发展测土配方施肥技术是破解当前中国农业资源环境约束趋紧、耕地质量退化等问题的关键路径，但是在现阶段，中国测土配方施肥技术扩散速度仍然较慢。具体而言，尽管中国从2005年开始大力推广测土配方施肥技术，截至2014年4月测土配方施肥技术推广面积高达14亿亩次，但是在现实中，农户对测土配方施肥技术的采用率偏低，全国范围的技术采用率不足1/3。因此，剖析制约测土配方施肥技术扩散及采用效果的关键因素，对促进农户采用测土配方施肥技术具有重要意义。

虽然已有文献对测土配方施肥技术的扩散机制开展了较多研究，但鲜有文献关注政府的技术推广种类对该技术扩散及采用效果的影响。不同测土配方施肥技术扩散种类下，技术扩散速度可能存在差异。如在本文的调研样本中，推广1种配方肥的行政区域，与推广多种配方肥的行政区域，农户施用配方肥的比例存在差异，且推广多种时农户施用配方肥的比例反而更低。政府技术推广种类不同，对测土配方施肥技术扩散及采用效果产生的影响可能会不同，然而，已有研究对此关注较少。

不仅如此，在农户分化及规模化经营加快背景下，激励农户采用测土配方施肥技术亦需考虑到不同家庭禀赋对他们采用测土配方施肥技术的差异，就其关系展开分析。不同规模农户由于资金、知识等家庭禀赋的差异，对测土配方施肥技术的采用决策可能会表现出明显的异质性。

那么，为什么推广不同的技术种类时，测土配方施肥技术的采用概率存在差异呢？这背后的机理又是什么？是因为不同的技术推广种类对技术的采用效果或农户的支付意愿产生差异化影响吗？还是因为不同的技术推广种类对企业的生产成本产生差异化影响，进而影响测土配方施肥技术在农户层面的采用？这一系列问题的回答需要深入系统的剖析和科学规范的论证。

为了回答以上问题，本文基于成本—收益理论及测土配方施肥技术因地制宜的属性，构建测土配方施肥技术扩散的理论分析框架。本文以不同的技术推广种类作为切入点，分别从收益（即技术的采用效果、农户支付意愿）及成本（即企业供给）两个方面入手，分析不同的技术推广种类对技术采用效果、农户支付意愿、企业供给成本的差异化影响，深入研究测土配方施肥技术扩散的理论机制及制约因素。在此基础之上，本研究不仅利用土壤肥力监测数据、农户调研数据及企业访谈数据对理论假说开展实证检验，而且通过核算测土配方施肥技术采用的成本收益，对适宜补贴等问题进行进一步回答。本文的相应研究内容和主要研究结论归纳如下：

研究内容一：描述中国推广测土配方施肥技术的必要性及总结其他国家发展测土配方施肥技术的相关经验。

通过梳理文献及整理数据发现：首先，目前中国化肥的施用仍然存在化肥施用不合理的问题，需大力推广测土配方施肥技术。其次，发达国家推广测土配方施肥技术的经验证据表明，与小规模农场相比，大规模农场采用测土配方施肥技术的概率较高。

研究内容二：不同技术推广种类下测土配方施肥技术的环境及经济影响评估。

本文利用江苏省多年的土壤肥力监测数据和跨省的农户调查数据，基于动态面板模型及柯布-道格拉斯生产函数模型，对研究内容二进行实证分析。研究结果表明，在不同的技术推广种类下，采用测土配方施肥技术对土壤养分含量及水稻产量的影响不同，技术采用效果存在差异。具体而言，本研究结论可从以下两方面展开。

①与施用传统化肥相比，如果政府推广的配方肥种类单一，施用配方肥并不能显著平衡土壤养分，但当政府推广多种配方肥时，施用配方肥可以平衡土壤养分，改善土壤质量。就江苏省而言，推广多种配方肥可以显著提高土壤速效钾含量、降低土壤全氮含量。

②与施用推广1种的配方肥相比，当政府推广的配方肥种类多于一种时，施用配方肥可以提高水稻种植户的单产，进而提高其收入。

研究内容三：不同技术推广种类下农户对测土配方施肥技术的需求、采用及价格影响。

本文利用跨省的农户调查数据，基于实验经济学、双栏模型以及中介效应模型对研究内容三进行实证分析。研究结果表明，对于本文调研的样本区域而言，与推广1种配方肥相比，推广多种配方肥时，农户的支付意愿和企业的生产成本均增加，但由于企业生产成本增加的幅度更高，较高的配方肥价格抑制了农户的采用。且与小户相比，规模户对适用范围更精准的配方肥的支付意愿更高，采用概率更高。具体而言，本研究结论可从以下两方面展开。

①在不同的技术推广种类下，农户对配方肥的边际支付意愿存在差异。与政府全县仅推广一种配方肥相比，受访者愿意为适用范围更精准的配方肥多支付0.653元/千克至4.461元/千克，且与小户相比，规模户的边际支付意愿更高。

②对于本文调研的样本区域而言，与推广单一种类的配方肥相比，政府推广多种配方肥对农户的技术采用决策产生显著的负向影响。推广多种配方肥时，农户采用概率及程度下降的主要原因是企业生产成本上升，农户获取的配方肥价格升高，对农户的采用产生显著的负向影响。另外，本文的研究结果表明，与小户相比，规模户采用测土配方施肥技术的概率和程度更高。

研究内容四：不同技术推广种类下企业供给测土配方施肥技术的成本差异及原因分析

本文利用公开统计数据、企业访谈数据及相关文献，基于案例分析方法和成本收益方法对研究内容四进行分析。研究结果表明：

①在本文所选取的调研样本区，若政府推广1种配方肥，则政府不需要就配方肥价格进行补贴，只需考虑基础性工作成本，如检测土样的成本；若政府推广多种配方肥，则政府不仅需要考虑基础性工作的成本，亦需要每亩至少补贴1.308元，减少配方肥施用环节的成本，才能让农户有激励施用配方肥。

②生产工艺及制度环境是引致不同技术推广种类下，企业供给配方肥时生产成本产生差异的原因。就生产工艺而言。配方肥区域性、小批量需求的特点使得大型化肥企业的规模效益难以实现，从而提高了配方肥的生产成本。此外，多样化产品配方需求与单一化产品供给之间的矛盾也是引致生产成本上升的主要原因。就制度环境而言。目前的配方肥定点生产企业招标采购模式可能会导致诸如政府采购规模小、供应商及采购专家缺乏、“寻租”、“设租”等一系列问题，进而对配方肥的生产成本产生不利影响。

