九华山风景区古树名木景观美学评价与保护价值评估
|
摘要
随着经济和旅游业的高速发展,风景名胜区的旅游人数日益增加。人数的增加、旅游景点的过度开发和不合理建设,致使风景区古树名木受到了前所未有的生存压力。同时,由于人为砍伐、移植、破坏和管护措施不完善,导致古树名木病死、干枯,各地古树名木数量大减,古树名木资源损失严重。本研究在安徽省九华山森林景观资源及古树名木资源调查的基础上,对古树名木单体植物景观以及古树群体景观价值进行了评价,并进一步的研究古树名木保护的经济价值和公众对古树名木保护的认知和态度。旨在全面认识古树名木景观价值和保护的经济价值,为提高政府部门和公众对古树名木的保护意识,协调古树名木景观资源利用与保护之间的关系提供参考依据。主要研究内容及结果如下：
(1)从古树名木单体景观的美学价值、生态价值和资源价值构建评判指标体系,运用层次分析法(AHP)和模糊综合评价(FSE)对景区内古树名木的单体景观价值进行了评价。结果表明：对古树名木单体景观价值影响较大的因素依次为姿态、传说趣闻、色彩、季相变化等。九华山风景区现有449株古树名木中,属于极高等级的古树名木有14株,占总数的3.12%；属于高等级的古树名木有84株,占总数的18.71%；而属于一般、差和很差等级的古树名木分别占总数的48.33%、27.39%和2.45%。古树名木景观价值高的树种为银杏(Ginkgo biloba)、黄山松(Pinus taiwanensis)、桂花(Osmamthus fragrans)、浙江柿(Diospyros glaucfolia)、黑壳楠(Lindera megaphylla)、三角枫(Acer buergerianum)、香果树(Emmenopterys henryi)和红果山胡椒(Lindera erythrocarpa),而景点则有太白书堂、通慧寺和甘露寺。
(2)通过古树名木单体景观建立的指标评判体系,运用粗糙集理论对景观价值为“极高”的古树名木(AHP和FSE)进行评价,从而对AHP和FSE评价方法得出的结果进行验证。结果表明：两种评价方法得到的指标权重排序几乎吻合,除生长势和保护等级的位次发生颠倒。景观价值为“极高”的古树名木价值排序仅浙江柿(Diospyros glaucfolia,化城寺,胸径为101.91cm)和三角枫(Acer buergerianum,位于通慧寺)的景观价值排序位次发生了颠倒之外,两种方法的研究结果有着极高的相似性。
(3)以九华山风景区古树名木群落为研究对象,收集了26个有代表性古树群落和45个对比林分的景观图片和样地资料,采用美景度评判法获得美景度值。利用语义差别法对古树群落的景观要素进行量化,并运用多元线性回归建立美景度值与景观要素的模型。结果表明：古树群落美景度值显著高于其他对比林分；受测者对景区内古树群落树木排列、光感、树木大小变异等景观要素反应值较高；树木形态、色彩丰富度、树木排列、林下层统一度、层次感、自然整枝、乔木层枝叶统一度是影响古树群落景观质量的主要要素,F检验表明,以这些景观要素建立的模型是合理可行的。
(4)运用条件价值评估法中支付卡式(PC)和二分式(DC)两种问卷,对九华山风景区游客保护古树名木的支付意愿进行研究,并分析了其影响因素。结果表明：83.8%的游客认为应该对古树名木进行保护,仅有30.2%对保护现状满意。游客总体上保护古树名木的意识很强,但对保护现状不满意。支付卡式问卷调查结果为8.08元／人·月,二分式问卷调查结果为9.54元／人·月；按2010年游客接待量401万人次计算,2010年游客对九华山风景区古树名木保护的总支付意愿分别为1.500×108元和4.589×108元。影响支付卡式问卷支付意愿值的主要指标是年龄、个人年收入、文化程度和职业的相关性；影响二分式问卷支付意愿的主要指标是个人年收入。
(5)通过受访者零支付意愿分析、两种不同诱导方式(支付卡式和单边界二分式)的差异比较和CVM时间稳定性检验研究九华山风景区古树名木保护的经济价值评估结果的可靠性。结果表明：零支付原因由高到底分别是由政府承担(A4)、担心资金被挪用(A5)、收入低(A1)、对保护不感兴趣(A2)、担心得不到有效的保护(A6)、对自己影响很小(A3)、自己所购的门票包括此项费用(A7)。通过对支付卡与单边界二分式两种诱导方式进行了比较研究,结果表明两种模式在估计的支付意愿确实存在较大差异。单边界二分法高于支付卡法,总支付意愿比值为2.93-3.01之间,符合国际上报道的1-6倍的经验结果。通过两个独立样本t检验(双尾P=0.473)和Mann-Whitney U检验结果(双尾P=0.413,α>0.05)显示支付卡式问卷和二分式问卷支付意愿均与第一次调查结果无显著差异,PC1和PC2、DC1和DC2支付意愿值相差分别为0.62和1.73元,两次结果重现性良好,对本次研究结果的可靠性给予了保证。
(6)通过设置19项问卷内容,采用半访谈式问卷方法,对九华山风景区内当地居民、景区管理人员和游客进行问卷调查,研究不同群体对古树名木保护的认知及态度差异,并对受访者的社会经济特征对保护认知及态度的影响进行分析。结果表明：公众对古树名木的认知和保护态度较低,大体表现为景区管理人员高于游客高于当地居民。交叉列联表x2检验结果显示,当地居民、景区管理人员和游客三个不同的群体在“古树名木的经济价值”、“古树名木的生态价值”、“古树名木的社会公益价值”、“古树名木的科研价值”、“设立古树名木保护专项基金”、“游人集中的区域古树名木四周应设立栅栏”、“古树名木游客承载力”、“古树名木管理和保护力度”、“是否愿意参与景区古树名木保护”、“发现古树名木破坏行为的做法”、“是否愿意参与古树名木保护培训”、“是否愿意认养古树名木保护”上差异极显著,在其他问题上无显著差异。不同性别的受访者在2个问卷上内容差异显著；不同年龄的受访者在7个问卷上内容差异显著；不同收入的受访者在3个问卷上内容；不同教育程度的受访者在9个问卷上内容差异显著；不同职业在1个问卷内容上差异显著。总体上,表现为受访者的年龄和教育程度对古树名木保护认知和态度的影响大。
As the economy and tourism develop rapidly, more and more people choose to visit scenic areas. An increasing number of tourists, excessive development and unreasonable construction cause unprecedented pressure on the survival of old and famous trees. Meanwhile, logging, transplantation, destruction of surrounding environments and imperfect management measures frequently occur. All of these reasons lead to tree illnesses and withering. Everywhere, the numbers of old and famous trees are decreasing rapidly. Based on an investigation of old and famous trees and the forest landscape in Jiuhua Mountain Scenic Area in Anhui province, the individual plant landscape of old and famous trees and the landscape values of old woods were studied. The economic value of protection of old and famous trees and public recognition and attitude towards protection of old and famous trees were then examined. Understanding landscape aesthetic value and economic value of protection of old and famous trees can increase government officials and the public's awareness towards protection, as well as to provide a reference for coordinating the development and the protection of old and famous trees. Main concepts and results of the research are the following:
(1) A composite index system for landscape evaluation of old and famous trees was built based on aesthetic, ecological and resources requirement value. Old and famous trees were evaluated using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and fuzzy synthetic evaluation (FSE) method. The results showed that, tree shape is the most influential factor for landscape evaluation of old and famous trees based on this evaluation system. This is followed by interesting legends, color, plant season change, etc. Amongst all of the 449 old and famous trees in Jiuhua Mountain Scenic Area,14 plants belonged to extremely high landscape value, accounting for 3.12% of total; 84 plants belonged to high value, accounting for 18.71%; 217 plants belonged to medium value, accounting for 48.33%; 123 plants belonged to low value, accounting for 27.39%; 11 plants belonged to very low value, accounting for 2.45%. The species with higher landscape value were Ginkgo biloba, Pinus taiwanensis, Osmamthus fragrans, Diospyros glaucifolia, Lindera megaphylla, Acer buergerianum, Emmenopterys henryi, Lindera erythrocarpa, and the scenic spots were Taibaishutang, Ganlusi, Tonghuisi.
(2) Based on the composite index system of individual plant landscape of old and famous trees, rough sets theory was used to evaluate old and famous trees with "very high" landscape (AHP and FSE) values. Thus the results of FSE and AHP evaluation method were obtained for verification. The results showed that two kinds of assessment methods were almost identical for sorting index weight, only "growth potential" and "conservation level" were reversed. All of old and famous trees had very high landscape values, only the Diospyros glaucifolia (around Huachensi, DBH=101.91cm) and Acer buergerianum (around Tonghuisi) were reversed. Research results from the two methods had a high comparability.
(3) Taking the old-tree community in Jiuhua Mountain Scenic Area as the object of our study, photos and sample plots information of 26 old forest stands and 45 contrast forest stands were collected, and the scenic beauty values were acquired using scenic beauty estimation (SBE) method. Using the semantic differential (SD) method, the landscape elements of old tree community were quantified, then the multi-regression model was adopted to evaluate the relationship between scenic beauty values and specific landscape elements. The results showed that the scenic beauty values of old-tree communities were significantly greater than that of other forest stands. In old-forest stands, arrangement of trees, light perception and the variation of tree size were ranked as most important by respondents. The main elements affecting landscape aesthetic value of old tree community were the trunk form, richness of color, arrangement of trees, uniformity of ground plants, landscape gradation, natural pruning and uniformity of shoot and leaf in tree layer. F-test showed that the landscape evaluation model was effective.
(4) The willingness to pay (WTP) values of the conservation of old and famous trees in Jiuhua Mountain Scenic Area was measured by contingent valuation method (CVM), and the influential factors were analyzed. The payment card and single-bounded dichotomous choice question formats were used, which were more popular than the others of the contingent valuation method. The results indicate that 83.8% of the respondents thought that we ought to protect old and famous trees, while only 30.2 of the respondents were satisfied with the current situation. Under the payment card format, the mean WTP value of conserving old and famous trees in Jiuhua Mountain Scenic Area was RMB 8.08 yuan per capita per month and the total economic value was 1.500×108 yuan for the tourists of Jiuhua Mountain Scenic Area in 2010. Under single-bounded dichotomous choice format, the mean value of WTP for old and famous trees conservation in Jiuhua Mountain Scenic Area was 9.54 yuan per capita per month and the total economic value was 4.598×108 yuan. The significant variables influencing the result of the payment card are age, education, annual income and vocation, while the main factor for the single-bounded dichotomous choice format was annual income.
(5) The reliability of economic value for protecting old and famous trees in Jiuhua Mountain Scenic Area was analyzed according to respondents'zero willingness to pay, a comparison of two different methodologies (payment card and single-bounded dichotomous choice) and time stability inspection of CVM. The results showed that the reasons (ratio) for zero willingness to pay from high to low are funds would be "taken by government (A4)", "worrying about funds diversion (A5)", "low income (A1)", "not interested in protection (A2)", "worrying about old and famous trees without effective protection (A6)", "little impact on themselves (A3)", "purchased tickets included the cost (A7)". By comparing the two different methodologies (payment card and one-bounded dichotomous choice), the WTP values were found to show a large difference. The value of single-bounded dichotomous choice is higher than the value by card payment. The total value ratio of the two different ways varies from 2.93 to 3.01. This result corresponded to results from international experiences, which reported the ratio ranges from 1 to 6 times. Comparing this result to that of the first study three months ago, the WTP of PC2 was higher than PC1 with 0.62 yuan per capita per month, while the WTP of DC2 was higher than DC1 with 1.73 yuan per capita per month. There was no significant discrepancy between the two studies from two independent sample t-tests (double tail P= 0.473) and Mann-Whitney U test (double tail P= 0.413,α>0.05), which gives good reproducibility and reliability to this study.
(6) 19 questionnaires were designed. Local residents, scenic area management staff and visitors were interviewed at random using semi-structured questionnaire surveys. It is valuable to study different groups'understanding and their attitudes towards protecting old and famous trees, as well as analyze the influence of people's social and economic characteristics towards protection of famous trees. The results showed that people's recognition and attitude towards protection of old and famous trees was low, but scenic area management staffs scored slightly higher and local residents scored lowest. The results of crossover column contingency table X2 test showed that in the following aspects: "The economic value of old and famous trees", "The ecological value of old and famous trees", "The public benefits of old and famous trees", "The scientific value of old and famous trees", "Set up special fund for protecting old and famous trees", "Should build a fence around old and famous trees in areas with many visitors", "Resilience towards visitors of the environment surrounding old and famous trees", "Management and protection efforts towards old and famous trees", "Willingness to participate in the protection of old and famous trees in Jiuhua Mountain Scenic Area", "Reaction and action taken in response to vandalism to old and famous trees", "Willingness to participate in old and famous trees protection training" and "Is willing to adopt old and famous trees protection", the difference in attitude is significant between local residents, scenic area management staffs and tourists, but on other issues there are no significant differences. Men and women responded differently to 2 questions; respondents of different ages responded differently to 7 questions, respondents with different incomes responded differently to 3 questions; respondents with different education level responded differently to 9 questions and different professionals differed on only one question, the difference in results was significant for all the above categories. Overall, age and education level of respondents have a significant influence towards understanding of the issue and protective attitude towards old and famous trees.
