工业园区土地产出效率评价的思路与方法研究
|
摘要
我国正处于快速城市化、工业化阶段,城市建设、工业发展对土地资源的需求越来越大。根据《全国土地利用总体规划纲要(2006-2020年)》,到2020年我国新增建设用地为585万公顷(8775万亩),而规划期前五年的新增建设用地面积己占新增总量的40%左右,可见到2020年我国新增建设用地十分有限。而新增建设用地中,耕地转为建设用地的比例较高,为40%-50%。另外,我国城市工业用地比例约为22%,与国外大城市相比明显偏高。在耕地保护的形势日益严峻、城市中工业用地与其他用地(公共设施用地、绿地、居住用地等)之间的矛盾日益突出的背景下,用地指标紧张已成为我国发展的主要瓶颈。但与此同时,工业用地却存在着用地粗放、低效等问题,工业用地闲置现象严重、土地产出效率远低于发达国家水平。针对上述问题,国务院发布了《关于深化改革严格土地管理的决定》、《关于促进节约集约用地的通知》等相关政策,国土资源部也在2008年提出了开展开发区土地集约利用评价工作并制定了《开发区土地集约利用程度评价规程(试行)》,通过建立指标体系、确定指标权重、确定指标理想值、指标标准化和计算分值等步骤,来评价工业园区的土地集约利用水平。
国外关于工业用地绩效评价或土地集约利用水平评价的研究很少,其研究范围主要来自于中国。从国外可持续发展理论和城市规划土地利用方式的管理中可以看出,西方社会认为农田和自然资源的价值很高,需要限制城市增长,将工业用地抑制在尽可能小的范围内,也就不需要对工业用地绩效进行评价。而国内关于工业用地绩效评价的研究也是通过建立指标体系,以地均固定资产投入、地均就业人数、容积率、建筑密度、地均产出、地均利税等指标来评价工业用地土地集约利用水平,评价方法与《开发区土地集约利用程度评价规程(试行)》基本一致。
然而,现有的评价方法过于简单,用地均产出(即单位面积工业产出)来判断工业用地土地产出效率的高低,其前提是所有工业园区都是在同一起跑线上；而且默认所有的工业园区都是合理的,落后的工业园区是可以通过自己努力来提高土地产出效率。实际上,这两个前提是不成立,主要原因包括以下两个方面：一是工业园区的级别问题。级别高的工业园区,上一级政府对园区内的产业布局更为重视,进入的项目质量较高。二是地理区位问题。离中心城区较近的工业园区,能享受到中心城区的服务功能；靠近主要交通枢纽,即交通通达性较好,则便于运输。因此,区位好的工业园区更容易吸引优质企业进入。另外,工业用地与城市功能的关系较为复杂：当工业用地与城市功能发生冲突时,城市功能受到损害;当工业用地与城市功能互补时,能够促进城市的发展。而现有评价方法无法反映出上述情况。总的来说,现有评价方法无法识别出工业园区土地产出效率差异的原因,即土地产出效率受园区级别、地理区位等因素影响的大小,也无法识别出哪些区位是不适合发展工业的。
本文的研究目的是为了对现有工业园区集约利用水平评价方法进行改进和补充,从相对值的角度来衡量工业园区的土地产出效率,即在剔除某些客观条件(如园区级别、地理位置等区位因素)的影响后,对工业园区的土地产出效率进行评价。从评价结果中判断出受到区位因素影响较大的工业园区,并识别出城市中不适合发展工业的地方,从而优化和调整城市的产业结构、推动城市的发展转型。
本文从两部分对文献进行梳理。首先,梳理有关工业用地绩效评价的国内外研究进展,发现国外有关工业用地绩效评价的研究很少,而国内研究是通过建立指标体系来评价工业用地集约利用水平。所以,工业园区土地产出效率评价是具有中国特色的,需要为新的评价方法寻找相应的理论基础。其次,本文将借鉴城市发展与空间结构的相关理论、土地经济学中的级差地租理论以及城市经济学中的区位理论,从三个方面阐述了城市中适合发展工业的地方,即有利于城市功能的发挥、土地产出效率与所支付的租金相一致、有利于企业对区位的选择。
通过梳理企业区位选择的实证研究,对各文献中使用的计量模型和企业选址时考虑的影响因素进行归纳。确定合适的计量模型和区位因素,分析各因素对2007-2008年上海市制造业企业区位选择的影响。在确定区位因素的基础上,通过计量模型来分析区位因素对工业园区土地产出效率的影响,并用残差来表示剔除区位因素后的土地产出效率。
通过单因素回归的方法,分析园区级别、到市中心距离、到最近高速公路距离等因素对工业园区土地产出效率的影响。结果显示：园区级别对土地产出效率有重大影响。国家级工业园区有较为明显的级别优势；市级工业园区有一定的级别优势,但明显小于国家级工业园区；工业基地并没有明显的级别优势；区县级工业园区有明显的级别劣势。到市中心距离对工业园区土地产出效率有较大影响。离市中心越近,则土地产出效率越高。而到最近高速公路的距离对土地产出效率的影响较小。并结合地均产出残差的大小和地均产出排名的变化情况来识别出土地产出效率一直较低或一直较高的工业园区、区位优势十分明显或较为明显的工业园区、区位劣势十分明显或较为明显的工业园区。
根据评价结果分析,指出需要讨论的问题并提出相应的政策建议：一是采用单位面积工业产值评价代加工为主的工业园区时,由于其工业产值很高但工业增加值和税收很低的特点,其土地产出效率被明显高估了。因此,有必要建立工业园区的工业增加值统计体系。二是在工业园区发展转型的过程中,2.5产业进入工业园区,一方面提高了园区的土地产出效率；另一方面由于2.5产业与生产性服务业的范畴不清,利用工业用地发展服务业的现象较为普遍,而将服务业的产出算在工业用地上,导致工业园区的土地产出效率被高估。将这类工业园区的土地产出效率与那些严格按照国家用地政策利用办公用地、商业用地来发展服务业的园区相比,是不合理的。因此,园区内工业用地政策也要与时俱进,统一规范,对土地管理制度进行改革。三是工业用地与城市功能的关系复杂,靠近市中心的工业园区能享受到公共设施长期投入的成果,即中心城区服务功能和交通通达性较好；而离市中心较近的工业园区所产生的污染问题会损害到城市功能的发挥。因此,靠近市中心的工业园区如何发展是城市发展方式转型的空间表现。离市中心较近的成熟工业园区,如果与城市功能互补,则考虑逐步与中心城区融为一体；如果与城市功能发生严重冲突,则考虑逐步撤销此类工业园区。四是从城市综合竞争力的角度来看,上海市的工业用地明显偏多,对于区位非常不利的区县级工业园区或市级工业园区,可以考虑将部分工业园区搬到区位较好的园区,逐步撤销一些工业园区用以发展其他用地(如农业、绿地、公共设施用地、住宅用地等),改善城市土地利用结构不合理的状况。
本文的创新点包括以下三个方面：从理论层面上来看,本文将地租理论、区位理论纳入到土地产出效率评价中,改变了原有评价体系缺乏理论支撑的现状。从技术层面上来看,本文采用了新的思路和方法对工业园区产出效率进行评价。在研究思路上,本文指出了原有评价方法的局限性,即没有考虑到园区级别(?)地理区位对土地产出效率的影响,并且默认所有的工业园区都是合理的,无法识别出不适合发展工业的地方。因此,只有在剔除区位因素对产出效率影响的情况下,才能分析出工业园区土地产出效率差异的原因,更为客观、合理地评价工业园区的土地产出效率。在研究方法上,本文对企业的区位选择进行了实证研究,明确了区位变量的范围,并在此基础上对上海市工业园区土地产出效率进行回归,用回归残差来表示剔除区位因素影响后的土地产出效率。从应用层面上来看,本文提出的评价方法将工业园区土地产出效率评价与城市发展方式转型紧密结合,这种方法能使我们从城市功能的角度重新审视某些工业园区存在的合理性以及发展转型的方向,有利于我们认识城市工业空间结构调整的方向。
In stage of rapid urbanization and industrialization, the land resource demand for urban construction and industrial development keeps rising in China. According to "National Outline of Overall Plan of Land Utilization (2006-2020)", there will be5,850,000hectares (87,750,000mu) of newly-increasing construction land by2020, but the area of newly-increasing construction land in the first five years of the planning period has taken up about40%of the total amount. It can be seen that the construction land will increase to a very limited extent by2020in China. A high percentage (40%-50%) of cultivated land is converted into construction land. Besides, compared with developed countries, the percentage of urban industrial land in China is much higher. When the situation of protecting cultivated land becomes more and more severe, and the contradiction between urban industrial land and other lands (land for public facilities, greenbelt, residential land, etc) is increasingly serious, the shortage of land resource has become the main bottleneck for China's development. However, industrial land utilization is extensive and low efficient. There is a large amout of unutilized land in industrial park and land productivity is far lower than that in developed countries. For the above problems, the State Council issued "Decision on Deepening the Reform of Strict Land Management","Notice on Promoting Land Saving and Intensive Use" and other relevant policies. The Ministry of Land and Resources also proposed to carry out evaluation for intensive land use in the development zone and formulated "Evaluation Regulations for Intensive Land Use in Development Zone (trial)" in2008. The evaluation procedures include setting up index system, determining index weight and ideal value, standardizing index and calculating the scores.