根据上述研究结论，可以得到以下几点政策启示：

第一，农业部门在推广配方肥时，既需考虑因地制宜施肥的特性，亦需考虑到精准投入的高昂成本及品种过多带来的负向影响，推广适度的配方肥种类。

第二，政府在补贴发放过程中，为增强补贴政策的指向性、实效性，要重点扶持规模户，但同时也需兼顾到小户采用测土配方施肥技术的需求，处理好两者的关系。

第三，政府应加大财政补贴力度，为测土配方施肥技术及相关产品的研发提供支持。测土配方施肥技术的高投资成本是抑制该技术采用率的关键因素，随着技术进步，人们采用测土配方施肥技术的成本将逐渐减少，测土配方施肥技术扩散缓慢的困境将得到缓解。

第四，政府应制定相关政策积极引导农村土地经营权的有序流转，提升土地经营规模。

第五，对于配方肥招标政策而言，一方面，应严格控制招标程序，实现招标工作透明化。另一方面，为解决当前的采购规模小、供应商数量有限、专业人才缺乏等问题，可将招标单位由县级改为更高一级，将县域采购活动统一在市场内进行。

The development of soil testing and formulated fertilization technology is a critical way to solve the current problems of tightening agricultural resources and environmental constraints and the degradation of cultivated land quality in China. However, at this stage, the diffusion of soil testing and formulated fertilization technology in China is still slow. To be specific, although China began to promote the soil testing and formulated fertilization technology vigorously, as of April 2014, the area of the soil testing and formulated fertilization technology has reached 1.4 billion mu. Still the adoption rate of soil testing formulated fertilization technology is low, and the national technology adoption rate is less than 1/3. Analyzing the diffusion mechanism of soil testing and formulated fertilization technology, and analyzing the influencing factors of soil testing and formulated fertilization technology diffusion and adoption effect, are of considerable significance to promote the adoption of soil testing and formulated fertilization technology at the farmer level.

Existing literature has carried out more research on the technology diffusion mechanism. Still, few works of literature have paid attention to the influence of the government's technology extension kind on the diffusion and adoption of precision agricultural technology. Under different agricultural technology diffusion kinds, the speed of technology diffusion may vary. For example, in the survey sample of this article, the proportion of county that promotes one kind of formula fertilizer is different from that of county that promotes a variety of formula fertilizers. Moreover, the proportion of applying formula fertilizers is lower when a variety of formula fertilizers is promoted. Different government technology promotion kinds may have different impacts on the diffusion and adoption of soil testing and formulated fertilization technology. However, there have been few studies focusing on this.

In the context of the differentiation of farmers and the acceleration of large-scale operations, motivating farmers to adopt soil testing and formulated fertilization techniques also needs to consider the differences of family endowments. Due to differences in family endowments such as capital and knowledge, different-scale farmers may show obvious heterogeneity in their decision-making on the adoption of soil testing and formulated fertilization technology.

So why is there a difference in the spread of soil testing and formulated fertilization technology under different types of technology promotion? What is the theoretical mechanism behind this? Is it because different types of technology promotion have different effects on the effect of technology adoption? Or do different types of technology promotion have a differentiated impact on the needs of heterogeneous farmers of scale, which then affects the spread of precision fertilization technology? Or do different types of technology promotion have a differential impact on the production costs of enterprises, which then affects the adoption of soil testing and formulated fertilization technology at the farmer level? The answer to this series of questions requires in-depth systematic analysis and normative scientific demonstration.

This paper builds a theoretical analysis framework for the diffusion of soil testing and formulated fertilization technology based on the cost and benefit theory and precise attributes of soil testing and formulated fertilization technology. This article uses different types of technology promotion as the entry point, starting from two aspects: benefit (ie, the effect of technology adoption, farmers' willingness to pay) and cost (ie, enterprise supply) to study in-depth of the theoretical mechanism and constraints of diffusion soil testing and formulated fertilization technology. On this basis, this study will further use the soil fertility monitoring data, farmer survey data, and enterprise interview data to conduct empirical tests on the theoretical hypothesis and to sort out relevant policies and measures in countries with high rates of soil testing and formulated fertilization technology adoption. Besides, by calculating the costs and benefits of the soil test formulation technology, this paper is to further solve problems such as subsidies. This paper also summarizes policies and rules to provide a decision-making basis for promoting the diffusion of soil testing and formulated fertilization technology. The main research contents and conclusions of this article are as follows:

Part 1: Describe the necessity of promoting soil testing and formulated fertilization technology in China and summarize relevant experience of developing soil testing and formulated fertilization technology in other countries.

This chapter collects literature and data, and then finds, at present, the application of chemical fertilizers in China still has the problem of unreasonable application of chemical fertilizers, and compared with small-scale farms, the adoption rate of soil testing and formulated technology on large-scale farms is higher.

Part 2: The impact of different technology extension kinds on the adoption effect of soil testing and formulated fertilization technology.

This chapter uses the soil fertility monitoring data of Jiangsu Province for many years and cross-provincial farmer survey data, based on the dynamic panel model and Cobb Douglas production function model, to conduct an empirical analysis of the research content two. The results show that under different technology popularization modes, soil testing and formulated fertilization techniques have different effects on adoption effect. To be specific, this conclusion can be divided into two aspects as following.

Firstly, compared with the application of traditional fertilizers, if the type of formula fertilizer promoted by the government is single, the use of formula fertilizer will not significantly improve soil fertility. Still, when the government advises more than one type of formula fertilizer, the application of formula fertilizer can balance soil nutrients and enhance the quality of the soil. As far as Jiangsu Province is concerned, the promotion of many formula fertilizers can significantly increase soil available potassium content and reduce soil total nitrogen content.

Secondly, compared with the application of one type of formula fertilizer, when the government promotes a variety of formula fertilizers, the application of formula fertilizers can increase the yield of rice farmers and the income per mu of rice.

Part 3: The demand, adoption and price impact of farmers on soil testing and formulated fertilization technology under different types of technology promotion.  

This chapter uses cross-provincial farmer survey data, and bases on the experimental economics, double hurdle model to conduct an empirical analysis of research content three. The research results show that for the sample area investigated in this article, compared with the promotion of one type of formula fertilizer, the farmers’ willingness to pay and the production cost both increase when a variety of formulated fertilizers is promoted. But the increase in the production cost of the company is even greater. And higher prices of formula fertilizers inhibited farmers' adoption. Besides compared with small households, large-scale households have a higher willingness to pay for formula fertilizers with a more precise scope of application and a higher probability of adoption. Specifically, the conclusions of this study can be developed from the following two aspects.

Firstly, under different technology promotion kinds, there are differences in the marginal willingness of farmers to adopt formula fertilizers. Compared with the government's promotion of only one formula fertilizer throughout the county, respondents are willing to pay 0.653 yuan / kg to 4.461 yuan / kg for more accurate formula fertilizers. Farmers with larger land size have higher willingness to pay.

