社會建設發展快速、產業結構的迅速轉型，市鎮規劃、都市計劃的運行下，使得土地使用方式產生轉變，首當其衝者則是農業用地。土地、環境政策的施行，使農地資源一再妥協、配合其他土地使用，導致不斷發生農地轉用為其他土地使用之情形。因此，在農地利用必須兼顧經濟效益及環境永續展之原則下，土地開發追求利益的同時也須兼顧環境保護，而土地環境是人類生活中必不可缺的資源，一旦農地環境受到難以恢復的變更，因此正視與關注農業土地問題為目前迫切所需。農地生態系服務在許多研究中被評價為保護農地生態資源之基礎，本研究利用選擇試驗法(choice experiment, CE)以農地生態系服務為基礎建立農地利用管理模式方案之隨機效用模型，考量「作物多樣化種植」、「農事耕作型態」、「田間綠帶」、「契約年限」與「農業環境給付」等項目，以宜蘭地區農民對環境友善農業政策進行探討，並利用條件羅吉特(Conditional Logit, CL)、隨機參數羅吉特(Random Parameter Logit, RPL)及潛在類別模型(Latent Class Model, LCM)等三個評估模式，推估農民對政策屬性偏好及轉型意願的補償價值。
研究結果顯示：(1)有76.3%的農民願意轉型為友善農耕，95.1%的農民認為農業環境給付金能支持友善農耕的維持，反映目前友善農耕獎勵措施的政策為農民所接受；(2) ＂參與農業相關課程”、 ＂是否願意轉型為友善農耕＂及＂簽訂契約與否＂在「田間綠帶」及「簽約年限」具顯著差異，其中有參與過相關課程的農民對願受補償在兩項屬性中皆低於無參與的人；(3)差異性分析結果顯示，年紀較輕（30-50歲）、教育程度較高的農民具有轉型及改變耕作模式的意願、；(4)CL與RPL分析結果方向一致，進一步推估農民對各項政策屬性之願受補償，得知：農民願意接受25,138.09元轉型為有機農耕、「簽訂短期契約」的願受補償為3,333.7元、「10年契約」的願受補償為18,000元；(5) LCM將農民分為兩群「維持現況型」與「永續農耕型」，「維持現況型」的農民不偏好「作物多元化」、偏好「與政府簽訂較短的契約」，該類型農民在社會經濟背景顯示出年紀高於50歲，主要為慣型農耕者，「永續農耕型」的農民偏好「作物多樣性種植」，偏好「友善農耕」與「有機農耕」，該類型農民在社會經濟背景顯示出：年紀低於50歲、主要為友善農耕及有機能耕者；(6) 最後本研究初擬三個政策給付方案，透過評估金額加總，分別為「短期友善農耕獎勵給付」28,261(年/公頃/元)、「短期有機農耕給付」33,825(年/公頃/元)及「長期有機農耕給付」48,492(年/公頃/元)。以研究結果比對友善農耕政策施行現況，發現此研究模型在宜蘭地區是適用的。

The rapid development of social construction and the rapid transformation of industrial structure have led to the transformation of land use patterns under the operation of town planning and urban planning. The first to bear the brunt is agricultural land. The implementation of land and environmental policies has resulted in repeated compromises of farmland resources and other land use, resulting in the continuous use of agricultural land for other land use. Therefore, under the principle that both agricultural land use must take into account economic benefits and environmental sustainability, land development must also take into account environmental protection while the land environment is an indispensable resource in human life. Once the agricultural land environment is difficult to recover, Changes, so the issue of addressing and paying attention to agricultural land is urgently needed.
The farmland ecosystem service was evaluated as the basis for the protection of agricultural land ecological resources in many studies. This study used the choice experiment (CE) to establish a random utility model of the agricultural land use management model based on the farmland ecosystem service. Projects such as "Diversified Crop Planting", "Farming Farming Pattern", "Field Green Belt", "Contract Year" and "Agricultural Environment Payment", etc., discuss the environmentally friendly agricultural policies of farmers in Yilan and use the conditions of Rogit Three evaluation models, such as Conditional Logit (CL), Random Parameter Logit (RPL) and Latent Class Model (LCM), estimate the compensation value of farmers' preference for policy attributes and willingness to transform .
