中国耕地集约化利用评价2010—2016
|
摘要
针对现有研究未明确集约和粗放的具体界限、初始依赖性强和横向可比性差、未区分耕地初级利用和次级利用等缺陷,本文综合采用增长核算方法和集约化度测算方法,开展针对动态过程的耕地集约化利用评价。在对农业生产增长来源进行核算分解的基础上,构建了耕地利用的初级、次级和综合集约化度测算模型,实证评价了全国2010—2016年的耕地集约化利用情况。研究指出,集约化度等于0. 5是耕地集约化利用与粗放化利用的具体界限,依据集约化度大小可将耕地利用归属为完全粗放化、高度粗放化、粗放化优势、集约化优势、高度集约化、完全集约化等不同模式。研究发现:2010—2016年整体而言,全国耕地利用综合集约化度大小为1. 11,初级集约化度(0. 35)小于次级集约化度(0. 76),表明全国农业产出(粮食产量)的增长整体上是在耕地投入数量下降情况下完全依靠耕地复种生产率提高而实现,且是以耕地单种生产率提高为主要途径、以耕地复种指数提高为次要途径。分年度来看,全国耕地利用综合集约化度大小基本呈现出连续下降态势,初级和次级集约化度都存在较大幅度年际波动,反映出全国耕地利用综合集约化动力在持续减弱,初级和次级集约化进程都不够稳定。横向比较来说,浙江、上海和北京的耕地综合利用均属于粗放化模式,而青海、贵州、宁夏和甘肃的耕地综合利用都处于完全集约化进程,表明发达地区的耕地集约化利用程度并不一定高,不发达地区的耕地集约化利用程度并不一定低。
There are several defects about the existing studies on farmland intensive use,such as unspecified boundaries between intensiveness and extensiveness,strong initial dependence and poor horizontal comparability,and failure to distinguish the primary and secondary utilization. This paper comprehensively applied growth accounting method and intensive degree measuring method to carry out the dynamic evaluation of farmland intensive use. Based on the accounting and decomposition of the sources of agricultural production growth,the primary,secondary and comprehensive intensification evaluation models of farmland utilization were constructed,and the farmland intensive use from 2010 to 2016 in China was evaluated empirically. It claimed that the intensification degree equaling to 0. 5 was the specific boundary between intensiveness and extensiveness. According to intensive degree,farmland utilization could be differentiated into several modes,such as totally extensive,highly extensive,extensive advantage,intensive advantage,highly intensive and totally intensive. This study found that in 2010-2016,as a whole,the comprehensive intensive degree of farmland use in China was 1. 11,and the primary intensive degree( 0. 35) was less than the secondary intensive degree( 0. 76). It showed that the growth of the national agricultural output( food production) was generally dependent on the improvement of multi-cropping productivity,with the improvement of single-cropping productivity as the main way,and the improvement of multi-cropping index as the secondary way. In different years,the comprehensive intensive degree of farmland use basically showed a continuous downward trend,and both the primary degree and secondary degree had large fluctuations. This showed that the power of comprehensive intensification was continuously weakened,and the processes of primary and secondary intensification were both not stable enough. As for different areas,the comprehensive use of farmland in Zhejiang,Shanghai and Beijing all belonged to the extensive mode,while the comprehensive use of farmland in Qinghai,Guizhou,Ningxia and Gansu were all in the process of totally intensive. It showed that the intensive degree of developed areas was not necessarily high,while the intensive degree of underdeveloped areas was not necessarily low.
There are several defects about the existing studies on farmland intensive use,such as unspecified boundaries between intensiveness and extensiveness,strong initial dependence and poor horizontal comparability,and failure to distinguish the primary and secondary utilization. This paper comprehensively applied growth accounting method and intensive degree measuring method to carry out the dynamic evaluation of farmland intensive use. Based on the accounting and decomposition of the sources of agricultural production growth,the primary,secondary and comprehensive intensification evaluation models of farmland utilization were constructed,and the farmland intensive use from 2010 to 2016 in China was evaluated empirically. It claimed that the intensification degree equaling to 0. 5 was the specific boundary between intensiveness and extensiveness. According to intensive degree,farmland utilization could be differentiated into several modes,such as totally extensive,highly extensive,extensive advantage,intensive advantage,highly intensive and totally intensive. This study found that in 2010-2016,as a whole,the comprehensive intensive degree of farmland use in China was 1. 11,and the primary intensive degree( 0. 35) was less than the secondary intensive degree( 0. 76). It showed that the growth of the national agricultural output( food production) was generally dependent on the improvement of multi-cropping productivity,with the improvement of single-cropping productivity as the main way,and the improvement of multi-cropping index as the secondary way. In different years,the comprehensive intensive degree of farmland use basically showed a continuous downward trend,and both the primary degree and secondary degree had large fluctuations. This showed that the power of comprehensive intensification was continuously weakened,and the processes of primary and secondary intensification were both not stable enough. As for different areas,the comprehensive use of farmland in Zhejiang,Shanghai and Beijing all belonged to the extensive mode,while the comprehensive use of farmland in Qinghai,Guizhou,Ningxia and Gansu were all in the process of totally intensive. It showed that the intensive degree of developed areas was not necessarily high,while the intensive degree of underdeveloped areas was not necessarily low.