(1)从古树名木单体景观的美学价值、生态价值和资源价值构建评判指标体系,运用层次分析法(AHP)和模糊综合评价(FSE)对景区内古树名木的单体景观价值进行了评价。结果表明：对古树名木单体景观价值影响较大的因素依次为姿态、传说趣闻、色彩、季相变化等。九华山风景区现有449株古树名木中,属于极高等级的古树名木有14株,占总数的3.12%；属于高等级的古树名木有84株,占总数的18.71%；而属于一般、差和很差等级的古树名木分别占总数的48.33%、27.39%和2.45%。古树名木景观价值高的树种为银杏(Ginkgo biloba)、黄山松(Pinus taiwanensis)、桂花(Osmamthus fragrans)、浙江柿(Diospyros glaucfolia)、黑壳楠(Lindera megaphylla)、三角枫(Acer buergerianum)、香果树(Emmenopterys henryi)和红果山胡椒(Lindera erythrocarpa),而景点则有太白书堂、通慧寺和甘露寺。
(2)通过古树名木单体景观建立的指标评判体系,运用粗糙集理论对景观价值为“极高”的古树名木(AHP和FSE)进行评价,从而对AHP和FSE评价方法得出的结果进行验证。结果表明：两种评价方法得到的指标权重排序几乎吻合,除生长势和保护等级的位次发生颠倒。景观价值为“极高”的古树名木价值排序仅浙江柿(Diospyros glaucfolia,化城寺,胸径为101.91cm)和三角枫(Acer buergerianum,位于通慧寺)的景观价值排序位次发生了颠倒之外,两种方法的研究结果有着极高的相似性。
(3)以九华山风景区古树名木群落为研究对象,收集了26个有代表性古树群落和45个对比林分的景观图片和样地资料,采用美景度评判法获得美景度值。利用语义差别法对古树群落的景观要素进行量化,并运用多元线性回归建立美景度值与景观要素的模型。结果表明：古树群落美景度值显著高于其他对比林分；受测者对景区内古树群落树木排列、光感、树木大小变异等景观要素反应值较高；树木形态、色彩丰富度、树木排列、林下层统一度、层次感、自然整枝、乔木层枝叶统一度是影响古树群落景观质量的主要要素,F检验表明,以这些景观要素建立的模型是合理可行的。
(4)运用条件价值评估法中支付卡式(PC)和二分式(DC)两种问卷,对九华山风景区游客保护古树名木的支付意愿进行研究,并分析了其影响因素。结果表明：83.8%的游客认为应该对古树名木进行保护,仅有30.2%对保护现状满意。游客总体上保护古树名木的意识很强,但对保护现状不满意。支付卡式问卷调查结果为8.08元／人·月,二分式问卷调查结果为9.54元／人·月；按2010年游客接待量401万人次计算,2010年游客对九华山风景区古树名木保护的总支付意愿分别为1.500×108元和4.589×108元。影响支付卡式问卷支付意愿值的主要指标是年龄、个人年收入、文化程度和职业的相关性；影响二分式问卷支付意愿的主要指标是个人年收入。
(5)通过受访者零支付意愿分析、两种不同诱导方式(支付卡式和单边界二分式)的差异比较和CVM时间稳定性检验研究九华山风景区古树名木保护的经济价值评估结果的可靠性。结果表明：零支付原因由高到底分别是由政府承担(A4)、担心资金被挪用(A5)、收入低(A1)、对保护不感兴趣(A2)、担心得不到有效的保护(A6)、对自己影响很小(A3)、自己所购的门票包括此项费用(A7)。通过对支付卡与单边界二分式两种诱导方式进行了比较研究,结果表明两种模式在估计的支付意愿确实存在较大差异。单边界二分法高于支付卡法,总支付意愿比值为2.93-3.01之间,符合国际上报道的1-6倍的经验结果。通过两个独立样本t检验(双尾P=0.473)和Mann-Whitney U检验结果(双尾P=0.413,α>0.05)显示支付卡式问卷和二分式问卷支付意愿均与第一次调查结果无显著差异,PC1和PC2、DC1和DC2支付意愿值相差分别为0.62和1.73元,两次结果重现性良好,对本次研究结果的可靠性给予了保证。
(6)通过设置19项问卷内容,采用半访谈式问卷方法,对九华山风景区内当地居民、景区管理人员和游客进行问卷调查,研究不同群体对古树名木保护的认知及态度差异,并对受访者的社会经济特征对保护认知及态度的影响进行分析。结果表明：公众对古树名木的认知和保护态度较低,大体表现为景区管理人员高于游客高于当地居民。交叉列联表x2检验结果显示,当地居民、景区管理人员和游客三个不同的群体在“古树名木的经济价值”、“古树名木的生态价值”、“古树名木的社会公益价值”、“古树名木的科研价值”、“设立古树名木保护专项基金”、“游人集中的区域古树名木四周应设立栅栏”、“古树名木游客承载力”、“古树名木管理和保护力度”、“是否愿意参与景区古树名木保护”、“发现古树名木破坏行为的做法”、“是否愿意参与古树名木保护培训”、“是否愿意认养古树名木保护”上差异极显著,在其他问题上无显著差异。不同性别的受访者在2个问卷上内容差异显著；不同年龄的受访者在7个问卷上内容差异显著；不同收入的受访者在3个问卷上内容；不同教育程度的受访者在9个问卷上内容差异显著；不同职业在1个问卷内容上差异显著。总体上,表现为受访者的年龄和教育程度对古树名木保护认知和态度的影响大。
As the economy and tourism develop rapidly, more and more people choose to visit scenic areas. An increasing number of tourists, excessive development and unreasonable construction cause unprecedented pressure on the survival of old and famous trees. Meanwhile, logging, transplantation, destruction of surrounding environments and imperfect management measures frequently occur. All of these reasons lead to tree illnesses and withering. Everywhere, the numbers of old and famous trees are decreasing rapidly. Based on an investigation of old and famous trees and the forest landscape in Jiuhua Mountain Scenic Area in Anhui province, the individual plant landscape of old and famous trees and the landscape values of old woods were studied. The economic value of protection of old and famous trees and public recognition and attitude towards protection of old and famous trees were then examined. Understanding landscape aesthetic value and economic value of protection of old and famous trees can increase government officials and the public's awareness towards protection, as well as to provide a reference for coordinating the development and the protection of old and famous trees. Main concepts and results of the research are the following:
(1) A composite index system for landscape evaluation of old and famous trees was built based on aesthetic, ecological and resources requirement value. Old and famous trees were evaluated using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and fuzzy synthetic evaluation (FSE) method. The results showed that, tree shape is the most influential factor for landscape evaluation of old and famous trees based on this evaluation system. This is followed by interesting legends, color, plant season change, etc. Amongst all of the 449 old and famous trees in Jiuhua Mountain Scenic Area,14 plants belonged to extremely high landscape value, accounting for 3.12% of total; 84 plants belonged to high value, accounting for 18.71%; 217 plants belonged to medium value, accounting for 48.33%; 123 plants belonged to low value, accounting for 27.39%; 11 plants belonged to very low value, accounting for 2.45%. The species with higher landscape value were Ginkgo biloba, Pinus taiwanensis, Osmamthus fragrans, Diospyros glaucifolia, Lindera megaphylla, Acer buergerianum, Emmenopterys henryi, Lindera erythrocarpa, and the scenic spots were Taibaishutang, Ganlusi, Tonghuisi.
(2) Based on the composite index system of individual plant landscape of old and famous trees, rough sets theory was used to evaluate old and famous trees with "very high" landscape (AHP and FSE) values. Thus the results of FSE and AHP evaluation method were obtained for verification. The results showed that two kinds of assessment methods were almost identical for sorting index weight, only "growth potential" and "conservation level" were reversed. All of old and famous trees had very high landscape values, only the Diospyros glaucifolia (around Huachensi, DBH=101.91cm) and Acer buergerianum (around Tonghuisi) were reversed. Research results from the two methods had a high comparability.
(3) Taking the old-tree community in Jiuhua Mountain Scenic Area as the object of our study, photos and sample plots information of 26 old forest stands and 45 contrast forest stands were collected, and the scenic beauty values were acquired using scenic beauty estimation (SBE) method. Using the semantic differential (SD) method, the landscape elements of old tree community were quantified, then the multi-regression model was adopted to evaluate the relationship between scenic beauty values and specific landscape elements. The results showed that the scenic beauty values of old-tree communities were significantly greater than that of other forest stands. In old-forest stands, arrangement of trees, light perception and the variation of tree size were ranked as most important by respondents. The main elements affecting landscape aesthetic value of old tree community were the trunk form, richness of color, arrangement of trees, uniformity of ground plants, landscape gradation, natural pruning and uniformity of shoot and leaf in tree layer. F-test showed that the landscape evaluation model was effective.
(4) The willingness to pay (WTP) values of the conservation of old and famous trees in Jiuhua Mountain Scenic Area was measured by contingent valuation method (CVM), and the influential factors were analyzed. The payment card and single-bounded dichotomous choice question formats were used, which were more popular than the others of the contingent valuation method. The results indicate that 83.8% of the respondents thought that we ought to protect old and famous trees, while only 30.2 of the respondents were satisfied with the current situation. Under the payment card format, the mean WTP value of conserving old and famous trees in Jiuhua Mountain Scenic Area was RMB 8.08 yuan per capita per month and the total economic value was 1.500×108 yuan for the tourists of Jiuhua Mountain Scenic Area in 2010. Under single-bounded dichotomous choice format, the mean value of WTP for old and famous trees conservation in Jiuhua Mountain Scenic Area was 9.54 yuan per capita per month and the total economic value was 4.598×108 yuan. The significant variables influencing the result of the payment card are age, education, annual income and vocation, while the main factor for the single-bounded dichotomous choice format was annual income.
(5) The reliability of economic value for protecting old and famous trees in Jiuhua Mountain Scenic Area was analyzed according to respondents'zero willingness to pay, a comparison of two different methodologies (payment card and single-bounded dichotomous choice) and time stability inspection of CVM. The results showed that the reasons (ratio) for zero willingness to pay from high to low are funds would be "taken by government (A4)", "worrying about funds diversion (A5)", "low income (A1)", "not interested in protection (A2)", "worrying about old and famous trees without effective protection (A6)", "little impact on themselves (A3)", "purchased tickets included the cost (A7)". By comparing the two different methodologies (payment card and one-bounded dichotomous choice), the WTP values were found to show a large difference. The value of single-bounded dichotomous choice is higher than the value by card payment. The total value ratio of the two different ways varies from 2.93 to 3.01. This result corresponded to results from international experiences, which reported the ratio ranges from 1 to 6 times. Comparing this result to that of the first study three months ago, the WTP of PC2 was higher than PC1 with 0.62 yuan per capita per month, while the WTP of DC2 was higher than DC1 with 1.73 yuan per capita per month. There was no significant discrepancy between the two studies from two independent sample t-tests (double tail P= 0.473) and Mann-Whitney U test (double tail P= 0.413,α>0.05), which gives good reproducibility and reliability to this study.
(6) 19 questionnaires were designed. Local residents, scenic area management staff and visitors were interviewed at random using semi-structured questionnaire surveys. It is valuable to study different groups'understanding and their attitudes towards protecting old and famous trees, as well as analyze the influence of people's social and economic characteristics towards protection of famous trees. The results showed that people's recognition and attitude towards protection of old and famous trees was low, but scenic area management staffs scored slightly higher and local residents scored lowest. The results of crossover column contingency table X2 test showed that in the following aspects: "The economic value of old and famous trees", "The ecological value of old and famous trees", "The public benefits of old and famous trees", "The scientific value of old and famous trees", "Set up special fund for protecting old and famous trees", "Should build a fence around old and famous trees in areas with many visitors", "Resilience towards visitors of the environment surrounding old and famous trees", "Management and protection efforts towards old and famous trees", "Willingness to participate in the protection of old and famous trees in Jiuhua Mountain Scenic Area", "Reaction and action taken in response to vandalism to old and famous trees", "Willingness to participate in old and famous trees protection training" and "Is willing to adopt old and famous trees protection", the difference in attitude is significant between local residents, scenic area management staffs and tourists, but on other issues there are no significant differences. Men and women responded differently to 2 questions; respondents of different ages responded differently to 7 questions, respondents with different incomes responded differently to 3 questions; respondents with different education level responded differently to 9 questions and different professionals differed on only one question, the difference in results was significant for all the above categories. Overall, age and education level of respondents have a significant influence towards understanding of the issue and protective attitude towards old and famous trees.
引文
1. 鲍沁星,李雄,陈楚文.杭州地区古树名木现状分析及保护重点.浙江林业科技,2009,29(2)：77-80.
2. 蔡朋宴,杨志峰,徐琳瑜.天津市乡镇工业企业大气污染健康损失估算.安全与环境学报,2003,3(1)：33-36.
3. 蔡银莺,张安录.武汉市农地资源非市场价值研究.资源科学,2006,28(6)：104-111.
4. 蔡银莺,张安录.武汉市农地非市场价值评估.生态学报,2007a,27(2)：763-773.
5. 蔡银莺,张安录.武汉市农地资源价值估算.生态学杂志,2007b,26(3)：422-427.
6. 蔡银莺,宗琪,张安录.江汉平原农地资源价值研究.中国人口·资源与环境,2007c,17(3)：85-89.
7. 蔡银莺,张安录.武汉市石榴红农场休闲景观的游憩价值和存在价值估算.生态学报,2008a,28(3)：1201-1209.
8. 蔡银莺,陈莹,任艳胜,张安录.都市休闲农业中农地的非市场价值估算.资源科学,2008b,30(2)：305-312.
9. 曹辉,兰思仁.福州国家森林公园森林景观游憩效益评价.林业经济问题,2001,21(5)：296-298.
10. 曹辉,陈平留.论森林景观资产评估.林业资源管理,2002a,(1)：41-44.
11. 曹辉,兰思仁.条件价值法在森林景观资产评估中的应用.世界林业研究,2002b,15(3)：32-36.
12. 曹辉,陈平留.森林景观资产评估CVM法研究.福建林学院学报,2003,23(1)：48-52.
13. 曹建军,任正炜,杨勇,杜国祯.玛曲草地生态系统恢复成本条件价值评估.生态学报,2008,28(4)：1872-1880.
14. 巢阳,李锦龄,卜向春.活古树无损伤年龄测定.中国园林,2005,(8)：57-61.
15. 陈国阶.三峡工程对生态与环境影响的综合评价.北京：科学出版社,1993.
16. 陈琳,欧阳志云,王效科.条件价值评估法在非市场价值评估中的应用.生态学报,2006a,26(2)：610-619.
17. 陈琳,欧阳志云,段晓男,王效科.中国野生动物资源保护的经济价值评估——以北京市居民的支付意愿研究为例.资源科学,2006b,28(4)：131-137.
18. 陈希镇,梁飞豹.模糊综合评判中的模糊评分法.福州大学学报(自然科学版),1993,21(6)：22-27.
19. 陈鑫峰,王雁.森林游憩业发展回顾.世界林业研究,1999,12(12)：32-37.
20. 陈鑫峰,王雁.国内外森林景观的定量评价和经营技术研究现状.世界林业研究,2000,13(5)：31-38.
21. 陈鑫峰,王雁.森林美剖析——主论森林植物的形式美.林业科学,2001,137(2)：122-130.
22. 陈鑫峰,贾黎明.京西山区森林林内景观评价研究.林业科学,2003,39(4)：59-66.
23. 陈锡连,王国英,陈赛萍.古树名木预防腐朽中空技术研究.华东森林经理,2003,17(2)：28-29.
24. 陈应发.费用支付法——一种实用的森林游憩价值评估方法.生态经济,1996,(3)：27-31.
25. 程健夫,施木田.福州市古树名木现状调查与管理措施.亚热带农业研究,2006,2(1)：57-59.
26. 崔卫华,林菲菲.文化遗产资源的价值评价：CVM的局限性及几点改进.资源科学,2010,32(10)：1993-1998.
27. 戴兴安,胡曰利.长沙市湿地资源非使用价值评估研究.长江流域资源与环境,2010,19(10)：1198-1204.
28. 董冬,何云核.安徽省九华山风景名胜区古树名木资源的调查.安徽农业大学学报,2008,35(2)：191-195.
29. 董冬,何云核,周志翔.基于AHP和FSE的九华山风景区古树名木景观价值评价.长江流域资源与环境,2009,19(9)：1103-1109.
30. 董建文,翟明普,徐程杨,吴南生,章志都.京郊侧柏刺槐混交林植物物种组成特征对林内景观美景度的影响.江西农业大学学报,2007,29(5)： 756-761.
31. 董建文,章志都,许贤书,谢祥财,刘可人.福建省山地坡面风景游憩林美景度综合评价及构建技术,东北林业大学学报,2010,38(4)：45-48.
32. 董雪旺,张捷,刘传华,李敏,钟士恩.条件价值法中的偏差分析及信度和效度检验——以九寨沟游憩价值评估为例.地理学报,2011,66(2)：267-278.
33. 丁长迎.不列颠的森林景观价值及其对林业内部收益率的影响(一).国外林业,1995,25(1)：34-38.
34. 杜群,陈征海,刘安兴,诸葛刚.浙江省古树物种多样性现状研究.浙江大学学报(农业与生命科学版),2005,31(2)：215-219.
35. 杜亚平.改善东湖水质的经济分析.生态经济,1996,(6)：15-20.
36. 冯敏敏.基于AHP模糊综合评价模型的园林植物景观美感评价.杭州师范学院学报(自然科学版),2007,6(5)：373-378.
37. 封培波,胡永红,张启翔,任有华.上海露地宿根花卉景观价值的综合评价.北京林业大学学报,2003,25(6)：84-87.
38. 高秀梅,韩维栋,黄剑坚.白骨壤古树群资源可持续利用管理对策的研究.广东林业科技,2009,25(1)：73-76.
39. 巩如英,王飞,刘雅莉,曾现来.韦伯—费希纳定律评价模型在景观环境质量评价中的应用.西北林学院学报,2006,21(1)：131-135.
40. 谷晓萍,谷丽萍,周永斌,殷有,于丽芬,曹明玉.棋盘山风景区森林林内景观质量评价研究.西部林业科学,2008,37(4)：49-55
41. 谷晓萍,殷有,于丽芬,曹明玉,谷丽萍,周永斌.棋盘山风景区森林风景资源质量评价研究.中南林业科技大学学报,2010,30(3)：46-52.
42. 顾也萍.九华山之土壤.土壤学报,1987,(4)：378-387.
43. 关传友.安徽古银杏树资源的调查.中国园林,2000,16(3)：72-73.
44. 郭衡,时以群,王云瑞.泰山景观资源评价与游人审美效应分析.华东森林经理,1995,9(2)：47-52.
45. 郭剑英,王乃昂.敦煌旅游资源非使用价值评估.资源科学,2005,27(5)：187-192.
46. 何海.使用WinDENDRO测量树轮宽度及交叉定年方法.重庆师范大学学报 (自然科学版),2005,22(4)：39-44.
47. 王保忠,王保明,何平.景观资源美学评价的理论与方法.应用生态学报,2006,17(9)：1733-1739.
48. 贺锋,董金凯,谢小龙,徐栋,吴振斌.北京奥林匹克森林公园人工湿地生态系统服务非使用价值的评估.长江流域资源与环境,2010,19(7)：782-789.