Research shows: (1) 76.3% of the farmers are willing to transform into friendly agriculture, and 95.1% of the farmers believe that the agricultural environment payment can support the maintenance of friendly agriculture, reflecting that the current policy of friendly agriculture incentives is acceptable to farmers; (2) There are significant differences in "involvement in agriculture-related courses", "willing to transform into friendly farming" and "signing a contract or not" in "field green belt" and "signing period", and farmers who have participated in relevant courses have lower WTA Non-participating person; (3) The results of the differential analysis show that farmers who are younger (30-50 years old) and have higher education levels have the willingness to transform and change the farming mode; (4) CL and RPL analysis results in the same direction, further estimating farmers' willingness to compensate for various policy attributes, and knowing that farmers are willing to accept 25,138.09 NT for organic farming and "signing short-term contracts" will be compensated for 3,333.7 NT. The willingness to pay the "10-year contract" is 18,000 NT; (5) LCM divides farmers into two groups of “maintenance status” and “sustainable farming”. Farmers who maintain “the status quo” do not prefer “crop diversity” and prefer to “sign a shorter contract with the government”. This type of farmer shows that he is older than 50 years old in the socio-economic background. He is mainly a conventional farming. The farmers who are “sustainable farming” prefer “crop diversity farming” and prefer “friendly agriculture” and “organic agriculture”. In the socio-economic background, farmers show that they are younger than 50 years old, mainly friendly agriculture and organic agriculture; (6) Finally, the study initially proposed three policy payment schemes, namely “short-term friendly agriculture incentive payment” 28,261 (year/ha/NT), “short-term organic agriculture payment” 33,825 (year/ha/NT) and “long-term organic agriculture payments are 48,492 (years/ha/NT). Based on the results of the study, the research results of the friendly agriculture policy were compared and found to be applicable in the Yilan area.

目錄
第一章、緒論 1
第一節、研究背景與動機 1
第二節、研究樣區及對象 3
第三節、研究目的 8
第四節、研究流程 10
第五節、名詞定義 12
第二章、文獻回顧 13
第一節、農業政策背景與相關探討 13
第二節、政策工具應用 20
第三節、農地使用形式改變背景因素 22
第四節、農地生態系服務 27
第五節、生態系服務功能補償 (Payment for Ecosystem Services, PES) 33
第六節、生態系服務功能之評估工具 41
第三章、研究設計 57
第一節、宜蘭農地管理及使用政策效用函數評估模型 57
第二節、宜蘭農地管理及使用政策屬性與水準評估組合設計 62