Secondly, when promoting a variety of formula fertilizers, the main reason for the decline in the probability and degree of adoption of farm households is that the production costs of enterprises increase, and the price of formula fertilizers obtained by farmers increases, which has a significant negative impact on the adoption of farm households. Besides, when promoting a variety of formula fertilizers, there are differences in the decision-making between large-scale families and small households to adopt soil testing formulated fertilization technology. Compared with small families, large-scale households have a higher probability and degree of applying soil testing formulated fertilization technology.

Part 4: Analysis of the reasons for the difference in the cost of soil testing and formula fertilization technology under different types of technology promotion.

This article uses public statistical data, corporate interview data and related literature to analyze the fourth research content based on case analysis methods and cost-benefit methods. Research indicates:

Firstly, in the survey sample area selected in this article, if the government promotes one type of formula fertilizer, the government does not need to subsidize the formula fertilizer price, but only needs to consider basic work costs, such as the cost of testing soil samples. If the government promotes multiple formula fertilizers, the government not only needs to consider the cost of basic work, but also needs to subsidize at least 1.308 yuan per mu to reduce the price of formula fertilizer, so that farmers can have incentives to apply formula fertilizer.

Secondly, the production technoloy and policy are the reasons for the difference in production costs when a variety of formula fertilization is promoted. As far as the production technology is concerned. The characteristics of regional and small-batch demand for formula fertilizers make it difficult for large-scale fertilizer companies to achieve scale benefits, thereby increasing the production cost of formula fertilizers. In addition, the contradiction between the demand for diversified product formulations and the supply of singular products is also the main reason for the increase in production costs. As far as the policy is concerned. The current bidding model may cause a series of problems such as small government procurement, lack of suppliers and procurement experts, rent-seeking, and other problems, which will adversely affect the production cost of formula fertilizers.

According to the above research conclusions, this paper obtains the following policy implications:

First, when the agricultural sector promotes formula fertilizers, it is necessary to consider the characteristics of fertilizing according to local conditions, as well as the high cost of precise input and the negative impact of excessive varieties, and promote appropriate types of formula fertilizers. Second, in the process of granting subsidies, the government should focus on supporting large-scale households to enhance the directivity and effectiveness of the subsidy policy, but it also needs to consider the needs of small households to adopt soil testing formulated fertilization technology and handle the relationship between the two. Third, the government should increase financial subsidies to provide support for the research and development of precision farming technologies and related products. The high investment cost of soil testing and formulated fertilization technology is a critical factor that inhibits the adoption rate of this technology. With the advancement of technology, the cost of people adopting soil testing and formulated fertilization technology will gradually decrease, and the slow spread of soil testing and formulated fertilization technology will be eased. Fourth, promote land circulation and increase the scale of land. Fifth, regarding the formula fertilizer bidding policy, on the one hand, the bidding procedures should be strictly controlled to achieve transparency. On the other hand, to solve the current problems of small procurement scale, limited number of suppliers, and lack of professional talents, the tendering unit can be changed from the county level to a higher level.

[1]Adesina, A.A., and J. Baidu-Forson. 1995. “Farmers’ perceptions and adoption of new agricultural technology: evidence from analysis in Burkina Faso and Guinea, West Africa.” Agricultural economics 13（1）:1–9.

[2] Adhikari, A., A.K. Mishra, and S. Chintawar. 2009. “Adoption of technology and its impact on profitability of young and beginning farmers: A quantile regression approach.”

[3] Adnan N, Nordin S M, Rahman I, et al. "Adoption of green fertilizer technology among paddy farmers: A possible solution for Malaysian food security." Land use policy, 2017, 63: 38-52.

[4] Adrian, A.M., S.H. Norwood, and P.L. Mask. 2005. “Producers’ perceptions and attitudes toward precision agriculture technologies.” Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 48（3）:256–271. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168169905000852.

[5] Ajzen, I. 2011. The theory of planned behaviour: reactions and reflections. Taylor & Francis.

[6] Alene A D, Manyong V M, Omanya G, et al. 2008. "Smallholder market participation under transactions costs: Maize supply and fertilizer demand in Kenya." Food Policy 33（4）:318-328.

[7] Ascough II, J.C., D.L. Hoag, W.M. Frasier, and G.S. McMaster. 1999. “Computer use in agriculture: an analysis of Great Plains producers.” Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 23（3）:189–204. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168169999000447.

[8] Aubert, B.A., A. Schroeder, and J. Grimaudo. 2012. “IT as enabler of sustainable farming: An empirical analysis of farmers’ adoption decision of precision agriculture technology.” Decision support systems 54（1）:510–520.

[9] Auernhammer, H. 2001. “Precision farming — the environmental challenge.” Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 30（1）:31–43. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168169900001538.

[10] Austin, E., J. Willock, I. Deary, G. Gibson, J. Dent, G. Edwards-Jones, O. Morgan, R. Grieve, and A. Sutherland. 1998. “Empirical models of farmer behaviour using psychological, social and economic variables. Part I: linear modelling.” Agricultural Systems 58（2）:203–224.

[11] Babu, Suresh Chandra, and Pramod Kumar Joshi, eds. 2019. "Agricultural Extension Reforms in South Asia: Status, Challenges, and Policy Options." Academic Press.

[12] Batley R. 2008. "On Ordinal Utility, Cardinal Utility and Random Utility." Theory & Decision, 64（1）:37-63.

[13] Batte, M. 1999. "Precision Farming - Factors Influencing Profitability."

[14] Batte, M., E. Jones, and G. Schnitkey. 1990. “Computer Use by Ohio Commercial Farmers.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72（4）:935–945. Available at: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:72:y:1990:i:4:p:935-945.

[15] Battese G E. 1997."A note on the estimation of Cobb‐Douglas production functions when some explanatory variables have zero values." Journal of agricultural Economics 48（1‐3）: 250-252.

[16] Batz, F. J., Peters, K. J., & Janssen, W. 1999. "The influence of technology characteristics on the rate and speed of adoption." Agricultural Economics 21（2）, 121-130.

[17] Beedell, J., and T. Rehman. 2000. “Using social-psychology models to understand farmers’ conservation behaviour.” Journal of rural studies 16（1）:117–127.

[18] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2009.00387.x.

[19] Borges, J.R. 2015. "The role of psychological factors in the adoption of improved natural grassland by Brazilian cattle farmers in Biome Pampa." Wageningen University.

[20] Calkins, P., and P.P. Thant. 2011. “Sustainable agro-forestry in Myanmar: from intentions to behavior.” Environment, Development and Sustainability 13（2）:439–461. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-010-9270-8.

