decades. The results showed that landscapestructure has undergone large changes, among which the changing land area was4.66million hm2from1985to2007, accounting for4%of the total area of Fuzhou. In different degree ofinterference, land ecosystem services changes were simulated using compartment theory. Theresults showed that the land ecosystem services value decreased with the increase of disturbanceintensity. On the basis of which, it proposed some land use strategies during the process of rapidurbanization.
（5）According to each types of land use area of1993,2004and2009in Fuzhou city, andusing the unit ecosystem services value supplied by the former study, it calculated ecosystemservice value of the nine counties of Fuzhou. The results showed that:①There were large differences of ecosystem service value existing in the nine counties, in which the ecosystem servicevalue in the top three were Yongtai County, Mminhou County and Fuqing City, while, themunicipal districts, Changle City and Pingtan County were ranked down; from the service value ofper unit area, the coastal areas of Pingtan County, Lianjiang County and Fuqing City were higher,while the mountain area of Yongtai County, Minqing County and Luoyuan County were lower.②Based on the former study, Fuzhou was divided into three districts: the artificial regulation ofecological zones, semi-natural artificial restoration of ecological zones and natural regulation ofecological zones.
（6）Using torque equilibrium point method to calculate the distribution center of Landecosystem services value. The results showed that the center of gravity of the different types of landecosystem services values were located near the administrative center and the geographic center ofFuzhou City. The moving trends of the gravity center of total value were from east to west,andsouth to north during1993to2004; while the trends were from west to east during2004to2009,and little change in the north-south direction.
（7）Shannon entropy of land ecosystem services structure in each counties sequenced:Changle City, Fuqing City, Liangjiang County, Pingtan County, Minhou County, the City districts,Luoyuan County, Minqing County and Yongtai County. Shannon entropy of each types of landecosystem services structure sequenced: unused land, grass land, arable land, construction land,forest land, water land, and garden land. Pearson correlation analysis showed that the forest lands,waters land, grass land and construction land and other types were the main factors that affectingthe structure of information entropy of land ecosystem services. Using stepwise multiple regressionto analyze the impact of urbanization on information entropy of functional structure, it showed thatpopulation density, per capita disposable income of urban residents and the proportion of tertiaryindustry to GDP were the most significant three impact factors.
（8）The Lorenz curve and Gini coefficient of various types of land ecosystem services indifferent periods in Fuzhou were studied in this paper. The results showed that:
①the ecosystem services spatial distribution of waters land and construction land were notrelatively balanced in each counties, while the spatial distribution of other types of land were in thereasonable state. The curvature of the various types land Lorenz curves were high in differentperiods In fuzhou, when taking per capita land ecosystem services into account. Wood land andgarden land were the only two types of land which’s spatial distribution of per capita ecologicalservice functions were within the cordon, while the spatial distribution of arable land, grass land,unused land, construction land and water land per capita value of ecosystem services were all in thestate of “too large gap” or above.
②The Lorenz curve and Gini coefficient of ecosystem services of different land use intensityin different periods in Fuzhou were studied in this paper. The results showed that the ecosystemservices Lorenz curve of land use intensity2was almost close to the absolutely uniform line, which’s spatial distribution was balanced and stable; the ecosystem services spatial distribution ofthe land use intensity3was in the state of "absolute average"; the land use intensity1was in theaverage state; while the land use intensity4was wandering around in the "cordon".
③Using the cumulative percentage of the counties GDP against the Fuzhou city’s GDP in2009as the horizontal axis, and the cumulative percentage of the counties land ecosystem servicesvalue against the Fuzhou city’s in2009as the vertical axis, it drew the Lorenz curve. The resultsshowed that the curvature of the Lorentz curve was far away from the absolute average line, and theGini coefficient was0.613, the concentration factor was1.480, which meant ecological system andeconomic system were in a highly uncoordinated state.
（9）Using STIRPAT model to study driving force factors of the Land ecosystem servicesvalue. The results showed that the STIRPAT model was fitted well to fit the relationship betweenthe land ecosystem services value and socio-economic indicators, which reflected that thepopulation, affluent degree, industrial structure and the urbanization rate would affect land ecologyservice value. To the land ecology service value (per capita service value in particular), the mostimportant factor was population growth.
（10）The relationships between land ecosystem service value and population, economic,social were explored here using regression analysis. The results showed that land ecosystem servicevalue has good relationship with population, urbanization rate, GDP and per capita GDP, and all thecoefficient R were greater than0.580. The most relevant fator to land ecosystem service value wasurbanization rate, the second was GDP, the third was per capita GDP, and the fourth was population.While per capita ecosystem services value has linear negative correlation with population,urbanization rate, GDP and per capita GDP, all the coefficient R were greater than0.879. The mostrelevant fator to per capita ecosystem services value was population, the second was GDP, the thirdwas per capita GDP, and the fourth was urbanization rate.
（11）The study period was divided into three periods,2000-2009,2000-2004and2005-2009,the coordination value of eco-economic were calculated for the three periods. The results showedthat: when the unit area as the calculation indicators to measure, the eco-economic coordinationvalue of the three periods were0.006,-0.0003and0.014, which meant that the ecological andeconomic in the study area was in mild coordination state, among which the early period was in themild state of conflict, but the late period was in the mild coordination state. When the per capita asthe calculation indicators to measure, the eco-economic coordination value of the three periods were-0.104,-0.057and-0.155, which meant that the ecological and economic in the study area was inmild conflict status, and the latter period was more serious than the former period. Among the ninecounties, the ecological and economic of Liangjiang County and Pingtan County were in amoderate level of coordination state; municipal districts was in a mild levels of conflict; while theother counties were in edge of the mild coordination.
（12）Six kinds of upper and lower limits to order parameter were adopting in this paper, and then each kinds of coupling degree and coupling coordination degree according to respectiveupper and lower limits were calculated. Using there average represented the coupling degree andcoupling coordination degree of the study area, it showed that the values were high, which rangeswere between0.65and1, among which the relationship between ecology and economic in2000was in the run-in phase, and then it went into a high level of coupling phase. The results of couplingcoordination and dynamic coupling model were in agreement.