第三節、宜蘭農地利用管理選擇組合方案選擇集介紹 75
第四章、實證結果 77
第一節、抽樣方法 77
第二節、敘述統計：農民基本背景 79
第三節、環境友善農業多重屬性效用函數估計結果 84
第四節、農民對各政策屬性給付之差異性探討 101
第五章、結果與討論 117
第一節、結論 117
第二節、建議 121
參考文獻 125

一、 中文文獻
（一） 學位論文
方怡茹，2009。我國農民對農地功能與價值認知研究－鄉村類型化差異比較。未出版碩士論文，國立台北大學不動產與城鄉環境學系研究所。
洪天財，2009。設定地上權方式開發工業用地政策之探討－以台糖高雄區處釋出土地為例。未出版碩士論文，樹德科技大學建築與環境設計研究所。
張曜麟，2005。都市土地使用變遷之研究。國立成功大學都市計畫研究所博士論文。
趙安迪，2011。農地釋出之生態系統功能衝擊評估：以宜蘭市為例。未出版碩士論文，中國文化大學環境設計學系研究所。
蕭敏君，2008。不只是價格—建構生產端農產價值的可能性。國立雲林科技大學文化資產維護研究所碩士論文。
賴玲慧，2009。我國農地利用趨勢與影響因素之研究。未出版碩士論文，臺中科技大學事業經營研究所。
謝依潔，2011。都市地區農地變遷對生態系服務影響之研究-以台北都會區為例。未出版碩士論文，臺北大學都市計畫研究所。

（二） 期刊
王俊豪、方珍玲、陳美芬，2011。農地多功能利用指標系統之建構。台灣土地研究，第15卷，第1期，31-71。
王思樺、張力方，2009。都市周邊土地使用與地表覆蓋變遷：驅動力與環境變遷議題。都市與計劃，第36期，第4卷，361-385。
吳振發，2004。農地轉用方案之地景生態效益評估。經社法制論叢，第33期，269-305。
吳彩珠、林峰田、林森田、許元綸，2013。宜蘭農地宅舍分布型態之變遷與其影響因素之探討。都市與計畫，第40卷，第1期，31-57。
李承嘉、方怡茹、廖本全、王玉真、藍逸之，2011。台灣農地功能之研究：一般民眾與農民態度及空間差異的比較。台灣土地研究，第14卷，第1期，29-67。
李俊霖，2009。全球氣候變遷下社經代謝作用與土地利用變遷之空間型態：SEMLUC模型之應用。都市計畫，第36卷，第4期，445-472。
李俊霖、李俊鴻，2012。農地轉用對生態系服務功能衝擊之經濟評估。農業經濟叢刊，第17卷，第2期，111-144。
李盈潔，2008。景觀指數在都市土地使用變遷上的分析應用。黎明學報，第20卷，第1(B)期，71-81。
李素馨，林敬妤，2014。農村地景破碎化與保育：以宜蘭三星鄉農地變遷為例。人文與社會科學簡訊，環境永續專題。第15卷，第2期，42-49。
周天穎、簡甫任、雷祖強，2003。都市地區土地利用變遷量化分析之研究。台灣土地研究，第6卷，第1期，105-130。
林正生、陳志成，2010。農業生活文化與生態環境功能之經濟價值評估。農林學報，第59卷，第4期，339-358。
林峰田、吳秋慧、顧嘉安、曾琬瑜，2011。台北都會區土地使用變遷模型之研究-以淡水及新莊為例。國土資訊系統通訊，第77期，62-69。
林裕彬、朱宏杰、吳振發，2011。台北都會區土地使用變遷模型之研究-以淡水及新莊為例。國土資訊系統通訊，第77期，62-69。
張學聖、陳姿伶、陳柏君，2013。台灣農地轉用與農地交易空間關聯性之研究。建築與規劃學報。第十四卷，第二/三期，167-182。
莊翰華，2002。土地使用變遷影響因素之互動機制研究—員林鎮之實證。經社法制論叢，第29期，413-440。
許家勝、陳吉仲、柳婉郁、廖述誼，2014。農業環境給付政策之研究—以有機稻田和水稻田為例。農業與經濟，55-92。
陳雅惠、陳郁蕙、廖安定、陳啟榮，2007。台灣稻穀保價收購措施調整為直接給付措施之研析。農業經濟半年刊，82 期，27-62。
劉祥熹與莊淑芳，1995。農地轉用之選擇價值與外部性效果－從農地釋出宜從長計議說起。農業經濟半年刊，第58期，73-102。
蔡明華，2003。水田種水水資源保育。中華水資源管理學會季刊 第五卷第二期，17-22。
顏愛靜、陳胤安、吳宜庭，2016。有機農業多功能性之研究：以宜蘭縣三星鄉健行村為例。台灣土地研究，第19卷第1期，69-103。

（三） 書籍
Bergstrom, J. C., (2005). Postproductivism and changing rural land use values and preferences, in S. J. Goetz, J. S. Shortle and J. C. Bergstrom, ed., Land use problems and conflicts: causes, consequence and solutions, London: Routledge, pp. 64-76.
Bennett, J., Blamey, R., (2001). The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation, New Horizons in Environmental Economics. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, Northampton, MA, USA.
Collins, L. M., Lanza, S. T., (2010). Latent Class and Latent Transition Analysis: With Applications in the Social, Behavioral, and Health Sciences, pp. 23-47
Eftec, (2009). Land Use Futures Environmental Valuation Paper for Foresight 25 August　2009.
