基于风险能力评价的农户宅基地流转福利变化研究
|
摘要
农村宅基地作为我国建设用地的主要组成部分,是我国农户家庭赖以生存与发展的物质基础。目前在各地开展的农村宅基地流转试点已对“三农”问题产生广泛而深远的影响,尤其对农户家庭的影响更为深刻。本文从农户家庭的微观角度,研究了农村宅基地流转对农户家庭抗风险能力及家庭福利产生的影响；选取了武汉城市圈典型区域宅基地流转农户家庭为研究对象,以可持续生计理论和阿马蒂亚.森的可行能力理论为基础,采用问卷调查、座谈走访的方式,获取被流转农户家庭生计资产情况和宅基地流转前后农户家庭生活变化；采用农户生计资产量化法分析得到农户家庭抗风险能力及农户家庭类型；运用二元Logistic回归模型和模糊综合评价法,定性与定量相结合分析得到影响各类农户宅基地流转意愿的福利因素和宅基地流转后各类农户的家庭福利状态。然后根据宅基地流转农户家庭损失补偿现状,分析了当前宅基地流转补偿模式存在的不足,并结合可持续发展理论,探讨了如何使被流转农户家庭走向可持续生计的路径。最后以双边市场理论为基础,设计构建基于福利均衡的农村宅基地流转市场机制,以保障农户的宅基地权益和实现农村宅基地资源的有效利用。研究的主要结论有以下几点：
1.测算农户家庭生计资产值,评价被流转农户家庭风险能力并依此对被流转农户家庭分类。(1)根据生计可持续发展为理论,分别从人力资产、自然资产、物资资产、金融资产和社会资产5个方面选取指标,构建了农户家庭风险能力评价指标体系；通过家庭生计资产量化法,测度农户家庭的抗风险能力；研究表明农户家庭生计资产值与农户家庭抗风险能力呈正相关。(2)通过测算调查区域被流转农户家庭生计资产值,按照农户家庭抗风险能力的不同将农户家庭划分为4类：即多元资产缺乏型农户、单一资产缺乏型农户、资产普通型农户和资产富裕型农户。
2.农户宅基地流转意愿偏低,影响流转意愿的福利因素复杂。(1)农户宅基地流转的意愿偏低。根据对调查问卷的统计,调查区域的农户愿意流转的比例仅为20.57%；从农户家庭类型来看,多元资产缺乏型农户愿意流转的占17.65%,单一资产缺乏型农户占21.15%,资产普通型农户家庭占28.40%,资产富裕型农户占13.16%。
(2)通过二元Logistic回归模型显示,影响农户宅基地流转意愿的福利因素是多方面的,从总样本来看,影响的福利因素包括户主年龄、受教育程度、家庭生计资产值、农户的“城市人”的认同感、农户对居住环境的主观感受、社会保障、就业机会；从资产缺乏型农户样本来看,影响的福利因素包括户主年龄、户主受教育程度、主要收入来源、农户对流转政策的知晓度、农户居住环境的主观感受、人均实际居住面积、社会保障、就业机会；从资产均衡型农户样本来看,影响的福利因素包括户主年龄、受教育程度、主要收入来源、农户对宅基地产权的认识、对“城市人”的认同感、农户居住环境的主观感受、社会保障。
3.宅基地流转对农户家庭福利的影响及实现农户可持续生计的模式与合理补偿的对策。(1)农户家庭福利(能力)可由家庭经济状况、家庭居住条件、家庭社会保障、家庭发展机遇、社区环境、家庭闲暇与健康、心理状况来测量；宅基地流转对不同类型农户家庭福利产生的影响不同：从总样本和资产均衡型农户样本来看,在实施宅基地流转后,农户家庭福利略有改善(模糊综合指数分别为0.507、0.547),资产缺乏型农户样本的家庭福利水平有所下降(模糊综合指数为0.464)；从农户家庭福利功能指标的变化来看,宅基地流转使资产均衡型农户的家庭经济状况(0.611)、社会保障(0.678)、居住条件(0.751)以及农户休闲与健康(0.570)得到了提高和改善,却使资产缺乏型农户家庭经济状况(0.490)、社区环境(0.430)、发展机遇(0.374)以及心理福利(0.410)下降。(2)实现被流转农户家庭生计可持续的模式。无论是多元资产缺乏型和单一资产缺乏型农户家庭、还是资产普通型和资产富裕型农户家庭,采用单一的货币补偿方式不利于农户家庭长久生计。从生计可持续的角度出发,宅基地流转补偿应该包括人力资本、物质资本、自然资本、金融资本和社会资本等方面,根据农户家庭生计资产状况,实现对被流转农户家庭有差别化的、精准补偿,并通过多种补偿模式,实现被流转农户及其家庭成员的生计可持续发展。(3)为了使被流转农户家庭补偿的合理、全面,还应该要丰富补偿内容、优化补偿模式。要通过宅基地流转补偿,显化农户宅基地的福利性、资产性,保证农户有较完善的社会保障和政策扶持与支助,实现农户居住在出行方便、空气清新、环境优雅的“新家园”,当然还应该实现补偿程序的公平、公开与透明,补偿机制的城乡统筹和与时俱进。
4.基于福利均衡的农村宅基地流转市场机制设计。根据双边市场理论推导,在时下土地制度约束下,实施政府主导的、实行整组或整村的宅基地流转,有利于农户宅基地福利性、资产性的显化,有利于社会福利改进,能促进农户家庭福利水平的提高。由此进行了基于政府职能转变下的实现社会福利最大化的农村宅基地流转双边市场构建的条件、原则、基本结构及运行机制设计。
Nowadays, China is in the period of accelerated industrialization and urbanization, with the further deepening of reform and opening up, there are strong demands on construction land in social and economic development, expropriation rural land becomes the main supply mode of construction land, but the drawbacks of the existing land requisition system and the stringent farmland protection system makes Inefficient and idle rural residential land a "pet" that the local governments solve the contradiction of supply and demand of construction land, promote the development of economics and society. As a major component of China's construction land, rural residential land is the material basis for the survival and development that China's rural households depend on. At present, the conversion pilot of implementing rural residential land has an extensive and far-reaching impact on farmers、countryside and agriculture, especially more profound impact on rural households.Taking the peasants'family of rural residential land conversion in Wuhan Metropolitan as research subjects, This paper has studied the risk capacity and changes of the peasants'family welfare in the residential land conversion Under the guidance of the sustainable livelihood development theory and the family feasible capability theory extended from Amartya Sen'capability theory; based on the way of questionnaires, discussion visits, the assets of peasants' family livelihoods and change of peasants' living have been gotten around in the rural residential land conversion around. Using the quantification method livelihood assets, the paper gets the resistance risk capacity and type of peasants'families; using binary Logistic regression models and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method, combined qualitative and quantitative analysis, the paper gets the welfare factors of impacting peasants'willingness of residential land conversion and the peasants'family welfare state after residential land conversion. Then based on the current situation of loss compensation of rural residential land conversion, the paper analyzes the shortcomings of the current compensation mode, combined with the sustainable livelihood development theory, discusses how to make them tend toward the path of sustainable livelihoods. Finally, based on the bilateral market theory, the paper designs to build conversion market of rural residential land achieve a balanced welfare and protect the rights and interests of peasants and promote the efficient use of rural residential land resources. The main conclusions of the study are the following:
1. Measuring the value of peasants'family livelihood assets, assessing the risk capacity of and classifying the types peasants'family.(1) According to the sustainable livelihoods development theory, indicators are selected from human assets, natural assets, material assets, financial assets and social assets of five areas, the risk capacity evaluation system is built; then using the quantification method livelihood assets, the anti-risk capacity of peasants'families is measured; the research shows the value of peasants' family livelihood assets was positively correlated with the anti-risk capacity of peasant families.(2) By measuring the value of peasants'family livelihood assets
Of survey areas, according to the anti-risk capacity of peasants'families, peasants' families are divided into four categories:the multi-asset-deficient type, the lack of a single asset type, the asset ordinary type and asset affluent type.
2. The willingness of residential land conversion and welfare factors of affecting willingness.(1) The willingness of residential land conversion is generally low. According to the questionnaire statistics, the conversion willingness of survey areas accounts for only20.57%; From the perspective of the family types, the multi-asset-deficient type accounts for17.65, the lack of a single type of assets accounts for21.15, the asset ordinary type accounts for28.40%, the asset affluent type accounts for13.16%.(2) the welfare factors of affecting willingness are complex. The binary Logistic regression model shows that various welfare factors affect the willingness, from the total sample, the welfare factors include age of family head、education leve、value of family livelihood assets、peasants" urban" identity、subjective feelings of the living environment、social security、employment opportunities; from asset-deficient samples, the welfare of factors include age of family head, education leve、the main source of income, conversion policy awareness, subjective feelings of living environment、per capita living space、social security、employment opportunities; from assets-balanced sample, the welfare factors include age, education level, the main source of income, Awareness on residential land property,"urban" identity, subjective feelings of living environment, social security.