引文
[1]布林克曼.农业经营经济学[M].刘潇然,译.北京:农业出版社,1984.
[2]白缙冰.论我国的农业集约经营[J].农业经济问题,1982(1):3-8.
[3]李秀彬.土地利用变化的解释[J].地理科学进展,2002,21(3):195-203.
[4]许玉凤,董杰,段艺芳,等.农用地集约利用研究进展[J].中国农学通报,2011,27(4):387-391.
[5]吕晓,牛善栋,李振波,等.中国耕地集约利用研究现状及趋势分析[J].农业工程学报,2015,31(18):212-224.
[6]龙禹桥,吴文斌,余强毅,等.耕地集约化利用研究进展评述[J].自然资源学报,2018,33(2):337-350.
[7]石淑芹,曹玉青,吴文斌,等.耕地集约化评价指标体系与评价方法研究进展[J].中国农业科学,2017,50(7):1210-1222.
[8]李秀彬,朱会义,谈明洪,等.土地利用集约度的测度方法[J].地理科学进展,2008,27(6):12-17.
[9]陈瑜琦,李秀彬. 1980年以来中国耕地利用集约度的结构特征[J].地理学报,2009,64(4):469-478.
[10]吴郁玲,冯忠,周勇,等.耕地集约利用影响因素的协整分析[J].中国人口·资源与环境,2011,21(11):67-72.
[11]XIE H L,HE Y F,ZOU J L,et al. Spatio-temporal difference analysis of cultivated land use intensity based on emergy in the Poyang Lake Eco-economic Zone of China[J]. Journal of geographical sciences,2016,26(10):1412-1430.
[12]于元赫,李子君.山东省耕地利用集约度时空变化及政策启示[J].中国土地科学,2017,31(4):52-60.
[13]马聪,刘黎明,袁承程,等.快速城镇化地区不同生计类型农户耕地利用集约度评价——以上海市青浦区为例[J].中国土地科学,2017,31(10):69-78.
[14]赵京,杨钢桥.耕地利用集约度变化影响因素典型相关分析[J].中国人口·资源与环境,2010,20(10):103-108.
[15]乔家君,吴娜琳,李德洗.河南省农田利用集约度时空变化及其影响环境[J].地理研究,2012,31(9):1598-1610.
[16]邓楚雄,谢炳庚,李晓青,等.长沙市耕地集约利用时空变化分析[J].农业工程学报,2012,28(1):230-237.
[17]SHI S Q,HAN Y,YU W T,et al. Spatio-temporal differences and factors influencing intensive cropland use in the Huang-Huai-Hai Plain[J]. Journal of geographical sciences,2018,28(11):1626-1640.
[18]何坚坚,庞博,张鹏岩,等.耕地集约利用的变化、态势与驱动力分析——以河南省为例[J].河南大学学报(自然科学版),2018,48(4):404-414.
[19]赵曦,陈静.基于Arc GIS和熵值法的四川省各市州耕地利用集约度时空差异研究[J].四川大学学报(自然科学版),2018,55(3):625-631.
[20]王向东,龚健.土地集约化利用评价及其实证研究[J].经济地理,2016,36(6):17-25.
[21]科尔奈.社会主义体制——共产主义政治经济学[M].张安,译.北京:中央编译出版社,2007:171-172.
[22]诺特金.扩大再生产集约化的类型和阶段[J].邹用九,译.国外社会科学文摘,1983(4):9-11.
[23]吴敬琏.怎样才能实现增长方式的转变[J].经济研究,1995(11):8-12.
[24]陈兴祖,李伯亭.经济发展集约化的定量分析[J].技术经济,1995(12):46-48.
[25]武建奇.粗放、集约及其衡量——应准确理解经济增长方式的转变[J].河北学刊,1996(4):7-11.
[26]林坚,刘诗毅.论建设用地集约利用——基于两阶段利用论的解释[J].城市发展研究,2012,19(1):104-109.
[27]王国刚,刘彦随,陈秧分.中国省域耕地集约利用态势与驱动力分析[J].地理学报,2014,69(7):907-915.
[28]朱会义,李秀彬,辛良杰.现阶段我国耕地利用集约度变化及其政策启示[J].自然资源学报,2007,22(6):907-915.