引文
[1] Arrow K, Solow R, Portney P, et al. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Report to theGeneral Council of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [M]. Washington DC:Resources for the Future,1993
[2] Bailey K D. Methods of Social Research[M]. New York: The Free Press,1982
[3] Barton D N. The transferability of benefit transfer: contingent valuation of water quality improvements inCosta Rica[J]. Ecological Economics,2002,42(1-2):147-164
[4] Bateman I J, Willis K G, eds. Valuing environmental preferences: theory and practice of the contingentvaluation method in the US, EU, and developing countries [M]. New York: Oxford University Press,1999
[5] Barral María Paulaa, Maceira Néstor Oscar. Land-use planning based on ecosystem service assessment: Acase study in the Southeast Pampas of Argentina[J]. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment,2011,93:1-10
[6] Benson C. Sherrouse, Jessica M. Clement, Darius J. Semmens. A GIS application for assessing, mapping,and quantifying the social values of ecosystem services[J]. Applied Geography,2011,31:748-760
[7] Biao Zhang, Wenhua Li, Gaodi Xie. Ecosystem services research in China: Progress and perspective[J].Ecological Economics,2010,69:1389–1395
[8] Bjornstad D J, Kahn J R, eds. The contingent valuation of environmental resources: methodological issuesand research needs [M]. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited,1999
[9] Carson R T, Flores N E, M eade N F. Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence[J]. Environmentaland Resource Economics,2001,19(2):173-210
[10] Ciriacy-Wantrup S V. Capital returns from soil-conservation practices[J]. Journal of Farm Economics,1947,29:1181-1196
[11] Cooper J C. Optimal bid select ion f or dichotomous choice con tin gent valuation surveys[J]. Journal ofEnvironmental Economics and Management,1993,24:25-40
[12] Costanza R, Cumberland J, Daly H, et a1. An Introduction to Ecological Economics[M]．F L, USA: St LuciePress,1997b
[13] Costanza R, d’Arge R，de Groot R, et a1. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital[J].Nature,1997a,387:253-260
[14] Dae-Sik Kim, Kei Mizuno, Shintaro Kobayashi. Analysis of urbanization characteristics causing farmlandloss in a rapid growth area using GIS and RS[J]. Paddy Water Environment,2003,(1):189-199
[15] Daily G C, Soderquist T, Aniyar S, et al. The value of nature and the nature of value[J]. Science,2000,289:395-396
[16] Daily G C. Management objectives for the protection of ecosystem service[J]. Environmental Science andPolicy,2000,6:333-339
[17] Davis R K. Recreation planning as an economic problem[J]. Natural Resourees Journal,1963,(3):239-249
[18] De Groot R S, Wilson M A, Bouman R M J. A typology for the classification, description and valuation ofecosystem services, goods and services[J]. Ecological Economics,2002,41:393-408
[19] Ehrlich P R, Holdrens J P．The impact of population growth[J]. Science,1971,171:1212-1217
[20] Ellis G M, Fisher A C. Valuing the environment as input[J]. Journal of Environmental Management,1987,25:149-156
[21] Farber S, Costanza R, Childers D L, et al. Linking ecology and economics for ecosystem management[J].BioScience,2006,56(2):117-129
[22] Farina A. Principles and Method in Landscape Ecology [M]. London: Chapman and Hall,1998
[23] Forman R T T. Godron. Landscape Ecology[M]. New York: John Wilev and Sons,1986,3141-3168
[24] Gregory R. Identifying environmental values. In: Dale V H, English M R, eds. Tools to Aid EnvironmentalDecision Making[M]. New York: Springer Verlag New York Inc,1999
[25] Hanemann W M．Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discreteresponses[J]．American Journal of Agricultural Economics,1984,66(3):332-341
[26] Helliwell D R. Valuation of wildlife resources[J]. Regional Studies,1969,3:41-49
[27] Hoehn J P．Valuing the multidimensional impacts of environmental policy:Theory and methods[J]．AmericanJournal of Agricultural Economics,1991,73:289-299
[28] Jeffrey D Kline, Alissa Moses, Ralph J Alig. Integrating urbanization into landscape-level ecologicalassessments[J]. Ecosystem,2001,(4):3-18
[29] Johnson L T. Distributional preferences in contingent valuation surveys[J]. Ecological Economics,2006,56(4):475-487
[30] Jordi Roca, Emilio Padilla, Mariona Farre, et a1. Economic growth and atmospheric pollution in Spain:discussing the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis[J]. Ecological Economics,2001,39(1):85-99
[31] King R T. Wildlife and man[J]. New York Conservationist,1966,20(6):8-11
[32] Kritrom B. Spike models in contingent valuation[J]. American Journal of Agricultural Economics,1997,79(4):1013-1023
[33] Limburg K E,0’Neill R V, Costanza R, et a1. Complex systems and valuation[J]. Ecological Economics,2002,41:409-420
[34] Loomis J B, Walsh R G. Recreation economic decisions, comparing benefits and costs(second edition)[M].Pennsylvania: Venture Publishing Inc,1997,159-176
[35] MA Board. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Biodiversity synthesis report[R]. Washington D C: WorldResources Institute,2005
[36] Mary Tiffen. Transition in Sub-Saharan Africa: agriculture, urbanization and income growth[J]. WorldDevelopment,2003,31(8):1343-1366
[37] Mitchell R C, Carson R T. Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation method [M].Washington DC: Resources for the Future,1989