Few studies about performance evaluation of industrial land at abroad come mainly from China. In order to protect farmland and natural resource, Western countries will limit urban sprawl and increase efficiency of land use so that it is unnecessary to evaluate the performance of industrial land. The domestic studies are to evaluate the level of intensive land use through setting up index system. The main index include investment density of fixed assets, employment density, floor area ratio, building density, industrial output per unit area, profit and tax per unit area and so on. The evaluation method is basically consistent with "Evaluation Regulations for Intensive Land Use in Development Zone (trial)"
However, the existing evaluation method is to assess land productivity in industrial parks by industrial output per unit area which is based on the two premises: Firstly, all industrial parks are on the same starting line. Secondly, it tacitly approves that all industrial parks are reasonable, and lagged industrial parks can improve land productividy through their own efforts. In fact, these two premises are unreasonable for the following reasons. The first one is the level of industrial parks. If the level is higher, the government will attach greater importance to the industrial layout in the park and introduces projects with higher quality. The second is geographical location. If the industrial park is near to the central urban area, it can enjoy urban service function. If it is close to the main traffic hub, it is good for transportation. Therefore, industrial parks with good location tend to attract high-quality enterprises. In addition, the relationship between industrial land and urban function is relatively complicated. When industrial land is in conflict with urban function, the latter will be damaged; when industrial land complements urban function, it can boost the development of the city. But the existing evaluation method can not reflect the above situation. In general, the current method can not recognize the reason for the difference of land productivity in industrial parks, neither can it recognize the location which is not suitable for developing industry.
The research purpose is to improve the existing evaluation method by measuring industrial land productivity from the perspective of relative value, i.e. evaluating the land productivity after removing the influence of some objective conditions (such as the level of industrial parks, geographical location). From the evalution result, the industrial park that is greatly influenced by location factors and the location that is not suitable for developing industrial land will be recognized, so that urban industrial structure can be optimized and adjusted.
This paper arranges the literature by the following two aspects. First, it reviews the progress of domestic and foreign studies on performance evaluation of industrial land, and finds that foreign studies on performance evaluation of industrial land are little, while domestic studies evaluate intensive use of industrial land by setting up index system. So the evaluation of land productivity in industrial parks has Chinese characteristics. It needs to find corresponding theoretical foundation for the new evaluation method. Second, this paper will refer to theories related to urban development and spatial structure, theory of differential land rent in land economics and location theory in urban economics to illustrate the location suitable for developing industry, where it can bring urban functions into play, makes productivity and land rent consistent, and is preferred by enterprises.
By reviewing the empirical studies on industrial location, different econometric models and the location factors are summarized. After choosing the appropriate models and factors, this paper analysed the influences of these factors on the location choice of manufacturing enterprises in Shanghai. On the basis of the identification of location factors, this thesis analyses the effects of them on land productivity in industrial park and uses regression residuals to represent the land productivity when location elements are not taken into consideration.
By the means of single factor regression, this paper analyses the influences of park level, distance to CBD and distance to the nearest freeway on land productivity in industrial parks. The results show that park level exerts significant effects on land productiviy. That is, national level industrial parks have relatively advantages; municipal level industrial parks have certain level advantages which are inferior to national level parks; industrial bases do not have apparent level advantages; district or county level industrial parks have apparent level disadvantages. Distance to CBD has relatively significant impacts on land productivity, which means that the closer to the city center he higher the land productivity. Distance to the nearest highway has little impact on land productivity. Furthermore, in combination with both the siie of residuals and changes in ranking of land productivity, this paper identifies industrial parks of which the land productivity has always been high or low, industrial parks with obvious location advantages and with obvious location disadvantages.
According to the evaluation results, this paper points out some issues needed to be discussed and comes up with corresponding policy suggestions. Firstly, industrial parks which primarily focus on valet processing have the characteristic that their industrial output is quite high whereas their industrial added value and taxation are quite low. If land productivity of these industrial parks is evaluated by industrial output value per unit area, it will be overestimated. Therefore, it is necessary to establish statistical systems for industrial added value in the parks. Secondly, in the process of developmental transition of industrial parks,2.5industries enter industrial parks which can improve the land productivity. However, if2.5industries can not be differentiated from producer services, it is quite common that industrial land is used to develop service industry which means the outputs of service industries are counted in industrial land. This will lead to the overestimation of land productivity in the industrial parks. It is also unfair to those industrial parks which strictly comply with national land policies to develop service industries. Therefore, land policies have to keep pace with the times and to unify regulations as well as reform land management system. Thirdly, the relation between industrial land and urban functions is complicated. Industrial parks close to urban center benefit from the achievements of long-term investment into communal facilities, but pollution generated by these industrial parks will impair urban functions. Therefore, how the industrial parks close to urban center area will develop is the spatial depiction of the transformation of urban development. If the mature industrial parks could be complementary in urban functions, then they should be integrated gradually into urban center area. If they conflict seriously with urban functions, then they should be shut down step by step. Fourthly, from the perspective of urban comprehensive competitiveness, it is obvious that the industrial land in Shanghai is too much. For those district or county level parks or municipal level parks, it can be considered to move them to other parks with better location or gradually shut down some of them to develop other land (such as agriculture, green land, residential land) so as to improve unreasonable land use structure.
The innovative point of this paper includes the following three aspects. In theory, it integrates land rent theory and location theory into land productivity evaluation and thus changes the current situation that original evaluation systems lack theoretical support. In technques, it adopts new thinkings and methods to evaluate the output efficiency of industrial parks. In research thinking, this paper points out the limitations of old evaluation method. On one hand, the existing method does not take the influences of park levels and geographical locations on land productivity into consideration. On the other hand, the method cannot identify the places that are not appropriate for developing industry. Therefore, only when the impact of location factors on land productivity are not taken into account can the land productivity in the industrial parks be evaluated in a more objective and reasonable way. In research methods, this paper carries out empirical studies on location choice of enterprises and makes clear the range of location factors, and then made regression to analyze the impact of location factors on land productivity of industrial parks in Shanghai. The regression residuals can be used to represent the land productivity when location factors are not taken into consideration. In application, the new evaluation method combines the evaluzation of land productivity in industrial parks and the transformation of urban development closely, which can enable us to reexamine the reasonableness of the existence of some industrial parks and the direction of development transformation, and to show us the direction of the adjustment of urban industrial spatial structure.
国外关于工业用地绩效评价或土地集约利用水平评价的研究很少,其研究范围主要来自于中国。从国外可持续发展理论和城市规划土地利用方式的管理中可以看出,西方社会认为农田和自然资源的价值很高,需要限制城市增长,将工业用地抑制在尽可能小的范围内,也就不需要对工业用地绩效进行评价。而国内关于工业用地绩效评价的研究也是通过建立指标体系,以地均固定资产投入、地均就业人数、容积率、建筑密度、地均产出、地均利税等指标来评价工业用地土地集约利用水平,评价方法与《开发区土地集约利用程度评价规程(试行)》基本一致。
然而,现有的评价方法过于简单,用地均产出(即单位面积工业产出)来判断工业用地土地产出效率的高低,其前提是所有工业园区都是在同一起跑线上；而且默认所有的工业园区都是合理的,落后的工业园区是可以通过自己努力来提高土地产出效率。实际上,这两个前提是不成立,主要原因包括以下两个方面：一是工业园区的级别问题。级别高的工业园区,上一级政府对园区内的产业布局更为重视,进入的项目质量较高。二是地理区位问题。离中心城区较近的工业园区,能享受到中心城区的服务功能；靠近主要交通枢纽,即交通通达性较好,则便于运输。因此,区位好的工业园区更容易吸引优质企业进入。另外,工业用地与城市功能的关系较为复杂：当工业用地与城市功能发生冲突时,城市功能受到损害;当工业用地与城市功能互补时,能够促进城市的发展。而现有评价方法无法反映出上述情况。总的来说,现有评价方法无法识别出工业园区土地产出效率差异的原因,即土地产出效率受园区级别、地理区位等因素影响的大小,也无法识别出哪些区位是不适合发展工业的。
本文的研究目的是为了对现有工业园区集约利用水平评价方法进行改进和补充,从相对值的角度来衡量工业园区的土地产出效率,即在剔除某些客观条件(如园区级别、地理位置等区位因素)的影响后,对工业园区的土地产出效率进行评价。从评价结果中判断出受到区位因素影响较大的工业园区,并识别出城市中不适合发展工业的地方,从而优化和调整城市的产业结构、推动城市的发展转型。
本文从两部分对文献进行梳理。首先,梳理有关工业用地绩效评价的国内外研究进展,发现国外有关工业用地绩效评价的研究很少,而国内研究是通过建立指标体系来评价工业用地集约利用水平。所以,工业园区土地产出效率评价是具有中国特色的,需要为新的评价方法寻找相应的理论基础。其次,本文将借鉴城市发展与空间结构的相关理论、土地经济学中的级差地租理论以及城市经济学中的区位理论,从三个方面阐述了城市中适合发展工业的地方,即有利于城市功能的发挥、土地产出效率与所支付的租金相一致、有利于企业对区位的选择。
通过梳理企业区位选择的实证研究,对各文献中使用的计量模型和企业选址时考虑的影响因素进行归纳。确定合适的计量模型和区位因素,分析各因素对2007-2008年上海市制造业企业区位选择的影响。在确定区位因素的基础上,通过计量模型来分析区位因素对工业园区土地产出效率的影响,并用残差来表示剔除区位因素后的土地产出效率。