3. Effects of residential land conversion on the welfare of peasants" family and the patterns of achieving sustainable livelihoods and the measures of reasonable compensation (1) Peasants' family Welfare (capacity) could be measured by family economics, living conditions, social security, development opportunities, community environment, leisure and health, psychological state; Residential land conversion has different effects on different types of peasants'families:from view of the total sample and asset balanced samples, after the implementing residential land conversion, the welfare of peasants' family would be slight improved(integrated fuzzy indexes are respectively0.507,0.547), from view of the asset-deficient samples after the implementing residential land conversion, the welfare of peasants' family would be declined (integrated fuzzy index is0.464); from view of welfare function indicators, family economics (0.611), social security (0.678), living conditions (0.751) and leisure and health (0.570) of the asset balanced family have been enhanced and improved, while family economics (0.490), community environment (0.430), opportunities (0.374) and psychological benefits (0.410) of the asset -deficient family have been declined.(2) Patterns of achieving sustainable livelihoods. Whether it is the multi-asset-deficient and the single-asset deficient types, or the asset-ordinary type and the asset-affluent type, the single monetary compensation is not conducive to long-term livelihoods of peasants' family. From the perspective of sustainable livelihoods, rural residential land compensation should be Implemented in terms of human capital, physical capital, natural capital, financial capital and social capital, according to the position of peasant' s family livelihood assets to achieve differentiated, precise compensation the conversion families, and to achieve the sustainable livelihood development of the peasants and their family members.(3) To make the compensation for conversion peasants comprehensive, reasonable, compensation content should also be rich, and the method of compensation should be optimized, the procedures of compensation should be fair, open and transparent, and the content and mode of compensate should be advanced with the times. To compensate for rural residential land, the welfare and assets of rural residential land should be manifested, to ensure peasants a better social security and policy, to achieve that peasants have a convenient、air-fresh、elegant "new homes",Of course, compensation procedures should also fair, openness and transparency, compensation mechanisms should be developed with the times.
4. Rural residential land market mechanism design based on the welfare balance. According to the bilateral market theory derivation, in the constraints of the nowadays land institution, the implementation of government-led residential land conversion whole group or a whole village, will be conducive to manifest benefits and asset nature, conducive to improve social welfare. So based on the transformation of government functions, achieving social welfare maximization, the rural homestead of circulation build the conditions, principles, basic structure and operation mechanism of the bilateral market of rural residential land conversion will be designed.
1.测算农户家庭生计资产值,评价被流转农户家庭风险能力并依此对被流转农户家庭分类。(1)根据生计可持续发展为理论,分别从人力资产、自然资产、物资资产、金融资产和社会资产5个方面选取指标,构建了农户家庭风险能力评价指标体系；通过家庭生计资产量化法,测度农户家庭的抗风险能力；研究表明农户家庭生计资产值与农户家庭抗风险能力呈正相关。(2)通过测算调查区域被流转农户家庭生计资产值,按照农户家庭抗风险能力的不同将农户家庭划分为4类：即多元资产缺乏型农户、单一资产缺乏型农户、资产普通型农户和资产富裕型农户。
2.农户宅基地流转意愿偏低,影响流转意愿的福利因素复杂。(1)农户宅基地流转的意愿偏低。根据对调查问卷的统计,调查区域的农户愿意流转的比例仅为20.57%；从农户家庭类型来看,多元资产缺乏型农户愿意流转的占17.65%,单一资产缺乏型农户占21.15%,资产普通型农户家庭占28.40%,资产富裕型农户占13.16%。
(2)通过二元Logistic回归模型显示,影响农户宅基地流转意愿的福利因素是多方面的,从总样本来看,影响的福利因素包括户主年龄、受教育程度、家庭生计资产值、农户的“城市人”的认同感、农户对居住环境的主观感受、社会保障、就业机会；从资产缺乏型农户样本来看,影响的福利因素包括户主年龄、户主受教育程度、主要收入来源、农户对流转政策的知晓度、农户居住环境的主观感受、人均实际居住面积、社会保障、就业机会；从资产均衡型农户样本来看,影响的福利因素包括户主年龄、受教育程度、主要收入来源、农户对宅基地产权的认识、对“城市人”的认同感、农户居住环境的主观感受、社会保障。
3.宅基地流转对农户家庭福利的影响及实现农户可持续生计的模式与合理补偿的对策。(1)农户家庭福利(能力)可由家庭经济状况、家庭居住条件、家庭社会保障、家庭发展机遇、社区环境、家庭闲暇与健康、心理状况来测量；宅基地流转对不同类型农户家庭福利产生的影响不同：从总样本和资产均衡型农户样本来看,在实施宅基地流转后,农户家庭福利略有改善(模糊综合指数分别为0.507、0.547),资产缺乏型农户样本的家庭福利水平有所下降(模糊综合指数为0.464)；从农户家庭福利功能指标的变化来看,宅基地流转使资产均衡型农户的家庭经济状况(0.611)、社会保障(0.678)、居住条件(0.751)以及农户休闲与健康(0.570)得到了提高和改善,却使资产缺乏型农户家庭经济状况(0.490)、社区环境(0.430)、发展机遇(0.374)以及心理福利(0.410)下降。(2)实现被流转农户家庭生计可持续的模式。无论是多元资产缺乏型和单一资产缺乏型农户家庭、还是资产普通型和资产富裕型农户家庭,采用单一的货币补偿方式不利于农户家庭长久生计。从生计可持续的角度出发,宅基地流转补偿应该包括人力资本、物质资本、自然资本、金融资本和社会资本等方面,根据农户家庭生计资产状况,实现对被流转农户家庭有差别化的、精准补偿,并通过多种补偿模式,实现被流转农户及其家庭成员的生计可持续发展。(3)为了使被流转农户家庭补偿的合理、全面,还应该要丰富补偿内容、优化补偿模式。要通过宅基地流转补偿,显化农户宅基地的福利性、资产性,保证农户有较完善的社会保障和政策扶持与支助,实现农户居住在出行方便、空气清新、环境优雅的“新家园”,当然还应该实现补偿程序的公平、公开与透明,补偿机制的城乡统筹和与时俱进。
4.基于福利均衡的农村宅基地流转市场机制设计。根据双边市场理论推导,在时下土地制度约束下,实施政府主导的、实行整组或整村的宅基地流转,有利于农户宅基地福利性、资产性的显化,有利于社会福利改进,能促进农户家庭福利水平的提高。由此进行了基于政府职能转变下的实现社会福利最大化的农村宅基地流转双边市场构建的条件、原则、基本结构及运行机制设计。
Nowadays, China is in the period of accelerated industrialization and urbanization, with the further deepening of reform and opening up, there are strong demands on construction land in social and economic development, expropriation rural land becomes the main supply mode of construction land, but the drawbacks of the existing land requisition system and the stringent farmland protection system makes Inefficient and idle rural residential land a "pet" that the local governments solve the contradiction of supply and demand of construction land, promote the development of economics and society. As a major component of China's construction land, rural residential land is the material basis for the survival and development that China's rural households depend on. At present, the conversion pilot of implementing rural residential land has an extensive and far-reaching impact on farmers、countryside and agriculture, especially more profound impact on rural households.Taking the peasants'family of rural residential land conversion in Wuhan Metropolitan as research subjects, This paper has studied the risk capacity and changes of the peasants'family welfare in the residential land conversion Under the guidance of the sustainable livelihood development theory and the family feasible capability theory extended from Amartya Sen'capability theory; based on the way of questionnaires, discussion visits, the assets of peasants' family livelihoods and change of peasants' living have been gotten around in the rural residential land conversion around. Using the quantification method livelihood assets, the paper gets the resistance risk capacity and type of peasants'families; using binary Logistic regression models and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method, combined qualitative and quantitative analysis, the paper gets the welfare factors of impacting peasants'willingness of residential land conversion and the peasants'family welfare state after residential land conversion. Then based on the current situation of loss compensation of rural residential land conversion, the paper analyzes the shortcomings of the current compensation mode, combined with the sustainable livelihood development theory, discusses how to make them tend toward the path of sustainable livelihoods. Finally, based on the bilateral market theory, the paper designs to build conversion market of rural residential land achieve a balanced welfare and protect the rights and interests of peasants and promote the efficient use of rural residential land resources. The main conclusions of the study are the following:
1. Measuring the value of peasants'family livelihood assets, assessing the risk capacity of and classifying the types peasants'family.(1) According to the sustainable livelihoods development theory, indicators are selected from human assets, natural assets, material assets, financial assets and social assets of five areas, the risk capacity evaluation system is built; then using the quantification method livelihood assets, the anti-risk capacity of peasants'families is measured; the research shows the value of peasants' family livelihood assets was positively correlated with the anti-risk capacity of peasant families.(2) By measuring the value of peasants'family livelihood assets
Of survey areas, according to the anti-risk capacity of peasants'families, peasants' families are divided into four categories:the multi-asset-deficient type, the lack of a single asset type, the asset ordinary type and asset affluent type.
2. The willingness of residential land conversion and welfare factors of affecting willingness.(1) The willingness of residential land conversion is generally low. According to the questionnaire statistics, the conversion willingness of survey areas accounts for only20.57%; From the perspective of the family types, the multi-asset-deficient type accounts for17.65, the lack of a single type of assets accounts for21.15, the asset ordinary type accounts for28.40%, the asset affluent type accounts for13.16%.(2) the welfare factors of affecting willingness are complex. The binary Logistic regression model shows that various welfare factors affect the willingness, from the total sample, the welfare factors include age of family head、education leve、value of family livelihood assets、peasants" urban" identity、subjective feelings of the living environment、social security、employment opportunities; from asset-deficient samples, the welfare of factors include age of family head, education leve、the main source of income, conversion policy awareness, subjective feelings of living environment、per capita living space、social security、employment opportunities; from assets-balanced sample, the welfare factors include age, education level, the main source of income, Awareness on residential land property,"urban" identity, subjective feelings of living environment, social security.