[38] Molles M C. Ecology: Concept and Application[M]. Beijing: Science Press,2000,53-78
[39] Morrison M, Bergland O. Prospects for the use of choice modeling for benefit transfer[J]. EcologicalEconomics,2006,60:420-428
[40] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation[J].Federal Register,1993,58(10):4601-4614
[41] Odum E P, Odum H T. Natural areas as necessary components of man’s total environment. In: Transactionsof the37th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference[C]. Wildlife Management Institute,Washington, D C,1972,37:178-189
[42] Pearce D. Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment[J]. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf,1990,215-289
[43] Portnov B A, Safriel U N. Combating desertication in the Negev: dry land agriculture vs. dry landurbanization[J]. Journal of Arid Environments,2004,(56):659-680
[44] Ruth Meinzen-Dick, Paul P, Appasamy. Urbanization and Intersectoral Competition for Water[J].Urbanization and Water,2001:27-51
[45] Sagoff M. Aggregation and deliberation in valuing environmental public goods: a look beyond contingentvaluation[J]. Ecological Economics,1998,24:213-230
[46] Spash C L. The Concerted Action on environmental valuation in Europe (EVE): an introductionenvironmental valuation in Europe (EVE)[J]. Cambridge Research for the Environment, U K,2000
[47] Sun Jian. Research Advances and Trends in Ecosystem Services and Evaluation in China [J]. ProcediaEnvironmental Sciences Sciences,2011,(10):1791–1796
[48] Tom Tietenberg.环境与资源经济学[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2001
[49] Turner M G. Spatial simulation of landscape changes in Georgia: a comparison of3transition models[J].Landscape Ecology,1987,1:29-36
[50] Turner R K, Paavola J, Cooper P, et al. Valuing nature: lessons learned and future research directions[J].Ecological Economics,2003,46:493-510
[51] Valerie Illingworth. The Penguin Dictionary of Physics[M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Press,1996,92-93
[52] Waggoner P E. Agricultural technology and its societal implications[J]. Technology in Society,2004,26:123-136
[53] Wilson M A, Carpenter, S R. Economic valuation of freshwater ecosystem services in the United States1971-1997[J]. Ecological Applications,1999,9(3):772-783
[54] York R, Rosa E A, Dietz T. STIRPAT, IPAT and ImPACT: Analysis tools for unpacking the driving forcesof environmental impacts[J]. Ecological Economics,2003,46:351-365
[55] Zarkin A G, Cates S C, Bala M V. Estimating the willingness to pay for drug abuse treatment——A pilotstudy [J]. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment,2000,18:149-159
[56]敖长林,李一军,冯磊,等.基于CVM的三江平原湿地非使用价值评价[J].生态学报,2010,30(23):6470-6477
[57]边静,何多兴,田永中,等.基于信息熵与空间洛伦兹曲线的土地利用空间结构分析——以重庆市合川区为例[J].水土保持研究,2011,18(5):201-204
[58]卞鸿雁,任志远.陕西省城市化与生态环境系统耦合关系[J].城市环境与城市生态,2011,24(2):5-9
[59]蔡志坚,杜丽永,蒋瞻.基于有效性改进的流域生态系统恢复条件价值评估——以长江流域生态系统恢复为例[J].中国人口·资源与环境,2011,2l(l):127-134
[60]曹顺爱,吴次芳,余万军.土地生态服务价值评价及其在土地利用布局中的应用-以杭州市萧山区为例[J].水土保持学报,2006,20(2):197-200
[61]车秀珍,尚金城,陈冲.城市化进程中的战略环境评价(SEA)初探[J].地理科学,2001,21(6):554-557
[62]陈博.洛伦兹曲线的发展及其启示[J].生产力研究,2010,(11):13-14
[63]陈国阶,何锦峰,涂建军.长江上游生态服务功能区域差异研究[J].山地学报,2005,23(4):406-412
[64]陈国阶.三峡工程对生态与环境影响的综合评价[M].北京:科学出版社,1993
[65]陈健飞,张志成,李娟娟.基于TM和ASTER影像的福州市土地利用变化分析[J].广州大学学报(自然科学版),2007,6(6):54-58
[66]陈军伟,孔祥斌,张凤荣,等.基于空间洛伦兹曲线的北京山区土地利用结构变化[J].中国农业大学学报,2006,11(4):71-74
[67]陈利顶,傅伯杰,徐建英,等.基于“源-汇”生态过程的景观格局识别方法-景观空间负荷对比指数[J].生态学报,2003,23(11)：2406-2413
[68]陈强强,孙小花,王生林,等.基于STIRPAT模型分析社会经济因素对甘肃省环境压力的影响[J].西北人口,2009,30(6):58-61
[69]陈威,伍世代,李玲玲,等.快速城市化进程中福州市土地利用动态变化及其人文驱动力研析[J].云南地理环境研究,2007,19(3):109-113
[70]陈文惠.福州土地利用变化及其驱动力多元综合分析[J].地球信息科学,2005,7(3):45-50
[71]陈彦光,刘继生.城市土地利用结构和形态的定量描述:从信息熵到分维数[J].地理研究,2001a,20(2):146-152
[72]陈彦光,刘明华.城市土地利用结构的熵值定律[J].人文地理,2001b,16(4):20-24
[73]陈仲新,张新时.中国生态系统效益的价值[J].科学通报,2000,45(1):17-22
[74]谌小勇,潘维俦.杉木人工林生态系统中氮素的动态特征[J].生态学报,1989,9(3):201-206
[75]董家华,舒廷飞,谢慧,等.城市建设用地生态服务功能价值计算与应用[J].同济大学学报(自然科学版),2007,35(5):636-640
[76]董雪旺,张捷,刘传华,等.条件价值法中的偏差分析及信度和效度检验——以九寨沟游憩价值评估为例[J].地理学报,2011,66(2):267-278
[77]杜亚平.改善东湖水质的经济分析[J].生态经济,1996,(6):15-20
[78]樊爱军,王开发.生态网络中能量流动的分室模型分析[J].重庆师范学院学报(自然科学版),1999,16(1):51-55
[79]樊皓,葛慧,雷少平,等.模糊数学方法在生态系统服务价值评估中的应用[J].水资源保护,2011,27(2):34-37
[80]方创琳,黄金川,步伟娜.西北干旱区水资源约束下城市化过程及生态效应研究的理论探讨[J].干旱区地理,2004,27(1):1-7
[81]封志明,杨艳昭,宋玉,等.中国县域土地利用结构类型研究[J].自然资源学报,2003,18(5):552-561
[82]《福州年鉴》编纂委员会.福州年鉴2010[M].北京：方志出版社,2010
[83]中国城市规划设计研究院编制.福州市城市总体规划（2008-2020）
[84]福州市统计局.2010福州统计年鉴[M].北京:中国统计出版社
[85]傅伯杰.黄土区农业景观空间格局分析[J].生态学报,1995,15(2):113-120
[86]高元竞.闽江河口湿地生态服务功能价值评价[D].福建农林大学硕士学位论文,2009
[87]耿海青,谷树忠,国冬梅.基于信息熵的城市居民家庭能源消费结构演变分析——以无锡市为例[J].自然资源学报,2004,19(3):257-262
[88]顾朝林,于涛方,李王鸣.中国城市化:格局·过程·机理[M].北京:科学出版社,2008
[89]顾朝林.中国城市地理[M].北京:商务印书馆,1999,153-159
[90]顾芗,周生路,张红富,等.南京市生态系统服务价值时间变化及区域差异分析[J].生态学杂志,2009,28(3):497-502
[91]郭宝东.湿地生态系统服务价值构成及价值估算方法[J].环境保护与循环经济,2011,(1):67-70
[92]郭剑英,王乃昂.敦煌旅游资源非使用价值评估[J].资源科学,2005,27(5):188-192
[93]郭亚军.综合评价理论、方法及应用[M].北京:科学出版社,2006:70-73
[94]郭中伟,甘雅玲.关于生态系统服务功能的几个科学问题[J].生物多样性,2003,11(1):63-69
[95]韩祎,孙辉,唐亚.生态系统服务价值及其评估方法研究进展[J].四川环境,2005,24(1):20-26
[96]何东进,洪伟,吴承祯.毛竹林生态系统能量动态分室新模型[J].植物资源与环境学报,2001,9(4):9-13
[97]何东进,洪伟,吴承祯.毛竹林生态系统能量动态规律的研究[J].竹子研究汇刊,2000,19(1):63-67
[98]何东进,洪伟,胡海清,等.武夷山风景名胜区景观空间格局变化及其干扰效应模拟分析[J].生态学报,2004,24(8):1602-1610
[99]贺桂珍,吕永龙,王晓龙,等.应用条件价值评估法对无锡市五里湖综合治理的评价[J].生态学报,2007,27(1):270-280
[100]洪伟,林思祖.计量林学研究[M].成都:电子科技大学出版社,1993
[101]洪伟,吴承祯.山地土地利用方向的自组织学习联想神经树判别[J].山地学报,2000,18(6):554-558
[102]洪伟,闫淑君,吴承祯.福建森林生态系统安全和生态响应[J].福建农林大学学报(自然科学版),2003,32(1):79-83
[103]扈传荣,姜栋,唐旭,等.基于洛伦兹曲线的全国城市土地利用现状抽样分析[J].中国土地科学,2009,23(12):44-50
[104]黄蕾,段百灵,袁增伟,等.湖泊生态系统服务功能支付意愿的影响因素——以洪泽湖为例[J].生态学报,2010,30(2):487-497
[105]黄大明,赵松龄.矮嵩草草甸能量动态的分室模型研究[J].生态学报,1992,12(2):119-124
[106]黄大明.高寒草甸放牧生态系统的分室模型研究[J].厦门大学学报(自然科学版),1993,32(6):768-772
[107]黄大明.高寒草甸放牧生态系统夏秋草场轮牧制度的模拟研究[J].生态学报,1996,16(6):607-611
[108]黄金川,方创琳.城市化与生态环境交互耦合机制与规律性分析[J].地理研究,2003,22(2):211-220
[109]黄裕峰,徐昌明,黄裕婕,等．洛伦兹曲线在江西省土地利用分析中的应用[J]．江西师范大学学报(自然科学版),2003,(4):177-180
[110]黄正良,钟慧润.西安市土地利用空间分异研究[J].地域研究与开发,2011,30(4):108-111
[111]姬桂珍,吴承祯,洪伟,等.武夷山市土地利用结构信息熵动态研究[J].安全与环境学报,2004,4(4):41-44
[112]江洪.云杉种群生态学[M].北京:中国林业出版社,7-139
[113]金万富,汤晓华.福州城市化与生态环境耦合状况分析[J].井冈山大学学报(自然科学版),2010,31(6):57-61
[114]康博文,刘建军,党坤良,等.秦岭火地塘林区油松林土壤碳循环研究[J].应用生态学报,2006,17(5):759-764
[115]康幕谊.城市生态学与城市环境[M].北京:中国计量出版社,1997
[116]孔鹏志,杨忠直.中国经济-环境系统的物质代谢分析[J].经济与管理研究,2010,(10):41-47
[117]孔鹏志,杨忠直.中国经济系统的物质循环结构分析[J].软科学,2011,25(1):63-66
[118]黎元生,韩凌芬,胡熠.居民生态支付意愿调查与政策含义——以闽江下游为例[J].云南师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2010,42(4):59-64
[119]李波,宋晓媛,谢花林,等.北京市平谷区生态系统服务价值动态[J].应用生态学报,2008,19(10):2251-2258
[120]李博,杨持,林鹏.生态学[M].北京:高等教育出版社,1999.263
[121]李冬梅,濮励杰,韩书成,等.吴江土地利用结构信息熵变化诱因[J].福建农林大学学报(自然科学版),2008,37(4):415-419
[122]李金昌.生态价值论[M].重庆:重庆大学出版社,1999:28-39
[123]李文华,张彪,谢高地.中国生态系统服务研究的回顾与展望[J].自然资源学报,2009,24(1):1-10
[124]李文楷,李天宏,钱征寒.深圳市土地利用变化对生态服务功能的影响[J].自然资源学报,2008,23(3):440-446
[125]李新华,刘景双,孙志高,等.三江平原小叶章湿地生态系统硫的生物地球化学循环[J].生态学报,2007,27(5):2199-2207
[126]李玉文,徐中民,王勇,等.环境库兹涅茨曲线(EKC)研究进展[J].生态经济学报,2005,3(1):59-65
[127]厉以宁,秦宛顺.现代西方经济学概论(第2版)[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1992
[128]梁守真,李仁东,朱超洪.洞庭湖区生态服务价值变化区域差异研究[J].长江流域资源与环境,2006,15(2):196-200
[129]林勇明,崔鹏,葛永刚,等.蒋家沟流域景观空间格局变化及其干扰效应的模拟分析[J].中国水土保持科学,2010,8(6):32-40
[130]刘洋,金凤君,甘红.区域水资源空间匹配分析[J].辽宁工程技术大学学报,2005,24(5):657-660
[131]刘宏杰,李维哲.城市土地利用评价研究-以河北省为例[J].国土与自然资源研究,2004,(1):7-9
[132]刘纪远.中围资源环境遥感宏观调查与动态研究[M].北京:中国科学技术出版社,1996:171-188
[133]刘景辉,李立军,王志敏.中国粮食安全指标的探讨[J].中国农业科技导报,2004,6(4):10-16
[134]刘克玉,廖善刚.福州市生态系统服务价值对土地利用变化的响应研究[J].菏泽学院学报,2010,32(5):78-82
[135]刘清丽,陈友飞,孙然好.福州地区土地景观格局动态变化及多样性分析[J].热带地理,2005,25(3):211-214
[136]刘向华,马忠玉,刘子刚.我国生态服务价值评估方法的述评[J].理论月刊,2005,(7):130-132
[137]刘耀彬,李仁东,宋学锋.中国城市化与生态环境耦合度分析[J].自然资源学报,2005b,20(1):105-112
[138]刘耀彬,李仁东,宋学锋.中国区域城市化与生态环境耦合的关联分析[J].地理学报,2005a,60(2):237-247
[139]刘玉龙,马俊杰,金学林,等.生态系统服务功能价值评估方法综述[J].中国人口.资源与环境,2005,15(1):88-92
[140]栾维新,崔红艳.基于G IS的辽河三角洲潜在海平面上升淹没损失评估[J].地理研究,2004,23(6):805-814
[141]罗辑,陆玉麒,吴勇.人口地理学[M].江苏:江苏教育出版社,1992,236-237
[142]满敬銮,杨薇.基于多重共线性的处理方法[J].数学理论与应用,2010,30(2):105-109
[143]孟爱云,濮励杰,赵翠薇.土地利用规划生态环境影响区域差异研究[J].环境科学研究,2006,19(4):125-131
[144]孟庆松,韩文秀,金锐.科技-经济系统协调模型研究[J].天津师范大学学报(自然科学版),1998,18(4):8-1
[145]倪维秋.基于信息熵的黑龙江省土地利用结构分析[J].国土与自然资源研究,2011,(5):11-12
[146]聂艳,雷文华,周勇,等.区域城市化与生态环境耦合时空变异特征-以湖北省为例[J].中国土地科学,2008,22(11):56-62
[147]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,1999a,10(5):635-640
[148]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
[149]钱欣,王德,马力.街头公园改造的收益评价——CVM价值评估法在城市规划中的应用[J].城市规划学刊,2010,(3):41-50
[150]乔标,方创琳.城市化与生态环境协调发展的动态耦合模型及其在干旱区的应用[J].生态学报,2005,25(11):3003-3009
[151]秦明周.土地利用分类及其影响因素研究[J].地域研究与开发,1997,16(1):13-16
[152]石龙宇,崔胜辉,尹锴,等.厦门市土地利用/覆被变化对生态系统服务的影响[J].地理学报,2010,65(6):708-714
[153]石晓丽,王卫.生态系统功能价值综合评估方法与应用——以河北省康保县为例[J].2008,28(8):3998-4006
[154]史培军,张淑英,潘耀忠,等.生态资产与区域可持续发展[J].北京师范大学学报(社会科学版),2005,(2):131-137
[155]宋佳楠,梅建屏,金晓斌,等.基于协调系数修正的区域生态系统服务价值测算研究[J].地理与地理信息科学,2010,26(1):86-89
[156]宋述军,周万村.岷江流域土地利用结构对地表水水质的影响[J].长江流域资源与环境,2008，17(5):712-715
[157]宋学锋,刘耀彬.城市化与生态环境的耦合度模型及其应用[J].科技导报,2005,23(5):31-33
[158]苏美蓉,杨志峰,张迪.城市生态系统服务功能价值评估方法初探[J].环境科学与技术,2007,30(7):52-55
[159]粟晓玲,康绍忠,佟玲.内陆河流域生态系统服务价值的动态估算方法与应用——以甘肃河西走廊石羊河流域为例[J].生态学报,2006,26(6):2011-2019
[160]孙克,徐中民.环境影响评价中人文因素作用的空间计量[J].生态学报,2009,29(3):1563-1570
[161]孙海涛.城市生态安全评价体系研究[J].中国国土资源经济,2009,(3):23-27
[162]孙鸿烈.中国资源科学百科全书[M].北京:中国大百科全书出版社,2000
[163]谭永忠,吴次芳.区域土地利用结构的信息熵分异规律研究[J].自然资源学报,2003,18(1):112-117
[164]唐秀美,陈百明,路庆斌,等.生态系统服务价值的生态区位修正方法——以北京市为例[J].生态学报,2010,30(13):3526-3535
[165]陶星名,田光明,王宇峰,等.杭州市生态系统服务价值分析[J].经济地理,2006,26(4):665-668
[166]田刚,蔡博峰.北京地区人工景观生态服务价值估算[J].环境科学,2004,25(5):5-9
[167]王成,魏朝富,邵景安,等.区域生态服务价值对土地利用变化的响应——以重庆市沙坪坝区为例[J].应用生态学报,2006,17(8):1485-1489
[168]王琳,吴业,杨桂山,等.基于STIRPAT模型的耕地面积变化及其影响因素[J].农业工程学报,2008,24(12):196-200
[169]王凤珍,周志翔,郑忠明.武汉市典型城市湖泊湿地资源非使用价值评价[J].生态学报,2010，30(12):3261-3269
[170]王恒,叶宏,唐小军,等.四川省环境洛伦兹曲线的分析及应用研究[J].四川环境,2007,26(3):117-122
[171]王如松.高效、和谐——城市生态调控原则和方法[M].长沙:湖南教育出版社,1988,23-46
[172]王玉朝,赵成义.景观生态学中的干扰问题小议[J].干旱区资源与环境,2003,17(2):89-93
[173]魏丽娜,刘学录.甘肃省土地利用结构信息熵动态研究[J].甘肃农业大学学报,2007,42(3):97-101
[174]吴承祯,洪伟.资源公平分配的遗传算法研究[J].运筹与管理,1998,(2):23-28
[175]吴承祯,洪伟.中国土地利用程度的区域分异规律模拟研究[J].山地学报,1999,17(4):333-337
[176]吴承祯,洪伟,林思祖.杉木种子涩籽的空间特征分析[J].山地学报,2006,24(1):117-122
[177]吴建寨,李波,张新时.生态系统服务价值变化在生态经济协调发展评价中的应用[J].应用生态学报,2007,18(11):2554-2558
[178]肖杨,毛显强,袁达,等.水环境退化经济损失的计量方法及其应用[J].环境科学研究,2006,19(6):127-130
[179]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[J].资源科学,2001,23(6):5-9
[180]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
[181]谢正峰.浅议信息熵在区域土地利用空间结构研究应用中的问题[J].国土与自然资源研究,2008,(1):44-45
[182]徐学荣,吴祖建,张巨勇,等.可持续发展通道及预警研究[J].数学的实践与认识,2003,33(2):31-37
[183]徐中民,程国栋.中国人口和富裕对环境的影响[J].冰川冻土,2005,27(5):767-773
[184]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):1841-1850
[185]许丽忠,吴春山,王菲凤,等.条件价值法评估旅游资源非使用价值的可靠性检验[J].生态学报,2007,27(10):4301-4309