49. 贺再球.北京宣武大吉危改工程基坑支护与古树保护.岩土工程学报,2010,32(增1)：358-362.
50. 黄延安.厦门市同安区古树保护复壮措施探讨.福建热作科技,2008,33(2)：30-31,24.
51. 胡可云,陆玉昌,石纯一.粗糙集理论及其应用进展.清华大学学报(自然科学版),2001,41(1)：64-68.
52. 胡欣欣,王李进,陈平留.基于投影寻踪模型的森林景观评价,江西农业大学学报,2009a,31(2)：306-310.
53. 胡欣欣,陈平留.RBF网络在森林景观评价中的应用.福建林学院学报,2009,29(1)：62-64.
54. 胡一民.雷击对古树名木的影响及其保护措施.中国园林,1994,(10)：39-40.
55. 贾黎明,李效文,郝小飞,刘军朝.基于SBE法的北京山区油松游憩林抚育技术原则,林业科学,2007,43(9)：144-149.
56. 雷增普,丛生,王鹏训,赵国勋.几种生物制剂在古柏复壮中的作用.园艺学报,1995,22(3)：283-287.
57. 李春干,赵德海,卫日强.森林旅游资源等级评价方法的研究.南京林业大学学报,1996,20(3)：64-68.
58. 李锦龄.古树矿质营养及细胞微区的研究.中国园林,1998,14(2)：46-50.
59. 李金平,王志石.空气污染损害价值的WTP、WTA对比研究.地球科学进展,2006,21(3)：250-255.
60. 李晓东,杨义波,石正璞.长春市古树名木地理信息管理系统的开发.长春大学学报,2007,17(3)：91-94.
61. 李莹,白墨,杨开忠,王学军.居民为改善北京大气环境质量的支付意愿研究.城市环境与城市生态,2001,14(5)：6-8.
62. 李莹,白墨,张巍.改善北京市大气环境质量中居民支付意愿的影响因素分析.中国人口·资源与环境,2002,12(6)：123-126.
63. 李忠魁,朱国诚,施海,冀杰,严家伟,丁望兰.北京市森林景观资产等级评价.林业财务与会计,2003,(11)：36-37.
64. 李忠魁,朱国诚,冀杰,施海,严家伟,丁望兰.森林景观资产等级评价原理.林业财务与会计,2003,(10)：33-36.
65. 梁爽,姜楠,谷树忠.城市水源地农户环境保护支付意愿及其影响因素分析—以首都水源地密云为例.中国农村经济,2005,05：55-60.
66. 梁勇,成升魁,闵庆文.居民对改善城市水环境支付意愿的研究.水利学报,2005,36(5)：613-617.
67. 林文镇.森林美学.台北：淑馨出版社,1991.
68. 林孝松,城市古树名木地理信息系统建设初步研究.福建林业科技,2007,34(2)：210-214.
69. 刘滨谊.风景景观概念框架.中国园林,1990,6(3)：42-43.
70. 刘翠玲,潘存德,寇福堂,吴晓勇,谭卫平.新疆喀纳斯旅游区森林景观美学质量与自然火干扰的关系.林业科学,2010,46(1)：9-14.
71. 刘光栋,吴文良,彭光华.华北高产农区公众对农业面污染源的环境保护意识及支付意愿.农村生态环境,2004,20(2)：41-45.
72. 刘克锋,龚学,袁跃云,张玉新.天坛公园土壤研究Ⅲ——古树生长区围栏效果分析.北京农学院学报,1994,9(1)：15-21.
73. 刘明磊,潘存德,寇福堂,谭卫平.新疆喀纳斯旅游区主要景点林外景观美景度评价新疆农业大学学报,2009,32(3)：54-58.
74. 刘为力.古树文化与环境艺术设计.[硕士学位论文].长沙：湖南大学图书馆,2008.
75. 刘亚萍,潘晓芳,钟秋平,金建湘.生态旅游区自然环境的游憩价值——运用条件价值评价法和旅行费用法对武陵源风景区进行实证分析.生态学报,2006,26(11)：3765-3774.
76. 刘张榕,谢金生.基于WEB的DW技术在福建名木古树智能管理系统中的设计与实现.福建林业科技,2009,36(4)：215-218,229.
77. 楼涛,赵明水,杨淑贞,庞春梅,王祖良,刘亮.天目山国家级自然保护区古树名木资源.浙江林学院学报,2004,21(3)：269-274.
78. 罗婧,姚亦锋,盛鸣,夏曙光.基于GIS的陇南灾区建设用地适宜性评价.长江流域资源与环境,2009,18(6)：540-544.
79. 陆东芳.大学校园植物景观评价模型及其应用.福建林学院学报,2008,28(4)：328-332.
80. 陆兆苏,余国宝,张治强,吴敬立,赵仁寿,朱乃文,任宝山.紫金山风景林的动态及其经营对策.南京林学院学报,1985,(3)：1-11.
81. 陆兆苏,赵德海,赵仁寿,任宝山.南京市钟山风景区森林经理的实践和研究.华东森林经理,1991,5(1)：16-19.
82. 陆兆苏.森林美学初探.华东森林经理,1995,9(3)：24-28.
83. 陆兆苏.森林美学与森林公园的建设.华东森林经理,1996,10(1)：44-49.
84. 吕浩荣,刘颂颂,叶永昌,朱剑云,莫罗坚,李年生.东莞市古树名木数量特征及分布格局.华南农业大学学报,2008,29(4)：65-69.
85. 吕明亮,江伟华.古树及其后备资源保护对策——以浙江省衢州市柯城区为例.江西农业学报,2007,19(6)：112-113.
86. 梅艳,郑文达,汪于平,唐炜国.临安市古树名木资源现状分析及保护对策.福建林业科技,2005,32(1)：116-119.
87. 孟先进,杨燕琼,叶永昌,刘颂颂,沈德才.东莞市古树名木地理信息系统的设计与开发.华南农业大学学报,2009,30(1)：104-106,109.
88. 穆艳,张景群.太白山森林公园主要林型林内景观的定量评价.西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版),2008,36(6)：119-125.
89. 南程慧,汤庚国,王贤荣,路飞,徐文斌,李广真.江西瑞昌大禾塘村南方红豆杉古树群调查.江西林业科技,2009,(2)：33-35,40.
90. 聂立水,王登芝,王保国.北京戒台寺古油松生长衰退与土壤条件关系初步研究.北京林业大学学报,2005,27(5)：32-36.
91. 欧世芬,肖海燕.莆田市中心城区古树名木资源现状及保护对策.福建地理,2004,19(1)：35-38.
92. 欧阳勋志,廖为明,彭世揆.论森林风景资源质量评价与管理.江西农业大 学学报,2004,26(2)：169-173.
93. 欧阳勋志,廖为明,黄晓全.婺源县森林景观游憩价值的经济评价.地域研究与开发,2006,25(1)：78-82.
94. 欧阳勋志,廖为明,彭世揆.天然阔叶林景观质量评价及其垂直结构优化技术.应用生态学报,2007,18(2)：1388-1392.
95. 欧阳志云,王如松,赵景柱.生态系统服务功能及其生态经济价值评价,应用生态学报,1999,10(5)：635-640.
96. 彭保发,吴远芬,陈端吕,董明辉.张家界风景区森林景观的旅游生命力评价.经济地理,2006,26(6)：1076-1078.
97. 彭希哲,田文华.上海市空气污染疾病经济损失的愿意支付研究.世界经济文汇,2003,(2)：32-44.
98. 尚海洋.基于CVM方法的张掖市北郊湿地存在价值评估.干旱区资源与环境,2011,25(5)：140-147.
99. 尚鹤,黄会一,王书棋.沈阳北陵古油松衰亡原因的初步研究.沈阳农业大学学报,1997,28(1)：39-43.
100. 沈雄勇.福州市古树名木景观保护与恢复研究.[硕士学位论文].福州：福建农林大学图书馆,2009.
101. 宋力,何兴元,徐文铎,张洁.城市森林景观美景度的测定.生态学杂志,2006,25(6)：621-624.
102. 谭超.应用CVM方法评估工业遗产的非使用价值——以北京焦化厂遗址为例.内蒙古师范大学学报(自然科学汉文版),2009,38(3)：323-328.
103. 唐东芹,杨学军,许东新.园林植物景观评价方法及其应用.浙江林学院学报,2001,18(4)：394-397.
104. 汤珧华,程敏.透气砖对古树复壮作用的探索.中南林学院学报,2004,24(5)：121-123.
105. 王炳贵,陈建设,郭剑峰,曹辉.厦门天竺山森林公园森林景观资产初步评估.北京林业大学学报,1999,21(6)：84-88.
106. 王凤珍,周志翔,郑忠明.武汉市典型城市湖泊湿地资源非使用价值评价.生态学报,2010,30(12)：3261-3269.
107. 王立龙,陆林.雪灾对九华山风景区毛竹林的影响.植物生态学报,2010,34(2)：233-239.
108. 王庆海,袁小环,武菊英,滕文军.观赏草景观效果评价指标体系及其模糊综合评判.应用生态学报,2008,19(2)：381-386.
109. 王晓俊.风景资源管理和视觉影响评估方法初探.南京林业大学学报,1992,16(3)：70-76.
110. 王晓俊.森林风景美的心理物理学评价方法.世界林业研究,1995,(6)：8-15.
111. 王晓俊.关于风景评价中心理物理学方法局限性的探讨.自然资源学报,1996,11(2)：170-175.
112. 王雁,陈鑫峰.心理物理学方法在国外森林景观评价中的应用.林业科学,1999,35(5)：110-117.
113. 王懿祥,戴文圣,白尚斌,江峰,金祖达.古树名木调查方法的改进.浙江林学院学报,2006,23(5)：549-553.
114. 王元胜,甘长青,周肖红.香山公园古树名木地理信息系统的开发技术研究.北京林业大学学报,2003,25(2)：53-57.
115. 汪全胜,姚贤林.宁波市北仑区干岙古树迁地保护研究.华东森林经理,2008,22(1)：75-77.
116. 韦新良,周国模,余树全.森林景观分类系统初探.中南林业调查规划,1997,16(3)：41-44,51.
117. 温小荣,周春国,徐海兵,刘曙雯,万志洲.中山陵园古树名木地理信息系统的研建.南京林业大学学报(自然科学版),2006a,30(5)：139-142.
118. 温小荣,周春国,徐海兵,刘曙雯,万志洲.组件式GIS技术在古树名木地理信息系统中的应用.福建林业科技,2006b,33(4)：73-76.
119. 文益君,周根苗,张晓蕾,吕勇.基于粗糙集的风景林景观美学评价.林业科学,2009,45(1)：1-7.
120. 翁殊斐,柯峰,黎彩敏.用AHP法和SBE法研究广州公园植物景观单元,2009,(4)：78-81.
121. 吴必虎.区域旅游规划原理.北京：中国旅游出版社,2004.
122. 吴丹,刘书俊.CVM法对长江口海洋生态价值的评价应用.环境保护科学, 2009,35(4)：85-88.
123. 吴刘萍,林国权,薛宝莲,李卡玲.湛江市古树名木资源调查与分析.湛江海洋大学学报,2004,24(6)：62-67.
124. 吴全立,耿伟.超浅埋暗挖隧道穿越名木古树保护方案的研究.地下空间与工程学报,2005,1(5)：754-758.
125. 吴祥定.树木年轮与气候变化.北京：气象出版社,1990.
126. 向准,向应海.320国道贵州昌明至景阳段及其邻近地区的古银杏调查——贵州古银杏种质资源调查资料Ⅳ.贵州科学,2001,19(1)：48-58.
127. 肖建红,王敏,施国庆,于庆东,毛春梅,陈东景.保护三峡工程影响的珍稀濒危生物的经济价值评估.生物多样性,2009,17(3)：257-265.
128. 许丽忠,吴春山,王菲凤,张江山,刘文伟.条件价值法评估旅游资源非使用价值的可靠性检验.生态学报,2007,27(10)：4301-4309.
129. 许树柏.层次分析法原理.天津：天津大学出版社,1988.
130. 徐炜.古树名木价值评估标准的探讨.华南热带农业大学学报,2005,11(1)：66-69.
131. 徐志山,徐剑青,童光根,王献荣,姜礼元.千岛湖(淳安县)古树名木的现状与保护.华东森林经理,2006,20(2)：41-43.
132. 徐应华,张华海,杨帮华,龙君德,廖德平,张超.贵州古树名木保护与管理对策探讨.内蒙古林业调查设计,2006,29(5)：60-62.
133. 徐中民,张志强,龙爱华,陈东景,巩增泰,苏志勇,张勃,石惠春.额济纳旗生态系统服务恢复价值评估方法的比较与应用.生态学报,2003,23(9)：1841-1850.
134. 薛达元,包浩生,李文华.长白山自然保护区生物多样性旅游价值评估研究.自然资源学报,1999a,14(2)：247-252.
135. 薛达元.长白山自然保护区生物多样性非使用价值评估.中国环境科学,2000,20(2)：141-145.
136. 薛达元,Tisdell C.环境物品的经济价值评估方法：条件价值法.农村生态环境,1999b,15(3)：39-43.
137. 杨方,唐水红.冷水江市古树名木保护管理现状与对策.湖南林业科技,2006, 33(1)：84-86.
138. 杨凯,赵军.城市河流生态系统服务的CVM估值及其偏差分析.生态学报,2005,25(6)：1391-1396.
139. 杨鹏,薛立,陈红跃.森林景观评价方法.广东园林,2003,(1)：24-27.
140. 杨学军.略论森林景观的生态经济研究及其应用.生态经济,1997,(6)：27-29.
141. 杨学军,姜志林,丁胜,蒋如生.溧阳地区森林景观经济效益特征的动态分析.林业科技,1999,24(4)：52-54.
142. 杨永志,张丽云,闫海霞,李英杰,王志强.基于AHP法的呼和浩特市玉泉区植物群落景观评价.内蒙古农业大学学报,2009,30(2)：40-45.
143. 杨志新,郑大玮,靳乐山.京郊农用地膜残留污染土壤的价值损失研究.生态经济(学术版),2007,(2)：414-418.
144. 杨子国.云南古树名木植物区系特征研究.安徽农业科学,2009,37(27)：13367-13370,13384.
145. 姚晓军,孙美平,张明军.宝天高速公路沿线生态环境保护居民支付意愿评价.生态环境学报,2010,19(2)：404-409.
146. 叶广荣,胡彦辉,蒋爱琼,赵冰,徐志平.广州市第五批古树名木资源调查及树龄鉴定.广东园林,2008,30(4)：34-36.
147. 叶兴发.森林资源资产价值会计核算方法探讨.林业财务与会计,2003,(10)：6-7.
148. 俞金国,王丽华.城市旅游地景观格局分析方法——以大连为例.自然资源学报,2007,22(2)：281-288.
149. 俞孔坚.论景观概念及其研究发展.北京林业大学学报,1987,9(4)：433-439.
150. 俞孔坚.自然风景质量评价研究——SBE-LCJ审美评判测量法.北京林业大学学报,1988,10(2)：1-7.
151. 俞孔坚.中国风景区景观评价方法初探.见：肖笃宁主编,景观生态学——理论、方法及应用.北京：中国林业出版社,1991,161-171.
152. 喻燕,卢新海.意愿评估法在农地非使用价值评估中的改进.中国土地科学,2010,24(1)：15-21.
153. 袁东升,钱妙芬.环境污染对成都市古树名木的危害及防治对策研究.成都 信息工程学院学报,2005,20(3)：336-340.
154. 章绍尧,丁炳扬.浙江植物志——总论.杭州：浙江科学技术出版社,1993.
155. 章俊华.规划设计学中的调查分析法16：SD法.中国园林,2004,(10)：54-58.
156.张恒,刘群.基于COMGIS的古树名木管理信息系统设计.林业调查规划,2008,33(4)：83-85.
157. 张明军,范建峰,虎陈霞,张勃.兰州市改善大气环境质量的总经济价值评估.干旱区资源与环境,2004,18(3)：28-32.
158. 张树民,谷瑞芳.浅议古树名木的保护措施.山西林业,2002,(3)：16-17.
159. 张肖宁,李红杰,首艳芳.基于结构方程建模的道路景观评价.华南理工大学学报(自然科学版),2009,31(11)：17-21.