3. Effects of residential land conversion on the welfare of peasants" family and the patterns of achieving sustainable livelihoods and the measures of reasonable compensation (1) Peasants' family Welfare (capacity) could be measured by family economics, living conditions, social security, development opportunities, community environment, leisure and health, psychological state; Residential land conversion has different effects on different types of peasants'families:from view of the total sample and asset balanced samples, after the implementing residential land conversion, the welfare of peasants' family would be slight improved(integrated fuzzy indexes are respectively0.507,0.547), from view of the asset-deficient samples after the implementing residential land conversion, the welfare of peasants' family would be declined (integrated fuzzy index is0.464); from view of welfare function indicators, family economics (0.611), social security (0.678), living conditions (0.751) and leisure and health (0.570) of the asset balanced family have been enhanced and improved, while family economics (0.490), community environment (0.430), opportunities (0.374) and psychological benefits (0.410) of the asset -deficient family have been declined.(2) Patterns of achieving sustainable livelihoods. Whether it is the multi-asset-deficient and the single-asset deficient types, or the asset-ordinary type and the asset-affluent type, the single monetary compensation is not conducive to long-term livelihoods of peasants' family. From the perspective of sustainable livelihoods, rural residential land compensation should be Implemented in terms of human capital, physical capital, natural capital, financial capital and social capital, according to the position of peasant' s family livelihood assets to achieve differentiated, precise compensation the conversion families, and to achieve the sustainable livelihood development of the peasants and their family members.(3) To make the compensation for conversion peasants comprehensive, reasonable, compensation content should also be rich, and the method of compensation should be optimized, the procedures of compensation should be fair, open and transparent, and the content and mode of compensate should be advanced with the times. To compensate for rural residential land, the welfare and assets of rural residential land should be manifested, to ensure peasants a better social security and policy, to achieve that peasants have a convenient、air-fresh、elegant "new homes",Of course, compensation procedures should also fair, openness and transparency, compensation mechanisms should be developed with the times.
4. Rural residential land market mechanism design based on the welfare balance. According to the bilateral market theory derivation, in the constraints of the nowadays land institution, the implementation of government-led residential land conversion whole group or a whole village, will be conducive to manifest benefits and asset nature, conducive to improve social welfare. So based on the transformation of government functions, achieving social welfare maximization, the rural homestead of circulation build the conditions, principles, basic structure and operation mechanism of the bilateral market of rural residential land conversion will be designed.
引文
1 研究背景的数据主要来源于2000-2011年中国统计年鉴整理.
2 中国广播网：2011/12/20；中国经济网：2013/02/22.
4 潜江市国民经济与社会发展情况统计公报2012.
3 仙桃市国民经济与社会发展情况统计公报2012.
6 《2006年中国农村住户调查年鉴》：农户家庭固定资产需具备“使用年限在2年以上,甲位价值在50元以上这两个条件。
7 资料来源：王艳萍：客服经济学的哲学贫困一阿马蒂亚·森的经济思想研究,中国经济出版社,2006：50.
1.R.科斯,A.阿尔钦等.财产权利与制度变迁：产权学派与新制度经济学译文集[M].上海：上海人民出版社,2004.
2. 阿马蒂亚.森.论经济不平等之再考察[M].王利文,于古杰,泽.北京：社会科学文献出版社.2006.
3.阿马蒂亚.森.生活水准[M].徐大建,泽.上海：上海财经出版社.2007.
4. 阿马蒂亚.森.以自由看待世界[M].任姬,于真,泽.北京：中国人民大学出版.2002：150.
5. 安东尼.吉登斯.现代性与自我认同[M].北京：三联书店.1998：140.
6. 蔡玉胜,王安庆.城乡一体化进程中土地利用存在的问题与对策—以宅基地换房为例[J].经济纵横2010(1)：79-81.
7. 蔡运龙,霍雅勤.耕地非农化的供给驱动[J].中国土地,2002(7)：20-22.
8. 常红晓.江苏农民集中居住得失[J].财经,2006(11)：26.
9. 陈柏峰.农村宅基地限制交易的正当性中国土地科学2007,21(4)：44-48.
10.陈成文.社会学视野中的社会弱者[J].湖南师范大学学报.1999(2)：34-39.
11.陈传波.农户风险与脆弱性[J].农业经济问题,2005(8)：47-50.
12.陈利根,王琴,龙开胜.农民宅基地福利水平影响因素的理论分析[J].农业经济,2011(12)：13-16.
13.陈前虎,吴一洲.我国农村宅基地制度变迁及其流转模式分析[C].中国十地学会学术年会论文集,2009.
14.陈荣清,张明等.基于农户视角的农村宅基地流转实证分析[J].资源与产,2011(5)：68-71.
15.陈十银,周匕,吴明发.论新农村建设与农村宅基地合理利用[J].安徽农业科学.2007,4(14)：4354-4358.
16.陈托文.浅谈农村土地流转应坚持的几个原则[J].农村合作经济经营管理,2003(3)：17-18.
17.陈兴勇,蓝邓骏.失地农民社会保障的制度构建[J].中国软科学,2004(3)：15-21.
18.褚培新,曲福田.农地非农化配置中的土地收益分配研究[J].南京农业大学学报,2006,6(3)：1-6.
19.邓伟志,徐新.家庭社会学导论[M].上海：上海大学出版社,2006.
20.丁关良.1949年以来中国农村宅基地制度的演变[J].湖南农业大学学报(社会科学版),2008(4)：9-21.
21.J‘十军,陈传波.农户风险处理策略分析[J].农业现代化研究.2001(6)：346-349.
22.董婕.城市圈土地资源优化配置研究[M].北京：科学出版社,2012：42.
23.樊雅丽.生态福利的引入与社会化[J].河北学刊,2009,29(6)：132-135.
24.方福前,吕文慧.中国城镇居民福利水平影响因素分析[J].管理世界,2009(4)：17-25.
25.高进云,乔荣峰.农地城市化流转福利优化的动态分析[J].数学的实践与认识,2010,40(6)：21-29.
26.高进云,乔荣锋,张安录.农地城市流转前后农户福利变化的模糊评价,管理世界,2007(6)45-55.
27.高进云,乔荣锋.农地城市流转前后农户福利变化差异分析[J].中国人口.资源与环境2011,21(1)99-105.
28.关江华,黄朝禧,胡银根.基于Logistic回归模型的农户宅基地流转意愿研究[J].经济地理,2013,33(8)：128-133.
29.关江华,黄朝禧,胡银根.农户宅基地流转意愿差异及其驱动力研究[J].资源科学,2013,35(11)：2266-2271.
30.关江华,黄朝禧.农村宅基地流转利益主体博弈研究[J].华中农业大学学报,2013(3)：30-35.
31.关江华,黄朝禧.微观福利与风险视角的农户宅基地流转：武汉调查[J].改革,2013(8)：78-85.
32.关江华.我国农村宅基地流转研究综述[J].新疆农垦经济,2012(1)：23-27.
33.郭玲霞,高贵现,彭开丽.基于Logistic模型的失地农民土地征收意愿影响因素研究[J].资源科学,2012,34(8)：1484-1492.
34.郭玲霞.农地城市流转对失地农民福利影响及征地补偿研究[D].华中农业大学博士论文,2012：147.
35.郭玲霞.农地城市流转对失地农民福利影响及征地补偿研究[D].华中农业大学博士论文,2012：58.
36.韩康.启动中国农村宅基地市场话改革[J].国家行政学院学报,2008(4)：4-7.
37.韩立达,李曼宁.我国农村宅基地制度演变及改革研究[J].安徽农业科学,2009(32)：16012-16014.
38.韩清怀,王海军.论市场机制在宅基地使用权流转中的限度[J].经济问题,2010(6)：75-78.
39.韩峥.脆弱性与农村贫困[J].农业经济问题,2004(10)：8-12.
40.何缨.宅基地换房模式的法律思考[J].山东社会科学,2010,173(1)：171-175.
41.何元斌,姜武汉.农地流转参与主体与社会福利的关联度[J].改革,2011(1)：134-140.
42.洪建国.农户土地资本投入行为研究[D].华中农业大学博士论文,2010.
43.胡传景,沈士芹,张宏武.建立农村宅基地使用权自由流转制度的构想[J].广东土地科学,2007(10)：21-25.
44.胡贤辉,张霞,杨钢桥.湖北省土地利用结构变化及其驱动机制分析[J].长江流域资源与环境,2008(1)：43-45.
45.黄承伟,王小林,徐丽萍.贫困脆弱性：概念框架和测量方法[J].农业技术经济,2010(8)：4-11.
46.黄敬宝.就业能力假说：人力资源理论的一种发展[J].工业技术经济,2007(10)：124-127.
47.黄小虎.新时期中国土地管理研究(下)[M].当代中国出版社,2006：118.
48.黄有光.福祉经济学：一个趋于更全面分析的尝试[M].张清津,译.山东：东北财经大学出版社.2005.
49.纪汉霖,管锡展.双边市场及其定价策略研究[J].外国经济与管理,2006,28(3)：16.
50.纪汉霖.双边市场定价方式的模式研究[J].产业经济研究,2006(4)：11-20.
51.贾燕,李钢,朱新华等.农民集中居住前后福利状况变化研究[J].农业经济问题2009(2)30-36.
52.姜爱林,陈海秋.农村宅基地法制建设的基本现状与完善对策研究[J].陕西理工学院学报,2007(2)：45-49.
53.姜爱林,陈海秋.新中国50多年来宅基地立法的历史沿革[J].理论学刊,2007(12)：99-103.
54.姜作培.完善农村宅基地制度的思考[J].江苏农村经济,2008(12)：15-17.
55.蒋小花,沈卓之等问卷的信度与效度分析[J].现代预防医学,2010,37(3)429-431.
56.蒋远胜,肖诗顺,怂青锋。家庭风险分担机制对农村医疗保险需求的影响——对四川省的初步调查报告[J].人口与经济.2003(1)：74-80.
57.李航.我国转型期弱势群体社会风险管理探析[M].成都：西南财经大学出版社,2011：49-53.
58.李文谦,董祚继.质疑限制农村宅基地流转的正当性—兼活宅基地流转试验的初步构想[J].中国土地科学,2009,23(3)：55-60.
59.李宵.农村土地使用权流转的博弈分析[J].农村经济问题,2003(12)：4-7.
60.李小云,董强,饶小龙,赵丽霞.农户脆弱性分析方法及本土化应用[J].中国农村经济,2007(4)32-39.
61.李小云,张雪梅,唐丽霞.当前中国农村的贫困问题[J].中国农业大学学报,2005,10(4)：65-74.
62.厉以宁.福利与人权[J].求实学刊,2002 29(6)：49-51.
63.梁爽.土地非农化过程中的收益分配及其合理性评价[J].中国土地科学,2009(1)：4-8.
64.林乐芬,葛扬.基于福利经济学视角的失地农民补偿问题研究[J].中国软科学,2010,1：49-56.
65.林毅夫.小农与经济理性[J].农村经济与社会.1988(3)：31-34.
66.刘宝亮,李京生.迁村并点问题研究[J].小城镇建设,2001(6)：54-55.
67.刘海云.城市化进程中的失地农民问题研究[D].河北农业大学博十论文,2006.
68.刘克春.农户农地使用权流转决策行为研究：来自江西省经验[M].北京：中国农业出版社.2007：78-84.
69.刘玉伙,柳俊丰.农民中的准市民群体市民化问题探析[J].经济问题研究,2011(5)：30-33.
70.吕斐宜.论农民幸福指数应纳入农村发展指标体系[J].社会科学论坛,2006(8)：49-51.
71.吕军书，张文赟.农村宅基地使用权流转的风险防范问题分析河南师范大学学报,2013,40(2)：102-105.
72.罗应婷,杨钰娟等SPSS统计分析：从基础到实践[M].北京：电子工业出版社,2009.
73.马贤磊,孙晓中.不同经济发展水平下农民集中居住前后的福利变化研究[J].南京农业大学学报(社科版)2012,12(2)：8-11.
74.孟勤国.物权法开禁农村宅基地交易之辩[J].法学评论,2008(4)：26-27.
75.孟祥忠等.明晰使用产权：解决农村宅基地荒废问题的途经选择[J].农村经济,2006(10)：13-15.
76.倪静,杨庆媛等.重庆市江津区农村宅基地流转收益分配探析[J].西南大学学报,2010(12)：150-153.
77.聂鑫..农地城市流转中失地农民多维福利影响因素和测度研究[D].华中农业大学博十论文,2011.
78.潘凤.阿玛蒂亚.森自由思想研究[D].华东师范大学硕十学位论文,2007.
79.潘允康.拥有闲暇：城市居民新的社会财富观[J].江苏社会科学,2002(5)：86-91.
80.彭开丽,张鹏,张安录.农地城市化流转中不同权利主体的福利均衡分析fJ].中国人口资源与环境,2009,19(2)：137-142.
81.彭移风.双边市场定价方式及其对创痛市场理论的挑战[J].价格月刊,2007(3)：11-12.
82.秦晖.市场信号与“农民理性”[J].改革.1996(6)：85-96.
83.邱道持,赵亚萍,石永明.农村宅基地流转激励机制研究：以重庆市璧山县为例[J].西南大学学报,2008(10)：136-140.
84.曲福田,冯淑怡.土地价格及分配关系与农地非农化经济机制研究[J].中国农村经济,2001(12)：54-60.
85.任春洋,姚威.关于迁村并点的政策分析[J].城市问题,2000(6)：45-48.
86.申志伟,蒋远胜.西部农户家庭健康与医疗支出的决定因素—基于四川与陕西农户调查[J].农业技术经济.2008(3)：58-64.
87.沈陈华.丹阳市宅基地使用权流转意愿的影响因素及相互作用[J].长江流域资源与环境,2012(5)：552-556.
88.沈俊.优化土地使用制度的改革探索—嘉兴市“两分两换”试点工作为例[J].浙江国土资源,2009(8)：42-45.
89.沈永昌.泸郊宅基地置换试点情况调查[J].上海农村经济,2005(7)：27-29.
90.史清华,顾海英,张跃华.农民家庭风险保障：从传统模式到商业保险[J].管理世界.2004,(11)：101-108.
91.宋圭武.农户行为研究若干问题述评[J].农村技术经济.2002(4)：59-65.
92.宋林飞.中国社会风险预警系统的设计与运行[J].东南大学学报,1999(1)：69-76.
93.苏芳,蒲欣冬,徐中民等.生计资本与生计策略关系研究[J].中国人口.资源与环境,2009,19(6)；119-125.
94.孙月平,刘俊,谭军编著.应用福利经济学[M].北京：经济管理出版社,2004.
95.王国军.浅析农村家庭保障、土地保障与社会保障关系[J].中州学刊,2004(1)：149-151.
96.王克强,刘红梅.土地对我国农民究竟意味着什么[J].中国土地,2005(11)：9-11.
97.王克强,刘红梅等.地产对农民多重效用理论的实证分析[J]农业技术经济,1994(4)：40-41.
98.王明涛.证卷投资风险计量理论研究[J].经济经纬.2003(5)：84-88.
99.王旭东.中国宅基地制度研究[M].中国建筑工业出版社,2011：144-150.
100.王旭东.中国宅基地制度研究[M].中国建筑工业出版社,2011：47.
101.王艳萍.克服经济学的哲学贫困—阿马蒂亚·森的经济思想研究[M].北京：中国经济出版社.2006：50.
102.王钰.农村宅基地使用权多元功能的冲突与协调[J].社会纵横,2009(10)：114-116.
103.魏众.健康对非农就业及其工资决定的影响[J].经济研究,2004(2)：64-73.
104.温铁军.三农问题与世纪反思[M].上海：生活·读书·新知三联书店,2005.
105.乌尔里希·贝壳.风险社会[M].南京：译林出版社.2004：11.
106.巫秀美,倪宗瓒.因子分析在问卷调查中信度效度评价的应用[J].中国慢性病预防与控制,1998,6(1)：28-31.
107.吴苓.以宅基地换房—解决大城市郊区城市化建设中资源瓶颈的新探索[J].宏观经济研究,2007(2)：41-43.
108.伍振军,张云华,孔祥智.宅基地置换增值收益分配：基于j市的案例研究[J].江汉论坛,2010(9)：11-16
109.肖林生.阿玛蒂亚.森的福利观及其启示[J].云南财经大学学报,2009,24(1)：128-129.
110.谢东梅.农户生计资产量化分析方法的运用与验证[J].技术经济,2009(9)：43-48.
111.徐保根,杨雪锋,陈佳骊.浙江嘉兴市“两分两换”农村十地整治模式探讨[J].中国土地科学,2011,25(1)：37-42.
112.徐慧清,王焕英.风险社会中农民的风险意识与应对策略研究[J].中国农学通报.2006,22(6)：497-501.
113.许源丰,王敏.中国转型期农村宅基地使用权流转及其突破点[J].东岳论丛,2010(3)：16-19.
114.严金海.农村宅基地整理中十地利益冲突与产权制度创新研究[J].农业经济问题研究,2011(7)：46-53
115.颜虹.医学统计学[M].北京：人民卫生出版社,2005：7。
116.杨迪.土地征收制度的民法视角[D].吉林：吉林大学硕士论文.2007：43.
117.杨冬雪.风险社会与秩序重建[M].北京：社会科学院出版社.2006：11-16.
118.杨冬雪.经济全球化背景下的风险社会[N].学习时报.2005-01-17.
119.杨俊.不同类型农户耕地投入行为及其效率研究[D].华中农业大学博士文论,2011
120.杨亚楠.农村宅基地限制状况研究综述[J].现代农业研究.2008(14)：281-284.
121.姚引妹.人口抚养比-理论与实际的偏离及修正[J].中国人口科学,2010,(6)：2-10.
122.叶剑平.中国农村土地产权制度研究[M].北京：中国农业出版社,2000.
123.尹奇,马璐璐,王庆日.基于森的功能和能力福利理论的失地农民福利水平评价[J].中国土地科学,20104,2(7)42-45.
124.于莉等.宅基地置换、土地效率与利益补偿：基于制度和公共选择结构的思考[J].经济研究导刊,2011(16)：20-21.
125.袁丰，陈江龙,黄天送,等.基于SCM的经济发达地区农村宅基地置换研究：以海门市为例[J].资源科学,2009,31(8)：1378-1385.
126.岳中刚.双边市场的定价策略及反垄断问题研究[J].财政问题研究,2006(3)：30-35
127.张国培,庄天慧,张海霞.自然灾害对农户贫困脆弱性影响实证研究[J].中国人口·资源与环境.2010,20(专刊)：41-44.
128.张汉飞,石霞.我国现行农村宅基地制度及创新[J].农业经济问题,2010(12).89-92
129.张红星,桑铁柱.农民利益保护与交易机制的改进[J].农业经济问题,2010(5)：10-16.
130.张建华.嘉兴市开展“两分两换”试点工作的实践与探索[J].嘉兴学院学报,2010,(4)：29-35.
131.张建华.农村宅基地使用权流转模式探讨[J].农村土地使用制度改革2005(3)：11-13.
132.张健,陈一筠.家庭与社会保障[M].北京：社会科学文献出版社,2000,13-14.
133.张娟锋,贾生华.城市间住宅土地价格差异的决定因素[J].中国软科学,2008(5)：74-80
134.张力为,效度的正用与误用[J].北京体育大学学报2002,25(3)：348-350.
135.张维迎.博弈论与信息经济学[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1997.
136.张怡然,邱道持,李艳,等.农民工进城落户与宅基地退出影响因素分析：基于重庆市开县357份农民工的调查问卷[J].中国软科学,2011(2)：62-68.
137.张云华等.完善与改革农村宅基地制度研究[M].北京：中国农业出版社.2011：1.
138.张忠法.我国走出二元结构之路[J].经济研究参考。2005(9)：22-26.
139.章波,唐健,黄贤金等.经济发达地区农村宅基地流转问题研究[J].中国土地科学,2006(2)34-38.