通过单因素回归的方法,分析园区级别、到市中心距离、到最近高速公路距离等因素对工业园区土地产出效率的影响。结果显示：园区级别对土地产出效率有重大影响。国家级工业园区有较为明显的级别优势；市级工业园区有一定的级别优势,但明显小于国家级工业园区；工业基地并没有明显的级别优势；区县级工业园区有明显的级别劣势。到市中心距离对工业园区土地产出效率有较大影响。离市中心越近,则土地产出效率越高。而到最近高速公路的距离对土地产出效率的影响较小。并结合地均产出残差的大小和地均产出排名的变化情况来识别出土地产出效率一直较低或一直较高的工业园区、区位优势十分明显或较为明显的工业园区、区位劣势十分明显或较为明显的工业园区。
根据评价结果分析,指出需要讨论的问题并提出相应的政策建议：一是采用单位面积工业产值评价代加工为主的工业园区时,由于其工业产值很高但工业增加值和税收很低的特点,其土地产出效率被明显高估了。因此,有必要建立工业园区的工业增加值统计体系。二是在工业园区发展转型的过程中,2.5产业进入工业园区,一方面提高了园区的土地产出效率；另一方面由于2.5产业与生产性服务业的范畴不清,利用工业用地发展服务业的现象较为普遍,而将服务业的产出算在工业用地上,导致工业园区的土地产出效率被高估。将这类工业园区的土地产出效率与那些严格按照国家用地政策利用办公用地、商业用地来发展服务业的园区相比,是不合理的。因此,园区内工业用地政策也要与时俱进,统一规范,对土地管理制度进行改革。三是工业用地与城市功能的关系复杂,靠近市中心的工业园区能享受到公共设施长期投入的成果,即中心城区服务功能和交通通达性较好；而离市中心较近的工业园区所产生的污染问题会损害到城市功能的发挥。因此,靠近市中心的工业园区如何发展是城市发展方式转型的空间表现。离市中心较近的成熟工业园区,如果与城市功能互补,则考虑逐步与中心城区融为一体；如果与城市功能发生严重冲突,则考虑逐步撤销此类工业园区。四是从城市综合竞争力的角度来看,上海市的工业用地明显偏多,对于区位非常不利的区县级工业园区或市级工业园区,可以考虑将部分工业园区搬到区位较好的园区,逐步撤销一些工业园区用以发展其他用地(如农业、绿地、公共设施用地、住宅用地等),改善城市土地利用结构不合理的状况。
本文的创新点包括以下三个方面：从理论层面上来看,本文将地租理论、区位理论纳入到土地产出效率评价中,改变了原有评价体系缺乏理论支撑的现状。从技术层面上来看,本文采用了新的思路和方法对工业园区产出效率进行评价。在研究思路上,本文指出了原有评价方法的局限性,即没有考虑到园区级别(?)地理区位对土地产出效率的影响,并且默认所有的工业园区都是合理的,无法识别出不适合发展工业的地方。因此,只有在剔除区位因素对产出效率影响的情况下,才能分析出工业园区土地产出效率差异的原因,更为客观、合理地评价工业园区的土地产出效率。在研究方法上,本文对企业的区位选择进行了实证研究,明确了区位变量的范围,并在此基础上对上海市工业园区土地产出效率进行回归,用回归残差来表示剔除区位因素影响后的土地产出效率。从应用层面上来看,本文提出的评价方法将工业园区土地产出效率评价与城市发展方式转型紧密结合,这种方法能使我们从城市功能的角度重新审视某些工业园区存在的合理性以及发展转型的方向,有利于我们认识城市工业空间结构调整的方向。
In stage of rapid urbanization and industrialization, the land resource demand for urban construction and industrial development keeps rising in China. According to "National Outline of Overall Plan of Land Utilization (2006-2020)", there will be5,850,000hectares (87,750,000mu) of newly-increasing construction land by2020, but the area of newly-increasing construction land in the first five years of the planning period has taken up about40%of the total amount. It can be seen that the construction land will increase to a very limited extent by2020in China. A high percentage (40%-50%) of cultivated land is converted into construction land. Besides, compared with developed countries, the percentage of urban industrial land in China is much higher. When the situation of protecting cultivated land becomes more and more severe, and the contradiction between urban industrial land and other lands (land for public facilities, greenbelt, residential land, etc) is increasingly serious, the shortage of land resource has become the main bottleneck for China's development. However, industrial land utilization is extensive and low efficient. There is a large amout of unutilized land in industrial park and land productivity is far lower than that in developed countries. For the above problems, the State Council issued "Decision on Deepening the Reform of Strict Land Management","Notice on Promoting Land Saving and Intensive Use" and other relevant policies. The Ministry of Land and Resources also proposed to carry out evaluation for intensive land use in the development zone and formulated "Evaluation Regulations for Intensive Land Use in Development Zone (trial)" in2008. The evaluation procedures include setting up index system, determining index weight and ideal value, standardizing index and calculating the scores.
Few studies about performance evaluation of industrial land at abroad come mainly from China. In order to protect farmland and natural resource, Western countries will limit urban sprawl and increase efficiency of land use so that it is unnecessary to evaluate the performance of industrial land. The domestic studies are to evaluate the level of intensive land use through setting up index system. The main index include investment density of fixed assets, employment density, floor area ratio, building density, industrial output per unit area, profit and tax per unit area and so on. The evaluation method is basically consistent with "Evaluation Regulations for Intensive Land Use in Development Zone (trial)"
However, the existing evaluation method is to assess land productivity in industrial parks by industrial output per unit area which is based on the two premises: Firstly, all industrial parks are on the same starting line. Secondly, it tacitly approves that all industrial parks are reasonable, and lagged industrial parks can improve land productividy through their own efforts. In fact, these two premises are unreasonable for the following reasons. The first one is the level of industrial parks. If the level is higher, the government will attach greater importance to the industrial layout in the park and introduces projects with higher quality. The second is geographical location. If the industrial park is near to the central urban area, it can enjoy urban service function. If it is close to the main traffic hub, it is good for transportation. Therefore, industrial parks with good location tend to attract high-quality enterprises. In addition, the relationship between industrial land and urban function is relatively complicated. When industrial land is in conflict with urban function, the latter will be damaged; when industrial land complements urban function, it can boost the development of the city. But the existing evaluation method can not reflect the above situation. In general, the current method can not recognize the reason for the difference of land productivity in industrial parks, neither can it recognize the location which is not suitable for developing industry.
The research purpose is to improve the existing evaluation method by measuring industrial land productivity from the perspective of relative value, i.e. evaluating the land productivity after removing the influence of some objective conditions (such as the level of industrial parks, geographical location). From the evalution result, the industrial park that is greatly influenced by location factors and the location that is not suitable for developing industrial land will be recognized, so that urban industrial structure can be optimized and adjusted.
This paper arranges the literature by the following two aspects. First, it reviews the progress of domestic and foreign studies on performance evaluation of industrial land, and finds that foreign studies on performance evaluation of industrial land are little, while domestic studies evaluate intensive use of industrial land by setting up index system. So the evaluation of land productivity in industrial parks has Chinese characteristics. It needs to find corresponding theoretical foundation for the new evaluation method. Second, this paper will refer to theories related to urban development and spatial structure, theory of differential land rent in land economics and location theory in urban economics to illustrate the location suitable for developing industry, where it can bring urban functions into play, makes productivity and land rent consistent, and is preferred by enterprises.
By reviewing the empirical studies on industrial location, different econometric models and the location factors are summarized. After choosing the appropriate models and factors, this paper analysed the influences of these factors on the location choice of manufacturing enterprises in Shanghai. On the basis of the identification of location factors, this thesis analyses the effects of them on land productivity in industrial park and uses regression residuals to represent the land productivity when location elements are not taken into consideration.
By the means of single factor regression, this paper analyses the influences of park level, distance to CBD and distance to the nearest freeway on land productivity in industrial parks. The results show that park level exerts significant effects on land productiviy. That is, national level industrial parks have relatively advantages; municipal level industrial parks have certain level advantages which are inferior to national level parks; industrial bases do not have apparent level advantages; district or county level industrial parks have apparent level disadvantages. Distance to CBD has relatively significant impacts on land productivity, which means that the closer to the city center he higher the land productivity. Distance to the nearest highway has little impact on land productivity. Furthermore, in combination with both the siie of residuals and changes in ranking of land productivity, this paper identifies industrial parks of which the land productivity has always been high or low, industrial parks with obvious location advantages and with obvious location disadvantages.
According to the evaluation results, this paper points out some issues needed to be discussed and comes up with corresponding policy suggestions. Firstly, industrial parks which primarily focus on valet processing have the characteristic that their industrial output is quite high whereas their industrial added value and taxation are quite low. If land productivity of these industrial parks is evaluated by industrial output value per unit area, it will be overestimated. Therefore, it is necessary to establish statistical systems for industrial added value in the parks. Secondly, in the process of developmental transition of industrial parks,2.5industries enter industrial parks which can improve the land productivity. However, if2.5industries can not be differentiated from producer services, it is quite common that industrial land is used to develop service industry which means the outputs of service industries are counted in industrial land. This will lead to the overestimation of land productivity in the industrial parks. It is also unfair to those industrial parks which strictly comply with national land policies to develop service industries. Therefore, land policies have to keep pace with the times and to unify regulations as well as reform land management system. Thirdly, the relation between industrial land and urban functions is complicated. Industrial parks close to urban center benefit from the achievements of long-term investment into communal facilities, but pollution generated by these industrial parks will impair urban functions. Therefore, how the industrial parks close to urban center area will develop is the spatial depiction of the transformation of urban development. If the mature industrial parks could be complementary in urban functions, then they should be integrated gradually into urban center area. If they conflict seriously with urban functions, then they should be shut down step by step. Fourthly, from the perspective of urban comprehensive competitiveness, it is obvious that the industrial land in Shanghai is too much. For those district or county level parks or municipal level parks, it can be considered to move them to other parks with better location or gradually shut down some of them to develop other land (such as agriculture, green land, residential land) so as to improve unreasonable land use structure.