160. 张晓彤,宇振荣,王晓军,张晶,任斌斌.场景可视化在乡村景观评价中的应用.生态学报,2010,30(7)：1699-1705.
161. 张艳洁,丛日晨,赵琦,张国华,李玉华,谷润泽.适用于表征古树衰老的生理指标.林业科学,2010,46(3)：134-138.
162. 张翼飞,赵敏.意愿价值法评估生态服务价值的有效性与可靠性及实例设计研究.地球科学进展,2007,22(11)：1141-1149.
163. 张茵.自然保护区生态旅游资源的价值评估——以九寨沟自然保护区为例.[博士学位论文].北京：北京大学,2004.
164. 张茵,蔡运龙.用条件估值法评估九寨沟的游憩价值——CVM方法的校正与比较.经济地理,2010,30(7)：1205-1211.
165. 张志强,徐中民,程国栋,苏志勇.黑河流域张掖地区生态系统服务恢复的条件价值评估.生态学报,2002,22(6)：885-892.
166. 张志强,徐中民,龙爱华,巩增泰.黑河流域张掖市生态系统服务恢复价值评估研究——连续型和离散型条件价值评估方法的比较应用.自然资源学报,2004,19(2)：230-239.
167. 赵成章,王小鹏,任珩.黑河中游社区湿地生态恢复成本的CVM评估.西北师范大学学报(自然科学版),2011,47(1)：93-98.
168. 赵慈良,欧丹燕,胡军飞,周伟平,赵颖.普陀山古树名木资源评价与保护对策.浙江海洋学院学报(自然科学版),2009,28(2)：200—204.
169. 赵德海.风景林美学评价方法的研究.南京林业大学学报,1990,14(4)：50-55.
170. 赵国华,龚晓林.森林资源的价值内涵和补偿机制探析.华东森林经理,2004,18(2)：2-22.
171. 赵红霞,刘伟平.森林旅游资源评价方法对比分析研究.林业经济问题,2006,26(2)：116-119.
172. 赵军,杨凯,邰俊,吴阿娜.上海城市河流生态系统服务的支付意愿.环境科学,2005,26(2)：5-10.
173. 赵军,杨凯.自然资源与环境价值评估：条件价值法及应用原则探讨.自然资源学报,2006,21(5)：834-840.
174. 郑波,陈之欢,黄凯,权键,柳振亮古松柏叶肉细胞超微结构的研究.北京农学院学报,2006,21(3)：39-41.
175. 钟全林,周华盛.森林景观质量评价理论、内容与方法.华东森林经理,2000,14(4)：437-39.
176. 钟永德,罗明春,袁建琼.森林美学的发展及其在森林景观规划中的应用.中南林学院学报,2004,24(4)：82-87.
177. 周学红,马建章,张伟,王强.运用CVM评估濒危物种保护的经济价值及其可靠性分析——以哈尔滨市区居民对东北虎保护的支付意愿为例.自然资源学报,2009,24(2)：276-285.
178. 周章义,雷增普,王文新,李凯.七王坟古油松濒死原因的研究.北京林业大学学报,1995,17(1)：49-54.
179. 周忠朗.古树名木景观的认定、保护和利用——莫干山古树名木景观资源的调查研究.中国园林,1993,9(2)：52-55.
180. 宗雪,崔国发,袁婧.基于条件价值法的大熊猫(Ailuropoda melanoleuca)存在价值评估.生态学报,2008,28(5)：2090-2098.
181. Adams C, Motta RS, Ortiz RA, Reid J, Aznar CE, Sinisgalli PAA. The use of contingent valuation for evaluating protected areas in the developing world: Economic valuation of Morrodo Diabo State Park, Atlantic Rainforest, Sao Paulo State (Brazil). Ecological Economics,2008,66(2-3):359-370.
182. Alberini A. Testing willingness-to-Pay models of discrete choice contingent valuation survey data. Land Economics,1995,71:83-95.
183. Altman I, Wohwill JF. Behavior and the Natural Environment. New York:Plenum Press,1983,39-83.
184. Amigues JP, Catherine B, Desigues B, Caroline G, Keith J. The benefits and costs of riparian analysis habitat preservation:a willingness to accept willingness to pay using contingent valuation approach. Ecological Economics,2002,43(1):17-31.
185. Amirnejad H, Khalilian S, Assareh MH, Ahmadian M. Estimating the existence value of north forests of Iran by using a contingent valuation method. Ecological Economics,2006,58(4):665-675.
186. Amo L, Lopez P, Martin J. Natural oak forest vs. ancient pine plantations:lizard microhabitat use may explain the effects of ancient reforestations on distribution and conservation of Iberian lizards. Biodiversity and Conservation,2007,16(12): 3409-3422.
187. Andersson R, Ostlund L. Spatial patterns, density changes and implications on biodiversity for old trees in the boreal landscape of northern Sweden. Biological Conservation,2004,118(4):443-453.
188. Appleton J. The Experience of Landscape. London:Wiley press,1975.
189. Arrow KJ, Solow R, Learner E, Portney P, Radner R, Schuman H. RePort of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register,1993,58:4601-4614.
190. Arthur LM. Predicting scenic beauty of forest environments:some empirical tests. Forest Science,1977,23(2):151-160.
191. Artti J. Old-growth boreal forests:Worth protecting for biodiversity?. Journal of Forest Economics,2007,6:53-56.
192. Atkins JP, Burdon D, Allen JH. An application of contingent valuation and decision tree analysis to water quality improvements. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 2007,55(10-12):591-602.
193. Balick MJ, Mendelsohn R. Assessing the economic value of traditional medicine from tropical rain forests. Conservation Biology,1992,6:128-130.
194. Bandara R, Tisdell C. The net benefit of saving the Asian elephant:a policy and contingent valuation study. Ecological Economics,2004,48(1):93-107.
195. Bashan Y, Khaosaad T, Salazar BG, Ocampo JA, Wiemken A, Oehl F, Vierheilig H. Mycorrhizal characterization of the boojum tree, Fouquieria columnaris, an endemic ancient tree from the Baja California Peninsula, Mexico. Trees,2007, 21(3):329-335.
196. Bateman IJ, Cole M, Cooper P, Georgiou S, Hadley D, Poe GL. Visible choice sets and scope sensitivity:An experimental and field test of study design effects upon contingent values. CSERGE Working Paper EDM 01-01, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, University of East Anglia, Norwich,2001.
197. Bateman IJ, Carson RT, Day B, Hanemann M, Hanley N, Hett T, Jones-Lee M, Loomes G, Mourato S, Ozdemiroglu E, Pearce DW, Sugden R, Swanson J. Economic valuation with stated Preference techniques:a manual. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar,2002.
198. Becker N, Freeman S. The economic value of old growth trees in Israel. Forest Policy and Economics,2009,11(8):608-615.
199. Benson RE, McCool SF, Schlieter JA. Attaining visual quality objectives in timber harvest areas—landscape architect's evaluation. USDA Forest Service Research Note INT-348, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden,1985.
200. Benson JF. Public values for environmental features in commercial forests. Quarterly Journal of Forestry,1992,84:9-17.
201. Bishop RG, Heberlein TA. Measuring values of extra-market goods:are indirect measures biased?. American Journal of Agricultural Economics,1979,61: 926-930.
202. Bishop ID, Hull IVRB. Integrating technologies for visual resource management. Journal of Environmental Management,1991,32(4):295-312.
203. Bishop ID, Hulse DW. Prediction of scenic beauty using mapped data and geographic information system. Landscape and Urban Planning,1994,30(1-2): 59-70.
204. Bishop ID. Comparing regression and neural net based approaches to modelling of scenic beauty. Landscape and Urban Planning,1996,34:125-134.
205. Bonnieux F, Rainelli P. Contingent valuation methodology and the EU institutional framework. In:Bateman I J, Willis K G eds. Valuing Environmental Preferences:Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing Countries. New York:Oxford University Press,1999. 585-612.
206. Boyle KJ, Welsh MP, Bishop RC. The role of question order and respondent experience in contingent valuation studies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,1993,95:80-90.
207. Briggs DJ, France J. Landscape evaluation:a comparative study. Journal of Environmental Management,1980,10:263-275.
208. Brookshire DS, Thayer MA, Schulze WP, Arge RC. Valuing Public goods:a comparison of survey and hedonic approach. American Economic Review,1982, 72:165-176.
209. Brookshire DS, Eubanks LS, Randall A. Estimating option prices and existence values for wildlife resources. Land Economics,1983,59:1-15.
210. Brown TC, Daniel TC. Predicting scenic beauty of timber stands. Forest Science, 1986,32:471-487.
211. Brush RO. The attractiveness of woodlands:perceptions of forest landowners in Massachusetts. Forest Science,1979,25(3):495-506.
212. Buhyoff GJ, Leuschner WA. Estimating psychological disutility from damaged forest stands. Forest Science,1978,24(3):242-432.
213. Buhyoff GJ, Wellinan JD. The specification of a non-linear psychophysical function for visual landscape dimensions Journal of Leisure Research,1980,12: 257-272.
214. Buhyoff GJ, Wellman JD, Daniel TC. Predicting scenic quality for mountain pine beetle and western spruce budworm damaged forest vistas. Forest Science,1982, 28(4):827-838.
215. Cameron TA. Nonuser Resource Values. American Journal of Agricultural Economics,1992,74(5):1133-1137.
216. Cameron TA, Quiggin J. Estimation using contingent valuation data from a dichotomous choice with follow-up'questionnaire. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,1994,27:218-234.
217. Carson RT, Mitchell RC. The Value of Clean Water:the Public's Willingness to Pay for Boatable, Fishable and Swimmable Quality Water. Water Resources Research,1993,29:2445-2454.
218. Carson RT, Flores NE, Martin KM, Wright JL. Contingent valuation and revealed Preference methodologies:Comparing the estimates for quasi-public goods, Land Economics,1996,72(1):80-99.
219. Carson RT. Contingent valuation:A user's guide. Environmental Sciences and Technology,2000,34(2):1413-1418.
220. Carson RT, Flores NE, Meade NF. Contingent valuation:controversies and evidence. Environmental and Resource Economics,2001,19:173-210.
221. Carson RT, Theodore G Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environmental and Resource Economics,2007,37(1):181-210.
222. Chaudhry P, Tewari VR. A comparison between TCM and CVM in assessing the recreational use value_of urban_forestry. INTERNATIONAL FORESTRY REVIEW,2006,8(4):439-448.
223. Chen SY, Liu YL, Chen CF. Evaluation of Land-Use Efficiency Based on Regional Scale. Journal of China University of Mining & Technology,2007,17(2): 0215-0219.
224. Chio WS, Lee K, Lee BW. Determining the value of reductions in radiation risk using the contingent valuation method. Annals of Nuclear Energy,2001,28: 1431-1145.
225. Choe KA, Whittington D, Lauria DT. The economic benefits of surface water quality improvements in developing countries:a case study of Davao, Philippines. Land Economics,1996,72(4):519-537.
226. Ciriracy-Wantrup. Capical returns from soil conservation practice. Journal of Farm Economics,1947,29:1181-1196.
227. Clay GR, Daniel TC. Scenic landscape assessment:the effects of land management jurisdiction on public perception of scenic beauty. Landscape and Urban Planning,2000,49:1-13.
228. Cook PS, Cable TT. The scenic beauty of shelterbelts on the Great Plains. Landscape and Urban Planning,1995,32 (1):63-69.
229. Crofts RS, Cooke RU. Landscape evaluation:a comparison of technique. Occasional Paper, vol.25, Department of Geography, University College London, 1974.
230. Crofts RS, The landscape component approach to landscape evaluation, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers,1975,66:124-129.
231. Daniel F, Davide F, Ilda M, Gabriele Z. The role of agroforestry networks in landscape socioeconomic processes:the potential and limits of the contingent valuation method. Landscape and Urban Planning,2001,55(4):239-256.
232. Daniel TC, Buster RS. Measuring landscape esthetics:the scenic beauty estimation method. USD A Forest Research Paper RM-167, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins,1976.
233. Daniel TC, Vining J. Methodological issues in the assessment of landscape quality. In:Davis R K. Recreation planning as an economic problem. Natural Resource Journal,1963, (3):239-249.
234. Davis RK. The value of outdoor recreation:an economic study of the marine woods. (Ph D dissertation). Boston:Harvard University,1963.
235. Desaiguesa B, Ami D, Bartczak A, Braun-Kohlova M, Chilton S, Czajkowski M, Farreras V, Hunt A, Hutchison M, Jeanrenaud C, Kaderjak P, Maca V, Markiewicz O, Markowska A, Metcalf H, Navrud S, Nielsen J S, Ortiz R, Pellegrini S, Rabl A, et al. Economic valuation of air pollution mortality:A 9-country contingent valuation survey of value of a life year (VOLY). Ecological Indicators,2011, 11(3):902-910.
236. Desvousges WH, Johnson FR, Dunford RW, Boyle KJ, Hudson SP, Wilson N. Measuring natural resource damages with contingent valuation:tests of validity and reliability. In:Hausman JA ed. Contingent valuation:a critical assessment. Amsterdam:North Holland,1993,91-159.
237. Desvousges WH, Hudson SP, Ruby MC. Evaluating CV Performance:Separating the light from the heat. In:Bjornstad J, Kahn JR eds. The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resources:Methodological Issues and Research Needs. Cheltenham:Brookfield, Vt. Edward Elgar,1996.
238. Dong HJ, Kouyateb B, Cairnsc J, Sauerborna R. A comparison of the reliability of the take-it-or-leave-it and the bidding game approaches to estimating willingness-to-pay in a rural population in West Africa. Social Science & Medicine,2003,56:2181-2189.
239. Dutta M, Banerjee S, Husain Z. Untapped demand for heritage:A contingent valuation study of Prinsep Ghat, Calcutta. Tourism Management,2007,28(1): 83-95.
240. Dunn MC, Landscape with photographs:testing the preference approach to landscape evaluation, Journal of Environmental Management,1976,4:15-26.
241. Eagle JG, Betters DR. The endangered species act and economic values:a comparison of_fines_and_contingent_valuation_studies._Ecological Economics,1998, 26(2):165-171.
242. Feng S, Xu LD. Decision support for fuzzy comprehensive evaluation of urban development. Fuzzy Sets and Systems,1999,105(1):1-2.
243. Fines KD, Landscape evaluation:a research project in East Sussex, Regional Studies,1968,2:41-55.
244. Freeman AM. The sign and size of option value. Land Economics.1984,60(1): 1-13.
245. Freeman MA. The measurement of environmental and resource values. Washington DC:Resource for the Future,1993.
246. Fukamachi K, Oku H, Kumagai Y, Shimomura A. Changes in landscape planning and land management in Arashiyama National Forest in Kyoto. Landscape and Urban Planning,2000,52(3):73-87.
247. Garrod B, Fyall A. Beyond the rhetoric of sustainable tourism?.Tourism Management,1998,19(3):199-212.
248. Gobster PH. An ecological aesthetic for Forest landscape management. Landscape Journal,1999,18(1):54-64.
249. Griffin CC, Briscoe J, Singh B, Ramasubban R, Bhatia R. Contingent valuation and actual behavior:Predicting connections to new water systems in the state of Kerala, India. The World Bank Economic Review,1995,9:373-395.
250. Gurluk S. The estimation of ecosystem services' value in the region of Misi Rural Development Project:Results from a contingent valuation survey. Forest Policy and Economics,2006,9(3):209-218.
251. Hanemann WM. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics,1984, 66(3):332-341.
252. Hanemann WM, Loomis J, Kannien B. Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics,1991,73(5):1255-1236.
253. Hanemann WM. Valuing the Environment Through Contingent Valuation. Journal of Economic Perspectives,1994,8(4):19-25.
254. Hanemann WM, Kanninen B. The statistical analysis of discrete-response CV data. In:Betaman IJ, Willis KG eds. Valuing environmental preferences. Oxford: Oxford University Press,1999.302-441.
255. Hanley N, Spash C, Walker L. Problems in valuing the benefits of biodiversity protection. Environmental and Resource Economics,1995,5(3):249-272.
256. Hanley N, MacMillan D, Wright R E, Bullock C, Simpson I, Parisson D, Crabtree B. Contingent valuation versus choice experiments:estimating the benefits of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1998,49(1):1-15.
257. Hariman R. Option value under income and price uncertainty. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management.1987, (14):212-226.