140.赵春玲.福利制度比较与我国社会保障的梯次推进[M].北京：中国商务出版社,2008.12.
141.赵国玲,杨钢桥.农户宅基地流转意愿的影响因素分析：基于湖北二县市的农户调查研究[J].长江流域资源与环境,2009(12)：1121-1124.
142.赵亚萍,邱道持,石永明,等.农村宅基地流转驱动力分析：以重庆市璧山县为例[J].经济研究导刊,2008(7)：52-53.
143.赵之枫.城市化背景下农村宅基地有偿使用和转让制度初探[J].农业经济问题,2001(1)：42-45.
144.郑风田,阮荣平.农村居民文化福利以及文化需求分析[J].天津商业大学学报,2010(3)：3-7.
145.郑功成.《社会保障与弱势群体保护》子报告,www.china.com.cn,2003.
146.郑杭生等.转型中的中国社会与中国社会的转型——中国社会主义现代化进程的社会学研究[M].北京：首都师范大学出版社.1996：320-321.
147.钟林,唐小我.基于双边市场的中国农地流转交易系统平台定价研究[J].中国管理科学,2009,17(10)：34-37.
148.钟林.基于产权约束的农地流转市场定价研究[D].电子科技大学博士论文,2009：72-85.
149.周洪亮.农户视角下的农村宅基地使用权的取得研究[J].中国农村观察,2007(5)：.38-43
150.周京奎,吴晓燕,胡云霞,集体建设用地流转模式创新的调查研究：以天津滨海新区东丽区华明镇宅基地换房为例[J].调研世界,2010(7)：24-26.
151.周婧,杨庆媛,张蔚.贫困山区不同类型农户对宅基地流转的认知与响应：基于重庆市云阳县568户农户调查[J].中国土地科学,2010(9)：11-17.
152.朱洪才,王雪明.建设新型社区：对昆山市开展村庄整理的调查与思考[J].中国土地,2003(2)：37-39.
153.朱明芬.浙江失地农民利益保障现状调查及对策[J].中国农村经济,2003(3)：65-70.
154.朱荣科.福利指数及确定方法[J].数量经济技术经济研究,1992(7)：45-48.
155.朱识义.欠发达地区农村宅基地使用权流转法律制度的完善[J].求索,2010(1)：146-147.
156.朱淑珍.中国外汇投资组合风险与收益分析[J].上海金融.2002(7)：26-29.
157.诸培新,曲福田,孙卫东.农村宅基地使用权流转的公平与效率分析[J].中国土地科学,2009(5)：26-29.
158.主力军.我国土地流转问题研究[M].上海：上海人民出版社,2012：202.
159. A.C. Pigou. The Economics of Welfare[M].Fourth Edition. London: Macmillan 1932,1.1.5.
160. Andrew S.A Survey of Indicators of Economic and Social Well-being[EB/OL]. http:// www.csls.ca/resreports.asp,1999-01-22.
161. Armstrong M. Wright J Two-Sided Markets, Competitive Bottlenecks and Exclusive Contracts [J].EconomicTheory,2007,(32):353-380.
162. Armstrong M. Competition in Two-Sided Markets[J].Rand Journal of Economics,2006, (37): 668-691.
163. Armstrong M. Two-Sided Markets: Economic Theory and Policy Implications. University. College London,2004.
164. Barrientos Armando. Does Vulnerability Creat Poverty Traps? CPRC Working Paper76,Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex,Brighton,BN19RE,UK,2007.
165. Blomquist G, Worley L. Hedonic prices, demands for ur-ban housing amenities, and benefit estimates. Journal of Urban Economics, 1981, 9:212-221.
166. Bonfanti. Rural settlements in transition-agricultural and countryside crisis in central Eastern Europe. Geo Journal,1998,(45).
167. Buttel F H. The political ecomomy of part-time farming. Geojournal,1982,6:293-300.
168. Chaney P, Sherwood K. The resale of right to buy dwellings:A case study of migration and social changein rural England. Journal of Rural Studies,2000,16(1):79-94.
169. Cheli B. Totally Fuzzy and Relative Measures of Poverty in Dynamic Context - An Application to the British Household Panel Survey,1991～1992[J]. Metron,1995, Vol.53, No.3-4, pp.183-205.
170. Cheli, B, Lemmi, A. A Totally Fuzzy and Relative Approach to the Multidimensional Analysis of Poverty[J]. Economic Notes, 1995,Vol.24, No.1, pp.115-133.
171.Cloke P J, Edwards G. Rurality in England and Wales 1981:A replication of the 1971 index. Regional Studies,1986,20(4):289-306.
172. Cobb S. The impact of site characteristics on housing costestimates. Journal of Urban Economics, 1984,15:26-46.
173. Cummins R.A.,Eckersley R., PallantJ, et al., Developing a national index of subjective well-being: the Australianunity wellbeing index. Social Indicators Research,64:159-190,2003.
174. Daniels T L, Nelson A C. Is oregon'sfar land preservation program working? Journal of the American Planning As- sociation,1986,52: 22-32.
175.Dercon, Stefan. Assessing Vulnerability to Poverty, Jesus College and CASE, Department of Economics, Oxford University,2001.
176. Diamond D B, Jr. The relationship between amenities andurban land prices. Land Economics, 1980,56:21-32.
177. DID Sustainable rural livelihoods guidance sheets [G].Department for International Development.2000.
178. Dueker K J, Strathman J G, Levin I P, et al. Rural residential development within metropolitan area. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems,1983,8:121-129.
179. Eikemo T.A.,Bambra C.,Judge K., et al. Welfare state regimes and differences in self-perceived health in Europe:A multilevel analysis. Social Science and Medicine,66:2281-2295,2008.
180. Engelbrecht H.J., Natural capital, subjective wellbeing, and the new welfare economics of substainability:Some evidence from cross-country regressions. Ecological Economics, 69: 380-388,2009.
181. Forrest R, Murie A. Change on a rural council estate:Ananalysis of dwelling histories. Journal of Rural Studies,1992,8(1):53-65.
182. George R.G.,Menard C.,ZuluagaA.M., Measuring the Welfare Effects of Refrom:Urban Water Supply in Guinea.World development, Vol.30,No 9, pp.1517-1537,2002.
183. Goodman A. Externalities and non-monotonic price-distance functions. Journal of Urban Economics,1979,6:21-328.
184. Grether D M, Mieszkowski P. Determinants of real estatevalues. Journal of Urban Economics, 1974,1:127-145.
185. Hagiu A. Two-sided Platforms:Pricing and Social Efficiency [EB/OL].IDEI,2004.
186. Healy R G, Short J L. The market for rural land. Washington. D C:Conservation Foundation, 1981.
187. James Tobin, Daniel Kahneman. Is Growth Obsolete? [A].Economic Growth[C].NEW YORK: Columbia University Press,1972.
188. Keeble D E, Owens P L, Thompson C. The urban-rural manufacturing shift in the European community. Urban Studies,1983,20:405-418.
189. Li M M, Brown H J. Micro-neighborhood externalitiesand hedonic housing prices. Land Economics,1980,56:125-141.
190. Londun A.s.,Schwartz S., Scott E..Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Data in welfare Policy Evaluations in the United States. World development, Vol.35,No 2,pp.342-353,2007.
191. Mark Walsh, Paul Stephens, Stephen Moore. Social policy & welfare[M].Stanley Thornes,United Kingdom:Delta Place.2000:50-54.
192. Michael Bittman,1999. "Social Participation and Family Welfare: The Money and Time Costs of Leisure,"Discussion Papers 0095,Univercity of New South Wales, Social Policy Research Center.
193.Moser, Caroline. The Asset-vulnerability Framework: Reassessing Urban Poverty Reduction Strategies, Washington D.C:Word Bank,1998.
194. Nakajima, C. Subjective Equilibrium Theory of The Farm Household. Amsterdam:Elsevier, 1986:302.
195. Nam K.M.,Noelle E.s.,Reilly J.M.,et al.Measuring welfare loss caused by air pollution in Europe: A Cge Analysis. Energy Policy,38:5059-5071,2010.
196.Nick Donovan et al. Life Satisfaction:The State of Knowledge and Implications for Government[EB/OL]. United Kingdom Treasury Paper,2002.
197. Nick Donovan et al. Life Satisfaction:The State of Knowledge and Implications for Government. United KingdomTreasury Paper,2002.
198. Ridker G R, Henning J A. The determinants of residential property values with special reference to air pollution.Re-view of Economics and Statistics, 1967,49:246-257.
199. Roehet, J. Tirole, J. Cooperation among competitors:some economics of payment card associations [J]. RANDJournal of Economics,2002(4):540-570.
200. Roehet, J. Tirole, J. Defining Two-Sided Markets. Mimeo [J]. IDEI, University of Toulouse,2004:429-436.
201. Roehet, J. Tirole, J. Two-Sided Markets: a progress report [J]. Mimeo IDEI, University of Toulouse,2005:367-375.
202. Roson. R. Two-Sided Markets Mimeo [J].University's Ca'Foscar di Venezia,2004
203. Ruefli, T. W., M. Collins and J. R. Lacugna, Risk Measures in Strategic Management Research, Strategic Management Journal, Vol.20,1999:167-194.
204. Samuel L. Popkin, The Rational Peasant. Berkeley: University of California Press,1979
205. Sen, Amartya K. Inequality Re-examined [M]. Oxford: Clarendon Press,1992.
206. Sen, Amartya K. The Standard of Living [M]. New York: Cambridge University Press,1987.
207. Sen, Amartya K." Capability and Well-being",in The Quality of Life (Edited by Nussbaum, M. and Sen, Amartya K.), [M].Oxford: Clarendon Press,1993.