Jongeneel, R. & L. Slangen. (2004). “Multifunctionality in griculture and the contestable public domain in the Netherlands,” in F. Brouwer, ed., Sustaining agriculrure and the rural environment – governance, policy and multifunctionality, pp. 183-203.

（四） 研討會學術發表
李俊霖，2009。台灣都市周邊農地釋出之生態系統服務衝擊。2009年農地資源空間規劃成果論壇。台北：國立台北大學。11月25日。
陳雅慧，2012。生態系服務功能補償(PES)概念之介紹。101年度「生態系暨生物多樣性 「生態系暨生物多樣性經濟倡議(TEEB)」研習會。
曾竫萌、林立、范美玲、袁浩雲，2015。當生態農場遇上里山倡議-激盪出與自然和諧共生的台灣農村發展。頁2-6。花蓮區農業專訊第94期，12月號。與自然和諧共生的農業發展-生態農業與里山倡議國際研討會。
趙安迪、李俊霖，2010。都市周邊農地釋出之生態系服務衝擊評估：以宜蘭市為例。第十四屆國土規劃論壇。台南：國立成功大學。3月27日。
趙榮台，1998。《生物多樣性公約》的發展，生物多樣性前瞻研討會。頁4-13。中華民國87年12月：林耀松編。
蔣慕琰，2005。台灣農地雜草與生物多樣性維護。台灣植物資源之多樣性發展研討會專刊。頁153-17。
鄭蕙燕，2005。「我國水稻田多功能經濟價值之效易轉移」，發表於水稻田農業多樣性機能研討會。台中：僑光技術學院。5月25日。

（五） 機關單位成果計畫
林國慶，1995。農業區劃分與農地變更使用指標之研究與應用。行政院農業委員會補助研究計劃（84 科技-2.27-企-10（1））。
郭仁華，2013。農業生物多樣性與 農業生物多樣性與農業永續經營。http://seed.agron.ntu.edu.tw/publication/201305.pdf 20160312
楊正澤。2008。昆蟲多樣性與農業永續性經營。有機生態環境營造與休閒多元化發展研討會專刊。行政院農業委員會花蓮區農業改良場編印。頁.75-91。
蔡厚男，2004。農村路網系統對景觀生態格局衝擊分析與評估。國立臺灣大學園藝學系暨研究所。計畫編號：NSC92-2415-H-002-026。
薛美麗、林幸助、任秀慧、陳添水、李麗華、黃書彥、張禾玫，2014。重要濕地開發迴避、衝擊減輕生態補償機制計畫期末成果報告。委託機關：內政部營建署城鄉發展分署。

二、英文文獻
Allen, A., (2001). Environmental planning and management of the periurban interface. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Rural-Urban Encounters: Managing the Environment of the Periurban Interface, London, UK.
Arriaza, M., Gomez-Limon, J.A., Kallas, Z., Nekhay, O., (2008). Demand for non-commodity outputs from mountain olive groves? Agric. Econ. Rev. 9 (1), 5–23.
Austin Troy, Matthew A. Wilson. (2006). Mapping ecosystem services: Practical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and value transfer. Ecological Economics 60,435–449.
Baskaran, R., Cullen, R., Takatsuka, Y., (2009)b. Estimating the value of agricultural ecosystem services: a case study of New Zealand pastoral farming. Aust. J. Environ. Manag. 16 (2), 103–112.
Bateman, I .J., (2009). Bringing the real world into economic analyses of land use　value: incorporating spatial complexity. Land Use Policy 26, S30–S42.
Beharry-Borg, N., Smart, J.C.R., Termansen, M., Hubacek, K., (2013). Evaluatingfarmers’ likely participation in a payment programme for water qualityprotection in the UK uplands. Reg. Environ. Change 13, 633–647.
Benayas, J.M.R., Martins, A., Nicolau, J.M., Schulz, J.J., (2007). Abandonment ofagricultural land: an overview of drivers and consequences. CAB Rev.:Perspect. Agric. Vet. Sci. Nutr. Nat. Resour. 2, 1–14.