The innovative point of this paper includes the following three aspects. In theory, it integrates land rent theory and location theory into land productivity evaluation and thus changes the current situation that original evaluation systems lack theoretical support. In technques, it adopts new thinkings and methods to evaluate the output efficiency of industrial parks. In research thinking, this paper points out the limitations of old evaluation method. On one hand, the existing method does not take the influences of park levels and geographical locations on land productivity into consideration. On the other hand, the method cannot identify the places that are not appropriate for developing industry. Therefore, only when the impact of location factors on land productivity are not taken into account can the land productivity in the industrial parks be evaluated in a more objective and reasonable way. In research methods, this paper carries out empirical studies on location choice of enterprises and makes clear the range of location factors, and then made regression to analyze the impact of location factors on land productivity of industrial parks in Shanghai. The regression residuals can be used to represent the land productivity when location factors are not taken into consideration. In application, the new evaluation method combines the evaluzation of land productivity in industrial parks and the transformation of urban development closely, which can enable us to reexamine the reasonableness of the existence of some industrial parks and the direction of development transformation, and to show us the direction of the adjustment of urban industrial spatial structure.
引文
①根据国土资源部的《土地分类》规定,建设用地是指建造建筑物、构筑物的土地,包括商业、工矿、仓储、公用设施、公共建筑、住宅、交通、水利设施、特殊用地等。
②根据《中国国土资源年鉴2007-2009》、《中国国土资源统计公报2009-2010》,2006-2010年全国批准建设用地面积为40.60万公顷、41.28万公顷、39.88万公顷、57.60万公顷和48.45万公顷。
③根据《中国统计年鉴2000》,1999年中国耕地面积为19.51亿亩。
④根据《中国统计年鉴2010》,1999年中国人口为12.58亿,到2009年人口为13.35亿。
①三圃制是一种典型的西方农庄轮耕制度,又称“三田制”。耕地分为春耕、秋耕、休闲三部分,轮流用于春播、秋播、休闲。
①临水的工业园区是指靠近黄浦江和长江的工业园区。靠近黄浦江的包括吴淞工业基地、高桥老工业基地城镇工业地块、金汇城镇工业地块、欣梅城镇工业地块、吴泾工业基地、向阳工业区、闵行经济技术开发区、松江工业区石湖荡分区；靠近长江的包括外高桥保税区、金桥出口加工区、祝桥空港工业区、合庆经济园区、浦东新区机场经济园区、曹路城镇工业地块、老港化工工业区、飞机总装基地、上海化学工业区、化学工业区奉贤分区、宝山钢铁基地、月杨工业区、临海城镇工业地块、星火开发区、宝山工业园区、金山工业区、临港重装备产业基地、临港主产业基地、洋山保税港区、临港物流园区奉贤分区、长兴海洋装备基地、富盛开发区、崇明工业园区。
②工业基地包括安亭汽车产业基地、宝山钢铁基地、国际汽车城零部件配套园区、化学工业区奉贤分区、上海化学工业区、金山石化基地、临港重装备产业基地、临港主产业基地、长兴海洋装备基地、吴泾工业基地、吴淞工业基地。工业基地大多以上海重点发展产业为主导产业,在产业布局等方面受到政府重视。
[1]阿尔弗雷德·马歇尔著,陈良币译.经济学原理[M],北京：商务印书馆,2011.
[2]阿瑟·奥莎利文著,周京奎译.城市经济学(第6版)[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2011.
[3]陈振汉,厉以宁.工业区位理论[M].北京：人民出版社,1982.
[4]陈强.高级计量经济学及Stata应用[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2010.
[5]大卫·李嘉图著,郭大力,王亚南译.政治经济学与赋税原理[M],南京：译林出版社,2011.
[6]菲利普·麦卡恩著,李寿德,蒋录全译.城市与区域经济学[M],上海：上海人民出版社,2010.
[7]龚仰军,王玉,干春晖.上海工业发展报告：生产力的空间布局与工业园区建设[M].上海：上海财经大学出版社,2007.
[8]石忆邵等.产业用地的国际国内比较分析[M].北京：中国建筑工业出版社,2010
[9]王守安.西方工业区位理论与方法[M],吉林：吉林省社会科学院经济研究所,1982.
[10]张家庆.地租与地价学[M].北京：中国国际广播出版社,1990.
[11]朱翔.城市地理学[M].湖南：湖南教育出版社,2003.
[12]安虎森.增长极理论评述[J].南开经济研究,1997(1)：31-37.
[13]班茂盛,方创琳,刘晓丽,刘海燕.北京高新技术产业区土地利用绩效综合评价[J].地理学报,2008(2)：175-184.
[14]陈士银,周费,杨小雄,习心军.区域土地利用绩效及可持续性评价[J].国土资源科技管理,2008(5)：1-5.
[15]陈文福.西方现代区位理论述评[J].云南社会科学,2004(2)：62-66.
[16]楚波,梁进社.基于OPM模型的北京制造业区位因子的影响分析[J].地理,2007,26(4)：723-734.
[17]郭贯成,任宝林,吴群.基于ArcGIS的江苏省金坛市工业用地集约利用评价研究[J].中国土地科学,2009,23(8)：24-30.
[18]贺灿飞,梁进社,张华.北京市外资制造业企业的区位分析[J].地理学报,2005,60(1)：122-130.
[19]顾湘,王铁成,曲福田.工业行业土地集约利用与产业结构调整研究——以江苏省为例[J].中国土地科学,2006,20(6)：3-8.
[20]侯丹,丁锐,李双异,邵永东等.辽宁省国家级开发区土地集约利用评价与潜力分析[J].中国人口·资源与环境,2010,20(3)：104-107.
[21]林善浪,张惠萍.通达行、区位选择与信息服务业集聚—以上海为例[J].财贸经济,2011(5)：106-114.
[22]贾宏俊等.中国工业用地集约利用的发展及对策[J].中国土地科学,2010,24(9)：52-56.
[23]贾树海,代丽媛,宋振华等.基于熵权法的工业用地集约利用评价研究——以辽宁省朝阳经济技术开发区为例[J].国土与自然资源研究.2011,(3)：4-6.
[24]姜海宁,谷人旭,李广斌.中国制造业企业500强总部空间格局及区位选择[J].经济地理,2011,31(10)：1666-1673.
[25]李伟芳,吴迅锋,杨晓平.宁波市工业用地节约和集约利用问题研究[J].中国土地科学,2008,22(5)：23-27.
[26]吕卫国,陈雯.制造业企业区位选择与南京城市空间重构[J].地理学报,2009,64(2)：142-152.
[27]鲁春阳,文枫,杨庆媛等.基于改进TOPSIS法的城市土地利用绩效评价及障碍因子诊断——以重庆市为例[J].资源科学,2011,33(3)：535-541.
[28]刘坚,黄贤金,翟文侠,赵彩艳.城市土地利用效益空间分异研究[J].江南大学学报(人文社会科学版),2005,4(6)：67-71.
[29]刘修岩,张学良.集聚经济与企业区位选择—基于中国低级区域企业数据的实证研究[J].财经研究,2010,36(11)：83-92.
[30]毛蒋兴,闫小培,,王爱民等.20世纪90年代以来我国城市土地集约利用研究述评[J].地理与地理信息科学,2005,21(2)：48-57.
[31]牛艳华,许学强.高新技术产业区位研究进展综述[J].地理与地理信息科学,2005,21(3)：70-74.
[32]祁新华,朱宇,张扶秀等.企业区位特征、影响因素及其城镇化效应[J].地理科学,2010,30(2)：220-228.
[33]邵晓梅等.土地集约利用的研究进展及展望[J].地理科学进展,2006,25(2)：85-95.
[34]宋秀坤,王铮.上海城市内部高新技术产业区位研究[J].地域研究与开发.2001,20(4)：18-21.
[35]佟香宁,杨钢桥,李美艳.城市土地利用效益综合评价指标体系与评价方法——以武汉市为例[J].华中农业大学学报(社会科学版),2006(4)：53-57.
[36]王芳芳,郝前进.环境管制与内外资企业的选址策略差异—基于泊淞回归的分析[J].世界经济文汇,2011(4)：29-40.
[37]王雨晴,宋戈.城市土地利用综合绩效评价与案例研究[J].地理科学,2006(6)：743-748.
[38]谢媛媛,骆正清.工业用地价格研究：国内外文献综述[J].生产力研究,2011,(3)：212-214.
[39]熊鲁霞,骆棕.上海市工业用地的效率与布局[J].城市规划汇刊,2000,(2)：22-29,45.
[40]杨剑,魏雅丽,王立国等.区域土地利用效益评价——以阿坝藏族羌族自治州为例[J].安徽农业科学,2008,36(20)：8729-8731.
[41]余骊,孙永平.集聚效应对跨国公司在华区位选择的影响[J].经济研究,2011(1)：71-82.
[42]曾刚.上海市工业布局调整初探[J].地理研究.2001,20(3)：330-337.
[43]张华,贺灿飞.区位通达性与在京外资企业的区位选择[J].地理研究,2007,26(5)：984-994.
[44]张洁.东京城市土地利用结构分析及其对中国大城市的启示[J].经济地理,2004,24(6)：812-815.
[45]赵新正,魏也华.大都市外资经济空间演变与影响机制研究一以上海为例[J].南京社会科学,2011(5)：8-14.