208. Sen. Amartya K. Development As Freedom [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press,1999.
209. Sharp, Kay: Measuring Destitution:Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches in the Analysis of Survey Data, IDS working paper 217,2003.
210. Shucksmith M. No Homes for Locals. Gower: Farnborough, 1981.
211. Stefan Bergheim. Measure of Well—being:There is More to It than GDP [J/OL]. http:// www.dbresearch.com. 2006.
212. Vesterby, Marlow and KruPa. Rural Residential Land use:Tracking it grows Agricultural Outlook,2002,(8):14-17.
213. Volker Kreibich, Selfhelp planning of migrants in Rome and Madrid, Habitat International. 2000, 24(2):201-211.
214. Wasilewski A and K Krukowski. Land conversion for suburban housing: a study of urbanization around Warsaw and Olsztyn, Poland. Environmental Management,2004,34(2):291-303.
215. Wright, J. One-Sided Logic in Two-Sided Markets [J]. Review of Network Economics, 2004,3(1), 44-64.
2 中国广播网：2011/12/20；中国经济网：2013/02/22.
4 潜江市国民经济与社会发展情况统计公报2012.
3 仙桃市国民经济与社会发展情况统计公报2012.
6 《2006年中国农村住户调查年鉴》：农户家庭固定资产需具备“使用年限在2年以上,甲位价值在50元以上这两个条件。
7 资料来源：王艳萍：客服经济学的哲学贫困一阿马蒂亚·森的经济思想研究,中国经济出版社,2006：50.
1.R.科斯,A.阿尔钦等.财产权利与制度变迁：产权学派与新制度经济学译文集[M].上海：上海人民出版社,2004.
2. 阿马蒂亚.森.论经济不平等之再考察[M].王利文,于古杰,泽.北京：社会科学文献出版社.2006.
3.阿马蒂亚.森.生活水准[M].徐大建,泽.上海：上海财经出版社.2007.
4. 阿马蒂亚.森.以自由看待世界[M].任姬,于真,泽.北京：中国人民大学出版.2002：150.
5. 安东尼.吉登斯.现代性与自我认同[M].北京：三联书店.1998：140.
6. 蔡玉胜,王安庆.城乡一体化进程中土地利用存在的问题与对策—以宅基地换房为例[J].经济纵横2010(1)：79-81.
7. 蔡运龙,霍雅勤.耕地非农化的供给驱动[J].中国土地,2002(7)：20-22.
8. 常红晓.江苏农民集中居住得失[J].财经,2006(11)：26.
9. 陈柏峰.农村宅基地限制交易的正当性中国土地科学2007,21(4)：44-48.
10.陈成文.社会学视野中的社会弱者[J].湖南师范大学学报.1999(2)：34-39.
11.陈传波.农户风险与脆弱性[J].农业经济问题,2005(8)：47-50.
12.陈利根,王琴,龙开胜.农民宅基地福利水平影响因素的理论分析[J].农业经济,2011(12)：13-16.
13.陈前虎,吴一洲.我国农村宅基地制度变迁及其流转模式分析[C].中国十地学会学术年会论文集,2009.
14.陈荣清,张明等.基于农户视角的农村宅基地流转实证分析[J].资源与产,2011(5)：68-71.
15.陈十银,周匕,吴明发.论新农村建设与农村宅基地合理利用[J].安徽农业科学.2007,4(14)：4354-4358.
16.陈托文.浅谈农村土地流转应坚持的几个原则[J].农村合作经济经营管理,2003(3)：17-18.
17.陈兴勇,蓝邓骏.失地农民社会保障的制度构建[J].中国软科学,2004(3)：15-21.
18.褚培新,曲福田.农地非农化配置中的土地收益分配研究[J].南京农业大学学报,2006,6(3)：1-6.
19.邓伟志,徐新.家庭社会学导论[M].上海：上海大学出版社,2006.
20.丁关良.1949年以来中国农村宅基地制度的演变[J].湖南农业大学学报(社会科学版),2008(4)：9-21.
21.J‘十军,陈传波.农户风险处理策略分析[J].农业现代化研究.2001(6)：346-349.
22.董婕.城市圈土地资源优化配置研究[M].北京：科学出版社,2012：42.
23.樊雅丽.生态福利的引入与社会化[J].河北学刊,2009,29(6)：132-135.
24.方福前,吕文慧.中国城镇居民福利水平影响因素分析[J].管理世界,2009(4)：17-25.
25.高进云,乔荣峰.农地城市化流转福利优化的动态分析[J].数学的实践与认识,2010,40(6)：21-29.
26.高进云,乔荣锋,张安录.农地城市流转前后农户福利变化的模糊评价,管理世界,2007(6)45-55.
27.高进云,乔荣锋.农地城市流转前后农户福利变化差异分析[J].中国人口.资源与环境2011,21(1)99-105.
28.关江华,黄朝禧,胡银根.基于Logistic回归模型的农户宅基地流转意愿研究[J].经济地理,2013,33(8)：128-133.
29.关江华,黄朝禧,胡银根.农户宅基地流转意愿差异及其驱动力研究[J].资源科学,2013,35(11)：2266-2271.
30.关江华,黄朝禧.农村宅基地流转利益主体博弈研究[J].华中农业大学学报,2013(3)：30-35.
31.关江华,黄朝禧.微观福利与风险视角的农户宅基地流转：武汉调查[J].改革,2013(8)：78-85.
32.关江华.我国农村宅基地流转研究综述[J].新疆农垦经济,2012(1)：23-27.
33.郭玲霞,高贵现,彭开丽.基于Logistic模型的失地农民土地征收意愿影响因素研究[J].资源科学,2012,34(8)：1484-1492.
34.郭玲霞.农地城市流转对失地农民福利影响及征地补偿研究[D].华中农业大学博士论文,2012：147.
35.郭玲霞.农地城市流转对失地农民福利影响及征地补偿研究[D].华中农业大学博士论文,2012：58.
36.韩康.启动中国农村宅基地市场话改革[J].国家行政学院学报,2008(4)：4-7.
37.韩立达,李曼宁.我国农村宅基地制度演变及改革研究[J].安徽农业科学,2009(32)：16012-16014.
38.韩清怀,王海军.论市场机制在宅基地使用权流转中的限度[J].经济问题,2010(6)：75-78.
39.韩峥.脆弱性与农村贫困[J].农业经济问题,2004(10)：8-12.
40.何缨.宅基地换房模式的法律思考[J].山东社会科学,2010,173(1)：171-175.
41.何元斌,姜武汉.农地流转参与主体与社会福利的关联度[J].改革,2011(1)：134-140.
42.洪建国.农户土地资本投入行为研究[D].华中农业大学博士论文,2010.
43.胡传景,沈士芹,张宏武.建立农村宅基地使用权自由流转制度的构想[J].广东土地科学,2007(10)：21-25.
44.胡贤辉,张霞,杨钢桥.湖北省土地利用结构变化及其驱动机制分析[J].长江流域资源与环境,2008(1)：43-45.
45.黄承伟,王小林,徐丽萍.贫困脆弱性：概念框架和测量方法[J].农业技术经济,2010(8)：4-11.
46.黄敬宝.就业能力假说：人力资源理论的一种发展[J].工业技术经济,2007(10)：124-127.
47.黄小虎.新时期中国土地管理研究(下)[M].当代中国出版社,2006：118.
48.黄有光.福祉经济学：一个趋于更全面分析的尝试[M].张清津,译.山东：东北财经大学出版社.2005.
49.纪汉霖,管锡展.双边市场及其定价策略研究[J].外国经济与管理,2006,28(3)：16.
50.纪汉霖.双边市场定价方式的模式研究[J].产业经济研究,2006(4)：11-20.
51.贾燕,李钢,朱新华等.农民集中居住前后福利状况变化研究[J].农业经济问题2009(2)30-36.
52.姜爱林,陈海秋.农村宅基地法制建设的基本现状与完善对策研究[J].陕西理工学院学报,2007(2)：45-49.
53.姜爱林,陈海秋.新中国50多年来宅基地立法的历史沿革[J].理论学刊,2007(12)：99-103.
54.姜作培.完善农村宅基地制度的思考[J].江苏农村经济,2008(12)：15-17.
55.蒋小花,沈卓之等问卷的信度与效度分析[J].现代预防医学,2010,37(3)429-431.
56.蒋远胜,肖诗顺,怂青锋。家庭风险分担机制对农村医疗保险需求的影响——对四川省的初步调查报告[J].人口与经济.2003(1)：74-80.
57.李航.我国转型期弱势群体社会风险管理探析[M].成都：西南财经大学出版社,2011：49-53.
58.李文谦,董祚继.质疑限制农村宅基地流转的正当性—兼活宅基地流转试验的初步构想[J].中国土地科学,2009,23(3)：55-60.
59.李宵.农村土地使用权流转的博弈分析[J].农村经济问题,2003(12)：4-7.
60.李小云,董强,饶小龙,赵丽霞.农户脆弱性分析方法及本土化应用[J].中国农村经济,2007(4)32-39.
61.李小云,张雪梅,唐丽霞.当前中国农村的贫困问题[J].中国农业大学学报,2005,10(4)：65-74.
62.厉以宁.福利与人权[J].求实学刊,2002 29(6)：49-51.
63.梁爽.土地非农化过程中的收益分配及其合理性评价[J].中国土地科学,2009(1)：4-8.
64.林乐芬,葛扬.基于福利经济学视角的失地农民补偿问题研究[J].中国软科学,2010,1：49-56.
65.林毅夫.小农与经济理性[J].农村经济与社会.1988(3)：31-34.
66.刘宝亮,李京生.迁村并点问题研究[J].小城镇建设,2001(6)：54-55.
67.刘海云.城市化进程中的失地农民问题研究[D].河北农业大学博十论文,2006.