Bergstrom, J.C., Dillman, B.L., Stoll, J.R., (1985). Public environmental amenity benefits of private land: the case of prime agricultural land. Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics 17 (1), 139–149.
Bernués, A., Rodríguez-Ortega, T., Alfnes, F., Clemetsen, M., Eik, L.O., (2015). Quantifying the multifunctionality of fjord and mountain agriculture by means of sociocultural and economic valuation of ecosystem services. Land Use Policy 48, 170–178.
Bert, F., North, M., Rovere, S., Tatara, E., Macal, C., & Podestá, G. (2015). Simulating agricultural land rental markets by combining agent-based models with traditional economics concepts: The case of the Argentine Pampas. Environmental Modelling & Software, 71, 97-110.
Boardman B., (2004). New directions for household energy efficiency: evidence from the UK. Energy Policy, 32 (17), 1921-1933.
Breffle, W.S., Morey, E.R., Lodder, T.S., (1998). Using contingent valuation to estimate a neighbourhood’s willingness to pay to preserve undeveloped urban land. Urban Studies 35 (4), 715–727.
Brett A. Bryan, (2013). Incentives, land use, and ecosystem services: Synthesizing complex linkages. Environmental science&policy 27, 124 – 134.
Bryan, B. A., Crossman, N. D., (2013). Impact of multiple interacting financial incentives on land use change and the supply of ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services 4, 60–72.
Brook, R.M., Davila, J.D., (2000). The Peri-Urban Interface: A Tale of Two Cities. School of Agricultural and Forest Sciences, University of Wales and Development Planning Unit, University College London, UK.
Bull, J.W., Jobstvogt, N., Bohnke-Henrichs, A., Mascarenhas, A., Sitas, N., Baulcomb, C., Lambini, C.K., Rawlins, M., Baral, H., Zahringer, J., Carter-Silk, E., Balzan, M.V., Kenter, J.O., Hayha, T., Petz, K., Koss, R., (2016). Strengths, weakness, opportunities and threats: a SWOT analysis of the ecosystem services framework. Ecosyst. Serv. 17, 99–111.
Butchart, S.H.M., Walpole, M., Collen, B., van Strien, A., Scharlemann, J.P.W., Almond, R.E.A., Baillie, J.E.M., Bomhard, B., Brown, C., Bruno, J., Carpenter, K.E., Carr, G.M., Chanson, J., Chenery, A.M., Csirke, J., Davidson, N.C., Dentener, F., Foster, M., Galli, A., Galloway, J.N., Genovesi, P., Gregory, R.D., Hockings, M., Kapos, V., Lamarque, J.-F., Leverington, F., Loh, J., McGeoch, M.A., McRae, L., Minasyan, A., Morcillo, M.H., Oldfield, T.E.E., Pauly, D., Quader, S., Revenga, C., Sauer, J.R., Skolnik, B., Spear, D., Stanwell-Smith, D., Stuart, S.N., Symes, A., Tierney, M., Tyrrell, T.D., Vié, J.-C., Watson, R., (2010). Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science 328, 1164–1168.
Christensen, T., Pedersen, A. B., Nielsen, H. O., Mørkbak, M. R., Hasler, B., & Denver, S. (2011). Determinants of farmers’ willingness to participate in subsidy schemes for pesticide-free buffer zones—A choice experiment study. Ecological Economics, 70(8), 1558-1564
Colombo, S., Hanley, N., & Louviere, J. (2009). Modelling preference heterogeneity in stated choice data: An analysis for public goods generated by agriculture. Agricultural Economics, 40, 307–322.
Colombo, S., Hanley, N., Calatrava-Requena, J., (2005). Designing policy for reducing the off-farm effects of soil erosion using choice experiments. J. Agric. Econ. 56 (1), 81–95.
Costarelli, S., & Colloca, P. (2004). The effects of attitudinal ambivalence on pro-environmental behavioral intentions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 279288.
Daily, G.E., ed., (1997), Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Sheng-Han-Erin Chang , Wuepper, D., Heissenhuber, A., & Sauer, J. (2017). Investigating rice farmers’ preferences for an agri-environmental scheme: Is an eco-label a substitute for payments?. Land Use Policy, 64, 374-382.
Kaczan, D., Brent M. Swallow,W.L. (Vic) Adamowicz, (2013). Designing a payments for ecosystem services (PES) program to reduce deforestation in Tanzania: An assessment of payment approaches. Ecological Economics 95, 20–30.
Di Giulio, M., Holderegger, R., Tobias, S., (2009). Effects of habitat and landscape fragmentation on humans and biodiversity in densely populated landscapes. Journal of Environmental Management 90 (10), 2959–2968.
Duke. J. M., Borchers. A. M., Johnston. R. J., Absetz. S. (2012). Sustainable agricultural management contracts: Using choice experiments to estimate the benefits of land preservation and conservation practices. Ecological Economics. 74. 95-103.
Ehrlich, P. R. & Ehrlich, A. H. (1992). The Value Biodiversity. Ambio, 21(3), 219-226.
Fabio Bartolini, Davide Viaggi. (2013). The common agricultural policy and the determinants of changes in EU farm size. Land Use Policy. 31. 126–135.
Fleischer, A., Tsur, Y., (2000). Measuring the recreational value of agricultural landscape. European Review of Agricultural Economics 27 (3), 385–398.
Frans J. Sijtsma, C. Martijn van der Heide, Arjen van Hinsberg. (2013). Beyond monetary measurement: How to evaluate projects and policies using the ecosystem services framework. environmental science & policy. 32. 14-25.
García-Llorente M., Martín-López B., Nunes P.A.L.D., Castro A.J., Montes C. (2012). A choice experiment study for land-use scenarios in semi-arid watershed environments. Journal of Arid Environments . 87. 219-230.
Gustavson, K., & Kennedy, E. (2010). Approaching Wetland Valuation in Canada. Wetlands, 30(6), 1065-1076.
Hanley, N., Barbier, E., (2009). Pricing Nature: Cost-Benefit Analysis and Environmental Policy. Printed by MPG Books Group, UK.
Hanley, N., Mourato, S., Wright, R.E., (2001). Choice modelling approaches: a superior alternative for environmental valuation? J. Econ. Surv. 15 (3), 435–462.
Henk J. Westhoek, Koen P. Overmars, Henk van Zeijts. (2013). The provision of public goods by agriculture: Critical questions for effective and efficient policy making. environmental science & policy. 32. 5-13.
Huang, J., Tichit, M., Poulot, M., Darly, S., Li, S., Petit, C., Aubry, C., (2015). Comparative review of multifunctionality and ecosystem services in sustainable agriculture. J. Environ. Manage. 149, 138–147.
Ian J. Bateman, Amii R. Harwood, Georgina M. Mace, Robert T. Watson, David J. Abson, Barnaby Andrews, Amy Binner, Andrew Crowe, Brett H. Day, Steve Dugdale, Carlo Fezzi, Jo Foden, David Hadley, Roy Haines-Young, Mark Hulme, Andreas Kontoleon, Andrew A. Lovett, Paul Munday, Unai Pascual, James Paterson, Grischa Perino,Antara Sen, Gavin Siriwardena, Daan van Soest, Mette Termansen. (2013). Bringing Ecosystem Services into Economic Decision-Making: Land Use in the United Kingdom. Science 341, 45-50.
Jianjun, J., Chong, J., Thuy, T.D., Lun, L., (2013). Public preferences for cultivated land protection in Wenling city, China: a choice experiment study. Land use Policy 30 (1), 337–343.
Jones, W, S,. (2013). Connecting payments for ecosystem services and agri-environment regulation: An analysis of the Welsh Glastir Scheme. Journal of Rural Studies. 31. 77-86.
Juutinen, A., Mitani, Y., Mäntymaa, E., Shoji, Y., & Siikamäki, P., (2011). Combining ecological and recreational aspects in national park management: A choice experiment application, Ecological Economics, 70, 1231-1239.
