农户活动空间选择的影响因素及其收入效应——河南省农户调查与实证

doi:10.13249/j.cnki.sgs.2014.08.907

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

在实地农户调查的基础上,通过把农户活动空间划分为局部（L）、村庄（V）、区域（R）和国家（N）4个尺度空间,分析农户活动空间策略;并构建多元逻辑回归模型,从农户特征、地理因素分析农户活动空间策略选择的影响因素。研究发现,在活动空间选择方面,农户往往以局部空间为基础,向其他活动空间拓展,采取空间组合策略。各活动空间对农户收入的贡献程度不同,国家活动空间对农户收入贡献最大。影响因素方面,农户所处的区位、拥有的劳动力数量显著的影响农户活动空间策略选择;初中教育水平对农户在区域、国家尺度上的活动影响显著;较少的耕地与农户活动空间策略选择具有相关性;通达性主要影响区域尺度活动空间选择。镇域经济发展水平对农户活动空间策略选择整体上不显著。

关键词: 农户, 活动空间, 河南省

Abstract:

The activity spaces for labor forces of rural households are divided into four categories in this article: Locality, village, region and nation. Locality activity space is confined to rural households own farm. Village activity space consists of various stakeholders located in one village including all of the rural households, factories and natural resources. Region activity space is defined as the area within a 30 km radius of one village. The rest is Nation activity space. Rural households always make a living in one or more activity spaces. Activity space strategy of rural households are analyzed according to sample survey from Henan Province. Tthe mechanism and degree of influence that family characteristics and geographical conditions exerting on activity strategy choice of rural households are explored by using a Multinomial Logistic Regression model with activity space strategy as the independent variable and location (distance from the nearest city), education level, quantity of labor force, per farmland, accessibility, economic development level of town as the dependent variables. The results are as follows: 1) Rural households tend to allocate their labor forces to different activity spaces and choice diversifying activity space strategy. In general, with making a living in locality space, rural households always get cash income from one or more activity spaces among village, region and nation spaces at the same time. But in most cases only one activity space plays a major role in rural households’ cash income. Compared to other activity spaces, average wages in nation activity space are highest. So the rural households involving in nation activity space always rank among the high-income class compared to others. The self-employed rural households always get high income too, but their activity spaces are confined to locality and region spaces. 2) The quantity of labor force affects space strategy choice of rural households significantly. The more labor forces rural households, the higher probability of diversifying activity space strategy. 3) Because jobs engaged in by labor force of rural households are characterized by "dirty, danger and hard", high education level is not important for these jobs. Statistically there is significant linkage between activity strategy choice and middle education level(primary schools and the junior middle schools). 4) Because of small farm size, farming output value has little contribution to rural households income growth, so farm size dosen′t play a major role in decision-making.5) Good spatial accessibility of transportation facilities can promote more economic activities in Region activity space. 6) As a whole, economic development level of most sample towns is low and has no distinctive effect on activity space strategy choice of rural households. 7) "Location" affects activity space strategy choice of rural households significantly. The rural households close to city can get jobs or self-employment chances in region and locality space easily.

Key words: rural households, activity space, Henan Province

中图分类号:

K902

樊新生, 李小建, 高更和, 罗庆. 农户活动空间选择的影响因素及其收入效应——河南省农户调查与实证[J]. 地理科学, 2014, 34(8): 907-913.

Xin-sheng FAN, Xiao-jian LI, Geng-he GAO, Qing LUO. Factors Influencing the Rural Households′ Choice of Activity Space Strategy and the Income Effect: A Case Study on the Survey of Rural Households in Henan Province in China[J]. SCIENTIA GEOGRAPHICA SINICA, 2014, 34(8): 907-913.