68.刘克春.农户农地使用权流转决策行为研究：来自江西省经验[M].北京：中国农业出版社.2007：78-84.
69.刘玉伙,柳俊丰.农民中的准市民群体市民化问题探析[J].经济问题研究,2011(5)：30-33.
70.吕斐宜.论农民幸福指数应纳入农村发展指标体系[J].社会科学论坛,2006(8)：49-51.
71.吕军书，张文赟.农村宅基地使用权流转的风险防范问题分析河南师范大学学报,2013,40(2)：102-105.
72.罗应婷,杨钰娟等SPSS统计分析：从基础到实践[M].北京：电子工业出版社,2009.
73.马贤磊,孙晓中.不同经济发展水平下农民集中居住前后的福利变化研究[J].南京农业大学学报(社科版)2012,12(2)：8-11.
74.孟勤国.物权法开禁农村宅基地交易之辩[J].法学评论,2008(4)：26-27.
75.孟祥忠等.明晰使用产权：解决农村宅基地荒废问题的途经选择[J].农村经济,2006(10)：13-15.
76.倪静,杨庆媛等.重庆市江津区农村宅基地流转收益分配探析[J].西南大学学报,2010(12)：150-153.
77.聂鑫..农地城市流转中失地农民多维福利影响因素和测度研究[D].华中农业大学博十论文,2011.
78.潘凤.阿玛蒂亚.森自由思想研究[D].华东师范大学硕十学位论文,2007.
79.潘允康.拥有闲暇：城市居民新的社会财富观[J].江苏社会科学,2002(5)：86-91.
80.彭开丽,张鹏,张安录.农地城市化流转中不同权利主体的福利均衡分析fJ].中国人口资源与环境,2009,19(2)：137-142.
81.彭移风.双边市场定价方式及其对创痛市场理论的挑战[J].价格月刊,2007(3)：11-12.
82.秦晖.市场信号与“农民理性”[J].改革.1996(6)：85-96.
83.邱道持,赵亚萍,石永明.农村宅基地流转激励机制研究：以重庆市璧山县为例[J].西南大学学报,2008(10)：136-140.
84.曲福田,冯淑怡.土地价格及分配关系与农地非农化经济机制研究[J].中国农村经济,2001(12)：54-60.
85.任春洋,姚威.关于迁村并点的政策分析[J].城市问题,2000(6)：45-48.
86.申志伟,蒋远胜.西部农户家庭健康与医疗支出的决定因素—基于四川与陕西农户调查[J].农业技术经济.2008(3)：58-64.
87.沈陈华.丹阳市宅基地使用权流转意愿的影响因素及相互作用[J].长江流域资源与环境,2012(5)：552-556.
88.沈俊.优化土地使用制度的改革探索—嘉兴市“两分两换”试点工作为例[J].浙江国土资源,2009(8)：42-45.
89.沈永昌.泸郊宅基地置换试点情况调查[J].上海农村经济,2005(7)：27-29.
90.史清华,顾海英,张跃华.农民家庭风险保障：从传统模式到商业保险[J].管理世界.2004,(11)：101-108.
91.宋圭武.农户行为研究若干问题述评[J].农村技术经济.2002(4)：59-65.
92.宋林飞.中国社会风险预警系统的设计与运行[J].东南大学学报,1999(1)：69-76.
93.苏芳,蒲欣冬,徐中民等.生计资本与生计策略关系研究[J].中国人口.资源与环境,2009,19(6)；119-125.
94.孙月平,刘俊,谭军编著.应用福利经济学[M].北京：经济管理出版社,2004.
95.王国军.浅析农村家庭保障、土地保障与社会保障关系[J].中州学刊,2004(1)：149-151.
96.王克强,刘红梅.土地对我国农民究竟意味着什么[J].中国土地,2005(11)：9-11.
97.王克强,刘红梅等.地产对农民多重效用理论的实证分析[J]农业技术经济,1994(4)：40-41.
98.王明涛.证卷投资风险计量理论研究[J].经济经纬.2003(5)：84-88.
99.王旭东.中国宅基地制度研究[M].中国建筑工业出版社,2011：144-150.
100.王旭东.中国宅基地制度研究[M].中国建筑工业出版社,2011：47.
101.王艳萍.克服经济学的哲学贫困—阿马蒂亚·森的经济思想研究[M].北京：中国经济出版社.2006：50.
102.王钰.农村宅基地使用权多元功能的冲突与协调[J].社会纵横,2009(10)：114-116.
103.魏众.健康对非农就业及其工资决定的影响[J].经济研究,2004(2)：64-73.
104.温铁军.三农问题与世纪反思[M].上海：生活·读书·新知三联书店,2005.
105.乌尔里希·贝壳.风险社会[M].南京：译林出版社.2004：11.
106.巫秀美,倪宗瓒.因子分析在问卷调查中信度效度评价的应用[J].中国慢性病预防与控制,1998,6(1)：28-31.
107.吴苓.以宅基地换房—解决大城市郊区城市化建设中资源瓶颈的新探索[J].宏观经济研究,2007(2)：41-43.
108.伍振军,张云华,孔祥智.宅基地置换增值收益分配：基于j市的案例研究[J].江汉论坛,2010(9)：11-16
109.肖林生.阿玛蒂亚.森的福利观及其启示[J].云南财经大学学报,2009,24(1)：128-129.
110.谢东梅.农户生计资产量化分析方法的运用与验证[J].技术经济,2009(9)：43-48.
111.徐保根,杨雪锋,陈佳骊.浙江嘉兴市“两分两换”农村十地整治模式探讨[J].中国土地科学,2011,25(1)：37-42.
112.徐慧清,王焕英.风险社会中农民的风险意识与应对策略研究[J].中国农学通报.2006,22(6)：497-501.
113.许源丰,王敏.中国转型期农村宅基地使用权流转及其突破点[J].东岳论丛,2010(3)：16-19.
114.严金海.农村宅基地整理中十地利益冲突与产权制度创新研究[J].农业经济问题研究,2011(7)：46-53
115.颜虹.医学统计学[M].北京：人民卫生出版社,2005：7。
116.杨迪.土地征收制度的民法视角[D].吉林：吉林大学硕士论文.2007：43.
117.杨冬雪.风险社会与秩序重建[M].北京：社会科学院出版社.2006：11-16.
118.杨冬雪.经济全球化背景下的风险社会[N].学习时报.2005-01-17.
119.杨俊.不同类型农户耕地投入行为及其效率研究[D].华中农业大学博士文论,2011
120.杨亚楠.农村宅基地限制状况研究综述[J].现代农业研究.2008(14)：281-284.
121.姚引妹.人口抚养比-理论与实际的偏离及修正[J].中国人口科学,2010,(6)：2-10.
122.叶剑平.中国农村土地产权制度研究[M].北京：中国农业出版社,2000.
123.尹奇,马璐璐,王庆日.基于森的功能和能力福利理论的失地农民福利水平评价[J].中国土地科学,20104,2(7)42-45.
124.于莉等.宅基地置换、土地效率与利益补偿：基于制度和公共选择结构的思考[J].经济研究导刊,2011(16)：20-21.
125.袁丰，陈江龙,黄天送,等.基于SCM的经济发达地区农村宅基地置换研究：以海门市为例[J].资源科学,2009,31(8)：1378-1385.
126.岳中刚.双边市场的定价策略及反垄断问题研究[J].财政问题研究,2006(3)：30-35
127.张国培,庄天慧,张海霞.自然灾害对农户贫困脆弱性影响实证研究[J].中国人口·资源与环境.2010,20(专刊)：41-44.
128.张汉飞,石霞.我国现行农村宅基地制度及创新[J].农业经济问题,2010(12).89-92
129.张红星,桑铁柱.农民利益保护与交易机制的改进[J].农业经济问题,2010(5)：10-16.
130.张建华.嘉兴市开展“两分两换”试点工作的实践与探索[J].嘉兴学院学报,2010,(4)：29-35.
131.张建华.农村宅基地使用权流转模式探讨[J].农村土地使用制度改革2005(3)：11-13.
132.张健,陈一筠.家庭与社会保障[M].北京：社会科学文献出版社,2000,13-14.
133.张娟锋,贾生华.城市间住宅土地价格差异的决定因素[J].中国软科学,2008(5)：74-80
134.张力为,效度的正用与误用[J].北京体育大学学报2002,25(3)：348-350.
135.张维迎.博弈论与信息经济学[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1997.
136.张怡然,邱道持,李艳,等.农民工进城落户与宅基地退出影响因素分析：基于重庆市开县357份农民工的调查问卷[J].中国软科学,2011(2)：62-68.
137.张云华等.完善与改革农村宅基地制度研究[M].北京：中国农业出版社.2011：1.
138.张忠法.我国走出二元结构之路[J].经济研究参考。2005(9)：22-26.
139.章波,唐健,黄贤金等.经济发达地区农村宅基地流转问题研究[J].中国土地科学,2006(2)34-38.
140.赵春玲.福利制度比较与我国社会保障的梯次推进[M].北京：中国商务出版社,2008.12.
141.赵国玲,杨钢桥.农户宅基地流转意愿的影响因素分析：基于湖北二县市的农户调查研究[J].长江流域资源与环境,2009(12)：1121-1124.
142.赵亚萍,邱道持,石永明,等.农村宅基地流转驱动力分析：以重庆市璧山县为例[J].经济研究导刊,2008(7)：52-53.
143.赵之枫.城市化背景下农村宅基地有偿使用和转让制度初探[J].农业经济问题,2001(1)：42-45.
144.郑风田,阮荣平.农村居民文化福利以及文化需求分析[J].天津商业大学学报,2010(3)：3-7.
145.郑功成.《社会保障与弱势群体保护》子报告,www.china.com.cn,2003.