Kaiser, F. G., Oerke B., & Bogner, F, X., (2007). Behavior-based environmental attitude: Development of an instrument for adolescents. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27, 242-251.
Kikuko S , Shunsuke M , Yoshiki Y. (2013) . Public preferences for biodiversity conservation and climate-change mitigation: A choice experiment using ecosystem services indicators. Land Use Policy 34, 282–293.
Lee, C. K., & W. Mjelde, J. 2007. Valuation of ecotourism resources using a contingent valuation method: The case of the Korean DMZ. Ecological Economics, 63(2-3), 511-520.
Liekens I, Schaafsma M , De N. L, Broekx S , Staes J , Aertsens J , Brouwer R . (2013) . Developing a value function for nature development and land use policy in Flanders, Belgium . Land Use Policy . 30 , 549–559.
Louviere, J. J., Hensher, D. A., & Swait, J. D. (2000). Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Ma, Y., Wang, Z., Pu, C., (2011). Analysis on the relationship between cotton production and land degradation in south of Xinjiang. Ecol. Econ. 3, 148-151 (in Chinese).
Maxwell, S., 1994. Valuation of rural environmental improvements using contingent valuation methodology: a case study of the Marston Vale Community Forest project. Journal of Environmental Management 41 (4), 385–399.
McConnell, V., Walls, M., (2005). The Value of Open Space: Evidence from Studies of Nonmarket Benefits. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
Merton, R., (1936(. The unanticipated consequences of purposive social action. American Sociological Review1, 894–904.
Munroe, D.K., Croissant, C., York, A.M., (2005). Land use policy and landscape fragmentation in an urbanizing region: assessing the impact of zoning. Applied Geography 25 (2), 121–141.
Nengwang Chen, Huancheng Li, Lihong Wang, (2009). A GIS-based approach for mapping direct use value of ecosystem services at a county scale: Management implications. Ecological Economics, 68. 2768–2776.
Neuppenau, E.A., (2002). Agro-Ecologically Oriented Land Use and the Creation of Viable Rural Urban Interfaces. 2nd Newsletter March 2002 Peri-Urban Development in South East Asia.
Novikova, A., Rocchi, L., & Vitunskienė, V. (2017). Assessing the benefit of the agroecosystem services: Lithuanian preferences using a latent class approach. Land Use Policy, 68, 277-286.
Patricia Abelairas-Etxebarria, Inma Astorkiza, (2012). Farmland prices and land-use changes in periurban protected natural areas. Land Use Policy 29. 674 - 683.
Pearce, D.W., (1991). An economic approach to saving the tropical forests. In: Helm, D. (Ed.), Economic Policy towards the Environment. Blackwell, Oxford. 239–262 .
Plantinga, A.J., Lubowski, R., Stavins, R., (2002). The effects of potential land development on agricultural land prices. Journal of Urban Economics 52, 561–581.
Power, A. G. (2010). Ecosystem services and agriculture: tradeoffs and synergies. Philosophical transactions of the royal society B: biological sciences, 365(1554), 2959-2971.
Pyle, L.A., (1985). “The land market beyond the urban fringe”, Geographical Review, 75(1): 32-43.
Rajesh Bahadur Thapa, Yuji Murayama. (2008). Land evaluation for peri-urban agriculture using analytical hierarchical process and geographic information system techniques: A case study of Hanoi. Land Use Policy. 25. 225–239.
Rocamora-Montiel, B., Colombo, S., & Salazar-Ordóñez, M. (2014). Social attitudes in southern Spain to shape EU agricultural policy. Journal of Policy Modeling, 36(1), 156-171.
Rodríguez-Ortega, T., Bernués, A., Alfnes, F., (2016). Psychographic profile affects willingness to pay for ecosystem services provided by Mediterranean high nature value farmland. Ecol. Econ. 128, 232–245.
Ruto, E., Garrod, G., (2009). Investigating farmers’ preferences for the design of agri-environment schemes: A choice experiment approach. J. Environ. Plan. Manage.52, 631–647.
