不同生计资产配置的休耕农户福利变化研究——云南省休耕试点区实证
|
摘要
研究目的:基于云南省休耕试点区的农户调研数据,定量测算不同生计资产配置的农户休耕前后的福利变化。研究方法:生计资产量化法,模糊评价法。研究结果:(1)研究区总样本的农户福利水平未有明显提升,且不同生计资产配置的休耕农户福利水平变化状况存在差异。休耕后资产富裕型农户的福利水平整体提升幅度最大,除心理状况有所下降外,经济状况、社会保障、景观环境都有所改善;资产均衡型农户的福利水平整体未有明显提升,资产缺乏型农户的福利水平整体有所下降,两类农户除景观环境有所改善外,经济状况、社会保障、心理状况都有不同程度的下降。(2)休耕后农户间的福利水平分化进一步加剧,休耕农户福利水平分布特征呈现出生计资产总值越大、福利水平峰值出现的区间越趋后的特征。研究结论:为缩小不同休耕农户间的福利差异,促进休耕农户福利的均衡发展,建议政府在现有经济补偿的基础上探索补偿对象差异化、补偿方式复合化的补偿方案。
The purpose of paper is to quantitatively measure the welfare changes of farmers before and after fallow in different allocations of livelihood assets, based on the survey data of farmers in the fallow pilot area of Yunnan Province.The research methods of livelihood asset quantification and fuzzy evaluation are adopted. The research results show that: 1)the welfare levels of farmers in the total sample of the study area did not increase significantly, and there were differences in the changes in the welfare levels of fallow farmers with different allocations of livelihood assets. The welfare level of wealthy farmers after fallow experienced the greatest overall improvement, except for the psychological situation, the economic situation, social security, and landscape environment all improved. The welfare level of the asset-balanced farmers did not improve significantly, and the welfare level of the asset-poor farmers declined generally. In addition to the improvement of the landscape environment, the economic conditions, social security and psychological conditions of the two types of farmers declined to varying degrees. 2)After the fallow, the welfare level difference among farmers was further aggravated. The distribution characteristics of the welfare level of the fallow farmer showed that the greater the total value of livelihood assets was, the later the peak of welfare levels appeared. In conclusion, in order to narrow the welfare difference between different fallow farmers and to promote the balanced development of the fallow farmers' welfare, it is recommended that the government explore the compensation scheme of compensation object differentiation and comprehensive compensation method based on the existing economic compensation.
The purpose of paper is to quantitatively measure the welfare changes of farmers before and after fallow in different allocations of livelihood assets, based on the survey data of farmers in the fallow pilot area of Yunnan Province.The research methods of livelihood asset quantification and fuzzy evaluation are adopted. The research results show that: 1)the welfare levels of farmers in the total sample of the study area did not increase significantly, and there were differences in the changes in the welfare levels of fallow farmers with different allocations of livelihood assets. The welfare level of wealthy farmers after fallow experienced the greatest overall improvement, except for the psychological situation, the economic situation, social security, and landscape environment all improved. The welfare level of the asset-balanced farmers did not improve significantly, and the welfare level of the asset-poor farmers declined generally. In addition to the improvement of the landscape environment, the economic conditions, social security and psychological conditions of the two types of farmers declined to varying degrees. 2)After the fallow, the welfare level difference among farmers was further aggravated. The distribution characteristics of the welfare level of the fallow farmer showed that the greater the total value of livelihood assets was, the later the peak of welfare levels appeared. In conclusion, in order to narrow the welfare difference between different fallow farmers and to promote the balanced development of the fallow farmers' welfare, it is recommended that the government explore the compensation scheme of compensation object differentiation and comprehensive compensation method based on the existing economic compensation.
引文
[1]罗婷婷,邹学荣.撂荒、弃耕、退耕还林与休耕转换机制谋划[J].西部论坛,2015,25(2):40-46.
[2]江娟丽,杨庆媛,阎建忠.耕地休耕的研究进展与现实借鉴[J].西南大学学报(自然科学版),2017,39(1):165-171.
[3]丁琳琳,吴群,李永乐.新型城镇化背景下失地农民福利变化研究[J].中国人口·资源与环境,2017,27(3):163-169.
[4]谢花林,程玲娟.地下水漏斗区农户冬小麦休耕意愿的影响因素及其生态补偿标准研究——以河北衡水为例[J].自然资源学报,2017,32(12):2012-2022.
[5]魏玲,张安录,望晓东.农地城市流转中福利变化研究进展综述[J].中国土地科学,2011,25(3):90-96.
[6]LI H, HUANG X, KWAN M P, et al. Changes in farmers’welfare from land requisition in the process of rapid urbanization[J]. Land Use Policy, 2015, 42:635-641.
[7]周义,张莹,任宏.城乡交错区被征地农户的福利变迁研究[J].中国人口·资源与环境,2014,24(6):30-36.
[8]丁琳琳,吴群,李永乐.土地征收中农户福利变化及其影响因素——基于江苏省不同地区的农户问卷调查[J].经济地理,2016,36(12):154-161.
[9]苑韶峰,杨丽霞,王庆日.慈溪市四镇农地转用过程中农户福利变化的定量测度[J].中国土地科学,2012,26(10):82-90.
[10]PENG K, BAI X. Welfare effects of rural-urban land conversion on different aged land-lost farmers:exemplified in Wuhan City[J]. Chinese Journal of Population Resources&Environment, 2016, 14(1):45-52.