[21] Cezar, I. M. 1999. "A participatory knowledge information system for beef farmers – a case applied to the state of Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil." University of Edinburg, Edinburg.

[22] Conley, T., and U. Christopher. 2001. “Social learning through networks: The adoption of new a gricultural technologies in Ghana.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83（3）:668–673.

[23] Daberkow, S.G., and W.D. McBride. 2003. “Farm and Operator Characteristics Affecting the Awareness and Adoption of Precision Agriculture Technologies in the US.” Precision Agriculture 4（2）:163–177. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024557205871.

[24] D’Antoni, J.M., A.K. Mishra, and H. Joo. 2012. “Farmers’ perception of precision technology: The case of autosteer adoption by cotton farmers.” Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 87:121–128. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168169912001317.

[25] Davis, F.D. 1989. “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology.” MIS quarterly:319–340.

[26] Davis, F.D., and V. Venkatesh. 2004. “Toward preprototype user acceptance testing of new information systems: implications for software project management.” IEEE Transactions on Engineering management 51（1）:31–46.

[27] De Souza Filho, H.M., T. Young, and M.P. Burton. 1999. “Factors Influencing the Adoption of Sustainable Agricultural Technologies: Evidence from the State of Esp??rito Santo, Brazil.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 60（2）:97–112. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162598000407.

[28] Defrancesco, E., P. Gatto, F. Runge, and S. Trestini. 2008. “Factors affecting farmers’ participation in agri-environmental measures: A Northern Italian perspective.” Journal of agricultural economics 59（1）:114–131.

[29] D’Emden, F.H., R.S. Llewellyn, and M.P. Burton. 2006. “Adoption of conservation tillage in Australian cropping regions: an application of duration analysis.” Technological Forecasting & Social Change 73（6）:630–647.

[30] Diederen, P., Meijl, and A. Wolters. 1999. “Innovation in Agriculture: Innovators, Early Adoptors and Laggards.” Available at: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01201041/document

[31] Doss, C. R., & Morris, M. L. 2001. "How does gender affect the adoption of agricultural innovations? The case of improved maize technology in Ghana." Agricultural Economics, 25（1）, 27-39.

[32] Edwards-Jones, G. 2006. “Modelling farmer decision-making: concepts, progress and challenges.” Animal science 82（6）:783–790.

[33] Featherstone, A.M., G.A. Moghnieh, and B.K. Goodwin. 1995. “Farm-level nonparametric analysis of cost-minimization and profit-maximization behavior.” Agricultural Economics 13（2）:109–117.

[34] Feder, G. 1982. “Adoption of interrelated agricultural innovations?: complementarity and the impacts of risk, scale and credit （English）.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 64（1）:94–101.

[35] Feder, G., R.E. Just, and D. Zilberman. 1985. “Adoption of Agricultural Innovations in Developing Countries: A Survey.” Economic Development & Cultural Change 33（2）:255–298.

[36] Feder, G., and Dina L. Umali. 1993. “The adoption of agricultural innovations: A review.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 43（3）:215–239. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/004016259390053A.

[37] Fischer, A.R.H., P.J. Beers, H. van Latesteijn, K. Andeweg, E. Jacobsen, H. Mommaas, H.C.M. van Trijp, and A. （Tom） Veldkamp. 2012. “Transforum system innovation towards sustainable food. A review.” Agronomy for Sustainable Development 32（2）:595–608. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-011-0067-4.

[38] Flett, R., Alpass, F., Humphries, S., Massey, C., Morriss, S., & Long, N. 2004. "The technology acceptance model and use of technology in New Zealand dairy farming." Agricultural Systems, 80（2）, 199-211.

[39] Gasson, R. 1973. “Goals and values of farmers.” Journal of agricultural economics 24（3）:521–542.

[40] Gefen, D., and D.W. Straub. 2000. “The relative importance of perceived ease of use in IS adoption: A study of e-commerce adoption.” Journal of the association for Information Systems 1（1）:8.

[41] Ghadim, A. A., & Pannell, D. J. 1999. "A conceptual framework of adoption of an

[42] agricultural innovation." Agricultural Economics 21（2）, 145-154.

[43] Ghadim, A.K.A., D.J. Pannell, and M.P. Burton. 2005. “Risk, uncertainty, and learning in adoption of a crop innovation.” Agricultural Economics 33（1）:1–9. Available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2005.00433.x.

[44] Ghimire, R., and W.-C. Huang. 2016. “Adoption pattern and welfare impact of agricultural technology: empirical evidence from rice farmers in Nepal.” Journal of South Asian Development 11（1）:113–137.

[45] Gillespie, J., Kim, S., & Paudel, K. 2007. "Why don't producers adopt best management practices?" An analysis of the beef cattle industry. Agricultural Economics 36（1）, 89-102.

[46] Greene W H, Hensher D A.2012. "Revealing additional dimensions of preference heterogeneity in a latent class mixed multinomial logit model." Applied Economics 45（14）: 1897-1902.

[47] Greiner, R., L. Patterson, and O. Miller. 2009. “Motivations, risk perceptions and adoption of conservation practices by farmers.” Agricultural systems 99（2–3）:86–104.

[48] Gulis G, Czompolyova M, Cerhan J R. 2002. "An ecologic study of nitrate in municipal drinking water and cancer incidence in Trnava District, Slovakia." Environmental research 88（3）: 182-187.

[49] He, P., S. Li, J. Jin, H. Wang, C. Li, Y. Wang, and R. Cui. 2009. “Performance of an optimized nutrient management system for double-cropped wheat-maize rotations in North-Central China.” Agronomy Journal 101（6）:1489–1496.

[50] Hasin, A., & Smith, S. 2016. "The diffusion of electronic benefit transfer（EBT）technology at Illinois farmers' markets: Measuring the perceived attributes of the innovation." Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition, 1-16.

[51] Hill, R.C., W.E. Griffiths, and G.C. Lim. 2015. “Principles of Econometrics （4th Edition International Student Version）.” Procedia Economics & Finance 32:968–972.

[52] Isgin, T., A. Bilgic, D.L. Forster, and M.T. Batte. 2008. “Using count data models to determine the factors affecting farmers’ quantity decisions of precision farming technology adoption.” Computers & Electronics in Agriculture 62（2）:231–242.

[53] Jara-Rojas, R., B.E. Bravo-Ureta, and J. Díaz. 2012. “Adoption of water conservation practices: A socioeconomic analysis of small-scale farmers in Central Chile.” Agricultural Systems 110:54–62. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X12000510.