258. Hull RB, Buhyoff GJ, Daniel TC. Measurement of scenic beauty:the law of comparative judgment and scenic beauty estimation procedures. Forest Science, 1984,30(4):1084-1096.
259. Hull RB, Buhyoff GJ. The scenic beauty temporal distribution method:an attempt to make scenic beauty assessments compatible with forest planning efforts. Forest Science,1986,32(2):271-286.
260. Hull RB, Buhyoff GJ, Gordell HK. Psychophysical models:an example with scenic beauty perceptions of roadside pine forests. Landscape Journal,1987, 6(2):113-122.
261. Jakobsson KM, Dragun AK. Contingent Valuation and Endangered Species: Methodological Issues and Applications. Cheltenham:Edward Elgar Publishing Limited,1996.
262. Jan S, Anthony A, Danica A, Kurt H, Bee G, Fang ZD. Tibetan sacred sites conserve old growth trees and cover in the eastern Himalayas. Biodiversity and Conservation,2007,16(3):693-706.
263. Jim CY. Spatial differentiation and landscape-ecological assessment of heritage trees_in_urban_Guangzhou (China).Landscape and Urban Planning,_2004,69(1): 51-68.
264. Jim CY. Floristics, performance and prognosis of historical trees in the urban forest of Guangzhou city (China). Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 2005,102:285-308.
265. Jim CY. Outstanding remnants of nature in compact cities:patterns and preservation of heritage trees in Guangzhou city (China). Geoforum,2005a,36(3): 371-385.
266. Jim CY. Formulaic expert method to integrate evaluation and valuation of heritage trees in compact city. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment,2006,116: 53-80.
267. Jim CY, Chen WY. Recreation-amenity use and contingent valuation of urban greenspaces in Guangzhou, China. Landscape and Urban Planning,2006,75(1-2): 81-96.
268. John KH, Walsh RG, Moore CG. Comparison of alternative nonmarket valuation methods for an economic assessment of a public Program. Ecological Economics, 1992,5:179-196.
269. Kahneman D. The review panel assessment:comment. In:Cummings RG, Brookshire DS, Schulze WD eds. Valuing Public Goods:The Contingent Valuation Method. Totowa NJ:Rowman & Allanheld,1986.
270. Kahneman D, Knetsch JL. Valuing public goods:The purchase of moral satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,1992,22(1): 57-70.
271. Karjalainen E, Tyrvainen L. Visualization in forest landscape preference research: a Finnish perspective. Landscape and Urban Planning,2002,59(1):13-28.
272. Kealy MJ, Turner RW. A test of the equality of closed-ended and open-ended contingent valuations. American Journal of Agricultural Economics,1993,75: 321-331.
273. Kopka S, Ross M. A study of the reliability of the Bureau of Land Management visual resource assessment scheme. Landscape Planning,1984,11 (2):161-166.
274. Kotchen MJ, Reiling SD. Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation of nonuse values:a case study involving endangered species. Ecological Economics,2000,32(1):93-107.
275. Kristrom B. A non-parametric approach to the estimation of welfare measure in discrete resonse valuation studies. Land Economics,1990,66:135-139.
276. Kula E. Economics of natural resources and the environment. London:Chapman & Hall,2004.
277. Lee CK. Valuation of nature-based tourism resources using dichotomous choice contingent valuation method. Tourism Management,1997,18(8):587-591.
278. Lee CK, Han SY. Estimating the use and preservation values of national parks' tourism resources using a contingent valuation method. Tourism Management, 2002,23(5):531-540.
279. Lee CK, Mjelde JW. Valuation of ecotourism resources using a contingent valuation method:The case of the Korean DMZ. Ecological Economics,2007, 63(2-3):511-520.
280. Li XM, Min M, Tan CF. The functional assessment of agricultural ecosystems in Hubei Province, China. Ecological Modelling,2005,187(2-3):352-360.
281. Linton DL. The assessment of scenery as a natural resource. Scottish Geographical Magazine,1968,84:219-238.
282. Lippke BR, Sessions J, Carey AB. Economic analysis of forest landscape management alternatives. University of Washington, College of Forest Resources Special Paper CIN-TRAFOR SP 21, Seattle,1996.
283. Litton RB. Visual vulnerability of forest landscapes. Journal of Forestry,1974, 72(7):392-397.
284. Loomis J. Comparative reliability of the dichotomous choice and open-ended contingent valuation techniques. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,1990,18(1):78-85.
285. Loomis JB, Gonzalez CA. Comparing the economic value of reducing fire risk to spotted owl habitat in California_and Oregon._ Forest_Science,1997a,34(4): 473-482.
286. Loomis JB, Walsh RG Recreation Economic Decisions, Comparing Benefits and Costs (Second Edition). Pennsylvania:Venture Publishing, Inc.,1997b.
287. Loomis J, Kent P, Strange L, Fausch K, Covich A. Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin:results from a contingent valuation survey. Ecological Economics,2000,33(1):103-117.
288. Loomis JB, Keske CM. Mountain substitutability and peak load pricing of high alpine peaks as a management tool to reduce environmental damage:A contingent valuation study. Journal of Environmental Management,2009,90(5):1751-1760.
289. Maxwell S. Valuation of Rural Environmental Improvements using Contingent Valuation Methodology:a Case Study of the Marston Vale Community Forest Project. Journal of Environmental Management,1994,41(4):385-399.
290. McConnell KE, Strand IE, Valdes S. Testing temporal reliability and carryover effect:the role of correlated responses in test-retest reliability studies. Environmental and Resource Economies,1998,12:357-374.
291. Mitchell RC, Carson RT. Using Surveys to Value public Goods:The Contingent Valuation Method. Washington DC:Resources for Future,1989.85-102.
292. Morris RKA, Alonso I, Jefferson RG, Kirby KJ. The creation of compensatory habitat—Can it secure sustainable development?. Journal for Nature Conservation, 2006,14(2):106-116.
293. Naveh Z, Lieberman AS. Landscape Ecology:Theory and Application. New York: Springer-Verlag,1984,3-22,107-111.
294. Ojeda MI, Mayer AS, Solomon BD. Economic valuation of environmental services sustained by water flows in the Yaqui River Delta. Ecological Economics, 2008,65(1):155-166.
295. Okojie LO, Orisajimi OS. Valuation of the recreational benefits of Old Oyo National Park, Nigeria:A travel cost method analysis. JOURNAL OF FOOD AGRICULTURE & ENVIRONMENT,2011,9(1):521-525.
296. Ong MC, Curtin-Brosnan J, Diette GB, Breysse PN, Sharma HP, Matsui EC. Performance of Likert-type and Visual Analog Scales in the Assessment of Allergy Symptoms in Minority Patients. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 2010,125(2):AB53.
297. Onkal-Engin G, Demir I, Hiz H. Assessment of urban air quality in Istanbul using fuzzy synthetic evaluation. Atmospheric Environment,2004,38(23):3809-3815.
298. Orland B. Visualization techniques for incorporation in forest planning geographic information systems Landscape and Urban Planning,1994,30(1-2):83-97.
299. Orlowski G, Nowak L. The importance of marginal habitats for the conservation of old trees in agricultural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning,2007, 79(1):77-83.
300. Ortacesme V, Ozkan B, Karaguzel O. An estimation of the recreational use value of Kursunlu Waterfall Nature Park by the Individual Travel Cost Method. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry,2002,26(1):57-62.
301. Paquet J, Belanger L. Public acceptability thresholds of clear cutting to maintain visual quality of boreal balsam fir landscapes. Forest Science,1997,43(1):46-55.
302. Potter DR., Wagar JA. Techniques for inventorying manmade impact in roadway environments. USDA Forest Service Research Paper PNW-121, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland,1971.
303. Randall A, Ives B, Eastman C. Bidding games of valuation of aesthetic environmental improvements. Journal of Environmental Management and Economics,1974, (1):132-149.
304. Randall A, Hoehn JP. Embedding in market demand systems. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,1996,30:369-380.
305. Ready RC, Buzby JC, Hu D. Differences between continuous and discrete contingent value estimates. Land Economies,1996,72:397-411.
306. Real E, Arce C, Sabucedo JM. Classification of landscapes using quantitative and categorical data, and prediction of their scenic beauty in North-Western Spain. Journal of Environmental Psychology,2000,20(4):355-373.
307. Richard HL, Simon JK. Designing old forest for the future:_Old-trees as habitat for birds in forests of Mountain Ash Eucalyptus regnans. Forest Ecology and Management,2009,258(4):504-515.
308. Ryan C, Garland R. The use of a specific non-response option on Likert-type scales. Tourism Management,1999,20(1):107-113.
309. Samuelson P. Consumption theory in terms of revealed preference. Economica, 1948,15:243-253.
310. Sakurai H, Saswaki Y, Matsumoto T, Aoki T, Kato W, Gandou T, Gunji S, Tokanai F. Characteristics of high-purity Teflon vial for 14C measurement in old tree rings. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A:Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment,2003,505(1-2):454-457.
311. Sakurai H, Gandou T, Kato W, Sawaki Y, Matsumoto T, Aoki T, Matsuzaki H, Gunji S, Tokanai F. AMS measurement of C-14 concentration in a single-year ring of a 2500-yr-old tree. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B:Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms,2004,223-224:371-375.
312. Schroeder H, Daniel TC. Progress in predicting the perceived scenic beauty of forest landscapes. Forest Science,1981,27(1):71-80.
313. Schulze WD, McClelland G, Waldman D, Lazo J. Sources of bias in contingent valuation. In:Bjomstad DJ, Kahn JR eds. The contingent valuation of environmental resources:methodological issues and research needs. Brookfield: Edward Elgar,1996,97-116.
314. Shafer EL, Rutherford W. Selection cuts increased natural beauty in two Adirondack forests stands. Journal of Forestry,1969,67(7):415-419.
315. Shuttleworth S. The use of photographs as an environmental presentation medium in landscape studies. Journal of Environmental Management,1980,11:61-76.
316. Silberman J, Gerlowski DA, Williams NA. Estimating existence value for users and nonusers of New Jersey beaches. Land Economics,1992,68(2):226-236.
317. Smith VK. Nonmarket Valuation of Environmental Resources:An Interpretive Appraisal. Land Economics,1993,69(1):1-26.
318. Tobias D, Mendelsohn R. Valuing ecotourism in a tropical rainforest reserve. Ambio,1991,20:91-93.
319. Turner RK. Sustainable Environmental Economics and Management:Principles and Practice. London:Belhaven Press,1993.
320. Tyrvainen L, Vaananen H. The economic value of urban forest amenities:An application of the contingent valuation method, Landscape Urban Planning,1998, 43(1-3):105-118.
321. Tziakis I, Pachiadakis I, Moraitakis M, Xideas K, Theologis G, Tsagarakis KP. Valuing benefits from wastewater treatment and reuse using contingent valuation methodology. Desalination,2009,237(1-3):117-125.
322. Ulrich RS. Visual landscape preference, a model and application. Man- environment Systems,1977,7(5):297-393.
323. Ulrich RS. Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In:Altman I, Wohlwill J F eds., Behavior and Environment Vol.6. New York:Plenum Press, 1983:85-125.
324. Veisten K, Hoen HF, Navrud S, Strand J. Scope insensitivity in contingent valuation of complex environmental amenities. Journal of Environmental Management,2004,73(4):317-331.
325. Veisten K. Contingent valuation controversies:Philosophic debates about economic theory. Journal of Socio-Economics,2007,36(2):204-232.
326. Venkatachalam L. The contingent valuation method:a review. Environmental Impact Assessment Review,2004,24:89-124.
327. Vodak MC, Roberts PL, Wellman JD, Buhyoff GJ. Scenic impacts of eastern hardwood management. Forest Science,1985,31:289-301.
328. Walsh R, Loomis J, Gillman R. Valuing option, existence and bequest demands for wilderness, Land Economics,1984,60(1):14-29.
329. Whittington D, Briscoe J, Mu X, Barron W. Estimating the willingness to pay for water services in developing countries:a case study of the contingent valuation in Southern Hait. Economic Development and Cultural Change,1990,38:293-312.
330. Williamson DN, Calder SW. Visual resource management of Victoria's forests: A new concept for Australia. Landscape Planning,1979,6(3-4):313-341.
331. Yang T, Yang XM. Fuzzy comprehensive assessment, fuzzy clustering analysis and its application for urban traffic environment quality evaluation.Transportation Research Part D:Transport and Environment,1998,3(1):51-57.
332. Zeng HL. Theoretical aspects and applications on rough sets. Chongqing: Chongqing University Press,1996,257-262.
333. Zhang YQ, Li YQ. Valuing or Pricing natural and environmental resources. Environmental Science and Policy,2005,8:179-186.
334. Zube EH, Pitt DG, Anderson TW. Perception and prediction of scenic resource values of the Northeast. In:Zube EH, Brush RO, Fabos JG eds., Landscape Assessment:Perceptions and Resources. New York:Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, 1975,151-167.
335. Zube EH, Sell JL, Taylor JG. Landscape perception:research, application and theory. Landscape Planning,1982,9(1):1-33.
2. 蔡朋宴,杨志峰,徐琳瑜.天津市乡镇工业企业大气污染健康损失估算.安全与环境学报,2003,3(1)：33-36.
3. 蔡银莺,张安录.武汉市农地资源非市场价值研究.资源科学,2006,28(6)：104-111.
4. 蔡银莺,张安录.武汉市农地非市场价值评估.生态学报,2007a,27(2)：763-773.
5. 蔡银莺,张安录.武汉市农地资源价值估算.生态学杂志,2007b,26(3)：422-427.
6. 蔡银莺,宗琪,张安录.江汉平原农地资源价值研究.中国人口·资源与环境,2007c,17(3)：85-89.
7. 蔡银莺,张安录.武汉市石榴红农场休闲景观的游憩价值和存在价值估算.生态学报,2008a,28(3)：1201-1209.
8. 蔡银莺,陈莹,任艳胜,张安录.都市休闲农业中农地的非市场价值估算.资源科学,2008b,30(2)：305-312.
9. 曹辉,兰思仁.福州国家森林公园森林景观游憩效益评价.林业经济问题,2001,21(5)：296-298.
10. 曹辉,陈平留.论森林景观资产评估.林业资源管理,2002a,(1)：41-44.
11. 曹辉,兰思仁.条件价值法在森林景观资产评估中的应用.世界林业研究,2002b,15(3)：32-36.
12. 曹辉,陈平留.森林景观资产评估CVM法研究.福建林学院学报,2003,23(1)：48-52.
13. 曹建军,任正炜,杨勇,杜国祯.玛曲草地生态系统恢复成本条件价值评估.生态学报,2008,28(4)：1872-1880.
14. 巢阳,李锦龄,卜向春.活古树无损伤年龄测定.中国园林,2005,(8)：57-61.
15. 陈国阶.三峡工程对生态与环境影响的综合评价.北京：科学出版社,1993.
16. 陈琳,欧阳志云,王效科.条件价值评估法在非市场价值评估中的应用.生态学报,2006a,26(2)：610-619.
17. 陈琳,欧阳志云,段晓男,王效科.中国野生动物资源保护的经济价值评估——以北京市居民的支付意愿研究为例.资源科学,2006b,28(4)：131-137.
18. 陈希镇,梁飞豹.模糊综合评判中的模糊评分法.福州大学学报(自然科学版),1993,21(6)：22-27.
19. 陈鑫峰,王雁.森林游憩业发展回顾.世界林业研究,1999,12(12)：32-37.
20. 陈鑫峰,王雁.国内外森林景观的定量评价和经营技术研究现状.世界林业研究,2000,13(5)：31-38.
21. 陈鑫峰,王雁.森林美剖析——主论森林植物的形式美.林业科学,2001,137(2)：122-130.
22. 陈鑫峰,贾黎明.京西山区森林林内景观评价研究.林业科学,2003,39(4)：59-66.
23. 陈锡连,王国英,陈赛萍.古树名木预防腐朽中空技术研究.华东森林经理,2003,17(2)：28-29.
24. 陈应发.费用支付法——一种实用的森林游憩价值评估方法.生态经济,1996,(3)：27-31.
25. 程健夫,施木田.福州市古树名木现状调查与管理措施.亚热带农业研究,2006,2(1)：57-59.
26. 崔卫华,林菲菲.文化遗产资源的价值评价：CVM的局限性及几点改进.资源科学,2010,32(10)：1993-1998.