[46]甄江红,成舜,郭永昌,张敏.包头市工业用地土地集约利用潜力评价初步研究[J].经济地理,2004,24(2)：250-253.
[47]Alonso W. Location and land use [M]. Cambridge:Harvard University Press, 1964.
[48]Beckman M.J. Location theory[M]. New York: Random House,1968.
[49]Blaug M. Economic theory in retrospect [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1997.
[50]Cameron A.C., and Trivedi P.K. Regression analysis of count data [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1998.
[51]Friedmann J. Regional development policy:a case study of Venezuela[M]. Cambridge, Mass:MIT Press,1966.
[52]Hayter R. The dynamics of industrial location:the factory, the firm and the production system [M]. Chichester, UK:Wiley,1997.
[53]Hirschman A.O. The strategy of economic development [M]. New Haven:Yale University Press,1958.
[54]Hoover E.M. Location theory and the shoe and leather industries [M]. Cambridege, Mass:Harvard University Press,1937.
[55]Hoover E.M. The location of economic activity [M]. New York:MacGraw-Hill, 1948.
[56]Isard W. Location and the space economy [M]. New York:John Wiley,1956.
[57]Jacobs J. The economy of cities [M]. NewYork:Random House,1960.
[58]McCann P. Urban and regional economics [M]. Oxford University Press,2001.
[59]Marshall A. Principles of economics (8th edn.) [M]. London:Macmillan,1920.
[60]McFadden D. "Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior" in P. Zarembka (ed.) Frontiers in Econometrics [M] Academic Press, New York and London:Asubsidiary of Harcourt Brace Jovanovich,1974.
[61]Mills E.S. Urban Economics [M]. Glenview:Scott, Foresman& Co.,1970.
[62]Mydral G. Economic theory and underdeveloped regions [M]. London: Duckworth,1957.
[63]Ohlin B. Interregional and international trade. Cambridge, Mass:Harvard University Press,1933.
[64]Vickerman R.W. Infrasturcture and regional development [M]. London:Pion, 1991
[65]Ambrose B.W. An analysis of the factors affecting light industrial property valuation [J]. Journal of Real Estate Research,1990,5(3):355-370.
[66]Arauzo-Carod J.M. Determinants of industrial location:an application for Catalan municipalities [J]. Papers in Regional Science,2005,84(1):105-120.
[67]Arauzo-Carod J.M. Industrial location at a local level:comments on the territorial level of the analysis [J].Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie—Journal of Economic & Social Geography,2008,99(2):193-208.
[68]Arauzo-Carod J.M, Liviano-Solis D., Manjon-Antolin M. Empirical studies in industrial location:an assessment of their methods and results [J]. Journal of Regional Science,2010,50(3):685-711.
[69]Arauzo-Carod J.M., and Manjon-Antolin M.C. Firm size and geographical aggregation:an empirical appraisal in industrial location [J]. Small Business Economics,2004,22(3-4):299-312.
[70]Arauzo-Carod J.M., and Viladecans-Marsal E. Industrial location at the intra-metropolitan level:the role of agglomeration economies [J]. Regional Studies,2009,43(4):545-558.
[71]Audretsch D.B., and Lehmann E.E. Does the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship hold for regions? [J] Research Policy,2005,34(8):1191-1202.
[72]Autant-Bernard C., Mangematin V., and Massard N. Creation of biotech SMEs in France [J]. Small Business Economics,2006,26(2):173-187.
[73]Bade F.J., and Nerlinger E.A. The spatial distribution of new technology-based firms:empirical results for West-Germany [J]. Papers in Regional Science,2000, 79(2):155-176.
[74]Bartik T. J. Business location decisions in the U.S:estimates of the effects of unionization, taxes, and other characteristics of states [J]. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics,1985.3(1):14-22.
[75]Bartik T.J. The effects of environmental regulation on business location in the United States [J]. Growth and Change,1988,19(3):22-44.
[76]Barbosa N., Guimaraes P., and Woodward D. Foreign firm entry in an open economy:the case of Portugal [J]. Applied Economics,2004,36(5):465-472.
[77]Becker R., and Henderson V. Effects of air quality regulations on polluting industries [J]. Journal of Political Economy.2000,108:379-421.
[78]Brueckner, J.K. Urban sprawl:diagnosis and remedies [J]. International Regional Science Review,2000,23(2):160-171.
[79]Buss T.F. The effect of state tax incentives on economic growth and form location decisions:and overview of the literature [J]. Economic Development Quarterly, 1991,15(1):90-105.
[80]Buttimer R.J., Rutherford R.C., and President R.W. Industrial warehouse rent determinants in the Dallas/Fort Worth area [J]. Journal of Real Estate Research, 1997,13(1):47-55.
[81]Carlton D.W. The location and employment choices of new firms:an econometric model with discrete and continuous endogenous variables [J]. The Review of Economics and Statistics,1983,65(3):440-449.
[82]Cheng S. M., and Stough R.R. Location decisions of Japanese new manufacturing plants in China:a discrete choice analysis [J]. The Annals of Regional Science, 2006,40(2):369-387.
[83]Cieslik A. Regional characteristics and the location of foreign firms within Poland [J]. Applied Economics,2005a,37(8):863-874.
[84]Cieslik A. Location of foreign firms and national border effects:the case of Poland [J]. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie—Journal of Economic & Social Geography,2005b,96(3):287-297.
[85]Coughlin C.C., Terza J.V., and Arromdee V. State characteristics and the location of foreign direct investment within the United States [J]. The Review of Economics and Statistics,1991,73(4):675-683.
[86]Coughlin C.C. and Segev E. Location determinants of new foreign-owned manufacturing plants [J]. Journal of Regional Science,2000,40(2):323-351.
[87]Crozet M., Mayer T., and Mucchielli J.L. How do firms agglomerate? A study of FDI in France [J]. Regional Science and Urban Economics,2004,34(1):27-54
[88]d'Aspremont C., Gabszewicz J.J., and Thisse J.F. On Hotelling's stability in competition [J]. Econometrica,1979,47(5):1145-1150.
[89]Deveraux M.P., and Griffith R. Taxes and the location of production:evidence from a panel of US Multinationals [J]. Journal of Public Economics,1998, 68(3):335-367.
[90]Dumanski, J. Criteria and indicators for land quality and sustainable land management [J]. ITC Journal,1997 (4):216-222.
[91]Dunse N., Jones C., Brown J., and Fraser W.D. The spatial pattern of industrial rents and the role of distance [J]. Journal of Property Investment and Finance. 2005,23(4):329-341.
[92]Egeln J., Gottschalk S., and Rammer C. Location decisions of spin-offs from public research institutions [J]. Industry and Innovation,2004,11(3):207-223.
[93]Eswaran M., Kanemoto Y, and Ryan D. A dual approach to the locational decision of the firm [J]. Journal of Regional Science,1981,21(4):469-489.
[94]Fehribach F. A., Rutherford R.C., et al. An analysis of the determinants of industrial property valuation [J]. Journal of Real Estate Research,1993,8(3): 365-376.
[95]Figueiredo O., and Guimaraes P., and Woodward D. Home-field advantage: location decisions of Portuguese entrepreneurs [J]. Journal of Urban Economics, 2002,52(2):341-361.
[96]Friedman J., Gerlowski D.A., and Silberman J. What attracts foreign multinational corporations? Evidence from branch plant location in the United States [J]. Journal of Regional Science,1992,32(4):403-418.
[97]Gabe T. Local industry agglomeration and new business activity [J]. Growth and Change,2003,34(1):17-39.
[98]Gabe T.M., and Bell K.P. Tradeoffs between local taxes and government spending as determinants of business location [J]. Journal of Regional Science,2004,44(1): 21-41.
[99]Guimaraes P., Rolfe R.J., and Woodward D.P. Regional incentives and industrial location in Puerto Rico [J]. International Regional Science Review,1998,21(2): 119-138.
[100]Guimaraes P., Figueiredo O., and Woodward D. Agglomeration and the location of foreign direct investment in Portugal [J]. Journal of Urban Economics,2000, 47(1):115-135.
[101]Guimaraes P., Figueiredo O., and Woodward D. Industrial location modeling: extending the random utility framework [J]. Journal of Regional Science,2004, 44(1):1-20.
[102]Hansen E.R. Industrial location choice in Sao Paulo, Brazil:a nested logit model [J]. Regional Science and Urban Economics,1987,17(1):89-108.
[103]Head C.K., Ries J.C, and Swenson D.L. Agglomeration benefits and location choice:evidence from Japanese manufacturing investments in the United States [J]. Journal of International Economics,1995,38(3-4):223-247.
[104]Head C.K., Ries J.C, and Swenson D.L. Attracting foreign manufacturing: investment promotion and agglomeration [J]. Regional Science and Urban Economics,1999,29(2):197-218.
[105]Henderson J. V., and Kuncoro A. Industrial centralization in Indonesia [J]. World Bank Economic Review,1996,10(3):513-540.
[106]Hoag, J. Towards indices of real estate value and return [J]. The Journal of Finance,1980,35(5):569-580.
[107]Holl A. Starts-ups and relocations:manufacturing plant location in Portugal [J]. Papers in Regional Science,2004a,83(4):649-668.
[108]Holl A. Transport infrastructure, agglomeration economies, and firm birth: empirical evidence from Portugal [J]. Journal of Regional Science,2004b,44(4): 693-712.
[109]Hotelling H. Stability in competition [J]. Economic Journal,1929,39(153): 41-57.
[110]Jackson T. Environmental contamination and industrial real estate prices [J]. Journal of Real Estate Research,2002,23 (1/2):179-199.
[111]Katzman M.T. The Von Thuenen paradigm, the industrial-urban hypothesis, and the spatial structure of agriculture [J]. American Journal of Agricultural Economics,1974,56(4):683-696.
[112]Kogut B., and Chang S.J. Technological capabilities and Japanese foreign direct investment in the United States [J]. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 1991,73(3):401-413.
[113]Kowalski J.G., and Paraskevopoulos C.C. The impact of location on urban industrial land prices [J]. Journal of Urban Economics,1990,27(1):16-24.
[114]Levinson A. Environmental regulations and manufacturers'location choices: evidence from the census of manufactures [J]. Journal of Public Economics,1996. 62(1-2):5-29.
[115]List J.A. US county-level determinants of inbound FDI:evidence from a two-step modified count data model [J]. International Journal of Industrial Organization,2001,19(6):953-973.
[116]Lockwood L.J., and Rutherford R.C. Determinants of industrial property value [J]. Real Estate Economics,1996,24(2):257-272.
[117]Luger M.I., and Shetty S. Determinants of foreign plant start-ups in the United States:lessons for policymakers in the southeast [J]. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law,1985,18:223-245.
[118]Mccann P., and Sheppard S. The rise, fall and rise again of industrial location theory [J]. Regional Studies,2003,37(6):649-663.
[119]McConnel V.D., and Schwab R.M. The impact of environmental regulation on industry location decisions:the motor vehicle industry [J]. Land Economics,1990, 66(1):67-81.
[120]Meng Y, Zhang F. R., An P. L., Dong M. L., Wang Z. Y. and Zhao T.2008. Industrial land-use efficiency and planning in Shunyi, Beijing [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning,2008,85(1):40-48.
[121]Miller S.M., and Jensen O.W. Location and the theory of production [J]. Regional Science and Urban Economics,1978,8(2):117-128.
[122]Moonmaw R.L. Spatial productivity variations in manufacturing:a critical survey of cross-sectional analysis [J]. International Regional Science Review, 1983,8(1):1-22.
[123]Moses L. Location and the theory of production [J]. Quarterly Journal of Economics,1958,72(2):259-272.
[124]Mullahy J. Heterogeneity, excess zeros, and the structure of count data models [J]. Journal of Applied Econometrics,1997,12(3):337-350.
[125]Muth R.F. Economic change and rural urban land conversions [J]. Econometrica, 1961,29(1):1-22.
[126]Papke L.E. Interstate business tax differentials and new firm location [J]. Journal of Public Economics,1991,45(1):47-68.
[127]Perroux, F. Economic space, theory and applications [J]. Quarterly Journal of Economics,1950,64(1):89-104.
[128]Saz-Salazar D.S., and Garcia-Menedez L. Public provision versus private provision of industrial land:a hedonic price [J]. Land Use Policy,2005,22(3): 215-223.
[129]Shukla V., and Waddell P. Firm location and land use in discrete urban space:a study of the spatial structure of Dallas-Fort Worth [J]. Regional Science and Urban Economics,1991,21(2):225-253.
[130]Smith D.F., and Florida, R. Agglomeration and industrial location:an econometric analysis of Japanese-affiliated manufacturing establishments in automotive-related industries [J]. Journal of Urban Economics,1994,36(1): 23-41.
[131]Tan D., Huang X. J. Influencing factors of the levels of intensive use of typical industrial land [J]. China Population, Resources and Environment,2008,18(3): 54-57.
[132]Vuong Q.H. Likelihood ratio tests for model selection and non-nested hypotheses [J]. Econometrica,1989,57(2):307-333.
[133]Williamson J G. Regional inequalities and the process of national development [J]. Economic Development and Cultural Change,1965,13(4):1-84.
[134]Woodward D.P. Locational determinants of Japanese manufacturing start-ups in the United States [J]. Southern Economic Journal,1992,58(3):690-708.
[135]Wu F.L. Intrametropolitan FDI firm location in Guangzhou, China:a poisson and negative binomial analysis [J]. The Annals of Regional Science,1999,33(4): 535-555.
[136]池友法.上海市工业园区土地集约利用与管理研究[D].上海：上海交通大学,2011.
[137]任平.城市土地资源集约利用：绩效评价与机制构建[D].成都：西南财经大学,2009.
[138]周丹丹.城市土地利用绩效评价研究[D].重庆大学,2010.
[139]Lee S. Metropolitan growth patterns'impact on intra-regional spatial differentiation and inner-ring suburban decline:insights for smart growth [D]. Georgia Institute of Technology.2005
[140]Basile R., Castellani D., and Zanfei A. Location choice of multinational firms in Europe:the role of national boundaries and EU policy [R]. Italy:University of Urvino,2003.
[141]Hubacek K. and Van den Bergh J.C.J.M. The role of land in economic theory [R]. Laxenburg:International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis,2002.
[142]Smyth, A.J. and Dumanski, J. FESLM:An International Framework for Evaluating Sustainable Land Management [R]. World Soil Resources Report 73. Rome:U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization.1993
[143]Tokyo Statistical Yearbook 1983[EB/OL]东京都统计网,http://www.toukei.metro.tokyo.jp/tnenkan/1982/tn82qa0001.pdf
[144]上海市开发区网.2010年上海市产业区块单位土地产出情况排名[EB/OL].2011-01-13http://www.sidp.gov.cn/2011/0113/9881.html.
[145]张江高科技园区网站,张江入围上海六大加快推进集聚区[EB/OL].2010-7-7http://www.zjpark.com/InfoShow.aspx?id=8840&infoitem_id=430
②根据《中国国土资源年鉴2007-2009》、《中国国土资源统计公报2009-2010》,2006-2010年全国批准建设用地面积为40.60万公顷、41.28万公顷、39.88万公顷、57.60万公顷和48.45万公顷。
③根据《中国统计年鉴2000》,1999年中国耕地面积为19.51亿亩。
④根据《中国统计年鉴2010》,1999年中国人口为12.58亿,到2009年人口为13.35亿。
①三圃制是一种典型的西方农庄轮耕制度,又称“三田制”。耕地分为春耕、秋耕、休闲三部分,轮流用于春播、秋播、休闲。
①临水的工业园区是指靠近黄浦江和长江的工业园区。靠近黄浦江的包括吴淞工业基地、高桥老工业基地城镇工业地块、金汇城镇工业地块、欣梅城镇工业地块、吴泾工业基地、向阳工业区、闵行经济技术开发区、松江工业区石湖荡分区；靠近长江的包括外高桥保税区、金桥出口加工区、祝桥空港工业区、合庆经济园区、浦东新区机场经济园区、曹路城镇工业地块、老港化工工业区、飞机总装基地、上海化学工业区、化学工业区奉贤分区、宝山钢铁基地、月杨工业区、临海城镇工业地块、星火开发区、宝山工业园区、金山工业区、临港重装备产业基地、临港主产业基地、洋山保税港区、临港物流园区奉贤分区、长兴海洋装备基地、富盛开发区、崇明工业园区。
②工业基地包括安亭汽车产业基地、宝山钢铁基地、国际汽车城零部件配套园区、化学工业区奉贤分区、上海化学工业区、金山石化基地、临港重装备产业基地、临港主产业基地、长兴海洋装备基地、吴泾工业基地、吴淞工业基地。工业基地大多以上海重点发展产业为主导产业,在产业布局等方面受到政府重视。
[1]阿尔弗雷德·马歇尔著,陈良币译.经济学原理[M],北京：商务印书馆,2011.
[2]阿瑟·奥莎利文著,周京奎译.城市经济学(第6版)[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2011.
[3]陈振汉,厉以宁.工业区位理论[M].北京：人民出版社,1982.
[4]陈强.高级计量经济学及Stata应用[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2010.
[5]大卫·李嘉图著,郭大力,王亚南译.政治经济学与赋税原理[M],南京：译林出版社,2011.
[6]菲利普·麦卡恩著,李寿德,蒋录全译.城市与区域经济学[M],上海：上海人民出版社,2010.
[7]龚仰军,王玉,干春晖.上海工业发展报告：生产力的空间布局与工业园区建设[M].上海：上海财经大学出版社,2007.
[8]石忆邵等.产业用地的国际国内比较分析[M].北京：中国建筑工业出版社,2010
[9]王守安.西方工业区位理论与方法[M],吉林：吉林省社会科学院经济研究所,1982.
[10]张家庆.地租与地价学[M].北京：中国国际广播出版社,1990.
[11]朱翔.城市地理学[M].湖南：湖南教育出版社,2003.
[12]安虎森.增长极理论评述[J].南开经济研究,1997(1)：31-37.
[13]班茂盛,方创琳,刘晓丽,刘海燕.北京高新技术产业区土地利用绩效综合评价[J].地理学报,2008(2)：175-184.
[14]陈士银,周费,杨小雄,习心军.区域土地利用绩效及可持续性评价[J].国土资源科技管理,2008(5)：1-5.
[15]陈文福.西方现代区位理论述评[J].云南社会科学,2004(2)：62-66.
[16]楚波,梁进社.基于OPM模型的北京制造业区位因子的影响分析[J].地理,2007,26(4)：723-734.
[17]郭贯成,任宝林,吴群.基于ArcGIS的江苏省金坛市工业用地集约利用评价研究[J].中国土地科学,2009,23(8)：24-30.
[18]贺灿飞,梁进社,张华.北京市外资制造业企业的区位分析[J].地理学报,2005,60(1)：122-130.