146.郑杭生等.转型中的中国社会与中国社会的转型——中国社会主义现代化进程的社会学研究[M].北京：首都师范大学出版社.1996：320-321.
147.钟林,唐小我.基于双边市场的中国农地流转交易系统平台定价研究[J].中国管理科学,2009,17(10)：34-37.
148.钟林.基于产权约束的农地流转市场定价研究[D].电子科技大学博士论文,2009：72-85.
149.周洪亮.农户视角下的农村宅基地使用权的取得研究[J].中国农村观察,2007(5)：.38-43
150.周京奎,吴晓燕,胡云霞,集体建设用地流转模式创新的调查研究：以天津滨海新区东丽区华明镇宅基地换房为例[J].调研世界,2010(7)：24-26.
151.周婧,杨庆媛,张蔚.贫困山区不同类型农户对宅基地流转的认知与响应：基于重庆市云阳县568户农户调查[J].中国土地科学,2010(9)：11-17.
152.朱洪才,王雪明.建设新型社区：对昆山市开展村庄整理的调查与思考[J].中国土地,2003(2)：37-39.
153.朱明芬.浙江失地农民利益保障现状调查及对策[J].中国农村经济,2003(3)：65-70.
154.朱荣科.福利指数及确定方法[J].数量经济技术经济研究,1992(7)：45-48.
155.朱识义.欠发达地区农村宅基地使用权流转法律制度的完善[J].求索,2010(1)：146-147.
156.朱淑珍.中国外汇投资组合风险与收益分析[J].上海金融.2002(7)：26-29.
157.诸培新,曲福田,孙卫东.农村宅基地使用权流转的公平与效率分析[J].中国土地科学,2009(5)：26-29.
158.主力军.我国土地流转问题研究[M].上海：上海人民出版社,2012：202.
159. A.C. Pigou. The Economics of Welfare[M].Fourth Edition. London: Macmillan 1932,1.1.5.
160. Andrew S.A Survey of Indicators of Economic and Social Well-being[EB/OL]. http:// www.csls.ca/resreports.asp,1999-01-22.
161. Armstrong M. Wright J Two-Sided Markets, Competitive Bottlenecks and Exclusive Contracts [J].EconomicTheory,2007,(32):353-380.
162. Armstrong M. Competition in Two-Sided Markets[J].Rand Journal of Economics,2006, (37): 668-691.
163. Armstrong M. Two-Sided Markets: Economic Theory and Policy Implications. University. College London,2004.
164. Barrientos Armando. Does Vulnerability Creat Poverty Traps? CPRC Working Paper76,Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex,Brighton,BN19RE,UK,2007.
165. Blomquist G, Worley L. Hedonic prices, demands for ur-ban housing amenities, and benefit estimates. Journal of Urban Economics, 1981, 9:212-221.
166. Bonfanti. Rural settlements in transition-agricultural and countryside crisis in central Eastern Europe. Geo Journal,1998,(45).
167. Buttel F H. The political ecomomy of part-time farming. Geojournal,1982,6:293-300.
168. Chaney P, Sherwood K. The resale of right to buy dwellings:A case study of migration and social changein rural England. Journal of Rural Studies,2000,16(1):79-94.
169. Cheli B. Totally Fuzzy and Relative Measures of Poverty in Dynamic Context - An Application to the British Household Panel Survey,1991～1992[J]. Metron,1995, Vol.53, No.3-4, pp.183-205.
170. Cheli, B, Lemmi, A. A Totally Fuzzy and Relative Approach to the Multidimensional Analysis of Poverty[J]. Economic Notes, 1995,Vol.24, No.1, pp.115-133.
171.Cloke P J, Edwards G. Rurality in England and Wales 1981:A replication of the 1971 index. Regional Studies,1986,20(4):289-306.
172. Cobb S. The impact of site characteristics on housing costestimates. Journal of Urban Economics, 1984,15:26-46.
173. Cummins R.A.,Eckersley R., PallantJ, et al., Developing a national index of subjective well-being: the Australianunity wellbeing index. Social Indicators Research,64:159-190,2003.
174. Daniels T L, Nelson A C. Is oregon'sfar land preservation program working? Journal of the American Planning As- sociation,1986,52: 22-32.
175.Dercon, Stefan. Assessing Vulnerability to Poverty, Jesus College and CASE, Department of Economics, Oxford University,2001.
176. Diamond D B, Jr. The relationship between amenities andurban land prices. Land Economics, 1980,56:21-32.
177. DID Sustainable rural livelihoods guidance sheets [G].Department for International Development.2000.
178. Dueker K J, Strathman J G, Levin I P, et al. Rural residential development within metropolitan area. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems,1983,8:121-129.
179. Eikemo T.A.,Bambra C.,Judge K., et al. Welfare state regimes and differences in self-perceived health in Europe:A multilevel analysis. Social Science and Medicine,66:2281-2295,2008.
180. Engelbrecht H.J., Natural capital, subjective wellbeing, and the new welfare economics of substainability:Some evidence from cross-country regressions. Ecological Economics, 69: 380-388,2009.
181. Forrest R, Murie A. Change on a rural council estate:Ananalysis of dwelling histories. Journal of Rural Studies,1992,8(1):53-65.
182. George R.G.,Menard C.,ZuluagaA.M., Measuring the Welfare Effects of Refrom:Urban Water Supply in Guinea.World development, Vol.30,No 9, pp.1517-1537,2002.
183. Goodman A. Externalities and non-monotonic price-distance functions. Journal of Urban Economics,1979,6:21-328.
184. Grether D M, Mieszkowski P. Determinants of real estatevalues. Journal of Urban Economics, 1974,1:127-145.
185. Hagiu A. Two-sided Platforms:Pricing and Social Efficiency [EB/OL].IDEI,2004.
186. Healy R G, Short J L. The market for rural land. Washington. D C:Conservation Foundation, 1981.
187. James Tobin, Daniel Kahneman. Is Growth Obsolete? [A].Economic Growth[C].NEW YORK: Columbia University Press,1972.
188. Keeble D E, Owens P L, Thompson C. The urban-rural manufacturing shift in the European community. Urban Studies,1983,20:405-418.
189. Li M M, Brown H J. Micro-neighborhood externalitiesand hedonic housing prices. Land Economics,1980,56:125-141.
190. Londun A.s.,Schwartz S., Scott E..Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Data in welfare Policy Evaluations in the United States. World development, Vol.35,No 2,pp.342-353,2007.
191. Mark Walsh, Paul Stephens, Stephen Moore. Social policy & welfare[M].Stanley Thornes,United Kingdom:Delta Place.2000:50-54.
192. Michael Bittman,1999. "Social Participation and Family Welfare: The Money and Time Costs of Leisure,"Discussion Papers 0095,Univercity of New South Wales, Social Policy Research Center.
193.Moser, Caroline. The Asset-vulnerability Framework: Reassessing Urban Poverty Reduction Strategies, Washington D.C:Word Bank,1998.
194. Nakajima, C. Subjective Equilibrium Theory of The Farm Household. Amsterdam:Elsevier, 1986:302.
195. Nam K.M.,Noelle E.s.,Reilly J.M.,et al.Measuring welfare loss caused by air pollution in Europe: A Cge Analysis. Energy Policy,38:5059-5071,2010.
196.Nick Donovan et al. Life Satisfaction:The State of Knowledge and Implications for Government[EB/OL]. United Kingdom Treasury Paper,2002.
197. Nick Donovan et al. Life Satisfaction:The State of Knowledge and Implications for Government. United KingdomTreasury Paper,2002.
198. Ridker G R, Henning J A. The determinants of residential property values with special reference to air pollution.Re-view of Economics and Statistics, 1967,49:246-257.
199. Roehet, J. Tirole, J. Cooperation among competitors:some economics of payment card associations [J]. RANDJournal of Economics,2002(4):540-570.
200. Roehet, J. Tirole, J. Defining Two-Sided Markets. Mimeo [J]. IDEI, University of Toulouse,2004:429-436.
201. Roehet, J. Tirole, J. Two-Sided Markets: a progress report [J]. Mimeo IDEI, University of Toulouse,2005:367-375.
202. Roson. R. Two-Sided Markets Mimeo [J].University's Ca'Foscar di Venezia,2004
203. Ruefli, T. W., M. Collins and J. R. Lacugna, Risk Measures in Strategic Management Research, Strategic Management Journal, Vol.20,1999:167-194.
204. Samuel L. Popkin, The Rational Peasant. Berkeley: University of California Press,1979
205. Sen, Amartya K. Inequality Re-examined [M]. Oxford: Clarendon Press,1992.
206. Sen, Amartya K. The Standard of Living [M]. New York: Cambridge University Press,1987.
207. Sen, Amartya K." Capability and Well-being",in The Quality of Life (Edited by Nussbaum, M. and Sen, Amartya K.), [M].Oxford: Clarendon Press,1993.
208. Sen. Amartya K. Development As Freedom [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press,1999.
209. Sharp, Kay: Measuring Destitution:Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches in the Analysis of Survey Data, IDS working paper 217,2003.
210. Shucksmith M. No Homes for Locals. Gower: Farnborough, 1981.
211. Stefan Bergheim. Measure of Well—being:There is More to It than GDP [J/OL]. http:// www.dbresearch.com. 2006.
212. Vesterby, Marlow and KruPa. Rural Residential Land use:Tracking it grows Agricultural Outlook,2002,(8):14-17.
213. Volker Kreibich, Selfhelp planning of migrants in Rome and Madrid, Habitat International. 2000, 24(2):201-211.
214. Wasilewski A and K Krukowski. Land conversion for suburban housing: a study of urbanization around Warsaw and Olsztyn, Poland. Environmental Management,2004,34(2):291-303.
215. Wright, J. One-Sided Logic in Two-Sided Markets [J]. Review of Network Economics, 2004,3(1), 44-64.