27. 戴兴安,胡曰利.长沙市湿地资源非使用价值评估研究.长江流域资源与环境,2010,19(10)：1198-1204.
28. 董冬,何云核.安徽省九华山风景名胜区古树名木资源的调查.安徽农业大学学报,2008,35(2)：191-195.
29. 董冬,何云核,周志翔.基于AHP和FSE的九华山风景区古树名木景观价值评价.长江流域资源与环境,2009,19(9)：1103-1109.
30. 董建文,翟明普,徐程杨,吴南生,章志都.京郊侧柏刺槐混交林植物物种组成特征对林内景观美景度的影响.江西农业大学学报,2007,29(5)： 756-761.
31. 董建文,章志都,许贤书,谢祥财,刘可人.福建省山地坡面风景游憩林美景度综合评价及构建技术,东北林业大学学报,2010,38(4)：45-48.
32. 董雪旺,张捷,刘传华,李敏,钟士恩.条件价值法中的偏差分析及信度和效度检验——以九寨沟游憩价值评估为例.地理学报,2011,66(2)：267-278.
33. 丁长迎.不列颠的森林景观价值及其对林业内部收益率的影响(一).国外林业,1995,25(1)：34-38.
34. 杜群,陈征海,刘安兴,诸葛刚.浙江省古树物种多样性现状研究.浙江大学学报(农业与生命科学版),2005,31(2)：215-219.
35. 杜亚平.改善东湖水质的经济分析.生态经济,1996,(6)：15-20.
36. 冯敏敏.基于AHP模糊综合评价模型的园林植物景观美感评价.杭州师范学院学报(自然科学版),2007,6(5)：373-378.
37. 封培波,胡永红,张启翔,任有华.上海露地宿根花卉景观价值的综合评价.北京林业大学学报,2003,25(6)：84-87.
38. 高秀梅,韩维栋,黄剑坚.白骨壤古树群资源可持续利用管理对策的研究.广东林业科技,2009,25(1)：73-76.
39. 巩如英,王飞,刘雅莉,曾现来.韦伯—费希纳定律评价模型在景观环境质量评价中的应用.西北林学院学报,2006,21(1)：131-135.
40. 谷晓萍,谷丽萍,周永斌,殷有,于丽芬,曹明玉.棋盘山风景区森林林内景观质量评价研究.西部林业科学,2008,37(4)：49-55
41. 谷晓萍,殷有,于丽芬,曹明玉,谷丽萍,周永斌.棋盘山风景区森林风景资源质量评价研究.中南林业科技大学学报,2010,30(3)：46-52.
42. 顾也萍.九华山之土壤.土壤学报,1987,(4)：378-387.
43. 关传友.安徽古银杏树资源的调查.中国园林,2000,16(3)：72-73.
44. 郭衡,时以群,王云瑞.泰山景观资源评价与游人审美效应分析.华东森林经理,1995,9(2)：47-52.
45. 郭剑英,王乃昂.敦煌旅游资源非使用价值评估.资源科学,2005,27(5)：187-192.
46. 何海.使用WinDENDRO测量树轮宽度及交叉定年方法.重庆师范大学学报 (自然科学版),2005,22(4)：39-44.
47. 王保忠,王保明,何平.景观资源美学评价的理论与方法.应用生态学报,2006,17(9)：1733-1739.
48. 贺锋,董金凯,谢小龙,徐栋,吴振斌.北京奥林匹克森林公园人工湿地生态系统服务非使用价值的评估.长江流域资源与环境,2010,19(7)：782-789.
49. 贺再球.北京宣武大吉危改工程基坑支护与古树保护.岩土工程学报,2010,32(增1)：358-362.
50. 黄延安.厦门市同安区古树保护复壮措施探讨.福建热作科技,2008,33(2)：30-31,24.
51. 胡可云,陆玉昌,石纯一.粗糙集理论及其应用进展.清华大学学报(自然科学版),2001,41(1)：64-68.
52. 胡欣欣,王李进,陈平留.基于投影寻踪模型的森林景观评价,江西农业大学学报,2009a,31(2)：306-310.
53. 胡欣欣,陈平留.RBF网络在森林景观评价中的应用.福建林学院学报,2009,29(1)：62-64.
54. 胡一民.雷击对古树名木的影响及其保护措施.中国园林,1994,(10)：39-40.
55. 贾黎明,李效文,郝小飞,刘军朝.基于SBE法的北京山区油松游憩林抚育技术原则,林业科学,2007,43(9)：144-149.
56. 雷增普,丛生,王鹏训,赵国勋.几种生物制剂在古柏复壮中的作用.园艺学报,1995,22(3)：283-287.
57. 李春干,赵德海,卫日强.森林旅游资源等级评价方法的研究.南京林业大学学报,1996,20(3)：64-68.
58. 李锦龄.古树矿质营养及细胞微区的研究.中国园林,1998,14(2)：46-50.
59. 李金平,王志石.空气污染损害价值的WTP、WTA对比研究.地球科学进展,2006,21(3)：250-255.
60. 李晓东,杨义波,石正璞.长春市古树名木地理信息管理系统的开发.长春大学学报,2007,17(3)：91-94.
61. 李莹,白墨,杨开忠,王学军.居民为改善北京大气环境质量的支付意愿研究.城市环境与城市生态,2001,14(5)：6-8.
62. 李莹,白墨,张巍.改善北京市大气环境质量中居民支付意愿的影响因素分析.中国人口·资源与环境,2002,12(6)：123-126.
63. 李忠魁,朱国诚,施海,冀杰,严家伟,丁望兰.北京市森林景观资产等级评价.林业财务与会计,2003,(11)：36-37.
64. 李忠魁,朱国诚,冀杰,施海,严家伟,丁望兰.森林景观资产等级评价原理.林业财务与会计,2003,(10)：33-36.
65. 梁爽,姜楠,谷树忠.城市水源地农户环境保护支付意愿及其影响因素分析—以首都水源地密云为例.中国农村经济,2005,05：55-60.
66. 梁勇,成升魁,闵庆文.居民对改善城市水环境支付意愿的研究.水利学报,2005,36(5)：613-617.
67. 林文镇.森林美学.台北：淑馨出版社,1991.
68. 林孝松,城市古树名木地理信息系统建设初步研究.福建林业科技,2007,34(2)：210-214.
69. 刘滨谊.风景景观概念框架.中国园林,1990,6(3)：42-43.
70. 刘翠玲,潘存德,寇福堂,吴晓勇,谭卫平.新疆喀纳斯旅游区森林景观美学质量与自然火干扰的关系.林业科学,2010,46(1)：9-14.
71. 刘光栋,吴文良,彭光华.华北高产农区公众对农业面污染源的环境保护意识及支付意愿.农村生态环境,2004,20(2)：41-45.
72. 刘克锋,龚学,袁跃云,张玉新.天坛公园土壤研究Ⅲ——古树生长区围栏效果分析.北京农学院学报,1994,9(1)：15-21.
73. 刘明磊,潘存德,寇福堂,谭卫平.新疆喀纳斯旅游区主要景点林外景观美景度评价新疆农业大学学报,2009,32(3)：54-58.
74. 刘为力.古树文化与环境艺术设计.[硕士学位论文].长沙：湖南大学图书馆,2008.
75. 刘亚萍,潘晓芳,钟秋平,金建湘.生态旅游区自然环境的游憩价值——运用条件价值评价法和旅行费用法对武陵源风景区进行实证分析.生态学报,2006,26(11)：3765-3774.
76. 刘张榕,谢金生.基于WEB的DW技术在福建名木古树智能管理系统中的设计与实现.福建林业科技,2009,36(4)：215-218,229.
77. 楼涛,赵明水,杨淑贞,庞春梅,王祖良,刘亮.天目山国家级自然保护区古树名木资源.浙江林学院学报,2004,21(3)：269-274.
78. 罗婧,姚亦锋,盛鸣,夏曙光.基于GIS的陇南灾区建设用地适宜性评价.长江流域资源与环境,2009,18(6)：540-544.
79. 陆东芳.大学校园植物景观评价模型及其应用.福建林学院学报,2008,28(4)：328-332.
80. 陆兆苏,余国宝,张治强,吴敬立,赵仁寿,朱乃文,任宝山.紫金山风景林的动态及其经营对策.南京林学院学报,1985,(3)：1-11.
81. 陆兆苏,赵德海,赵仁寿,任宝山.南京市钟山风景区森林经理的实践和研究.华东森林经理,1991,5(1)：16-19.
82. 陆兆苏.森林美学初探.华东森林经理,1995,9(3)：24-28.
83. 陆兆苏.森林美学与森林公园的建设.华东森林经理,1996,10(1)：44-49.
84. 吕浩荣,刘颂颂,叶永昌,朱剑云,莫罗坚,李年生.东莞市古树名木数量特征及分布格局.华南农业大学学报,2008,29(4)：65-69.
85. 吕明亮,江伟华.古树及其后备资源保护对策——以浙江省衢州市柯城区为例.江西农业学报,2007,19(6)：112-113.
86. 梅艳,郑文达,汪于平,唐炜国.临安市古树名木资源现状分析及保护对策.福建林业科技,2005,32(1)：116-119.
87. 孟先进,杨燕琼,叶永昌,刘颂颂,沈德才.东莞市古树名木地理信息系统的设计与开发.华南农业大学学报,2009,30(1)：104-106,109.
88. 穆艳,张景群.太白山森林公园主要林型林内景观的定量评价.西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版),2008,36(6)：119-125.
89. 南程慧,汤庚国,王贤荣,路飞,徐文斌,李广真.江西瑞昌大禾塘村南方红豆杉古树群调查.江西林业科技,2009,(2)：33-35,40.
90. 聂立水,王登芝,王保国.北京戒台寺古油松生长衰退与土壤条件关系初步研究.北京林业大学学报,2005,27(5)：32-36.
91. 欧世芬,肖海燕.莆田市中心城区古树名木资源现状及保护对策.福建地理,2004,19(1)：35-38.
92. 欧阳勋志,廖为明,彭世揆.论森林风景资源质量评价与管理.江西农业大 学学报,2004,26(2)：169-173.
93. 欧阳勋志,廖为明,黄晓全.婺源县森林景观游憩价值的经济评价.地域研究与开发,2006,25(1)：78-82.
94. 欧阳勋志,廖为明,彭世揆.天然阔叶林景观质量评价及其垂直结构优化技术.应用生态学报,2007,18(2)：1388-1392.
95. 欧阳志云,王如松,赵景柱.生态系统服务功能及其生态经济价值评价,应用生态学报,1999,10(5)：635-640.
96. 彭保发,吴远芬,陈端吕,董明辉.张家界风景区森林景观的旅游生命力评价.经济地理,2006,26(6)：1076-1078.
97. 彭希哲,田文华.上海市空气污染疾病经济损失的愿意支付研究.世界经济文汇,2003,(2)：32-44.
98. 尚海洋.基于CVM方法的张掖市北郊湿地存在价值评估.干旱区资源与环境,2011,25(5)：140-147.
99. 尚鹤,黄会一,王书棋.沈阳北陵古油松衰亡原因的初步研究.沈阳农业大学学报,1997,28(1)：39-43.
100. 沈雄勇.福州市古树名木景观保护与恢复研究.[硕士学位论文].福州：福建农林大学图书馆,2009.
101. 宋力,何兴元,徐文铎,张洁.城市森林景观美景度的测定.生态学杂志,2006,25(6)：621-624.
102. 谭超.应用CVM方法评估工业遗产的非使用价值——以北京焦化厂遗址为例.内蒙古师范大学学报(自然科学汉文版),2009,38(3)：323-328.
103. 唐东芹,杨学军,许东新.园林植物景观评价方法及其应用.浙江林学院学报,2001,18(4)：394-397.
104. 汤珧华,程敏.透气砖对古树复壮作用的探索.中南林学院学报,2004,24(5)：121-123.
105. 王炳贵,陈建设,郭剑峰,曹辉.厦门天竺山森林公园森林景观资产初步评估.北京林业大学学报,1999,21(6)：84-88.
106. 王凤珍,周志翔,郑忠明.武汉市典型城市湖泊湿地资源非使用价值评价.生态学报,2010,30(12)：3261-3269.
107. 王立龙,陆林.雪灾对九华山风景区毛竹林的影响.植物生态学报,2010,34(2)：233-239.
108. 王庆海,袁小环,武菊英,滕文军.观赏草景观效果评价指标体系及其模糊综合评判.应用生态学报,2008,19(2)：381-386.
109. 王晓俊.风景资源管理和视觉影响评估方法初探.南京林业大学学报,1992,16(3)：70-76.
110. 王晓俊.森林风景美的心理物理学评价方法.世界林业研究,1995,(6)：8-15.
111. 王晓俊.关于风景评价中心理物理学方法局限性的探讨.自然资源学报,1996,11(2)：170-175.
112. 王雁,陈鑫峰.心理物理学方法在国外森林景观评价中的应用.林业科学,1999,35(5)：110-117.
113. 王懿祥,戴文圣,白尚斌,江峰,金祖达.古树名木调查方法的改进.浙江林学院学报,2006,23(5)：549-553.
114. 王元胜,甘长青,周肖红.香山公园古树名木地理信息系统的开发技术研究.北京林业大学学报,2003,25(2)：53-57.
115. 汪全胜,姚贤林.宁波市北仑区干岙古树迁地保护研究.华东森林经理,2008,22(1)：75-77.
116. 韦新良,周国模,余树全.森林景观分类系统初探.中南林业调查规划,1997,16(3)：41-44,51.
117. 温小荣,周春国,徐海兵,刘曙雯,万志洲.中山陵园古树名木地理信息系统的研建.南京林业大学学报(自然科学版),2006a,30(5)：139-142.
118. 温小荣,周春国,徐海兵,刘曙雯,万志洲.组件式GIS技术在古树名木地理信息系统中的应用.福建林业科技,2006b,33(4)：73-76.
119. 文益君,周根苗,张晓蕾,吕勇.基于粗糙集的风景林景观美学评价.林业科学,2009,45(1)：1-7.
120. 翁殊斐,柯峰,黎彩敏.用AHP法和SBE法研究广州公园植物景观单元,2009,(4)：78-81.
121. 吴必虎.区域旅游规划原理.北京：中国旅游出版社,2004.
122. 吴丹,刘书俊.CVM法对长江口海洋生态价值的评价应用.环境保护科学, 2009,35(4)：85-88.
123. 吴刘萍,林国权,薛宝莲,李卡玲.湛江市古树名木资源调查与分析.湛江海洋大学学报,2004,24(6)：62-67.
124. 吴全立,耿伟.超浅埋暗挖隧道穿越名木古树保护方案的研究.地下空间与工程学报,2005,1(5)：754-758.
125. 吴祥定.树木年轮与气候变化.北京：气象出版社,1990.
126. 向准,向应海.320国道贵州昌明至景阳段及其邻近地区的古银杏调查——贵州古银杏种质资源调查资料Ⅳ.贵州科学,2001,19(1)：48-58.
127. 肖建红,王敏,施国庆,于庆东,毛春梅,陈东景.保护三峡工程影响的珍稀濒危生物的经济价值评估.生物多样性,2009,17(3)：257-265.
128. 许丽忠,吴春山,王菲凤,张江山,刘文伟.条件价值法评估旅游资源非使用价值的可靠性检验.生态学报,2007,27(10)：4301-4309.
129. 许树柏.层次分析法原理.天津：天津大学出版社,1988.
130. 徐炜.古树名木价值评估标准的探讨.华南热带农业大学学报,2005,11(1)：66-69.
131. 徐志山,徐剑青,童光根,王献荣,姜礼元.千岛湖(淳安县)古树名木的现状与保护.华东森林经理,2006,20(2)：41-43.
132. 徐应华,张华海,杨帮华,龙君德,廖德平,张超.贵州古树名木保护与管理对策探讨.内蒙古林业调查设计,2006,29(5)：60-62.
133. 徐中民,张志强,龙爱华,陈东景,巩增泰,苏志勇,张勃,石惠春.额济纳旗生态系统服务恢复价值评估方法的比较与应用.生态学报,2003,23(9)：1841-1850.
134. 薛达元,包浩生,李文华.长白山自然保护区生物多样性旅游价值评估研究.自然资源学报,1999a,14(2)：247-252.
135. 薛达元.长白山自然保护区生物多样性非使用价值评估.中国环境科学,2000,20(2)：141-145.