[19]顾湘,王铁成,曲福田.工业行业土地集约利用与产业结构调整研究——以江苏省为例[J].中国土地科学,2006,20(6)：3-8.
[20]侯丹,丁锐,李双异,邵永东等.辽宁省国家级开发区土地集约利用评价与潜力分析[J].中国人口·资源与环境,2010,20(3)：104-107.
[21]林善浪,张惠萍.通达行、区位选择与信息服务业集聚—以上海为例[J].财贸经济,2011(5)：106-114.
[22]贾宏俊等.中国工业用地集约利用的发展及对策[J].中国土地科学,2010,24(9)：52-56.
[23]贾树海,代丽媛,宋振华等.基于熵权法的工业用地集约利用评价研究——以辽宁省朝阳经济技术开发区为例[J].国土与自然资源研究.2011,(3)：4-6.
[24]姜海宁,谷人旭,李广斌.中国制造业企业500强总部空间格局及区位选择[J].经济地理,2011,31(10)：1666-1673.
[25]李伟芳,吴迅锋,杨晓平.宁波市工业用地节约和集约利用问题研究[J].中国土地科学,2008,22(5)：23-27.
[26]吕卫国,陈雯.制造业企业区位选择与南京城市空间重构[J].地理学报,2009,64(2)：142-152.
[27]鲁春阳,文枫,杨庆媛等.基于改进TOPSIS法的城市土地利用绩效评价及障碍因子诊断——以重庆市为例[J].资源科学,2011,33(3)：535-541.
[28]刘坚,黄贤金,翟文侠,赵彩艳.城市土地利用效益空间分异研究[J].江南大学学报(人文社会科学版),2005,4(6)：67-71.
[29]刘修岩,张学良.集聚经济与企业区位选择—基于中国低级区域企业数据的实证研究[J].财经研究,2010,36(11)：83-92.
[30]毛蒋兴,闫小培,,王爱民等.20世纪90年代以来我国城市土地集约利用研究述评[J].地理与地理信息科学,2005,21(2)：48-57.
[31]牛艳华,许学强.高新技术产业区位研究进展综述[J].地理与地理信息科学,2005,21(3)：70-74.
[32]祁新华,朱宇,张扶秀等.企业区位特征、影响因素及其城镇化效应[J].地理科学,2010,30(2)：220-228.
[33]邵晓梅等.土地集约利用的研究进展及展望[J].地理科学进展,2006,25(2)：85-95.
[34]宋秀坤,王铮.上海城市内部高新技术产业区位研究[J].地域研究与开发.2001,20(4)：18-21.
[35]佟香宁,杨钢桥,李美艳.城市土地利用效益综合评价指标体系与评价方法——以武汉市为例[J].华中农业大学学报(社会科学版),2006(4)：53-57.
[36]王芳芳,郝前进.环境管制与内外资企业的选址策略差异—基于泊淞回归的分析[J].世界经济文汇,2011(4)：29-40.
[37]王雨晴,宋戈.城市土地利用综合绩效评价与案例研究[J].地理科学,2006(6)：743-748.
[38]谢媛媛,骆正清.工业用地价格研究：国内外文献综述[J].生产力研究,2011,(3)：212-214.
[39]熊鲁霞,骆棕.上海市工业用地的效率与布局[J].城市规划汇刊,2000,(2)：22-29,45.
[40]杨剑,魏雅丽,王立国等.区域土地利用效益评价——以阿坝藏族羌族自治州为例[J].安徽农业科学,2008,36(20)：8729-8731.
[41]余骊,孙永平.集聚效应对跨国公司在华区位选择的影响[J].经济研究,2011(1)：71-82.
[42]曾刚.上海市工业布局调整初探[J].地理研究.2001,20(3)：330-337.
[43]张华,贺灿飞.区位通达性与在京外资企业的区位选择[J].地理研究,2007,26(5)：984-994.
[44]张洁.东京城市土地利用结构分析及其对中国大城市的启示[J].经济地理,2004,24(6)：812-815.
[45]赵新正,魏也华.大都市外资经济空间演变与影响机制研究一以上海为例[J].南京社会科学,2011(5)：8-14.
[46]甄江红,成舜,郭永昌,张敏.包头市工业用地土地集约利用潜力评价初步研究[J].经济地理,2004,24(2)：250-253.
[47]Alonso W. Location and land use [M]. Cambridge:Harvard University Press, 1964.
[48]Beckman M.J. Location theory[M]. New York: Random House,1968.
[49]Blaug M. Economic theory in retrospect [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1997.
[50]Cameron A.C., and Trivedi P.K. Regression analysis of count data [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1998.
[51]Friedmann J. Regional development policy:a case study of Venezuela[M]. Cambridge, Mass:MIT Press,1966.
[52]Hayter R. The dynamics of industrial location:the factory, the firm and the production system [M]. Chichester, UK:Wiley,1997.
[53]Hirschman A.O. The strategy of economic development [M]. New Haven:Yale University Press,1958.
[54]Hoover E.M. Location theory and the shoe and leather industries [M]. Cambridege, Mass:Harvard University Press,1937.
[55]Hoover E.M. The location of economic activity [M]. New York:MacGraw-Hill, 1948.
[56]Isard W. Location and the space economy [M]. New York:John Wiley,1956.
[57]Jacobs J. The economy of cities [M]. NewYork:Random House,1960.
[58]McCann P. Urban and regional economics [M]. Oxford University Press,2001.
[59]Marshall A. Principles of economics (8th edn.) [M]. London:Macmillan,1920.
[60]McFadden D. "Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior" in P. Zarembka (ed.) Frontiers in Econometrics [M] Academic Press, New York and London:Asubsidiary of Harcourt Brace Jovanovich,1974.
[61]Mills E.S. Urban Economics [M]. Glenview:Scott, Foresman& Co.,1970.
[62]Mydral G. Economic theory and underdeveloped regions [M]. London: Duckworth,1957.
[63]Ohlin B. Interregional and international trade. Cambridge, Mass:Harvard University Press,1933.
[64]Vickerman R.W. Infrasturcture and regional development [M]. London:Pion, 1991
[65]Ambrose B.W. An analysis of the factors affecting light industrial property valuation [J]. Journal of Real Estate Research,1990,5(3):355-370.
[66]Arauzo-Carod J.M. Determinants of industrial location:an application for Catalan municipalities [J]. Papers in Regional Science,2005,84(1):105-120.
[67]Arauzo-Carod J.M. Industrial location at a local level:comments on the territorial level of the analysis [J].Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie—Journal of Economic & Social Geography,2008,99(2):193-208.
[68]Arauzo-Carod J.M, Liviano-Solis D., Manjon-Antolin M. Empirical studies in industrial location:an assessment of their methods and results [J]. Journal of Regional Science,2010,50(3):685-711.
[69]Arauzo-Carod J.M., and Manjon-Antolin M.C. Firm size and geographical aggregation:an empirical appraisal in industrial location [J]. Small Business Economics,2004,22(3-4):299-312.
[70]Arauzo-Carod J.M., and Viladecans-Marsal E. Industrial location at the intra-metropolitan level:the role of agglomeration economies [J]. Regional Studies,2009,43(4):545-558.
[71]Audretsch D.B., and Lehmann E.E. Does the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship hold for regions? [J] Research Policy,2005,34(8):1191-1202.
[72]Autant-Bernard C., Mangematin V., and Massard N. Creation of biotech SMEs in France [J]. Small Business Economics,2006,26(2):173-187.
[73]Bade F.J., and Nerlinger E.A. The spatial distribution of new technology-based firms:empirical results for West-Germany [J]. Papers in Regional Science,2000, 79(2):155-176.
[74]Bartik T. J. Business location decisions in the U.S:estimates of the effects of unionization, taxes, and other characteristics of states [J]. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics,1985.3(1):14-22.
[75]Bartik T.J. The effects of environmental regulation on business location in the United States [J]. Growth and Change,1988,19(3):22-44.
[76]Barbosa N., Guimaraes P., and Woodward D. Foreign firm entry in an open economy:the case of Portugal [J]. Applied Economics,2004,36(5):465-472.
[77]Becker R., and Henderson V. Effects of air quality regulations on polluting industries [J]. Journal of Political Economy.2000,108:379-421.
[78]Brueckner, J.K. Urban sprawl:diagnosis and remedies [J]. International Regional Science Review,2000,23(2):160-171.
[79]Buss T.F. The effect of state tax incentives on economic growth and form location decisions:and overview of the literature [J]. Economic Development Quarterly, 1991,15(1):90-105.
[80]Buttimer R.J., Rutherford R.C., and President R.W. Industrial warehouse rent determinants in the Dallas/Fort Worth area [J]. Journal of Real Estate Research, 1997,13(1):47-55.
[81]Carlton D.W. The location and employment choices of new firms:an econometric model with discrete and continuous endogenous variables [J]. The Review of Economics and Statistics,1983,65(3):440-449.
[82]Cheng S. M., and Stough R.R. Location decisions of Japanese new manufacturing plants in China:a discrete choice analysis [J]. The Annals of Regional Science, 2006,40(2):369-387.
[83]Cieslik A. Regional characteristics and the location of foreign firms within Poland [J]. Applied Economics,2005a,37(8):863-874.
[84]Cieslik A. Location of foreign firms and national border effects:the case of Poland [J]. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie—Journal of Economic & Social Geography,2005b,96(3):287-297.
[85]Coughlin C.C., Terza J.V., and Arromdee V. State characteristics and the location of foreign direct investment within the United States [J]. The Review of Economics and Statistics,1991,73(4):675-683.