[54] Karami, E., and A. Mansoorabadi. 2008. “Sustainable agricultural attitudes and behaviors: a gender analysis of Iranian farmers.” Environment, Development and Sustainability 10（6）:883–898. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-007-9090-7.

[55] Kempenaar C, van Evert FK, Been T, Kocks CG, Westerduk CE.2016. "Towards data-intensive, more sustainable farming: advances in predicting crop growth and use of variable rate technology in arable crops in the Netherlands." ICPA, St. Louis

[56] Khanna, M. 2001. “Sequential Adoption of Site-Specific Technologies and Its Implications for Nitrogen Productivity: A Double Selectivity Model.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83（1）:35–51.

[57] Kitchen, N., C. J. Snyder, D. Franzen, and W. Wiebold. 2002. “Educational Needs of Precision Agriculture.” Precision Agriculture 3:341–351.

[58] Knowler, D., and B. Bradshaw. 2007. “Farmers’ adoption of conservation agriculture: A review and synthesis of recent research.” Food policy 32（1）:25–48.

[59] Kokoye S E H, Jolly C M, Molnar J J, et al. 2018. "Farmer willingness to pay for soil testing services in Northern Haiti." Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 50（3）: 429-451.

[60] Kutter, T., S. Tiemann, R. Siebert, and S. Fountas. 2011. “The role of communication and co-operation in the adoption of precision farming.” Precision Agriculture 12（1）:2–17. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-009-9150-0.

[61] Lamba, P., G. Filson, and B. Adekunle. 2009. “Factors affecting the adoption of best management practices in southern Ontario.” Environmentalist 29（1）:64.

[62] Lancaster, & Kelvin, J. 1966. A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy, 74（2）, 132-157.

[63] Larson, J.A., R.K. Roberts, B.C. English, S.L. Larkin, M.C. Marra, S.W. Martin, K.W. Paxton, and J.M. Reeves. 2008. “Factors affecting farmer adoption of remotely sensed imagery for precision management in cotton production.” Precision Agriculture 9（4）:195–208.

[64] Lee, D. R. 2005. "Agricultural sustainability and technology adoption: issues and policies for developing countries." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87（5）, 1325-1334.

[65] Liu G D , Wu W L , Zhang J. 2005. "Regional differentiation of non2point source pollution of agriculture2derived nitrate in groundwater." Agriculture Ecosystem and Environment 107 :2112220

[66] Liu Z, Zhang W. 2011. "Which factors affect farmers’ willingness for soil testing technology adoption: A case study of Tai Lake Watershed, China."

[67] Liu, Y., J. Ruiz-Menjivar, L. Zhang, J. Zhang, and M.E. Swisher. 2019. “Technical training and rice farmers’ adoption of low-carbon management practices: The case of soil testing and formulated fertilization technologies in Hubei, China.” Journal of Cleaner Production. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652619310960.

[68] Marou?ek, J. 2013. “Study on agriculture decision-makers behavior on sustainable energy utilization.” Journal of agricultural and environmental ethics 26（3）:679–689.

[69] Marra, M., D.J. Pannell, and A.A. Ghadim. 2003. “The economics of risk, uncertainty and learning in the adoption of new agricultural technologies: where are we on the learning curve?” Agricultural systems 75（2–3）:215–234.

[70] McBride, W.D., and S.G. Daberkow. 1998. “Socioeconomic Profiles of Early Adopters of Precision Agriculture Technologies.” Journal of Agribusiness 16（2）.

[71] McBride, W.D., and S.G. Daberkow. 2003. “Information and the adoption of precision farming technologies.” Journal of Agribusiness 21（1）:21-38.

[72] McClelland, D. C. 1987. "Human motivation." Cambridge: University of Cambridge.

[73] McFadden D. 1973. "Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavio."

[74] McGinty, M.M., M.E. Swisher, and J. Alavalapati. 2008. “Agroforestry adoption and maintenance: self-efficacy, attitudes and socio-economic factors.” Agroforestry systems 73（2）:99–108.

[75] Munshi K. 2004. "Social learning in a heterogeneous population: technology diffusion in the Indian Green Revolution." Journal of Development Economics 73（1）:185-213.

[76] Negatu, W., and A. Parikh. 1999. “The impact of perception and other factors on the adoption of agricultural technology in the Moret and Jiru Woreda （district） of Ethiopia.” Agricultural economics 21（2）:205–216.

[77] Nkamleu, G.B., and A.A. Adesina. 2000. “Determinants of chemical input use in peri-urban lowland systems: bivariate probit analysis in Cameroon.” Agricultural systems 63（2）:111–121.

[78] Nowak P J. 1987. "The Adoption of Agricultural Conservation Technologies: Economic and Diffusion Explanations." Rural Sociology 1307（4）:113-134.

[79] Nuthall, P. 2010. “Farm business management: the human factor.” CABI.ISBN:978-1-84593-598-6

[80] Nyaribo, F. B., & Young, D. L. 1992. "Impacts of capital and land constraints on the

economics of new livestock technology in western Kenya." Agricultural Economics

6（4）, 353-364.

[81] ?hlmér, B., K. Olson, and B. Brehmer. 1998. “Understanding farmers’ decision making processes and improving managerial assistance.” Agricultural economics 18（3）:273–290.

[82] Oreszczyn, S., A. Lane, and S. Carr. 2010. “The role of networks of practice and webs of influencers on farmers’ engagement with and learning about agricultural innovations.” Journal of Rural Studies 26（4）:404–417.

[83] Pedersen S M, Fountas S, Blackmore B S, et al. 2004. "Adoption and perspectives of precision farming in Denmark." Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B-Soil & Plant Science 54（1）: 2-8.

[84] Pedersen, S. M., & Lind, K. M. （Eds.）. 2017. "Precision agriculture: Technology and economic perspectives." Springer International Publishing.

[85] Penn, Jerrod M. 2013. "Valuation Of Recreational Beach Quality And Water Quality Management Strategies In Oahu." Theses and Dissertations-Agricultural Economics. 19.

[86] Pierpaolia, E., Carlia, G., Pignattia, E., & Canavaria, M. 2013. "Drivers of Precision Agriculture Technologies Adoption: A." Procedia Technology 8, 61-69.

[87] Price, P., 2004. "Spreading the PA Message. Ground Cover. Grains Research and Development Corporation, Canberra."

[88] Rahm M R, Huffman W E. 1984. "The Adoption of Reduced Tillage: The Role of Human Capital and Other Variables." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66（4）:405-413.

[89] Roberts, R.K., B.C. English, J.A. Larson, R.L. Cochran, W.R. Goodman, S.L. Larkin, M.C. Marra, S.W. Martin, W.D. Shurley, and J.M. Reeves. 2004. "Adoption of Site-Specific Information and Variable-Rate Technologies in Cotton Precision Farming." Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 36（1）:143–158. Available at: https://www.cambridge.org/core/article/adoption-of-sitespecific-information-and-variablerate-technologies-in-cotton-precision-farming/356B0AD9A0D30B4CA0757B92B2575552.

[100] Robertson, M.J., 2008. "The Economics of Precision. Grains Research Update: Northern Region. New South Wales, Grains Research and Development Corporation."

[101] Robertson, M., R. Llewellyn, R. Mandel, R. Lawes, R. Bramley, L. Swift, N. Metz, and C. O’Callaghan. 2012. "Adoption of variable rate fertiliser application in the Australian grains industry: Status, issues and prospects." Precision Agriculture 13（2）:181–199.

[102] Rogers, E. M. 2003. "Diffusion of innovations（5th ed.）." New York: Free Press.

[103] Salazar L, Winters P. 2012. "The impact of seed market access and transaction costs on potato biodiversity and yields in Bolivia." Environment & Development Economics 17（5）:633-661.

[104] Sambodo, L.A. 2007. "The decision making processes of Semi-commercial farmers: a case study of technology adoption in Indonesia." PhD Thesis. Lincoln University.

[105] Samuelson P A. 1952. "Spatial price equilibrium and linear programming." The American economic review 42（3）: 283-303.

[106] Schimmelpfennig, D. 2016. "Farm Profits and Adoption of Precision Agriculture." Economic Research Report Number 2017. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, October 2016.

[107] Schrijver, R., Poppe, K., & Daheim, C. 2016. "Precision agriculture and the future of farming in Europe." Science and Technology Options Assessment. Brussels. http://www. ep. europa. eu/stoa.

[108] Solano, C., H. Leon, E. Pérez, and M. Herrero. 2001. "Who makes farming decisions? A study of Costa Rican dairy farmers." Agricultural systems 67（3）:181–199.

[109] Sun J, Zhou L, Lei L. 2019. "Can money always talk? Implication for environmental compensation by international agribusiness." Journal of cleaner production 215: 1014-1024.

[110] Suvedi, M., R. Ghimire, and M. Kaplowitz. 2017. "Farmers' participation in extension programs and technology adoption in rural Nepal: a logistic regression analysis." The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 23（4）:351–371.

[111] Takayama T, Judge G G. 1964. "Equilibrium among spatially separated markets: A reformulation." Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society 510-524.

[112] Tanaka T, Camerer C F, Nguyen Q. 2010. "Risk and Time Preferences: Linking Experimental and Household Survey Data from Vietnam." The American economic review 100（1）:557-571.

[113] Tey, Y.S. 2013. "The adoption of sustainable agricultural practices: an integrative approach for Malaysian vegetable farmers." PhD Thesis.

[114] Tey, Y.S., and M. Brindal. 2012. "Factors influencing the adoption of precision agricultural technologies: a review for policy implications." Precision agriculture 13（6）:713–730.

[115] Torbett, J.C., R.K. Roberts, J.A. Larson, and B.C. English. 2007. "Perceived importance of precision farming technologies in improving phosphorus and potassium efficiency in cotton production." Precision agriculture 8（3）:127–137.

[116] Tobin, J.1958. "Estimation of Relationships of Limited Dependent Variables." Econometrica 26, 24-36.

[117] Venkatesh, V., and F.D. Davis. 1996. "A Model of the Antecedents of Perceived Ease of Use: Development and Test*." Decision Sciences 27（3）:451–481. Available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1996.tb00860.x.

[118] Wake, J.L., C.F. Kiker, and P.E. Hildebrand. 1988. "Systematic learning of agricultural technologies." Agricultural Systems 27（3）:179–193.

[119] Walton, J.C., D.M. Lambert, R.K. Roberts, J.A. Larson, B. English, S.L. Larkin, S.W. Martin, M.C. Marra, K.W. Paxton, and J.M. Reeves. 2008. "Adoption and Abandonment of Precision Soil Sampling in Cotton Production." Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 33（3）:428–448. Available at: http://www.jstor.org.proxy.library.cornell.edu/stable/41220602.

[120] Wauters, E., C. Bielders, J. Poesen, G. Govers, and E. Mathijs. 2010. "Adoption of soil conservation practices in Belgium: An examination of the theory of planned behaviour in the agri-environmental domain." Land Use Policy 27（1）:86–94. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837709000295.

[121] Xu, X., P. He, J. Zhang, M.F. Pampolino, A.M. Johnston, and W. Zhou. 2017. "Spatial variation of attainable yield and fertilizer requirements for maize at the regional scale in China." Field Crops Research 203:8–15.

[122] Xu, X., P. He, S. Zhao, S. Qiu, A.M. Johnston, and W. Zhou. 2016. "Quantification of yield gap and nutrient use efficiency of irrigated rice in China." Field crops research 186:58–65.

[123] Young H P. 2009. "Innovation Diffusion in Heterogeneous Populations: Contagion, Social Influence, and Social Learning." American Economic Review 99（5）:1899-1924.

[124] 蔡颖萍，杜志雄. 家庭农场生产行为的生态自觉性及其影响因素分析——基于全国家庭农场监测数据的实证检验[J]. 中国农村经济，2016（12）:33-45.

[125] 蔡荣，汪紫钰，杜志雄. 示范家庭农场技术效率更高吗?——基于全国家庭农场监测数据[J]. 中国农村经济，2019（3）: 5.

[126] 陈强. 高级计量经济学及Stata应用[M]. 高等教育出版社，2014.

[127] 邓明君，邓俊杰，刘佳宇. 中国粮食作物化肥施用的碳排放时空演变与减排潜力[J]. 资源科学，2016，38（3）.

[128] 邓祥宏，穆月英，钱加荣. 我国农业技术补贴政策及其实施效果分析——以测土配方施肥补贴为例[J]. 经济问题，2011，（5）:79–83.

[129] 方向明，李姣媛. 精准农业: 发展效益，国际经验与中国实践[J]. 农业经济问题，2018，（11）:28-37.

[130] 冯建国，张小军，于迟等. 我国农药剂型加工的应用研究概况[J]. 中国农业大学学报，2013（2）: 220-226.

[131] 高祥照，马常宝，杜森. 测土配方施肥技术[M]. 北京：中国农业出版社，2005.

[132] 高祥照. 测土配方施肥进展情况与发展方向[J]. 中国农业资源与区划，2008， 29（1）:7–10.

[133] 高瑛，王娜，李向菲等. 农户生态友好型农田土壤管理技术采纳决策分析——以山东省为例[J]. 农业经济问题，2017（1）:38-47.

[134] 葛继红. 江苏省农业面源污染及治理的经济学研究 [D]. PhD Thesis. 南京农业大学，2011

[135] 葛继红，周曙东，朱红根等. 农户采用环境友好型技术行为研究——以配方施肥技术为例[J]. 农业技术经济，2010（9）:57-63.

[136] 葛继红，周曙东. 环境友好型技术对水稻种植技术效率的影响——以测土配方施肥技术为例[J]. 南京农业大学学报：社会科学版，2012，,12（2）:52–57.

[137] 巩前文，张俊飚，李瑾. 农户施肥量决策的影响因素实证分析—基于湖北省调查数据的分析[J]. 农业经济问题，2008，10: 63-68.

[138] 桂苗. 安徽省测土配方施肥技术推广现状与有效工作机制研究[D]. 安徽农业大学，2011.

[139] 哈尔?R.范里安著，费方域等译.微观经济学：现代观点（第八版）[M].格致出版社?上海三联书店?上海人民出版社，2011.

[140] 韩洪云，杨增旭. 农户测土配方施肥技术采纳行为研究——基于山东省枣庄市薛城区农户调研数据[J]. 中国农业科学，2011，,44（23）: 4962–4970.

[141] 韩会平. 农户采用测土配方施肥技术的影响因素分析[D]. 南京农业大学，2010

[142] 何浩然，张林秀，李强，等. 农民施肥行为及农业面源污染研究[J]. 农业技术经济，2006（6）:2-10.

[143] 何凌云，黄季辊. 土地使用权的稳定性与肥料使用——广东省实证研究[J]. 中国农村观察，2001，5: 42-48.

[144] 洪传春，刘某承，李文华.我国化肥投入面源污染控制政策评估[J]. 干旱区资源与环境，2015，（4）:1–6.

[145] 黄国勤，王兴祥，钱海燕等. 施用化肥对农业生态环境的负面影响及对策[J]. 生态环境，2004，13（4）: 656-660.

[146] 黄晓慧. 资本禀赋，政府支持对农户水土保持技术采用行为的影响研究[D]. 西北农林科技大学，2019.

[147] 冀县卿，钱忠好，李友艺. 土地经营规模扩张有助于提升水稻生产效率吗?——基于上海市松江区家庭农场的分析[J]. 中国农村经济，2019（7）: 5.

[148] 孔凡斌，钟海燕，潘丹. 不同规模农户环境友好型生产行为的差异性分析——基于全国 7 省 1059 户农户调研数据[J]. 农业经济与管理，2019（4）: 26-36.

[149] 孔祥智，方松海，庞晓鹏等. 西部地区农户禀赋对农业技术采纳的影响分析[J]. 经济研究，2004（12）:85-95.

[150] 孔祥智，庞晓鹏，张云华. 北方地区小麦生产的投入要素及影响因素实证分析[J]. 中国农村观察，2004，4: 2-7.

[151] 李博伟、张士云、江激宇. 种粮大户人力资本、社会资本对生产效率的影响——规模化程度差异下的视角[J]. 农业经济问题，2016，（5）.

[152] 李茴、赵杏、杨京平等. 高温与降雨对不同茶龄土壤碳氮养分及胞外酶活性的影响[J]. 农业环境科学学报，2017，36（3）.

[153] 李秋霞、黄驰超、潘根兴. 基于资源环境管理角度推进测土配方施肥的方法探讨[J]. 中国农学通报，2014，30(008): 167-175.

[154] 李莎莎. 2015. 基于农户需求导向的测土配方施肥技术推广服务机制研究 [D]. 博士论文. 中国农业大学.

[155] 李世成，秦来寿. 精准农业变量施肥技术及其研究进展[J]. 世界农业，2007，2007（3）: 57-59.

[156] 李兴佐，朱启臻，鲁可荣，和林丽丽. 企业主导型测土配方施肥服务体系的创新与启示[J]. 农业经济问题，2008，（4）:27–30.

[157] 李岳云，蓝海涛，方晓军. 不同经营规模农户经营行为的研究[J]. 中国农村观察，1999，4: 39-45.

[158] 娄学东. 河南复混肥料生产、流通、利用现状与发展对策研究[D]. 河南农业大学，2009.

[159] 林毅. 政府采购区域性联合的初探[D]. 西南师范大学，2005.

[160] 廖洪乐. 中国南方稻作区农户水稻生产函数估计[J]. 中国农村经济，2005，6: 11-18.

[161] 连新平. 硝基高塔造粒技术及工程化研究[D] 齐鲁工业大学. 2015.

[162] 刘璨，张巍. 退耕还林政策选择对农户收入的影响——以我国京津风沙源治理工程为例[J]. 经济学（季刊），2007（01）:278-295.

[163] 刘光栋，吴文良，靳乐山，Gulis. G. 华北农业高产粮区地下水硝酸盐污染环境价值损失评估技术研究——以山东省桓台县为例[J]. 中国生态农业学报，2005，13（2）: 130-133.

[164] 刘肖兵，杨柳. 我国耕地退化明显污染严重[J]. 生态经济（中文版），2015，31（3）:6-9.

[165] 鲁佳婧. 成都地区绿色建筑技术的成本——效益分析研究[D]. 成都：西南交通大学，2015.

[166] 罗小娟.太湖流域环境友好型技术影响评价与政策模拟——基于计量经济和数理规划方法[D].南京农业大学博士学位论文，2013.

[167] 罗小娟，冯淑怡，石晓平，等. 太湖流域农户环境友好型技术采纳行为及其环境和经济效应评价——以测土配方施肥技术为例[J]. 自然资源学报，2013，28（11）: 1891-1902.

[168] 马骥. 我国农户秸秆就地焚烧的原因：成本收益比较与约束条件分析——以河南省开封县杜良乡为例[J]. 农业技术经济，2009（02）: 79-86.

[169] 毛德君. 测土施肥研究及NPK专用肥开发生产[D]. 大庆石油学院, 2009.

[170] 毛其淋，许家云. 政府补贴，异质性与企业风险承担[J]. 经济学（季刊），2016，4: 1533-1562.

[171] 茅铭晨. 政府管制理论研究综述[J]. 管理世界, 2007(02):137-150.

[172] 毛显强，钟瑜，张胜. 生态补偿的理论探讨[J]. 中国人口?资源与环境，2002（04）: 40-43.

[173] 梅桂. 150kt/a硝基高塔复合肥生产工艺研究及实践[J]. 贵州化工，2011，36（3）: 55-56.

[174] 聂冲，贾生华. 离散选择模型的基本原理及其发展演进评介[J]. 数量经济技术经济研究，2005，22（11）:151-159.

[175] 钱忠好. 中国农地保护:理论与政策分析[J]. 管理世界，2003（10）: 60-70.

[176] 仇焕广，栾昊，李瑾，汪阳洁. 风险规避对农户化肥过量施用行为的影响[J]. 中国农村经济，2014，（3）:85–96.

[177] 施爱枝. 太湖县配方肥推广应用实践与思考[J]. 中国农技推广，2014，30(004): 40-42.

[178] 舒尔茨，小民. 改造传统农业[M]. 商务印书馆，1987.

[179] 苏前富，王巍巍，贾娇等. 东北地区玉米种衣剂活性成分选择及其应用发展趋势[J]. 吉林农业科学，2015，40（3）: 62-64.

[180] 邵彦敏，杨印生. 耕地保护外部性内部化的路径选择[J]. 农业技术经济，2008（2）: 19-24.

[181] 沈满洪. 论环境经济手段[J]. 经济研究，1997，000（010）: 54-61.

[182] 孙顶强，徐晋涛. 从市场整合程度看中国木材市场效率[J]. 中国农村经济，2005（6）.

[183] 孙杰，周力，应瑞瑶. 精准农业技术扩散机制与政策研究——以测土配方施肥技术为例. 中国农村经济，2019（12）.

[184] 孙君莲，罗微. 精准施肥技术的研究现状及在热带作物上的应用前景[J]. 广东农业科学，2008，5: 40-43.

[185] 孙钊. 测土配方施肥项目的发展现状与对策[J]. 现代农业科技，2009，（15）:290–291.

[186] 谭秋成. 度量生态服务价值的选择实验：方法介绍及案例研究[J]. 中国人口?资源与环境，2016，026（007）:46-52.

[187] 王辰. 河北省公共资源交易市场建设现状与对策研究[D]. 天津大学，2014.

[188] 王海宁，李作森. 农作物种子包衣技术研究进展[J]. 云南农业大学学报，1999，14（2）: 215-218.

[189] 王金霞，黄季焜，Scott Rozelle. 激励机制、农民参与和节水效应：黄河流域灌区水管理制度改革的实证研究[J]. 中国软科学，2004，（11）:8-14.

[190] 王世尧，金媛，韩会平. 环境友好型技术采用决策的经济分析——基于测土配方施肥技术的再考察[J]. 农业技术经济，2017，（8）:15–26.

[191] 王树庆，范维江. 饮食中硝酸盐，亚硝酸盐与人类健康[J]. 食品与营养科学，2016，5（3）: 98-104.

[192] 王旭，李贞宇，马文奇，张福锁. 中国主要生态区小麦施肥增产效应分析[J]. 中国农业科学，2010，43（12）:2469–2476.

[193] 王则柯. 经济学家成长的故事[M]. 中信出版社，2001

[194] 吴良泉. 基于“大配方、小调整”的中国三大粮食作物区域配肥技术研究[D]. 中国农业大学， 2014.

[195] 武希彦，武雪梅. 中国磷肥20年发展与展望[J]. 磷肥与复肥，2010，25（5）:1-6

[196] 夏益国，宫春生. 粮食安全视阈下农业适度规模经营与新型职业农民——耦合机制，国际经验与启示[J]. 农业经济问题，2015，5: 56-64.

[197] 吴林海，徐玲玲，王晓莉. 影响消费者对可追溯食品额外价格支付意愿与支付水平的主要因素——基于 Logistic，Interval Censored 的回归分析[J]. 中国农村经济，2010（4）: 77-86.

[198] 徐明岗，卢昌艾，张文菊，等. 我国耕地质量状况与提升对策[J]. 中国农业资源与区划，2016，37（7）:8-14.

[199] 徐志刚，张骏逸，吕开宇. 经营规模，地权期限与跨期农业技术采用——以秸秆直接还田为例[J]. 中国农村经济，2018（3）: 61-74.

[200] 燕苗霞. 吉林省农业温室气体排放的核算及影响因素分析[D]. 吉林财经大学, 2018.

[201] 杨翠萍，脱云飞，张岛等. 降雨对不同土地利用类型土壤水氮变化特征的影响[J]. 水土保持学报，2019，33（6）: 220-226.

[202] 杨万江，李琪. 我国农户水稻生产技术效率分析——基于 11 省 761 户调查数据[J]. 农业技术经济，2016（1）: 71-81.

[203] 尤?李比希著、刘更另译. 化学在农业和生理学上的应用[M]. 农业出版社，1983

[204] 张锋.中国化肥投入的面源污染问题研究-基于农户施用行为的视角[D]. 南京农业大学博士学位论文，2011.

[205] 褚彩虹，冯淑怡，张蔚文. 农户采用环境友好型农业技术行为的实证分析——以有机肥与测土配方施肥技术为例[J]. 中国农村经济，2012（3）:68-77.

[206] 张成玉. 测土配方施肥技术推广中农户行为实证研究[J]. 技术经济，2010， 29（8）:76–81.

[207] 张夫道. 化肥污染的趋势与对策[J]. 环境科学，1985，6（6）: 54-58.

[208] 张复宏、宋晓丽、霍明. 果农对过量施肥的认知与测土配方施肥技术采纳行为的影响因素分析——基于山东省9个县（区，市） 苹果种植户的调查[J]. 中国农村观察，2017，（3）.

[209] 张婧. 尿基复合肥生产及优化[D]. 大庆石油学院，2003.

[210] 翟长远，朱瑞祥，张佐经等. 精准施药技术现状分析[J]. 农机化研究，2010，32（5）: 9-12.

[211] 张卫红，李玉娥，秦晓波，万运帆，刘硕，高清竹. 2015. 应用生命周期法评价我国测土配方施肥项目减排效果[J]. 农业环境科学学报，2015，（7）:1422–1428.

[212] 张云华，杨晓艳，孔祥智等. 2004. 发展绿色农业技术面临的难题与出路[J]. 生态经济，（S1）: 216-218.

[213] 张宗毅，章淑颖. 农机购置补贴政策支付制度对农机企业营运能力的影响——基于规模以上农机企业微观数据的实证研究[J]. 中国农机化学报，2018，39(012):101-108.

[214] 郑鑫. 丹江口库区农户氮肥施用强度的影响因素分析[J]. 中国人口资源与环境，2010， 20（5）:75–79.

[215] 钟甫宁，陆五一，徐志刚. 农村劳动力外出务工不利于粮食生产吗?——对农户要素替代与种植结构调整行为及约束条件的解析[J]. 中国农村经济，2016，7: 36-47.

[216] 朱萌、齐振宏、邬兰娅等. 新型农业经营主体农业技术需求影响因素的实证分析——以江苏省南部 395 户种稻大户为例[J]. 中国农村观察，2015，（1）。