136. 薛达元,Tisdell C.环境物品的经济价值评估方法：条件价值法.农村生态环境,1999b,15(3)：39-43.
137. 杨方,唐水红.冷水江市古树名木保护管理现状与对策.湖南林业科技,2006, 33(1)：84-86.
138. 杨凯,赵军.城市河流生态系统服务的CVM估值及其偏差分析.生态学报,2005,25(6)：1391-1396.
139. 杨鹏,薛立,陈红跃.森林景观评价方法.广东园林,2003,(1)：24-27.
140. 杨学军.略论森林景观的生态经济研究及其应用.生态经济,1997,(6)：27-29.
141. 杨学军,姜志林,丁胜,蒋如生.溧阳地区森林景观经济效益特征的动态分析.林业科技,1999,24(4)：52-54.
142. 杨永志,张丽云,闫海霞,李英杰,王志强.基于AHP法的呼和浩特市玉泉区植物群落景观评价.内蒙古农业大学学报,2009,30(2)：40-45.
143. 杨志新,郑大玮,靳乐山.京郊农用地膜残留污染土壤的价值损失研究.生态经济(学术版),2007,(2)：414-418.
144. 杨子国.云南古树名木植物区系特征研究.安徽农业科学,2009,37(27)：13367-13370,13384.
145. 姚晓军,孙美平,张明军.宝天高速公路沿线生态环境保护居民支付意愿评价.生态环境学报,2010,19(2)：404-409.
146. 叶广荣,胡彦辉,蒋爱琼,赵冰,徐志平.广州市第五批古树名木资源调查及树龄鉴定.广东园林,2008,30(4)：34-36.
147. 叶兴发.森林资源资产价值会计核算方法探讨.林业财务与会计,2003,(10)：6-7.
148. 俞金国,王丽华.城市旅游地景观格局分析方法——以大连为例.自然资源学报,2007,22(2)：281-288.
149. 俞孔坚.论景观概念及其研究发展.北京林业大学学报,1987,9(4)：433-439.
150. 俞孔坚.自然风景质量评价研究——SBE-LCJ审美评判测量法.北京林业大学学报,1988,10(2)：1-7.
151. 俞孔坚.中国风景区景观评价方法初探.见：肖笃宁主编,景观生态学——理论、方法及应用.北京：中国林业出版社,1991,161-171.
152. 喻燕,卢新海.意愿评估法在农地非使用价值评估中的改进.中国土地科学,2010,24(1)：15-21.
153. 袁东升,钱妙芬.环境污染对成都市古树名木的危害及防治对策研究.成都 信息工程学院学报,2005,20(3)：336-340.
154. 章绍尧,丁炳扬.浙江植物志——总论.杭州：浙江科学技术出版社,1993.
155. 章俊华.规划设计学中的调查分析法16：SD法.中国园林,2004,(10)：54-58.
156.张恒,刘群.基于COMGIS的古树名木管理信息系统设计.林业调查规划,2008,33(4)：83-85.
157. 张明军,范建峰,虎陈霞,张勃.兰州市改善大气环境质量的总经济价值评估.干旱区资源与环境,2004,18(3)：28-32.
158. 张树民,谷瑞芳.浅议古树名木的保护措施.山西林业,2002,(3)：16-17.
159. 张肖宁,李红杰,首艳芳.基于结构方程建模的道路景观评价.华南理工大学学报(自然科学版),2009,31(11)：17-21.
160. 张晓彤,宇振荣,王晓军,张晶,任斌斌.场景可视化在乡村景观评价中的应用.生态学报,2010,30(7)：1699-1705.
161. 张艳洁,丛日晨,赵琦,张国华,李玉华,谷润泽.适用于表征古树衰老的生理指标.林业科学,2010,46(3)：134-138.
162. 张翼飞,赵敏.意愿价值法评估生态服务价值的有效性与可靠性及实例设计研究.地球科学进展,2007,22(11)：1141-1149.
163. 张茵.自然保护区生态旅游资源的价值评估——以九寨沟自然保护区为例.[博士学位论文].北京：北京大学,2004.
164. 张茵,蔡运龙.用条件估值法评估九寨沟的游憩价值——CVM方法的校正与比较.经济地理,2010,30(7)：1205-1211.
165. 张志强,徐中民,程国栋,苏志勇.黑河流域张掖地区生态系统服务恢复的条件价值评估.生态学报,2002,22(6)：885-892.
166. 张志强,徐中民,龙爱华,巩增泰.黑河流域张掖市生态系统服务恢复价值评估研究——连续型和离散型条件价值评估方法的比较应用.自然资源学报,2004,19(2)：230-239.
167. 赵成章,王小鹏,任珩.黑河中游社区湿地生态恢复成本的CVM评估.西北师范大学学报(自然科学版),2011,47(1)：93-98.
168. 赵慈良,欧丹燕,胡军飞,周伟平,赵颖.普陀山古树名木资源评价与保护对策.浙江海洋学院学报(自然科学版),2009,28(2)：200—204.
169. 赵德海.风景林美学评价方法的研究.南京林业大学学报,1990,14(4)：50-55.
170. 赵国华,龚晓林.森林资源的价值内涵和补偿机制探析.华东森林经理,2004,18(2)：2-22.
171. 赵红霞,刘伟平.森林旅游资源评价方法对比分析研究.林业经济问题,2006,26(2)：116-119.
172. 赵军,杨凯,邰俊,吴阿娜.上海城市河流生态系统服务的支付意愿.环境科学,2005,26(2)：5-10.
173. 赵军,杨凯.自然资源与环境价值评估：条件价值法及应用原则探讨.自然资源学报,2006,21(5)：834-840.
174. 郑波,陈之欢,黄凯,权键,柳振亮古松柏叶肉细胞超微结构的研究.北京农学院学报,2006,21(3)：39-41.
175. 钟全林,周华盛.森林景观质量评价理论、内容与方法.华东森林经理,2000,14(4)：437-39.
176. 钟永德,罗明春,袁建琼.森林美学的发展及其在森林景观规划中的应用.中南林学院学报,2004,24(4)：82-87.
177. 周学红,马建章,张伟,王强.运用CVM评估濒危物种保护的经济价值及其可靠性分析——以哈尔滨市区居民对东北虎保护的支付意愿为例.自然资源学报,2009,24(2)：276-285.
178. 周章义,雷增普,王文新,李凯.七王坟古油松濒死原因的研究.北京林业大学学报,1995,17(1)：49-54.
179. 周忠朗.古树名木景观的认定、保护和利用——莫干山古树名木景观资源的调查研究.中国园林,1993,9(2)：52-55.
180. 宗雪,崔国发,袁婧.基于条件价值法的大熊猫(Ailuropoda melanoleuca)存在价值评估.生态学报,2008,28(5)：2090-2098.
181. Adams C, Motta RS, Ortiz RA, Reid J, Aznar CE, Sinisgalli PAA. The use of contingent valuation for evaluating protected areas in the developing world: Economic valuation of Morrodo Diabo State Park, Atlantic Rainforest, Sao Paulo State (Brazil). Ecological Economics,2008,66(2-3):359-370.
182. Alberini A. Testing willingness-to-Pay models of discrete choice contingent valuation survey data. Land Economics,1995,71:83-95.
183. Altman I, Wohwill JF. Behavior and the Natural Environment. New York:Plenum Press,1983,39-83.
184. Amigues JP, Catherine B, Desigues B, Caroline G, Keith J. The benefits and costs of riparian analysis habitat preservation:a willingness to accept willingness to pay using contingent valuation approach. Ecological Economics,2002,43(1):17-31.
185. Amirnejad H, Khalilian S, Assareh MH, Ahmadian M. Estimating the existence value of north forests of Iran by using a contingent valuation method. Ecological Economics,2006,58(4):665-675.
186. Amo L, Lopez P, Martin J. Natural oak forest vs. ancient pine plantations:lizard microhabitat use may explain the effects of ancient reforestations on distribution and conservation of Iberian lizards. Biodiversity and Conservation,2007,16(12): 3409-3422.
187. Andersson R, Ostlund L. Spatial patterns, density changes and implications on biodiversity for old trees in the boreal landscape of northern Sweden. Biological Conservation,2004,118(4):443-453.
188. Appleton J. The Experience of Landscape. London:Wiley press,1975.
189. Arrow KJ, Solow R, Learner E, Portney P, Radner R, Schuman H. RePort of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register,1993,58:4601-4614.
190. Arthur LM. Predicting scenic beauty of forest environments:some empirical tests. Forest Science,1977,23(2):151-160.
191. Artti J. Old-growth boreal forests:Worth protecting for biodiversity?. Journal of Forest Economics,2007,6:53-56.
192. Atkins JP, Burdon D, Allen JH. An application of contingent valuation and decision tree analysis to water quality improvements. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 2007,55(10-12):591-602.
193. Balick MJ, Mendelsohn R. Assessing the economic value of traditional medicine from tropical rain forests. Conservation Biology,1992,6:128-130.
194. Bandara R, Tisdell C. The net benefit of saving the Asian elephant:a policy and contingent valuation study. Ecological Economics,2004,48(1):93-107.
195. Bashan Y, Khaosaad T, Salazar BG, Ocampo JA, Wiemken A, Oehl F, Vierheilig H. Mycorrhizal characterization of the boojum tree, Fouquieria columnaris, an endemic ancient tree from the Baja California Peninsula, Mexico. Trees,2007, 21(3):329-335.
196. Bateman IJ, Cole M, Cooper P, Georgiou S, Hadley D, Poe GL. Visible choice sets and scope sensitivity:An experimental and field test of study design effects upon contingent values. CSERGE Working Paper EDM 01-01, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, University of East Anglia, Norwich,2001.
197. Bateman IJ, Carson RT, Day B, Hanemann M, Hanley N, Hett T, Jones-Lee M, Loomes G, Mourato S, Ozdemiroglu E, Pearce DW, Sugden R, Swanson J. Economic valuation with stated Preference techniques:a manual. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar,2002.
198. Becker N, Freeman S. The economic value of old growth trees in Israel. Forest Policy and Economics,2009,11(8):608-615.
199. Benson RE, McCool SF, Schlieter JA. Attaining visual quality objectives in timber harvest areas—landscape architect's evaluation. USDA Forest Service Research Note INT-348, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden,1985.
200. Benson JF. Public values for environmental features in commercial forests. Quarterly Journal of Forestry,1992,84:9-17.
201. Bishop RG, Heberlein TA. Measuring values of extra-market goods:are indirect measures biased?. American Journal of Agricultural Economics,1979,61: 926-930.
202. Bishop ID, Hull IVRB. Integrating technologies for visual resource management. Journal of Environmental Management,1991,32(4):295-312.
203. Bishop ID, Hulse DW. Prediction of scenic beauty using mapped data and geographic information system. Landscape and Urban Planning,1994,30(1-2): 59-70.
204. Bishop ID. Comparing regression and neural net based approaches to modelling of scenic beauty. Landscape and Urban Planning,1996,34:125-134.
205. Bonnieux F, Rainelli P. Contingent valuation methodology and the EU institutional framework. In:Bateman I J, Willis K G eds. Valuing Environmental Preferences:Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing Countries. New York:Oxford University Press,1999. 585-612.
206. Boyle KJ, Welsh MP, Bishop RC. The role of question order and respondent experience in contingent valuation studies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,1993,95:80-90.
207. Briggs DJ, France J. Landscape evaluation:a comparative study. Journal of Environmental Management,1980,10:263-275.
208. Brookshire DS, Thayer MA, Schulze WP, Arge RC. Valuing Public goods:a comparison of survey and hedonic approach. American Economic Review,1982, 72:165-176.
209. Brookshire DS, Eubanks LS, Randall A. Estimating option prices and existence values for wildlife resources. Land Economics,1983,59:1-15.
210. Brown TC, Daniel TC. Predicting scenic beauty of timber stands. Forest Science, 1986,32:471-487.
211. Brush RO. The attractiveness of woodlands:perceptions of forest landowners in Massachusetts. Forest Science,1979,25(3):495-506.
212. Buhyoff GJ, Leuschner WA. Estimating psychological disutility from damaged forest stands. Forest Science,1978,24(3):242-432.
213. Buhyoff GJ, Wellinan JD. The specification of a non-linear psychophysical function for visual landscape dimensions Journal of Leisure Research,1980,12: 257-272.
214. Buhyoff GJ, Wellman JD, Daniel TC. Predicting scenic quality for mountain pine beetle and western spruce budworm damaged forest vistas. Forest Science,1982, 28(4):827-838.
215. Cameron TA. Nonuser Resource Values. American Journal of Agricultural Economics,1992,74(5):1133-1137.
216. Cameron TA, Quiggin J. Estimation using contingent valuation data from a dichotomous choice with follow-up'questionnaire. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,1994,27:218-234.
217. Carson RT, Mitchell RC. The Value of Clean Water:the Public's Willingness to Pay for Boatable, Fishable and Swimmable Quality Water. Water Resources Research,1993,29:2445-2454.
218. Carson RT, Flores NE, Martin KM, Wright JL. Contingent valuation and revealed Preference methodologies:Comparing the estimates for quasi-public goods, Land Economics,1996,72(1):80-99.
219. Carson RT. Contingent valuation:A user's guide. Environmental Sciences and Technology,2000,34(2):1413-1418.
220. Carson RT, Flores NE, Meade NF. Contingent valuation:controversies and evidence. Environmental and Resource Economics,2001,19:173-210.
221. Carson RT, Theodore G Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environmental and Resource Economics,2007,37(1):181-210.
222. Chaudhry P, Tewari VR. A comparison between TCM and CVM in assessing the recreational use value_of urban_forestry. INTERNATIONAL FORESTRY REVIEW,2006,8(4):439-448.
223. Chen SY, Liu YL, Chen CF. Evaluation of Land-Use Efficiency Based on Regional Scale. Journal of China University of Mining & Technology,2007,17(2): 0215-0219.
224. Chio WS, Lee K, Lee BW. Determining the value of reductions in radiation risk using the contingent valuation method. Annals of Nuclear Energy,2001,28: 1431-1145.
225. Choe KA, Whittington D, Lauria DT. The economic benefits of surface water quality improvements in developing countries:a case study of Davao, Philippines. Land Economics,1996,72(4):519-537.
226. Ciriracy-Wantrup. Capical returns from soil conservation practice. Journal of Farm Economics,1947,29:1181-1196.
227. Clay GR, Daniel TC. Scenic landscape assessment:the effects of land management jurisdiction on public perception of scenic beauty. Landscape and Urban Planning,2000,49:1-13.
228. Cook PS, Cable TT. The scenic beauty of shelterbelts on the Great Plains. Landscape and Urban Planning,1995,32 (1):63-69.
229. Crofts RS, Cooke RU. Landscape evaluation:a comparison of technique. Occasional Paper, vol.25, Department of Geography, University College London, 1974.
230. Crofts RS, The landscape component approach to landscape evaluation, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers,1975,66:124-129.
231. Daniel F, Davide F, Ilda M, Gabriele Z. The role of agroforestry networks in landscape socioeconomic processes:the potential and limits of the contingent valuation method. Landscape and Urban Planning,2001,55(4):239-256.
232. Daniel TC, Buster RS. Measuring landscape esthetics:the scenic beauty estimation method. USD A Forest Research Paper RM-167, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins,1976.
233. Daniel TC, Vining J. Methodological issues in the assessment of landscape quality. In:Davis R K. Recreation planning as an economic problem. Natural Resource Journal,1963, (3):239-249.
234. Davis RK. The value of outdoor recreation:an economic study of the marine woods. (Ph D dissertation). Boston:Harvard University,1963.
235. Desaiguesa B, Ami D, Bartczak A, Braun-Kohlova M, Chilton S, Czajkowski M, Farreras V, Hunt A, Hutchison M, Jeanrenaud C, Kaderjak P, Maca V, Markiewicz O, Markowska A, Metcalf H, Navrud S, Nielsen J S, Ortiz R, Pellegrini S, Rabl A, et al. Economic valuation of air pollution mortality:A 9-country contingent valuation survey of value of a life year (VOLY). Ecological Indicators,2011, 11(3):902-910.
236. Desvousges WH, Johnson FR, Dunford RW, Boyle KJ, Hudson SP, Wilson N. Measuring natural resource damages with contingent valuation:tests of validity and reliability. In:Hausman JA ed. Contingent valuation:a critical assessment. Amsterdam:North Holland,1993,91-159.