[11]关江华,黄朝禧,胡银根.不同生计资产配置的农户宅基地流转家庭福利变化研究[J].中国人口·资源与环境,2014,24(10):135-142.
[12]魏玲,张安录.农地城市流转农民福利变化与福利差异测度——基于二维赋权法与三类不平等指数的实证[J].中国土地科学,2016,30(10):72-80.
[13]高进云,乔荣锋.农地城市流转前后农户福利变化差异分析[J].中国人口·资源与环境,2011,21(1):99-105.
[14]林乐芬,葛扬.基于福利经济学视角的失地农民补偿问题研究[J].经济学家,2010(1):49-56.
[15]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.
[16]李广东,邱道持,王利平,等.生计资产差异对农户耕地保护补偿模式选择的影响——渝西方山丘陵不同地带样点村的实证分析[J].地理学报,2012,67(4):504-515.
[17]赵雪雁.地理学视角的可持续生计研究:现状、问题与领域[J].地理研究,2017(10):45-58.
[18]OBRIST B, PFEIFFER C, HENLEY B. Multi-layered social resilience:a new approach in mitigation research[J].Progress in Development Studies, 2010, 10(4):283-293.
[19]王成,王利平,李晓庆,等.农户后顾生计来源及其居民点整合研究——基于重庆市西部郊区白林村471户农户调查[J].地理学报,2011,66(8):1141-1152.
[20]阿玛蒂亚·森.以自由看待世界[M].北京:中国人民大学出版,2002:150.
[21]CHELI B, LEMMI A. Totally fuzzy and relative approach to the multidimesional analysis of poverty[J]. Economic Notes,1995, 24(1):115-133.
[22]张佰林,杨庆媛,苏康传,等.基于生计视角的异质性农户转户退耕决策研究[J].地理科学进展,2013,32(2):170-180.
[2]江娟丽,杨庆媛,阎建忠.耕地休耕的研究进展与现实借鉴[J].西南大学学报(自然科学版),2017,39(1):165-171.
[3]丁琳琳,吴群,李永乐.新型城镇化背景下失地农民福利变化研究[J].中国人口·资源与环境,2017,27(3):163-169.
[4]谢花林,程玲娟.地下水漏斗区农户冬小麦休耕意愿的影响因素及其生态补偿标准研究——以河北衡水为例[J].自然资源学报,2017,32(12):2012-2022.
[5]魏玲,张安录,望晓东.农地城市流转中福利变化研究进展综述[J].中国土地科学,2011,25(3):90-96.
[6]LI H, HUANG X, KWAN M P, et al. Changes in farmers’welfare from land requisition in the process of rapid urbanization[J]. Land Use Policy, 2015, 42:635-641.
[7]周义,张莹,任宏.城乡交错区被征地农户的福利变迁研究[J].中国人口·资源与环境,2014,24(6):30-36.
[8]丁琳琳,吴群,李永乐.土地征收中农户福利变化及其影响因素——基于江苏省不同地区的农户问卷调查[J].经济地理,2016,36(12):154-161.
[9]苑韶峰,杨丽霞,王庆日.慈溪市四镇农地转用过程中农户福利变化的定量测度[J].中国土地科学,2012,26(10):82-90.
[10]PENG K, BAI X. Welfare effects of rural-urban land conversion on different aged land-lost farmers:exemplified in Wuhan City[J]. Chinese Journal of Population Resources&Environment, 2016, 14(1):45-52.
[11]关江华,黄朝禧,胡银根.不同生计资产配置的农户宅基地流转家庭福利变化研究[J].中国人口·资源与环境,2014,24(10):135-142.
[12]魏玲,张安录.农地城市流转农民福利变化与福利差异测度——基于二维赋权法与三类不平等指数的实证[J].中国土地科学,2016,30(10):72-80.
[13]高进云,乔荣锋.农地城市流转前后农户福利变化差异分析[J].中国人口·资源与环境,2011,21(1):99-105.
[14]林乐芬,葛扬.基于福利经济学视角的失地农民补偿问题研究[J].经济学家,2010(1):49-56.
[15]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.
[16]李广东,邱道持,王利平,等.生计资产差异对农户耕地保护补偿模式选择的影响——渝西方山丘陵不同地带样点村的实证分析[J].地理学报,2012,67(4):504-515.
[17]赵雪雁.地理学视角的可持续生计研究:现状、问题与领域[J].地理研究,2017(10):45-58.
[18]OBRIST B, PFEIFFER C, HENLEY B. Multi-layered social resilience:a new approach in mitigation research[J].Progress in Development Studies, 2010, 10(4):283-293.
[19]王成,王利平,李晓庆,等.农户后顾生计来源及其居民点整合研究——基于重庆市西部郊区白林村471户农户调查[J].地理学报,2011,66(8):1141-1152.
[20]阿玛蒂亚·森.以自由看待世界[M].北京:中国人民大学出版,2002:150.
[21]CHELI B, LEMMI A. Totally fuzzy and relative approach to the multidimesional analysis of poverty[J]. Economic Notes,1995, 24(1):115-133.
[22]张佰林,杨庆媛,苏康传,等.基于生计视角的异质性农户转户退耕决策研究[J].地理科学进展,2013,32(2):170-180.