[186]许学强,周一星,宁越敏.城市地理学[M].北京:高等教育出版社,1996,188
[187]薛达元,包浩生,李文华.长自山自然保护区生物多样性非使用价值评估[J].中国环境科学,1999,19(3):247-252
[188]杨光梅,李文华,闵庆文.生态系统服务价值评估研究进展——国外学者观点[J].生态学报,2006,26(1):205-212
[189]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
[190]杨士弘.城市生态环境学[M].北京:科学出版社,2003
[191]杨吾扬.北京市零售商业与服务业中心和网点的过去、现在和将来[J].地理学报,1994,49(1):9-15
[192]叶琳,徐涵秋.近20年来福州市土地利用时空变化的遥感分析[J].地球信息科学,2008,10(1):80-87
[193]尤爱华,徐中民,王新华,等.人口、富裕及技术对2000年中国水足迹的影响[J].生态学报,2006,26(10):3358-3365
[194]余春祥.可持续发展的环境容量和资源承载力分析[J].中国软科学,2004,(2):130-133
[195]余新晓,鲁绍伟,靳芳,等.中国森林生态系统服务功能价值评估[J].生态学报,2005,25(8):2096-2102
[196]岳书平,张树文,闫业超.东北样带土地利用变化对生态服务价值的影响[J].地理学报,2007,62(8):879-886
[197]曾贤刚.我国城镇居民对CO2减排的支付意愿调查研究[J].中国环境科学,2011,31(2):346-352
[198]曾珍香.可持续发展协调性分析[J].系统工程理论与实践,2001,(3):18-21
[199]张兵,金凤君,胡德勇.甘肃中部地区生态安全评价[J].自然灾害学报,2007,16(5):9-15
[200]张果,厉红兰.成都市人口地域分布的研究[J].四川师范大学学报(自然科学版),2004,27(4):414-418
[201]张洁.苇—纸农工循环生产系统有机物流模型及优化[D].南京农业大学硕士学位毕业论文,2004
[202]张晶,封志明,杨艳昭.洛伦兹曲线及其在中国耕地、粮食、人口时空演变格局研究中的应用[J].干旱区资源与环境,2007,21(11):63-67
[203]张茵,蔡运龙.条件估值法评估环境资源价值的研究进展[J].北京大学学报(自然科学版),2005,41(2):317-328
[204]张金屯,邱扬,郑凤英.景观格局的数量研究方法[J].山地学报,2000,18(4):346-352
[205]张卫民,安景文,韩朝.熵值法在城市可持续发展评价问题中的应用[J].数量经济技术经济研究,2003,(6):115-118
[206]张晓晨,朱志玲,王彩娟,等.银川市城市生态服务功能价值的变化分析[J].干旱环境监测,2009,23(1):41-45
[207]张耀启,李一清,潘羿.自然与环境资源价值评估的误区[J].自然资源学报,2005,20(3):453-460
[208]张翼飞,赵敏.意愿价值法评估生态服务价值的有效性与可靠性及实例设计研究[J].地球科学进展,2007,22(11):1141-1149
[209]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].复旦大学博士学位论文,2008
[210]张志强,徐中民,程国栋.生态系统服务与自然资本价值评估[J].生态学报,2001,21(11):1918-1926
[211]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
[212]张志强,徐中民,尤爱华,等.黑河流域张掖市生态系统服务恢复价值评估研究——连续型和离散型条件价值评估方法的比较应用[J].自然资源学报,2004,19(2):230-239
[213]赵晶,徐建华.上海市土地利用结构和形态演变的信息熵与分维分析[J].地理研究,2004,23(2):137-145
[214]赵军,杨凯,邰俊,等.上海城市河流生态系统服务的支付意愿[J].环境科学,2005,26(2):5-10
[215]赵军,杨凯.生态系统服务价值评估研究进展[J].生态学报,2007,27(1):346-356
[216]赵军,杨凯.自然资源与环境价值评估:条件估值法及应用原则探讨[J].自然资源学报,2006,21(5):834-843
[217]赵军,杨凯,邰俊,等.上海城市河流生态系统服务的支付意愿[J].环境科学,2005,26(2):5-10
[218]郑宇,冯德显.城市化进程中水土资源可持续利用分析[J].地理科学进展,2002,21(3):223-229
[219]郑海霞,张陆彪,涂勤.金华江流域生态服务补偿支付意及其影响因素分析[J].资源科学,2010,32(4):761-767
[220]郑丽丹,黄曦,叶夏,等.福州市土地利用景观格局动态分析[J].江西农业学报,2010,22(10):138-140
[221]郑易生,阎林.90年代中期中国环境污染经济损火估算[J].管理世界, l999,(2):189-197,207
[222]钟春棋,曾从盛,刘诗苑,等.基于RS与GIS的福州市景观格局动态演化研究[J].太原师范学院学报(自然科学版),2007,21(3):85-89
[223]周尚意,李新,董蓬勃.北京郊区化进程中人口分布与大中型商场布局的互动[J].经济地理,2003,23(3):333-337
[224]周学红,马建章,张伟,等.运用CVM评估濒危物种保护的经济价值及其可靠性分析——以哈尔滨市区居民对东北虎保护的支付意愿为例[J].自然资源学报,2009,24(2):276-285
[225]朱懋,韦素琼,居风云.福州市土地利用变化趋势及其生态服务价值评价[J].太原师范学院学报(自然科学版),2009,8(4):89-93
[226]朱查松,罗震东,胡继元.基于生态敏感性分析的城市非建设用地划分研究[J].城市发展研究,2008,15(4):30-35
[227]宗雪,崔国发,袁婧.基于条件价值法的大熊猫存在价值评估[J].生态学报,2008,28(5):2090-2098
[228]宗跃光,徐宏彦,汤艳冰,等.城市生态系统服务功能的价值结构分析[J].城市环境与城市生态,1999,12(4):19-22
[2] Bailey K D. Methods of Social Research[M]. New York: The Free Press,1982
[3] Barton D N. The transferability of benefit transfer: contingent valuation of water quality improvements inCosta Rica[J]. Ecological Economics,2002,42(1-2):147-164
[4] Bateman I J, Willis K G, eds. Valuing environmental preferences: theory and practice of the contingentvaluation method in the US, EU, and developing countries [M]. New York: Oxford University Press,1999
[5] Barral María Paulaa, Maceira Néstor Oscar. Land-use planning based on ecosystem service assessment: Acase study in the Southeast Pampas of Argentina[J]. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment,2011,93:1-10
[6] Benson C. Sherrouse, Jessica M. Clement, Darius J. Semmens. A GIS application for assessing, mapping,and quantifying the social values of ecosystem services[J]. Applied Geography,2011,31:748-760
[7] Biao Zhang, Wenhua Li, Gaodi Xie. Ecosystem services research in China: Progress and perspective[J].Ecological Economics,2010,69:1389–1395
[8] Bjornstad D J, Kahn J R, eds. The contingent valuation of environmental resources: methodological issuesand research needs [M]. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited,1999
[9] Carson R T, Flores N E, M eade N F. Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence[J]. Environmentaland Resource Economics,2001,19(2):173-210
[10] Ciriacy-Wantrup S V. Capital returns from soil-conservation practices[J]. Journal of Farm Economics,1947,29:1181-1196
[11] Cooper J C. Optimal bid select ion f or dichotomous choice con tin gent valuation surveys[J]. Journal ofEnvironmental Economics and Management,1993,24:25-40
[12] Costanza R, Cumberland J, Daly H, et a1. An Introduction to Ecological Economics[M]．F L, USA: St LuciePress,1997b
[13] Costanza R, d’Arge R，de Groot R, et a1. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital[J].Nature,1997a,387:253-260
[14] Dae-Sik Kim, Kei Mizuno, Shintaro Kobayashi. Analysis of urbanization characteristics causing farmlandloss in a rapid growth area using GIS and RS[J]. Paddy Water Environment,2003,(1):189-199
[15] Daily G C, Soderquist T, Aniyar S, et al. The value of nature and the nature of value[J]. Science,2000,289:395-396
[16] Daily G C. Management objectives for the protection of ecosystem service[J]. Environmental Science andPolicy,2000,6:333-339
[17] Davis R K. Recreation planning as an economic problem[J]. Natural Resourees Journal,1963,(3):239-249
[18] De Groot R S, Wilson M A, Bouman R M J. A typology for the classification, description and valuation ofecosystem services, goods and services[J]. Ecological Economics,2002,41:393-408