Schulz, N., Breustedt, G., Latacz-Lohmann, U., (2014). Assessing farmers’ willingnessto accept greening: Insights from a discrete choice experiment in Germany. J.Agric. Econ. 65, 26–48.
Sergio Gomezy Paloma, Pavel Ciaian, Adriana Cristoiu, Frank Sammeth. (2013). The future of agriculture. Prospective scenarios and modelling approaches for policy analysis. Land Use Policy. 31. 102-113.
Sheng-Han-Erin Chang , Wuepper, D., Heissenhuber, A., & Sauer, J. (2017). Investigating rice farmers’ preferences for an agri-environmental scheme: Is an eco-label a substitute for payments?. Land Use Policy, 64, 374-382.
Sophie Wynne-Jones, (2013). Connecting payments for ecosystem services and agri-environment regulation:An analysis of the Welsh Glastir Scheme. Journal of Rural Studies 31, 77-86.
Sullivan, W.C., Lovell, S.T., (2006). Improving the visual quality of commercial development at the rural-urban fringe. Landscape and Urban Planning. 77. 152-166.
TEEB. (2010)a. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: ecological and economic foundations [Adobe Reader X version]. http://teebweb.org/
TEEB. (2010)b. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: mainstreaming the economicsof nature: a synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. [Adobe Reader X version]. http://teebweb.org/
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB), http://www.teebweb.org/,2013/9/15.
Torras, M., (2000). The total economic value of Amazonian deforestation, 1978-1993. Ecological Economics 33, 283-297.
Vijesh V. Krishna, Adam G. Drucker, Unai Pascual, Prabhakaran T. Raghu, E.D. Israel Oliver King, (2013). Estimating compensation payments for on-farm conservation of agricultural biodiversity in developing countries. Ecological Economics 87, 110-123.
Villanueva, A.J., Gómez-Limón, J.A., Arriaza, M., Rodríguez-Entrena, M. (2015). The design of agri-environmental schemes: Farmers’ preferences insouthern Spain. Land Use Policy. 46. 142–154.
Vivithkeyoonvong, S., Jourdain, D., (2017). Willingness to pay for ecosystem services provided by irrigated agriculture in Northeast Thailand. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 13 (1), 14–26.
Walsh, R., Loomis, J., & Gillman, R. .(1984). Valuing option, existence, and bequest demand for wilderness. Land Economics, 60(1), 14-29.
Wattage, P., & Mardle, S. (2008). Total economic value of wetland conservation in Sri Lanka identifying use and non-use values. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 16(5), 359-369.
Willis, K.G., Garrod, G.D., (1993). Valuing landscape: a contingent valuation approach. Journal of Environmental Management 37 (1), 1–22.
Wilson, E. O. (1992). The Diversity of life. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Yang, W., Chang, J., Xu, B., Peng, C., & Ge, Y. (2008). Ecosystem service value assessment for constructed wetlands: A case study in Hangzhou, China. Ecological Economics, 68(1-2), 116-125.
Zhang, H., Wu, J., Zheng, Q., Yu, Y., (2003). A preliminary study of oasis evolution in the Tarim Basin, Xinjiang, China. J. Arid Environ. 55, 545-553.
Zhang, W., Ricketts, T. H., Kremen, C., Carney, K., & Swinton, S. M. (2007). Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture. Ecological economics, 64(2), 253-260.

三、相關網頁
千年生態系評估，http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index.html，2013/9/10。
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB), http://www.teebweb.org/,2013/9/15.
全國法規資料庫，http://law.moj.gov.tw/Index.aspx，2013/10/4。
行政院農業委員會農糧署http://www.afa.gov.tw/
行政院主計處http://www.dgbas.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=15452&CtNode=4651&mp=1
公共電視－我們的島，http://web.pts.org.tw/php/html/island/list.php?pbeno=1135，2013/7/18。
徐源泰，2001。生物多樣性、生物技術與生物產業。環境資訊中心。https://e-info.org.tw/issue/biotech/2001/issue-biotech01010301.htm 20160312
宜蘭縣政府主計處，2017。取自https://goo.gl/9j5z2Y