[86]Coughlin C.C. and Segev E. Location determinants of new foreign-owned manufacturing plants [J]. Journal of Regional Science,2000,40(2):323-351.
[87]Crozet M., Mayer T., and Mucchielli J.L. How do firms agglomerate? A study of FDI in France [J]. Regional Science and Urban Economics,2004,34(1):27-54
[88]d'Aspremont C., Gabszewicz J.J., and Thisse J.F. On Hotelling's stability in competition [J]. Econometrica,1979,47(5):1145-1150.
[89]Deveraux M.P., and Griffith R. Taxes and the location of production:evidence from a panel of US Multinationals [J]. Journal of Public Economics,1998, 68(3):335-367.
[90]Dumanski, J. Criteria and indicators for land quality and sustainable land management [J]. ITC Journal,1997 (4):216-222.
[91]Dunse N., Jones C., Brown J., and Fraser W.D. The spatial pattern of industrial rents and the role of distance [J]. Journal of Property Investment and Finance. 2005,23(4):329-341.
[92]Egeln J., Gottschalk S., and Rammer C. Location decisions of spin-offs from public research institutions [J]. Industry and Innovation,2004,11(3):207-223.
[93]Eswaran M., Kanemoto Y, and Ryan D. A dual approach to the locational decision of the firm [J]. Journal of Regional Science,1981,21(4):469-489.
[94]Fehribach F. A., Rutherford R.C., et al. An analysis of the determinants of industrial property valuation [J]. Journal of Real Estate Research,1993,8(3): 365-376.
[95]Figueiredo O., and Guimaraes P., and Woodward D. Home-field advantage: location decisions of Portuguese entrepreneurs [J]. Journal of Urban Economics, 2002,52(2):341-361.
[96]Friedman J., Gerlowski D.A., and Silberman J. What attracts foreign multinational corporations? Evidence from branch plant location in the United States [J]. Journal of Regional Science,1992,32(4):403-418.
[97]Gabe T. Local industry agglomeration and new business activity [J]. Growth and Change,2003,34(1):17-39.
[98]Gabe T.M., and Bell K.P. Tradeoffs between local taxes and government spending as determinants of business location [J]. Journal of Regional Science,2004,44(1): 21-41.
[99]Guimaraes P., Rolfe R.J., and Woodward D.P. Regional incentives and industrial location in Puerto Rico [J]. International Regional Science Review,1998,21(2): 119-138.
[100]Guimaraes P., Figueiredo O., and Woodward D. Agglomeration and the location of foreign direct investment in Portugal [J]. Journal of Urban Economics,2000, 47(1):115-135.
[101]Guimaraes P., Figueiredo O., and Woodward D. Industrial location modeling: extending the random utility framework [J]. Journal of Regional Science,2004, 44(1):1-20.
[102]Hansen E.R. Industrial location choice in Sao Paulo, Brazil:a nested logit model [J]. Regional Science and Urban Economics,1987,17(1):89-108.
[103]Head C.K., Ries J.C, and Swenson D.L. Agglomeration benefits and location choice:evidence from Japanese manufacturing investments in the United States [J]. Journal of International Economics,1995,38(3-4):223-247.
[104]Head C.K., Ries J.C, and Swenson D.L. Attracting foreign manufacturing: investment promotion and agglomeration [J]. Regional Science and Urban Economics,1999,29(2):197-218.
[105]Henderson J. V., and Kuncoro A. Industrial centralization in Indonesia [J]. World Bank Economic Review,1996,10(3):513-540.
[106]Hoag, J. Towards indices of real estate value and return [J]. The Journal of Finance,1980,35(5):569-580.
[107]Holl A. Starts-ups and relocations:manufacturing plant location in Portugal [J]. Papers in Regional Science,2004a,83(4):649-668.
[108]Holl A. Transport infrastructure, agglomeration economies, and firm birth: empirical evidence from Portugal [J]. Journal of Regional Science,2004b,44(4): 693-712.
[109]Hotelling H. Stability in competition [J]. Economic Journal,1929,39(153): 41-57.
[110]Jackson T. Environmental contamination and industrial real estate prices [J]. Journal of Real Estate Research,2002,23 (1/2):179-199.
[111]Katzman M.T. The Von Thuenen paradigm, the industrial-urban hypothesis, and the spatial structure of agriculture [J]. American Journal of Agricultural Economics,1974,56(4):683-696.
[112]Kogut B., and Chang S.J. Technological capabilities and Japanese foreign direct investment in the United States [J]. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 1991,73(3):401-413.
[113]Kowalski J.G., and Paraskevopoulos C.C. The impact of location on urban industrial land prices [J]. Journal of Urban Economics,1990,27(1):16-24.
[114]Levinson A. Environmental regulations and manufacturers'location choices: evidence from the census of manufactures [J]. Journal of Public Economics,1996. 62(1-2):5-29.
[115]List J.A. US county-level determinants of inbound FDI:evidence from a two-step modified count data model [J]. International Journal of Industrial Organization,2001,19(6):953-973.
[116]Lockwood L.J., and Rutherford R.C. Determinants of industrial property value [J]. Real Estate Economics,1996,24(2):257-272.
[117]Luger M.I., and Shetty S. Determinants of foreign plant start-ups in the United States:lessons for policymakers in the southeast [J]. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law,1985,18:223-245.
[118]Mccann P., and Sheppard S. The rise, fall and rise again of industrial location theory [J]. Regional Studies,2003,37(6):649-663.
[119]McConnel V.D., and Schwab R.M. The impact of environmental regulation on industry location decisions:the motor vehicle industry [J]. Land Economics,1990, 66(1):67-81.
[120]Meng Y, Zhang F. R., An P. L., Dong M. L., Wang Z. Y. and Zhao T.2008. Industrial land-use efficiency and planning in Shunyi, Beijing [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning,2008,85(1):40-48.
[121]Miller S.M., and Jensen O.W. Location and the theory of production [J]. Regional Science and Urban Economics,1978,8(2):117-128.
[122]Moonmaw R.L. Spatial productivity variations in manufacturing:a critical survey of cross-sectional analysis [J]. International Regional Science Review, 1983,8(1):1-22.
[123]Moses L. Location and the theory of production [J]. Quarterly Journal of Economics,1958,72(2):259-272.
[124]Mullahy J. Heterogeneity, excess zeros, and the structure of count data models [J]. Journal of Applied Econometrics,1997,12(3):337-350.
[125]Muth R.F. Economic change and rural urban land conversions [J]. Econometrica, 1961,29(1):1-22.
[126]Papke L.E. Interstate business tax differentials and new firm location [J]. Journal of Public Economics,1991,45(1):47-68.
[127]Perroux, F. Economic space, theory and applications [J]. Quarterly Journal of Economics,1950,64(1):89-104.
[128]Saz-Salazar D.S., and Garcia-Menedez L. Public provision versus private provision of industrial land:a hedonic price [J]. Land Use Policy,2005,22(3): 215-223.
[129]Shukla V., and Waddell P. Firm location and land use in discrete urban space:a study of the spatial structure of Dallas-Fort Worth [J]. Regional Science and Urban Economics,1991,21(2):225-253.
[130]Smith D.F., and Florida, R. Agglomeration and industrial location:an econometric analysis of Japanese-affiliated manufacturing establishments in automotive-related industries [J]. Journal of Urban Economics,1994,36(1): 23-41.
[131]Tan D., Huang X. J. Influencing factors of the levels of intensive use of typical industrial land [J]. China Population, Resources and Environment,2008,18(3): 54-57.
[132]Vuong Q.H. Likelihood ratio tests for model selection and non-nested hypotheses [J]. Econometrica,1989,57(2):307-333.
[133]Williamson J G. Regional inequalities and the process of national development [J]. Economic Development and Cultural Change,1965,13(4):1-84.
[134]Woodward D.P. Locational determinants of Japanese manufacturing start-ups in the United States [J]. Southern Economic Journal,1992,58(3):690-708.
[135]Wu F.L. Intrametropolitan FDI firm location in Guangzhou, China:a poisson and negative binomial analysis [J]. The Annals of Regional Science,1999,33(4): 535-555.
[136]池友法.上海市工业园区土地集约利用与管理研究[D].上海：上海交通大学,2011.
[137]任平.城市土地资源集约利用：绩效评价与机制构建[D].成都：西南财经大学,2009.
[138]周丹丹.城市土地利用绩效评价研究[D].重庆大学,2010.
[139]Lee S. Metropolitan growth patterns'impact on intra-regional spatial differentiation and inner-ring suburban decline:insights for smart growth [D]. Georgia Institute of Technology.2005
[140]Basile R., Castellani D., and Zanfei A. Location choice of multinational firms in Europe:the role of national boundaries and EU policy [R]. Italy:University of Urvino,2003.
[141]Hubacek K. and Van den Bergh J.C.J.M. The role of land in economic theory [R]. Laxenburg:International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis,2002.
[142]Smyth, A.J. and Dumanski, J. FESLM:An International Framework for Evaluating Sustainable Land Management [R]. World Soil Resources Report 73. Rome:U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization.1993
[143]Tokyo Statistical Yearbook 1983[EB/OL]东京都统计网,http://www.toukei.metro.tokyo.jp/tnenkan/1982/tn82qa0001.pdf
[144]上海市开发区网.2010年上海市产业区块单位土地产出情况排名[EB/OL].2011-01-13http://www.sidp.gov.cn/2011/0113/9881.html.
[145]张江高科技园区网站,张江入围上海六大加快推进集聚区[EB/OL].2010-7-7http://www.zjpark.com/InfoShow.aspx?id=8840&infoitem_id=430
© 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 |