[19] Ehrlich P R, Holdrens J P．The impact of population growth[J]. Science,1971,171:1212-1217
[20] Ellis G M, Fisher A C. Valuing the environment as input[J]. Journal of Environmental Management,1987,25:149-156
[21] Farber S, Costanza R, Childers D L, et al. Linking ecology and economics for ecosystem management[J].BioScience,2006,56(2):117-129
[22] Farina A. Principles and Method in Landscape Ecology [M]. London: Chapman and Hall,1998
[23] Forman R T T. Godron. Landscape Ecology[M]. New York: John Wilev and Sons,1986,3141-3168
[24] Gregory R. Identifying environmental values. In: Dale V H, English M R, eds. Tools to Aid EnvironmentalDecision Making[M]. New York: Springer Verlag New York Inc,1999
[25] Hanemann W M．Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discreteresponses[J]．American Journal of Agricultural Economics,1984,66(3):332-341
[26] Helliwell D R. Valuation of wildlife resources[J]. Regional Studies,1969,3:41-49
[27] Hoehn J P．Valuing the multidimensional impacts of environmental policy:Theory and methods[J]．AmericanJournal of Agricultural Economics,1991,73:289-299
[28] Jeffrey D Kline, Alissa Moses, Ralph J Alig. Integrating urbanization into landscape-level ecologicalassessments[J]. Ecosystem,2001,(4):3-18
[29] Johnson L T. Distributional preferences in contingent valuation surveys[J]. Ecological Economics,2006,56(4):475-487
[30] Jordi Roca, Emilio Padilla, Mariona Farre, et a1. Economic growth and atmospheric pollution in Spain:discussing the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis[J]. Ecological Economics,2001,39(1):85-99
[31] King R T. Wildlife and man[J]. New York Conservationist,1966,20(6):8-11
[32] Kritrom B. Spike models in contingent valuation[J]. American Journal of Agricultural Economics,1997,79(4):1013-1023
[33] Limburg K E,0’Neill R V, Costanza R, et a1. Complex systems and valuation[J]. Ecological Economics,2002,41:409-420
[34] Loomis J B, Walsh R G. Recreation economic decisions, comparing benefits and costs(second edition)[M].Pennsylvania: Venture Publishing Inc,1997,159-176
[35] MA Board. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Biodiversity synthesis report[R]. Washington D C: WorldResources Institute,2005
[36] Mary Tiffen. Transition in Sub-Saharan Africa: agriculture, urbanization and income growth[J]. WorldDevelopment,2003,31(8):1343-1366
[37] Mitchell R C, Carson R T. Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation method [M].Washington DC: Resources for the Future,1989
[38] Molles M C. Ecology: Concept and Application[M]. Beijing: Science Press,2000,53-78
[39] Morrison M, Bergland O. Prospects for the use of choice modeling for benefit transfer[J]. EcologicalEconomics,2006,60:420-428
[40] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation[J].Federal Register,1993,58(10):4601-4614
[41] Odum E P, Odum H T. Natural areas as necessary components of man’s total environment. In: Transactionsof the37th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference[C]. Wildlife Management Institute,Washington, D C,1972,37:178-189
[42] Pearce D. Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment[J]. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf,1990,215-289
[43] Portnov B A, Safriel U N. Combating desertication in the Negev: dry land agriculture vs. dry landurbanization[J]. Journal of Arid Environments,2004,(56):659-680
[44] Ruth Meinzen-Dick, Paul P, Appasamy. Urbanization and Intersectoral Competition for Water[J].Urbanization and Water,2001:27-51
[45] Sagoff M. Aggregation and deliberation in valuing environmental public goods: a look beyond contingentvaluation[J]. Ecological Economics,1998,24:213-230
[46] Spash C L. The Concerted Action on environmental valuation in Europe (EVE): an introductionenvironmental valuation in Europe (EVE)[J]. Cambridge Research for the Environment, U K,2000
[47] Sun Jian. Research Advances and Trends in Ecosystem Services and Evaluation in China [J]. ProcediaEnvironmental Sciences Sciences,2011,(10):1791–1796
[48] Tom Tietenberg.环境与资源经济学[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2001
[49] Turner M G. Spatial simulation of landscape changes in Georgia: a comparison of3transition models[J].Landscape Ecology,1987,1:29-36
[50] Turner R K, Paavola J, Cooper P, et al. Valuing nature: lessons learned and future research directions[J].Ecological Economics,2003,46:493-510
[51] Valerie Illingworth. The Penguin Dictionary of Physics[M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Press,1996,92-93
[52] Waggoner P E. Agricultural technology and its societal implications[J]. Technology in Society,2004,26:123-136
[53] Wilson M A, Carpenter, S R. Economic valuation of freshwater ecosystem services in the United States1971-1997[J]. Ecological Applications,1999,9(3):772-783
[54] York R, Rosa E A, Dietz T. STIRPAT, IPAT and ImPACT: Analysis tools for unpacking the driving forcesof environmental impacts[J]. Ecological Economics,2003,46:351-365
[55] Zarkin A G, Cates S C, Bala M V. Estimating the willingness to pay for drug abuse treatment——A pilotstudy [J]. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment,2000,18:149-159
[56]敖长林,李一军,冯磊,等.基于CVM的三江平原湿地非使用价值评价[J].生态学报,2010,30(23):6470-6477
[57]边静,何多兴,田永中,等.基于信息熵与空间洛伦兹曲线的土地利用空间结构分析——以重庆市合川区为例[J].水土保持研究,2011,18(5):201-204
[58]卞鸿雁,任志远.陕西省城市化与生态环境系统耦合关系[J].城市环境与城市生态,2011,24(2):5-9
[59]蔡志坚,杜丽永,蒋瞻.基于有效性改进的流域生态系统恢复条件价值评估——以长江流域生态系统恢复为例[J].中国人口·资源与环境,2011,2l(l):127-134
[60]曹顺爱,吴次芳,余万军.土地生态服务价值评价及其在土地利用布局中的应用-以杭州市萧山区为例[J].水土保持学报,2006,20(2):197-200
[61]车秀珍,尚金城,陈冲.城市化进程中的战略环境评价(SEA)初探[J].地理科学,2001,21(6):554-557
[62]陈博.洛伦兹曲线的发展及其启示[J].生产力研究,2010,(11):13-14
[63]陈国阶,何锦峰,涂建军.长江上游生态服务功能区域差异研究[J].山地学报,2005,23(4):406-412
[64]陈国阶.三峡工程对生态与环境影响的综合评价[M].北京:科学出版社,1993
[65]陈健飞,张志成,李娟娟.基于TM和ASTER影像的福州市土地利用变化分析[J].广州大学学报(自然科学版),2007,6(6):54-58
[66]陈军伟,孔祥斌,张凤荣,等.基于空间洛伦兹曲线的北京山区土地利用结构变化[J].中国农业大学学报,2006,11(4):71-74
[67]陈利顶,傅伯杰,徐建英,等.基于“源-汇”生态过程的景观格局识别方法-景观空间负荷对比指数[J].生态学报,2003,23(11)：2406-2413
[68]陈强强,孙小花,王生林,等.基于STIRPAT模型分析社会经济因素对甘肃省环境压力的影响[J].西北人口,2009,30(6):58-61
[69]陈威,伍世代,李玲玲,等.快速城市化进程中福州市土地利用动态变化及其人文驱动力研析[J].云南地理环境研究,2007,19(3):109-113
[70]陈文惠.福州土地利用变化及其驱动力多元综合分析[J].地球信息科学,2005,7(3):45-50
[71]陈彦光,刘继生.城市土地利用结构和形态的定量描述:从信息熵到分维数[J].地理研究,2001a,20(2):146-152
[72]陈彦光,刘明华.城市土地利用结构的熵值定律[J].人文地理,2001b,16(4):20-24
[73]陈仲新,张新时.中国生态系统效益的价值[J].科学通报,2000,45(1):17-22
[74]谌小勇,潘维俦.杉木人工林生态系统中氮素的动态特征[J].生态学报,1989,9(3):201-206
[75]董家华,舒廷飞,谢慧,等.城市建设用地生态服务功能价值计算与应用[J].同济大学学报(自然科学版),2007,35(5):636-640
[76]董雪旺,张捷,刘传华,等.条件价值法中的偏差分析及信度和效度检验——以九寨沟游憩价值评估为例[J].地理学报,2011,66(2):267-278
[77]杜亚平.改善东湖水质的经济分析[J].生态经济,1996,(6):15-20
[78]樊爱军,王开发.生态网络中能量流动的分室模型分析[J].重庆师范学院学报(自然科学版),1999,16(1):51-55
[79]樊皓,葛慧,雷少平,等.模糊数学方法在生态系统服务价值评估中的应用[J].水资源保护,2011,27(2):34-37
[80]方创琳,黄金川,步伟娜.西北干旱区水资源约束下城市化过程及生态效应研究的理论探讨[J].干旱区地理,2004,27(1):1-7
[81]封志明,杨艳昭,宋玉,等.中国县域土地利用结构类型研究[J].自然资源学报,2003,18(5):552-561
[82]《福州年鉴》编纂委员会.福州年鉴2010[M].北京：方志出版社,2010
[83]中国城市规划设计研究院编制.福州市城市总体规划（2008-2020）
[84]福州市统计局.2010福州统计年鉴[M].北京:中国统计出版社
[85]傅伯杰.黄土区农业景观空间格局分析[J].生态学报,1995,15(2):113-120
[86]高元竞.闽江河口湿地生态服务功能价值评价[D].福建农林大学硕士学位论文,2009
[87]耿海青,谷树忠,国冬梅.基于信息熵的城市居民家庭能源消费结构演变分析——以无锡市为例[J].自然资源学报,2004,19(3):257-262
[88]顾朝林,于涛方,李王鸣.中国城市化:格局·过程·机理[M].北京:科学出版社,2008
[89]顾朝林.中国城市地理[M].北京:商务印书馆,1999,153-159
[90]顾芗,周生路,张红富,等.南京市生态系统服务价值时间变化及区域差异分析[J].生态学杂志,2009,28(3):497-502
[91]郭宝东.湿地生态系统服务价值构成及价值估算方法[J].环境保护与循环经济,2011,(1):67-70
[92]郭剑英,王乃昂.敦煌旅游资源非使用价值评估[J].资源科学,2005,27(5):188-192
[93]郭亚军.综合评价理论、方法及应用[M].北京:科学出版社,2006:70-73
[94]郭中伟,甘雅玲.关于生态系统服务功能的几个科学问题[J].生物多样性,2003,11(1):63-69
[95]韩祎,孙辉,唐亚.生态系统服务价值及其评估方法研究进展[J].四川环境,2005,24(1):20-26
[96]何东进,洪伟,吴承祯.毛竹林生态系统能量动态分室新模型[J].植物资源与环境学报,2001,9(4):9-13
[97]何东进,洪伟,吴承祯.毛竹林生态系统能量动态规律的研究[J].竹子研究汇刊,2000,19(1):63-67
[98]何东进,洪伟,胡海清,等.武夷山风景名胜区景观空间格局变化及其干扰效应模拟分析[J].生态学报,2004,24(8):1602-1610
[99]贺桂珍,吕永龙,王晓龙,等.应用条件价值评估法对无锡市五里湖综合治理的评价[J].生态学报,2007,27(1):270-280
[100]洪伟,林思祖.计量林学研究[M].成都:电子科技大学出版社,1993
[101]洪伟,吴承祯.山地土地利用方向的自组织学习联想神经树判别[J].山地学报,2000,18(6):554-558
[102]洪伟,闫淑君,吴承祯.福建森林生态系统安全和生态响应[J].福建农林大学学报(自然科学版),2003,32(1):79-83
[103]扈传荣,姜栋,唐旭,等.基于洛伦兹曲线的全国城市土地利用现状抽样分析[J].中国土地科学,2009,23(12):44-50
[104]黄蕾,段百灵,袁增伟,等.湖泊生态系统服务功能支付意愿的影响因素——以洪泽湖为例[J].生态学报,2010,30(2):487-497
[105]黄大明,赵松龄.矮嵩草草甸能量动态的分室模型研究[J].生态学报,1992,12(2):119-124
[106]黄大明.高寒草甸放牧生态系统的分室模型研究[J].厦门大学学报(自然科学版),1993,32(6):768-772
[107]黄大明.高寒草甸放牧生态系统夏秋草场轮牧制度的模拟研究[J].生态学报,1996,16(6):607-611
[108]黄金川,方创琳.城市化与生态环境交互耦合机制与规律性分析[J].地理研究,2003,22(2):211-220
[109]黄裕峰,徐昌明,黄裕婕,等．洛伦兹曲线在江西省土地利用分析中的应用[J]．江西师范大学学报(自然科学版),2003,(4):177-180
[110]黄正良,钟慧润.西安市土地利用空间分异研究[J].地域研究与开发,2011,30(4):108-111
[111]姬桂珍,吴承祯,洪伟,等.武夷山市土地利用结构信息熵动态研究[J].安全与环境学报,2004,4(4):41-44
[112]江洪.云杉种群生态学[M].北京:中国林业出版社,7-139
[113]金万富,汤晓华.福州城市化与生态环境耦合状况分析[J].井冈山大学学报(自然科学版),2010,31(6):57-61
[114]康博文,刘建军,党坤良,等.秦岭火地塘林区油松林土壤碳循环研究[J].应用生态学报,2006,17(5):759-764
[115]康幕谊.城市生态学与城市环境[M].北京:中国计量出版社,1997
[116]孔鹏志,杨忠直.中国经济-环境系统的物质代谢分析[J].经济与管理研究,2010,(10):41-47
[117]孔鹏志,杨忠直.中国经济系统的物质循环结构分析[J].软科学,2011,25(1):63-66
[118]黎元生,韩凌芬,胡熠.居民生态支付意愿调查与政策含义——以闽江下游为例[J].云南师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2010,42(4):59-64
[119]李波,宋晓媛,谢花林,等.北京市平谷区生态系统服务价值动态[J].应用生态学报,2008,19(10):2251-2258
[120]李博,杨持,林鹏.生态学[M].北京:高等教育出版社,1999.263
[121]李冬梅,濮励杰,韩书成,等.吴江土地利用结构信息熵变化诱因[J].福建农林大学学报(自然科学版),2008,37(4):415-419
[122]李金昌.生态价值论[M].重庆:重庆大学出版社,1999:28-39
[123]李文华,张彪,谢高地.中国生态系统服务研究的回顾与展望[J].自然资源学报,2009,24(1):1-10
[124]李文楷,李天宏,钱征寒.深圳市土地利用变化对生态服务功能的影响[J].自然资源学报,2008,23(3):440-446
[125]李新华,刘景双,孙志高,等.三江平原小叶章湿地生态系统硫的生物地球化学循环[J].生态学报,2007,27(5):2199-2207
[126]李玉文,徐中民,王勇,等.环境库兹涅茨曲线(EKC)研究进展[J].生态经济学报,2005,3(1):59-65
[127]厉以宁,秦宛顺.现代西方经济学概论(第2版)[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1992
[128]梁守真,李仁东,朱超洪.洞庭湖区生态服务价值变化区域差异研究[J].长江流域资源与环境,2006,15(2):196-200
[129]林勇明,崔鹏,葛永刚,等.蒋家沟流域景观空间格局变化及其干扰效应的模拟分析[J].中国水土保持科学,2010,8(6):32-40
[130]刘洋,金凤君,甘红.区域水资源空间匹配分析[J].辽宁工程技术大学学报,2005,24(5):657-660
[131]刘宏杰,李维哲.城市土地利用评价研究-以河北省为例[J].国土与自然资源研究,2004,(1):7-9
[132]刘纪远.中围资源环境遥感宏观调查与动态研究[M].北京:中国科学技术出版社,1996:171-188
[133]刘景辉,李立军,王志敏.中国粮食安全指标的探讨[J].中国农业科技导报,2004,6(4):10-16
[134]刘克玉,廖善刚.福州市生态系统服务价值对土地利用变化的响应研究[J].菏泽学院学报,2010,32(5):78-82
[135]刘清丽,陈友飞,孙然好.福州地区土地景观格局动态变化及多样性分析[J].热带地理,2005,25(3):211-214
[136]刘向华,马忠玉,刘子刚.我国生态服务价值评估方法的述评[J].理论月刊,2005,(7):130-132
[137]刘耀彬,李仁东,宋学锋.中国城市化与生态环境耦合度分析[J].自然资源学报,2005b,20(1):105-112
[138]刘耀彬,李仁东,宋学锋.中国区域城市化与生态环境耦合的关联分析[J].地理学报,2005a,60(2):237-247
[139]刘玉龙,马俊杰,金学林,等.生态系统服务功能价值评估方法综述[J].中国人口.资源与环境,2005,15(1):88-92
[140]栾维新,崔红艳.基于G IS的辽河三角洲潜在海平面上升淹没损失评估[J].地理研究,2004,23(6):805-814
[141]罗辑,陆玉麒,吴勇.人口地理学[M].江苏:江苏教育出版社,1992,236-237
[142]满敬銮,杨薇.基于多重共线性的处理方法[J].数学理论与应用,2010,30(2):105-109
[143]孟爱云,濮励杰,赵翠薇.土地利用规划生态环境影响区域差异研究[J].环境科学研究,2006,19(4):125-131
[144]孟庆松,韩文秀,金锐.科技-经济系统协调模型研究[J].天津师范大学学报(自然科学版),1998,18(4):8-1
[145]倪维秋.基于信息熵的黑龙江省土地利用结构分析[J].国土与自然资源研究,2011,(5):11-12