237. Desvousges WH, Hudson SP, Ruby MC. Evaluating CV Performance:Separating the light from the heat. In:Bjornstad J, Kahn JR eds. The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resources:Methodological Issues and Research Needs. Cheltenham:Brookfield, Vt. Edward Elgar,1996.
238. Dong HJ, Kouyateb B, Cairnsc J, Sauerborna R. A comparison of the reliability of the take-it-or-leave-it and the bidding game approaches to estimating willingness-to-pay in a rural population in West Africa. Social Science & Medicine,2003,56:2181-2189.
239. Dutta M, Banerjee S, Husain Z. Untapped demand for heritage:A contingent valuation study of Prinsep Ghat, Calcutta. Tourism Management,2007,28(1): 83-95.
240. Dunn MC, Landscape with photographs:testing the preference approach to landscape evaluation, Journal of Environmental Management,1976,4:15-26.
241. Eagle JG, Betters DR. The endangered species act and economic values:a comparison of_fines_and_contingent_valuation_studies._Ecological Economics,1998, 26(2):165-171.
242. Feng S, Xu LD. Decision support for fuzzy comprehensive evaluation of urban development. Fuzzy Sets and Systems,1999,105(1):1-2.
243. Fines KD, Landscape evaluation:a research project in East Sussex, Regional Studies,1968,2:41-55.
244. Freeman AM. The sign and size of option value. Land Economics.1984,60(1): 1-13.
245. Freeman MA. The measurement of environmental and resource values. Washington DC:Resource for the Future,1993.
246. Fukamachi K, Oku H, Kumagai Y, Shimomura A. Changes in landscape planning and land management in Arashiyama National Forest in Kyoto. Landscape and Urban Planning,2000,52(3):73-87.
247. Garrod B, Fyall A. Beyond the rhetoric of sustainable tourism?.Tourism Management,1998,19(3):199-212.
248. Gobster PH. An ecological aesthetic for Forest landscape management. Landscape Journal,1999,18(1):54-64.
249. Griffin CC, Briscoe J, Singh B, Ramasubban R, Bhatia R. Contingent valuation and actual behavior:Predicting connections to new water systems in the state of Kerala, India. The World Bank Economic Review,1995,9:373-395.
250. Gurluk S. The estimation of ecosystem services' value in the region of Misi Rural Development Project:Results from a contingent valuation survey. Forest Policy and Economics,2006,9(3):209-218.
251. Hanemann WM. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics,1984, 66(3):332-341.
252. Hanemann WM, Loomis J, Kannien B. Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics,1991,73(5):1255-1236.
253. Hanemann WM. Valuing the Environment Through Contingent Valuation. Journal of Economic Perspectives,1994,8(4):19-25.
254. Hanemann WM, Kanninen B. The statistical analysis of discrete-response CV data. In:Betaman IJ, Willis KG eds. Valuing environmental preferences. Oxford: Oxford University Press,1999.302-441.
255. Hanley N, Spash C, Walker L. Problems in valuing the benefits of biodiversity protection. Environmental and Resource Economics,1995,5(3):249-272.
256. Hanley N, MacMillan D, Wright R E, Bullock C, Simpson I, Parisson D, Crabtree B. Contingent valuation versus choice experiments:estimating the benefits of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1998,49(1):1-15.
257. Hariman R. Option value under income and price uncertainty. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management.1987, (14):212-226.
258. Hull RB, Buhyoff GJ, Daniel TC. Measurement of scenic beauty:the law of comparative judgment and scenic beauty estimation procedures. Forest Science, 1984,30(4):1084-1096.
259. Hull RB, Buhyoff GJ. The scenic beauty temporal distribution method:an attempt to make scenic beauty assessments compatible with forest planning efforts. Forest Science,1986,32(2):271-286.
260. Hull RB, Buhyoff GJ, Gordell HK. Psychophysical models:an example with scenic beauty perceptions of roadside pine forests. Landscape Journal,1987, 6(2):113-122.
261. Jakobsson KM, Dragun AK. Contingent Valuation and Endangered Species: Methodological Issues and Applications. Cheltenham:Edward Elgar Publishing Limited,1996.
262. Jan S, Anthony A, Danica A, Kurt H, Bee G, Fang ZD. Tibetan sacred sites conserve old growth trees and cover in the eastern Himalayas. Biodiversity and Conservation,2007,16(3):693-706.
263. Jim CY. Spatial differentiation and landscape-ecological assessment of heritage trees_in_urban_Guangzhou (China).Landscape and Urban Planning,_2004,69(1): 51-68.
264. Jim CY. Floristics, performance and prognosis of historical trees in the urban forest of Guangzhou city (China). Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 2005,102:285-308.
265. Jim CY. Outstanding remnants of nature in compact cities:patterns and preservation of heritage trees in Guangzhou city (China). Geoforum,2005a,36(3): 371-385.
266. Jim CY. Formulaic expert method to integrate evaluation and valuation of heritage trees in compact city. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment,2006,116: 53-80.
267. Jim CY, Chen WY. Recreation-amenity use and contingent valuation of urban greenspaces in Guangzhou, China. Landscape and Urban Planning,2006,75(1-2): 81-96.
268. John KH, Walsh RG, Moore CG. Comparison of alternative nonmarket valuation methods for an economic assessment of a public Program. Ecological Economics, 1992,5:179-196.
269. Kahneman D. The review panel assessment:comment. In:Cummings RG, Brookshire DS, Schulze WD eds. Valuing Public Goods:The Contingent Valuation Method. Totowa NJ:Rowman & Allanheld,1986.
270. Kahneman D, Knetsch JL. Valuing public goods:The purchase of moral satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,1992,22(1): 57-70.
271. Karjalainen E, Tyrvainen L. Visualization in forest landscape preference research: a Finnish perspective. Landscape and Urban Planning,2002,59(1):13-28.
272. Kealy MJ, Turner RW. A test of the equality of closed-ended and open-ended contingent valuations. American Journal of Agricultural Economics,1993,75: 321-331.
273. Kopka S, Ross M. A study of the reliability of the Bureau of Land Management visual resource assessment scheme. Landscape Planning,1984,11 (2):161-166.
274. Kotchen MJ, Reiling SD. Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation of nonuse values:a case study involving endangered species. Ecological Economics,2000,32(1):93-107.
275. Kristrom B. A non-parametric approach to the estimation of welfare measure in discrete resonse valuation studies. Land Economics,1990,66:135-139.
276. Kula E. Economics of natural resources and the environment. London:Chapman & Hall,2004.
277. Lee CK. Valuation of nature-based tourism resources using dichotomous choice contingent valuation method. Tourism Management,1997,18(8):587-591.
278. Lee CK, Han SY. Estimating the use and preservation values of national parks' tourism resources using a contingent valuation method. Tourism Management, 2002,23(5):531-540.
279. Lee CK, Mjelde JW. Valuation of ecotourism resources using a contingent valuation method:The case of the Korean DMZ. Ecological Economics,2007, 63(2-3):511-520.
280. Li XM, Min M, Tan CF. The functional assessment of agricultural ecosystems in Hubei Province, China. Ecological Modelling,2005,187(2-3):352-360.
281. Linton DL. The assessment of scenery as a natural resource. Scottish Geographical Magazine,1968,84:219-238.
282. Lippke BR, Sessions J, Carey AB. Economic analysis of forest landscape management alternatives. University of Washington, College of Forest Resources Special Paper CIN-TRAFOR SP 21, Seattle,1996.
283. Litton RB. Visual vulnerability of forest landscapes. Journal of Forestry,1974, 72(7):392-397.
284. Loomis J. Comparative reliability of the dichotomous choice and open-ended contingent valuation techniques. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,1990,18(1):78-85.
285. Loomis JB, Gonzalez CA. Comparing the economic value of reducing fire risk to spotted owl habitat in California_and Oregon._ Forest_Science,1997a,34(4): 473-482.
286. Loomis JB, Walsh RG Recreation Economic Decisions, Comparing Benefits and Costs (Second Edition). Pennsylvania:Venture Publishing, Inc.,1997b.
287. Loomis J, Kent P, Strange L, Fausch K, Covich A. Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin:results from a contingent valuation survey. Ecological Economics,2000,33(1):103-117.
288. Loomis JB, Keske CM. Mountain substitutability and peak load pricing of high alpine peaks as a management tool to reduce environmental damage:A contingent valuation study. Journal of Environmental Management,2009,90(5):1751-1760.
289. Maxwell S. Valuation of Rural Environmental Improvements using Contingent Valuation Methodology:a Case Study of the Marston Vale Community Forest Project. Journal of Environmental Management,1994,41(4):385-399.
290. McConnell KE, Strand IE, Valdes S. Testing temporal reliability and carryover effect:the role of correlated responses in test-retest reliability studies. Environmental and Resource Economies,1998,12:357-374.
291. Mitchell RC, Carson RT. Using Surveys to Value public Goods:The Contingent Valuation Method. Washington DC:Resources for Future,1989.85-102.
292. Morris RKA, Alonso I, Jefferson RG, Kirby KJ. The creation of compensatory habitat—Can it secure sustainable development?. Journal for Nature Conservation, 2006,14(2):106-116.
293. Naveh Z, Lieberman AS. Landscape Ecology:Theory and Application. New York: Springer-Verlag,1984,3-22,107-111.
294. Ojeda MI, Mayer AS, Solomon BD. Economic valuation of environmental services sustained by water flows in the Yaqui River Delta. Ecological Economics, 2008,65(1):155-166.
295. Okojie LO, Orisajimi OS. Valuation of the recreational benefits of Old Oyo National Park, Nigeria:A travel cost method analysis. JOURNAL OF FOOD AGRICULTURE & ENVIRONMENT,2011,9(1):521-525.
296. Ong MC, Curtin-Brosnan J, Diette GB, Breysse PN, Sharma HP, Matsui EC. Performance of Likert-type and Visual Analog Scales in the Assessment of Allergy Symptoms in Minority Patients. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 2010,125(2):AB53.
297. Onkal-Engin G, Demir I, Hiz H. Assessment of urban air quality in Istanbul using fuzzy synthetic evaluation. Atmospheric Environment,2004,38(23):3809-3815.
298. Orland B. Visualization techniques for incorporation in forest planning geographic information systems Landscape and Urban Planning,1994,30(1-2):83-97.
299. Orlowski G, Nowak L. The importance of marginal habitats for the conservation of old trees in agricultural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning,2007, 79(1):77-83.
300. Ortacesme V, Ozkan B, Karaguzel O. An estimation of the recreational use value of Kursunlu Waterfall Nature Park by the Individual Travel Cost Method. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry,2002,26(1):57-62.
301. Paquet J, Belanger L. Public acceptability thresholds of clear cutting to maintain visual quality of boreal balsam fir landscapes. Forest Science,1997,43(1):46-55.
302. Potter DR., Wagar JA. Techniques for inventorying manmade impact in roadway environments. USDA Forest Service Research Paper PNW-121, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland,1971.
303. Randall A, Ives B, Eastman C. Bidding games of valuation of aesthetic environmental improvements. Journal of Environmental Management and Economics,1974, (1):132-149.
304. Randall A, Hoehn JP. Embedding in market demand systems. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,1996,30:369-380.
305. Ready RC, Buzby JC, Hu D. Differences between continuous and discrete contingent value estimates. Land Economies,1996,72:397-411.
306. Real E, Arce C, Sabucedo JM. Classification of landscapes using quantitative and categorical data, and prediction of their scenic beauty in North-Western Spain. Journal of Environmental Psychology,2000,20(4):355-373.
307. Richard HL, Simon JK. Designing old forest for the future:_Old-trees as habitat for birds in forests of Mountain Ash Eucalyptus regnans. Forest Ecology and Management,2009,258(4):504-515.
308. Ryan C, Garland R. The use of a specific non-response option on Likert-type scales. Tourism Management,1999,20(1):107-113.
309. Samuelson P. Consumption theory in terms of revealed preference. Economica, 1948,15:243-253.
310. Sakurai H, Saswaki Y, Matsumoto T, Aoki T, Kato W, Gandou T, Gunji S, Tokanai F. Characteristics of high-purity Teflon vial for 14C measurement in old tree rings. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A:Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment,2003,505(1-2):454-457.
311. Sakurai H, Gandou T, Kato W, Sawaki Y, Matsumoto T, Aoki T, Matsuzaki H, Gunji S, Tokanai F. AMS measurement of C-14 concentration in a single-year ring of a 2500-yr-old tree. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B:Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms,2004,223-224:371-375.
312. Schroeder H, Daniel TC. Progress in predicting the perceived scenic beauty of forest landscapes. Forest Science,1981,27(1):71-80.
313. Schulze WD, McClelland G, Waldman D, Lazo J. Sources of bias in contingent valuation. In:Bjomstad DJ, Kahn JR eds. The contingent valuation of environmental resources:methodological issues and research needs. Brookfield: Edward Elgar,1996,97-116.
314. Shafer EL, Rutherford W. Selection cuts increased natural beauty in two Adirondack forests stands. Journal of Forestry,1969,67(7):415-419.
315. Shuttleworth S. The use of photographs as an environmental presentation medium in landscape studies. Journal of Environmental Management,1980,11:61-76.
316. Silberman J, Gerlowski DA, Williams NA. Estimating existence value for users and nonusers of New Jersey beaches. Land Economics,1992,68(2):226-236.
317. Smith VK. Nonmarket Valuation of Environmental Resources:An Interpretive Appraisal. Land Economics,1993,69(1):1-26.
318. Tobias D, Mendelsohn R. Valuing ecotourism in a tropical rainforest reserve. Ambio,1991,20:91-93.
319. Turner RK. Sustainable Environmental Economics and Management:Principles and Practice. London:Belhaven Press,1993.
320. Tyrvainen L, Vaananen H. The economic value of urban forest amenities:An application of the contingent valuation method, Landscape Urban Planning,1998, 43(1-3):105-118.
321. Tziakis I, Pachiadakis I, Moraitakis M, Xideas K, Theologis G, Tsagarakis KP. Valuing benefits from wastewater treatment and reuse using contingent valuation methodology. Desalination,2009,237(1-3):117-125.
322. Ulrich RS. Visual landscape preference, a model and application. Man- environment Systems,1977,7(5):297-393.
323. Ulrich RS. Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In:Altman I, Wohlwill J F eds., Behavior and Environment Vol.6. New York:Plenum Press, 1983:85-125.
324. Veisten K, Hoen HF, Navrud S, Strand J. Scope insensitivity in contingent valuation of complex environmental amenities. Journal of Environmental Management,2004,73(4):317-331.
325. Veisten K. Contingent valuation controversies:Philosophic debates about economic theory. Journal of Socio-Economics,2007,36(2):204-232.
326. Venkatachalam L. The contingent valuation method:a review. Environmental Impact Assessment Review,2004,24:89-124.
327. Vodak MC, Roberts PL, Wellman JD, Buhyoff GJ. Scenic impacts of eastern hardwood management. Forest Science,1985,31:289-301.
328. Walsh R, Loomis J, Gillman R. Valuing option, existence and bequest demands for wilderness, Land Economics,1984,60(1):14-29.
329. Whittington D, Briscoe J, Mu X, Barron W. Estimating the willingness to pay for water services in developing countries:a case study of the contingent valuation in Southern Hait. Economic Development and Cultural Change,1990,38:293-312.
330. Williamson DN, Calder SW. Visual resource management of Victoria's forests: A new concept for Australia. Landscape Planning,1979,6(3-4):313-341.
331. Yang T, Yang XM. Fuzzy comprehensive assessment, fuzzy clustering analysis and its application for urban traffic environment quality evaluation.Transportation Research Part D:Transport and Environment,1998,3(1):51-57.
332. Zeng HL. Theoretical aspects and applications on rough sets. Chongqing: Chongqing University Press,1996,257-262.
333. Zhang YQ, Li YQ. Valuing or Pricing natural and environmental resources. Environmental Science and Policy,2005,8:179-186.
334. Zube EH, Pitt DG, Anderson TW. Perception and prediction of scenic resource values of the Northeast. In:Zube EH, Brush RO, Fabos JG eds., Landscape Assessment:Perceptions and Resources. New York:Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, 1975,151-167.
335. Zube EH, Sell JL, Taylor JG. Landscape perception:research, application and theory. Landscape Planning,1982,9(1):1-33.