图/表 7

图1

表1

表2

表3

表4

表5

表6

参考文献 21

[1]	PIllukpitiya J,Yanagida F.Role of income diversification in protecting natural forests: evidence from rural households in forest margins of Sri Lanka[J]. Agroforestry Systems, 2008,74: 51-62
[2]	李小建,乔家君.欠发达地区农户的兼业演变及农户经济发展研究[J].中州学刊,2003,(5):58~61.
[3]	欧阳进良,宋春梅,宇振荣,等.黄淮海平原农区不同类型农户的土地利用方式选择及其环境影响[J].自然资源学报,2004,19(1):1~11.
[4]	Escobal J.The determinants of nonfarm income diversification in rural Peru[J].World Development, 2001, 29(3):497-508.
[5]	Isgu A E.Non-farm income and employment in rural Honduras:assessing the role of locational factors[J].Journal of Development Studies,2004,40(3):59-86.
[6]	Takashi Y,Yoko K.The associations of soil fertility and market access with household income:evidence from rural Uganda[J].Food Policy,2010,35(1):51-59.
[7]	姚静,李小建.地理环境对农户外出务工行为的影响探析[J].经济地理,2009,29(4):635~639.
[8]	钟太洋,黄贤金,陈志刚,等.区域农地市场发育对农业商品化的影响——基于农户层次的分析[J].经济地理,2009,29(3):461~465.
[9]	Ellis F.The determinants of rural livelihood diversification in developing countries[J].Journal of Agricultural Economics,2000,51(2):289-302.
[10]	Carney D.Sustainable livelihoods approaches:progress and possibilities for change[R].London:Department for International Development,2002.
[11]	阎建忠,吴莹莹,张镱锂,等.青藏高原东部样带农牧民生计的多样化[J].地理学报,2009,64(2):221~233.
[12]	钟太洋,黄贤金.农户层面土地利用变化研究综述[J].自然资源学报,2007,22(3):341~352.
[13]	赵雪雁. 不同生计方式农户的环境影响——以甘南高原为例[J].地理科学,2013,33(5):545~552.
[14]	王成超,杨玉盛.基于农户生计演化的山地生态恢复研究综述[J].自然资源学报,2011,26(2):344~352.
[15]	Ellis F.Household strategies and rural livelihood diversification[J].Journal of Development Studies,1998,35(1):1-38.
[16]	樊新生,李小建.欠发达地区农户收入的地理影响分析[J].中国农村经济,2008,(3):16~23,49.
[17]	Heyer J.The complexities of rural poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa[J].Oxford Development Studies,1996,24(3):281-297.
[18]	Hoddinott J.A model of migration and remittances applied to Western Kenya[J].Oxford Economic Papers,1994,46:459-476.
[19]	李小建. 农户地理论[M].北京:科学出版社,2009.
[20]	Barrett B C,Reardon T,Webb P.Non-farm income diversification and household livelihood strategies in rural Africa:concepts,dynamics,and policy implications[J].Food Policy,2001,26:315-331.
[21]	Reardon T.Using evidence of household income diversification to inform study of the rural nonfarm labor market in Africa[J].World Development,1997,25(5):1-26.

变量	含义及赋值
劳动力数量（labor）	劳动力数≥4个,labor =3;劳动力数量为3个 ,labor=2;劳动力数<3个,labor=1
教育水平（education）	高中以上,education=3;小学-初中,education=2;文盲,education=1
人均耕地面积（farmland）	人均耕地面积≥0.13 hm²,farmland=3; 0.07~0.13 hm²,farmland=2;<0.07 hm²,farmland=1
通达性（accessibility）	村有国道（公路）通过,accessibility=3;省道,accessibility=2;省级以下公路,accessibility=1
镇经济发展水平（econominc）	根据镇人均GDP与全省人均GDP比值（R）,把镇经济发展水平划分为高（R≥1.5）、中（0.5≤R<1.5）、低（R<0.5）3个等级。变量econominc相应的赋值分别为3、2、1
区位（location）	与最近50万人口城市的距离≤30 km,location =1;>30 km,location =0

策略	LVRN	LVR	LVN	LV	LRN	LR	LN	L
农户数量（户）	16	72	83	176	104	238	365	168
比例（%）	1.3	5.8	6.6	14.1	8.3	19.0	29.2	13.4
户均收入（元）	5376	4282	5931	3459	4912	2724	3932	987

	局部空间	村庄空间	区域空间	国家空间
参与户数（户）	619	356	437	580
收入贡献度（%）	23	17	18	42
就业人数（个）（占总劳动力比例%）	-	375（11.7）	539（16.9）	861（27.0）
人均年收入（元）	-	5298	6110	9228

	收入结构（%）				务工人数比例（%）	务工者收入（元/人·a）	兼业时间 d/人·a	兼业收入元/人·d
	农业				务工人数比例（%）	务工	兼业	其它
城郊	15.3	38.7	33.5	12.4	34.5	6222	100.1	28.4
非城郊	21.0	43.0	26.7	9.3	32.9	4561	56.6	24.6

	LVRN与LV	LRN与LV	LVN与LV	LVR与LV	LN与LV	LR与LV
截距	-1.143	1.122	0.949	2.160	1.449	1.704
[labor=1]	-3.467^**	-3.176^**	-2.271^**	-1.617^**	-1.942^**	-1.034^**
[labor=2]	-2.188^*	-1.391^**	-1.025^*	-1.075^*	-1.289^**	-0.876^＊
[labor=3]	0^a	0^a	0^a	0^a	0^a	0^a
[education=1]	-16.679	-0.018	-16.656	0.610	-0.528	0.935
[education=2]	0.216^*	0.408	0.771^*	0.468	0.283	0.763^**
[education=3]	0^a	0^a	0^a	0^a	0^a	0^a
[farmland=1]	-0.910	-1.068^*	-1.209^*	-1.263^*	-1.161^**	-0.871
[farmland=2]	-0.425	-0.279	-0.664	-1.236	-0.061	-0.122
[farmland=3]	0^a	0^a	0^a	0^a	0^a	0^a
[accessibility=1]	-0.034	-0.527^*	-0.286	0.208^**	-0.005	-0.838^*
[accessibility=2]	0.812	0.844^*	0.250	0.101	1.300^**	0.083
[accessibility=3]	0^a	0^a	0^a	0^a	0^a	0^a
[economincs=1]	0.527	-0.328	-0.578	-0.871	-0.490	-0.232^*
[economincs=2]	1.062	0.403	0.010	0.145	0.261	0.947^*
[economincs=3]	0^a	0^a	0^a	0^a	0^a	0^a
[location=0]	0.566	0.533	0.630	-1.470^**	0.932^**	-1.121^**
[location=1]	0^a	0^a	0^a	0^a	0^a	0^a