[146]聂艳,雷文华,周勇,等.区域城市化与生态环境耦合时空变异特征-以湖北省为例[J].中国土地科学,2008,22(11):56-62
[147]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,1999a,10(5):635-640
[148]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
[149]钱欣,王德,马力.街头公园改造的收益评价——CVM价值评估法在城市规划中的应用[J].城市规划学刊,2010,(3):41-50
[150]乔标,方创琳.城市化与生态环境协调发展的动态耦合模型及其在干旱区的应用[J].生态学报,2005,25(11):3003-3009
[151]秦明周.土地利用分类及其影响因素研究[J].地域研究与开发,1997,16(1):13-16
[152]石龙宇,崔胜辉,尹锴,等.厦门市土地利用/覆被变化对生态系统服务的影响[J].地理学报,2010,65(6):708-714
[153]石晓丽,王卫.生态系统功能价值综合评估方法与应用——以河北省康保县为例[J].2008,28(8):3998-4006
[154]史培军,张淑英,潘耀忠,等.生态资产与区域可持续发展[J].北京师范大学学报(社会科学版),2005,(2):131-137
[155]宋佳楠,梅建屏,金晓斌,等.基于协调系数修正的区域生态系统服务价值测算研究[J].地理与地理信息科学,2010,26(1):86-89
[156]宋述军,周万村.岷江流域土地利用结构对地表水水质的影响[J].长江流域资源与环境,2008，17(5):712-715
[157]宋学锋,刘耀彬.城市化与生态环境的耦合度模型及其应用[J].科技导报,2005,23(5):31-33
[158]苏美蓉,杨志峰,张迪.城市生态系统服务功能价值评估方法初探[J].环境科学与技术,2007,30(7):52-55
[159]粟晓玲,康绍忠,佟玲.内陆河流域生态系统服务价值的动态估算方法与应用——以甘肃河西走廊石羊河流域为例[J].生态学报,2006,26(6):2011-2019
[160]孙克,徐中民.环境影响评价中人文因素作用的空间计量[J].生态学报,2009,29(3):1563-1570
[161]孙海涛.城市生态安全评价体系研究[J].中国国土资源经济,2009,(3):23-27
[162]孙鸿烈.中国资源科学百科全书[M].北京:中国大百科全书出版社,2000
[163]谭永忠,吴次芳.区域土地利用结构的信息熵分异规律研究[J].自然资源学报,2003,18(1):112-117
[164]唐秀美,陈百明,路庆斌,等.生态系统服务价值的生态区位修正方法——以北京市为例[J].生态学报,2010,30(13):3526-3535
[165]陶星名,田光明,王宇峰,等.杭州市生态系统服务价值分析[J].经济地理,2006,26(4):665-668
[166]田刚,蔡博峰.北京地区人工景观生态服务价值估算[J].环境科学,2004,25(5):5-9
[167]王成,魏朝富,邵景安,等.区域生态服务价值对土地利用变化的响应——以重庆市沙坪坝区为例[J].应用生态学报,2006,17(8):1485-1489
[168]王琳,吴业,杨桂山,等.基于STIRPAT模型的耕地面积变化及其影响因素[J].农业工程学报,2008,24(12):196-200
[169]王凤珍,周志翔,郑忠明.武汉市典型城市湖泊湿地资源非使用价值评价[J].生态学报,2010，30(12):3261-3269
[170]王恒,叶宏,唐小军,等.四川省环境洛伦兹曲线的分析及应用研究[J].四川环境,2007,26(3):117-122
[171]王如松.高效、和谐——城市生态调控原则和方法[M].长沙:湖南教育出版社,1988,23-46
[172]王玉朝,赵成义.景观生态学中的干扰问题小议[J].干旱区资源与环境,2003,17(2):89-93
[173]魏丽娜,刘学录.甘肃省土地利用结构信息熵动态研究[J].甘肃农业大学学报,2007,42(3):97-101
[174]吴承祯,洪伟.资源公平分配的遗传算法研究[J].运筹与管理,1998,(2):23-28
[175]吴承祯,洪伟.中国土地利用程度的区域分异规律模拟研究[J].山地学报,1999,17(4):333-337
[176]吴承祯,洪伟,林思祖.杉木种子涩籽的空间特征分析[J].山地学报,2006,24(1):117-122
[177]吴建寨,李波,张新时.生态系统服务价值变化在生态经济协调发展评价中的应用[J].应用生态学报,2007,18(11):2554-2558
[178]肖杨,毛显强,袁达,等.水环境退化经济损失的计量方法及其应用[J].环境科学研究,2006,19(6):127-130
[179]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[J].资源科学,2001,23(6):5-9
[180]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
[181]谢正峰.浅议信息熵在区域土地利用空间结构研究应用中的问题[J].国土与自然资源研究,2008,(1):44-45
[182]徐学荣,吴祖建,张巨勇,等.可持续发展通道及预警研究[J].数学的实践与认识,2003,33(2):31-37
[183]徐中民,程国栋.中国人口和富裕对环境的影响[J].冰川冻土,2005,27(5):767-773
[184]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):1841-1850
[185]许丽忠,吴春山,王菲凤,等.条件价值法评估旅游资源非使用价值的可靠性检验[J].生态学报,2007,27(10):4301-4309
[186]许学强,周一星,宁越敏.城市地理学[M].北京:高等教育出版社,1996,188
[187]薛达元,包浩生,李文华.长自山自然保护区生物多样性非使用价值评估[J].中国环境科学,1999,19(3):247-252
[188]杨光梅,李文华,闵庆文.生态系统服务价值评估研究进展——国外学者观点[J].生态学报,2006,26(1):205-212
[189]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
[190]杨士弘.城市生态环境学[M].北京:科学出版社,2003
[191]杨吾扬.北京市零售商业与服务业中心和网点的过去、现在和将来[J].地理学报,1994,49(1):9-15
[192]叶琳,徐涵秋.近20年来福州市土地利用时空变化的遥感分析[J].地球信息科学,2008,10(1):80-87
[193]尤爱华,徐中民,王新华,等.人口、富裕及技术对2000年中国水足迹的影响[J].生态学报,2006,26(10):3358-3365
[194]余春祥.可持续发展的环境容量和资源承载力分析[J].中国软科学,2004,(2):130-133
[195]余新晓,鲁绍伟,靳芳,等.中国森林生态系统服务功能价值评估[J].生态学报,2005,25(8):2096-2102
[196]岳书平,张树文,闫业超.东北样带土地利用变化对生态服务价值的影响[J].地理学报,2007,62(8):879-886
[197]曾贤刚.我国城镇居民对CO2减排的支付意愿调查研究[J].中国环境科学,2011,31(2):346-352
[198]曾珍香.可持续发展协调性分析[J].系统工程理论与实践,2001,(3):18-21
[199]张兵,金凤君,胡德勇.甘肃中部地区生态安全评价[J].自然灾害学报,2007,16(5):9-15
[200]张果,厉红兰.成都市人口地域分布的研究[J].四川师范大学学报(自然科学版),2004,27(4):414-418
[201]张洁.苇—纸农工循环生产系统有机物流模型及优化[D].南京农业大学硕士学位毕业论文,2004
[202]张晶,封志明,杨艳昭.洛伦兹曲线及其在中国耕地、粮食、人口时空演变格局研究中的应用[J].干旱区资源与环境,2007,21(11):63-67
[203]张茵,蔡运龙.条件估值法评估环境资源价值的研究进展[J].北京大学学报(自然科学版),2005,41(2):317-328
[204]张金屯,邱扬,郑凤英.景观格局的数量研究方法[J].山地学报,2000,18(4):346-352
[205]张卫民,安景文,韩朝.熵值法在城市可持续发展评价问题中的应用[J].数量经济技术经济研究,2003,(6):115-118
[206]张晓晨,朱志玲,王彩娟,等.银川市城市生态服务功能价值的变化分析[J].干旱环境监测,2009,23(1):41-45
[207]张耀启,李一清,潘羿.自然与环境资源价值评估的误区[J].自然资源学报,2005,20(3):453-460
[208]张翼飞,赵敏.意愿价值法评估生态服务价值的有效性与可靠性及实例设计研究[J].地球科学进展,2007,22(11):1141-1149
[209]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].复旦大学博士学位论文,2008
[210]张志强,徐中民,程国栋.生态系统服务与自然资本价值评估[J].生态学报,2001,21(11):1918-1926
[211]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
[212]张志强,徐中民,尤爱华,等.黑河流域张掖市生态系统服务恢复价值评估研究——连续型和离散型条件价值评估方法的比较应用[J].自然资源学报,2004,19(2):230-239
[213]赵晶,徐建华.上海市土地利用结构和形态演变的信息熵与分维分析[J].地理研究,2004,23(2):137-145
[214]赵军,杨凯,邰俊,等.上海城市河流生态系统服务的支付意愿[J].环境科学,2005,26(2):5-10
[215]赵军,杨凯.生态系统服务价值评估研究进展[J].生态学报,2007,27(1):346-356
[216]赵军,杨凯.自然资源与环境价值评估:条件估值法及应用原则探讨[J].自然资源学报,2006,21(5):834-843
[217]赵军,杨凯,邰俊,等.上海城市河流生态系统服务的支付意愿[J].环境科学,2005,26(2):5-10
[218]郑宇,冯德显.城市化进程中水土资源可持续利用分析[J].地理科学进展,2002,21(3):223-229
[219]郑海霞,张陆彪,涂勤.金华江流域生态服务补偿支付意及其影响因素分析[J].资源科学,2010,32(4):761-767
[220]郑丽丹,黄曦,叶夏,等.福州市土地利用景观格局动态分析[J].江西农业学报,2010,22(10):138-140
[221]郑易生,阎林.90年代中期中国环境污染经济损火估算[J].管理世界, l999,(2):189-197,207
[222]钟春棋,曾从盛,刘诗苑,等.基于RS与GIS的福州市景观格局动态演化研究[J].太原师范学院学报(自然科学版),2007,21(3):85-89
[223]周尚意,李新,董蓬勃.北京郊区化进程中人口分布与大中型商场布局的互动[J].经济地理,2003,23(3):333-337
[224]周学红,马建章,张伟,等.运用CVM评估濒危物种保护的经济价值及其可靠性分析——以哈尔滨市区居民对东北虎保护的支付意愿为例[J].自然资源学报,2009,24(2):276-285
[225]朱懋,韦素琼,居风云.福州市土地利用变化趋势及其生态服务价值评价[J].太原师范学院学报(自然科学版),2009,8(4):89-93
[226]朱查松,罗震东,胡继元.基于生态敏感性分析的城市非建设用地划分研究[J].城市发展研究,2008,15(4):30-35
[227]宗雪,崔国发,袁婧.基于条件价值法的大熊猫存在价值评估[J].生态学报,2008,28(5):2090-2098
[228]宗跃光,徐宏彦,汤艳冰,等.城市生态系统服务功能的价值结构分析[J].城市环境与城市生态,1999,12(4):19-22
© 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 |