[29]李兆亮,杨子生,邹金浪.我国耕地利用集约度空间差异及影响因素研究[J].农业现代化研究,2014,35(1):88-92.
[30]张琳,张凤荣,安萍莉,等.不同经济发展水平下的耕地利用集约度及其变化规律比较研究[J].农业工程学报,2008,24(1):108-112.
[2]白缙冰.论我国的农业集约经营[J].农业经济问题,1982(1):3-8.
[3]李秀彬.土地利用变化的解释[J].地理科学进展,2002,21(3):195-203.
[4]许玉凤,董杰,段艺芳,等.农用地集约利用研究进展[J].中国农学通报,2011,27(4):387-391.
[5]吕晓,牛善栋,李振波,等.中国耕地集约利用研究现状及趋势分析[J].农业工程学报,2015,31(18):212-224.
[6]龙禹桥,吴文斌,余强毅,等.耕地集约化利用研究进展评述[J].自然资源学报,2018,33(2):337-350.
[7]石淑芹,曹玉青,吴文斌,等.耕地集约化评价指标体系与评价方法研究进展[J].中国农业科学,2017,50(7):1210-1222.
[8]李秀彬,朱会义,谈明洪,等.土地利用集约度的测度方法[J].地理科学进展,2008,27(6):12-17.
[9]陈瑜琦,李秀彬. 1980年以来中国耕地利用集约度的结构特征[J].地理学报,2009,64(4):469-478.
[10]吴郁玲,冯忠,周勇,等.耕地集约利用影响因素的协整分析[J].中国人口·资源与环境,2011,21(11):67-72.
[11]XIE H L,HE Y F,ZOU J L,et al. Spatio-temporal difference analysis of cultivated land use intensity based on emergy in the Poyang Lake Eco-economic Zone of China[J]. Journal of geographical sciences,2016,26(10):1412-1430.
[12]于元赫,李子君.山东省耕地利用集约度时空变化及政策启示[J].中国土地科学,2017,31(4):52-60.
[13]马聪,刘黎明,袁承程,等.快速城镇化地区不同生计类型农户耕地利用集约度评价——以上海市青浦区为例[J].中国土地科学,2017,31(10):69-78.
[14]赵京,杨钢桥.耕地利用集约度变化影响因素典型相关分析[J].中国人口·资源与环境,2010,20(10):103-108.
[15]乔家君,吴娜琳,李德洗.河南省农田利用集约度时空变化及其影响环境[J].地理研究,2012,31(9):1598-1610.
[16]邓楚雄,谢炳庚,李晓青,等.长沙市耕地集约利用时空变化分析[J].农业工程学报,2012,28(1):230-237.
[17]SHI S Q,HAN Y,YU W T,et al. Spatio-temporal differences and factors influencing intensive cropland use in the Huang-Huai-Hai Plain[J]. Journal of geographical sciences,2018,28(11):1626-1640.
[18]何坚坚,庞博,张鹏岩,等.耕地集约利用的变化、态势与驱动力分析——以河南省为例[J].河南大学学报(自然科学版),2018,48(4):404-414.
[19]赵曦,陈静.基于Arc GIS和熵值法的四川省各市州耕地利用集约度时空差异研究[J].四川大学学报(自然科学版),2018,55(3):625-631.
[20]王向东,龚健.土地集约化利用评价及其实证研究[J].经济地理,2016,36(6):17-25.
[21]科尔奈.社会主义体制——共产主义政治经济学[M].张安,译.北京:中央编译出版社,2007:171-172.
[22]诺特金.扩大再生产集约化的类型和阶段[J].邹用九,译.国外社会科学文摘,1983(4):9-11.
[23]吴敬琏.怎样才能实现增长方式的转变[J].经济研究,1995(11):8-12.
[24]陈兴祖,李伯亭.经济发展集约化的定量分析[J].技术经济,1995(12):46-48.
[25]武建奇.粗放、集约及其衡量——应准确理解经济增长方式的转变[J].河北学刊,1996(4):7-11.
[26]林坚,刘诗毅.论建设用地集约利用——基于两阶段利用论的解释[J].城市发展研究,2012,19(1):104-109.
[27]王国刚,刘彦随,陈秧分.中国省域耕地集约利用态势与驱动力分析[J].地理学报,2014,69(7):907-915.
[28]朱会义,李秀彬,辛良杰.现阶段我国耕地利用集约度变化及其政策启示[J].自然资源学报,2007,22(6):907-915.
[29]李兆亮,杨子生,邹金浪.我国耕地利用集约度空间差异及影响因素研究[J].农业现代化研究,2014,35(1):88-92.
[30]张琳,张凤荣,安萍莉,等.不同经济发展水平下的耕地利用集约度及其变化规律比较研究[J].农业工程学报,2008,24(1):108-112.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |