内蒙古半农半牧区农户生计资产与生计方式研究——以科右中旗双榆树嘎查为例

doi:10.13249/j.cnki.sgs.2017.07.015

地理科学 ›› 2017, Vol. 37 ›› Issue (7): 1095-1103.doi: 10.13249/j.cnki.sgs.2017.07.015

内蒙古半农半牧区农户生计资产与生计方式研究——以科右中旗双榆树嘎查为例

斯琴朝克图(), 房艳刚(), 王晗, 徐凯

东北师范大学地理科学学院,吉林长春 130024

收稿日期:2016-08-31 修回日期:2016-12-23 出版日期:2017-07-20 发布日期:2017-07-20
作者简介:
作者简介：斯琴朝克图（1987-）,男,蒙古族,内蒙古通辽人,博士研究生,主要从事乡村地理研究。E-mail:sqckt@126.com
基金资助:
国家社科基金项目(15BJL108)、国家自然科学基金青年项目(41001107)、吉林省科技厅项目(20130522061JH)、吉林省教育厅项目(2014B037)、东北师范大学中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金(QT15002)资助

Household-livelihood Assets and Strategies in Farming-pastoral Area: The Case of Shuangyushu Gaqa, Inner Mongolia

Chaoketu Siqin(), Yan’gang Fang(), Han Wang, Kai Xu

School of Geographical Sciences, Northeast Normal University, Changchun 130024, Jilin, China

Received:2016-08-31 Revised:2016-12-23 Online:2017-07-20 Published:2017-07-20
Supported by:
National Social Sciences Foundation of China (15BJL108), National Natural Sciences Foundation of China (41001107), Project of Jilin Technology Committee (20130522061JH), Project of Education Department of Jilin Province (2014B037), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of Northeast Normal University (QT15002)

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

基于可持续生计框架,采用统计分析和深度访谈法,将研究区293户农户按生计活动类型划为牧户（牛户、羊户、牛羊户和马户）、种植户和非农户,并按农户生计资产总值进一步划为高、中、低3个等级类型,进而分析了不同类型和不同等级农户的生计资产与生计活动及方式的依存关系。研究发现：各类农户的生计资产均值差距明显,牧户最高,为0.37,种植户为0.25,非农户为0.21;牧户的劳动力、草场、牲畜、现金、贷款等资产均值最高,种植户的农机和耕地资产均值最高,非农户的社会资产均值最高。目前,半农半牧区的农户仍然以旱作种植业和草地畜牧业为主要生计,但农牧业生产均面临较大的资源环境压力;非农户只占15.3%,且面临非农就业机会不足、个人技能缺失、语言障碍和务农时间与用工季节的冲突。最后,提出了提高农户收入和改善农户生计的对策建议。

关键词: 农户类型, 生计资产, 生计方式, 双榆树嘎查, 半农半牧区, 内蒙古

Abstract:

As it is closely related to the construction of new countryside and building a moderately prosperous society in China, the improvement of rural households’ livelihood and well-being status in ecological fragile area are of great research significance. Based on the sustainable livelihood framework and the application of statistical analysis and in-depth interviews, we divide the 293 households in the case village into three categories including pastoral households (sheep household, cattle household, cattle and sheep household, horse household), farm households, and off-farm households. In accordance with the total amount of livelihood assets, they are ranked into three levels: high, medium, and low. And then, the dependence relationship between livelihood assets and strategies of the rural households in different grades and types were analyzed. The results show that there are significant differences in mean value of livelihood assets, in which the pastoral household is highest for the value of 0.37. The livelihood assets of farm households and off-farm households are 0.25 and 0.21, respectively. Among them, the mean value of the assets of pastoral household is the highest in the aspects of labor, pasture, livestock, cash and loans. The mean value of farm machinery and cultivated land assets is the highest, while that of cash assets is the lowest of farm households. The off-farm households are with the highest social assets. It can be seen from the results that rural households in farming-pastoral area are still taking the dry farming and animal husbandry as the main livelihood. However, the agricultural and animal husbandry production faces a great pressure from the resources and environment. The off-farm households only occupies 15.3% of the total households, facing problems such as insufficient employment opportunities, lack of personal skills, language barrier and conflicts between farming time and employment time. Finally, the study puts forward the counter measures and suggestions to improve the income and livelihood of the rural households.

Key words: household types, livelihood assets, livelihood strategies, Shuangyushu Gaqa, farming-pastoral area, Inner Mongolia

中图分类号:

K901

斯琴朝克图, 房艳刚, 王晗, 徐凯. 内蒙古半农半牧区农户生计资产与生计方式研究——以科右中旗双榆树嘎查为例[J]. 地理科学, 2017, 37(7): 1095-1103.

Chaoketu Siqin, Yan’gang Fang, Han Wang, Kai Xu. Household-livelihood Assets and Strategies in Farming-pastoral Area: The Case of Shuangyushu Gaqa, Inner Mongolia[J]. SCIENTIA GEOGRAPHICA SINICA, 2017, 37(7): 1095-1103.

图/表 8

图1

表1

图2

表2

表3

图3

图4

表4

参考文献 21

[1]	Ellis F.Household strategies and rural livelihood diversification[J]. The Journal of Development Studies, 1998, 35(1): 1-38.
[2]	Tsegaye D, Vedeld P, Moe S R.Pastoralists and livelihoods: A case study from northern Afar, Ethiopia[J]. Journal of Arid Environments, 2013, 91(4): 138-146. doi: 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2013.01.002
[3]	Turner M D, Mc Peak J G, Ayantunde A. The Role of Livestock Mobility in the Livelihood Strategies of Rural Peoples in Semi-Arid West Africa[J]. Human Ecology, 2014, 42(4): 231-247. doi: 10.1007/s10745-013-9636-2
[4]	Dovie B D K, Witkowskia E T F, Shackleton C M. Direct-use value of smallholder crop production in a semi-arid rural South African village[J]. Agricultural Systems, 2003, 76(1): 337-357. doi: 10.1016/S0308-521X(02)00124-5
[5]	王成超, 杨玉盛. 农户生计非农化对耕地流转的影响——以福建省长汀县为例[J]. 地理科学, 2011, 31(11): 1362-1367.
	[Wang Chengchao, Yang Yusheng.Impact of rural house households' nonfarm employment on cropland transfer—Case of Changting County in Fujian Province, China. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 2011, 31(11): 1362-1367.]
[6]	Babulo B, Muys B, Nega F et al. Household livelihood strategies and forest dependence in the highlands of Tigray, Northern Ethiopia[J]. Agricultural Systems, 2008, 98(2): 147-155. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2008.06.001
[7]	阎建忠, 喻鸥, 吴莹莹, 等. 青藏高原东部样带农牧民生计脆弱性评估[J]. 地理科学, 2011, 31(7): 858-867.
	[Yan Jianzhong, Yu Ou, Wu Yingying et al. Livelihood vulnerability assessment of farmers and nomads in Eastern Ecotone of Tibetan Plateau, China. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 2011, 31(7): 858-867.]
[8]	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.
	[Zhao Xueyan.Environmental Impact of Different Livelihood Strategies of Farmers: A Case of the Gannan Plateau. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 2013, 33(5): 545-552.]
[9]	Huber F, Morlok M, Weckerle C S et al. Livelihood Strategies in Shaxi, Southwest China: Conceptualizing Mountain-Valley Interactions as a Human-Environment System[J]. Sustainability, 2015, 7(3): 3204-3229. doi: 10.3390/su7033204
[10]	Shackleton C M, Shackleton S E.Household wealth status and natural resource use in the Kat River valley, South Africa[J]. Ecological Economics, 2006, 57(2): 306-317. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.04.011
[11]	周婧, 杨庆媛, 信桂新, 等. 贫困山区农户兼业行为及其居民点用地形态:基于重庆市云阳县 568 户农户调查[J]. 地理研究, 2010, 29(10): 1767-1779. doi: 10.11821/yj2010100005
	[Zhou Jing, Yang Qingyuan, XinGuixin et al. The rural households' concurrent business behaviors and the housing land-use pattern in poor mountain areas: Based on a survey of 568 households in Yunyang County, Chongqing. Geographical Research, 2010, 29(10): 1767-1779.] doi: 10.11821/yj2010100005
[12]	Chaminuka p, Udo H M J, Eilers K C Het al. Livelihood roles of cattle and prospects for alternative land uses at the wildlife/livestock interface in South Africa[J]. Land Use Policy, 2014, 38(2): 80-90. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.10.007
[13]	蒙吉军, 艾木入拉, 刘洋, 等. 农牧户可持续生计资产与生计策略的关系研究——以鄂尔多斯市乌审旗为例[J]. 北京大学学报: 自然科学版, 2013, 49(2): 321-328.
	[Meng Jijun, Amrulla, Liu Yang et al. Study on Relationship between Livelihood Capital and Livelihood Strategy of Farming and Grazing Households: A Case of Uxin Banner in Ordos. Acta Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Pekinensis, 2013, 49(2): 321-328.]
[14]	Li Zh, Han G, Zhao M et al. Identifying management strategies to improve sustainability and household income for herders on the desert steppe in Inner Mongolia, China[J]. Agricultural Systems, 2015, 132(1): 62-72. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2014.08.011
[15]	Wang X, Zhang Q.Climate variability, change of land use and vulnerability in pastoral society: A case from Inner Mongolia[J]. Nomadic Peoples, 2012, 16(1): 68-87. doi: 10.3167/np.2012.160107
[16]	道日娜. 农牧交错区域农户生计资本与生计策略关系研究——以内蒙古东部四个旗为例[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2014, 24(5): 274-278.
	[Dao Rina.Relationship between livelihood assets and livelihood strategies of rural households of Farming-pastoral Area—A case study on four counties in the Eastern Inner Mongolia. China Population, Resources and Environment, 2014, 24(5): 274-278.]
[17]	Scoones I.Livelihoods perspectives and rural development[J]. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 2009, 36(1): 171-196. doi: 10.1080/03066150902820503
[18]	DFID. Sustainable Livelihood Guidance Sheets[M]. London: Department of International Development, 2000: 68-125.
[19]	Sharp K.Measuring Destitution: Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches in the Analysis of Survey Data[J]. Instituted of Development Studies, 2003, 9: 1-53.
[20]	房艳刚, 刘继生. 基于多功能理论的中国乡村发展多元化探讨——超越“现代化”发展范式[J]. 地理学报, 2015, 70(2): 83-96.
	[Fang Yangang Liu Jisheng. Diversified agriculture and rural development in China based on multifunction theory: Beyond modernization paradigm. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2015, 70(2): 83-96.]
[21]	Tschopp R, Aseffa A, Schelling E et al. Farmers’Perceptions of Livestock, Agriculture, and Natural Resources in the Rural Ethiopian Highlands[J]. Research and Development, 2010, 30(4): 381-390. doi: 10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-09-00072.1

农户类型	牧户				种植户	非农户	总户数
农户类型				牛户	羊户	牛羊户	马户
户数（户）/占比（%）	56/19	58/20	85/29	15/5	34/12	45/15	293/100
牧业收入（%）	68	60	75	80	0	0	51
种植收入（%）	16	21	13	11	80	10	23
非农收入（%）	3	3	0	0	8	82	15
补贴收入（%）	13	16	12	9	12	8	11
生计组合	养牛为主,兼种植玉米、葵花籽等。	养绵羊和山羊,兼种植玉米、葵花籽等。	养牛、绵羊和山羊,种植玉米为主。	养马和其他牲畜,种植玉米为主。	种植葵花籽和玉米为主,少量种植高粱、打瓜、荞麦、糜子等。	以非农活动谋生,耕地多数外租,很少种植。
访谈户数（户）/占比(%)	13/23	16/28	20/24	3/20	8/24	10/22	70/24

资产类型/指标		赋值	主观权重	客观权重	组合权重	计算公式
人力H	教育H₁	教育程度：大专及以上=1;高中=0.75;初中=0.5;小学=0.25;文盲=0	0.034	0.079	0.056	H=H₁×0.056+ H₂×0.092+ H₃×0.037
	劳动力H₂	成年劳动力个数	0.127	0.058		0.092
	劳动能力H₃	家庭整体劳动能力：成年18~60岁为1;12~18岁的少年和60~70岁的老人为0.5;>70岁的老人、<12岁的儿童和丧失劳动力者为0	0.053	0.021		0.037
自然N	耕地N₁	实际耕种面积：承包田面积+租种面积–外租面积	0.168	0.073	0.120	N=N₁×0.120+ N₂×0.146
自然N	草场N₂	草场：利用草场为1;不利用草场为0	0.153	0.139		0.146
物质P	牲畜P₁	牲畜数量：按羊单位计算,马=6;牛=5;绵羊=1;山羊=0.8	0.109	0.205	0.157	P=P₁×0.157+ P₂×0.094+ P₃×0.044
	农机P₂	拥有农机：大型农机(>36 kW/h)=3;中型农机(18~36 kW/h)=2;小型农机(<18 kW/h）=1;无=0	0.096	0.093		0.094
	房屋P₃	居住房屋：彩钢瓦房和砖瓦房=3;平房=2;土坯房=1;无=0	0.042	0.046		0.044
金融F	现金收入F₁	人均现金收入：>5000元=3;2000~5000元=2;<2000元=1	0.111	0.137	0.124	F=F₁×0.124+ F₂×0.074
金融F	贷款F₂	获贷额度：>5万元=4;3~5万元=3;1~3万元=2;<1万元=1;无=0	0.066	0.082		0.074
社会S	社交网络S₀	交往人员职业类型：干部=4;商人=3;工人=2;农民=1	0.043	0.067	0.055	S=S₀×0.055

类型	高户	中户	低户	分类总户数
牧户（户）/占比（%）	77/36	104/49	33/15	214/100
牛户（户）/占比（%）	17/30	25/45	14/25	56/100
羊户（户）/占比（%）	7/12	34/59	17/29	58/100
牛羊户（户）/占比（%）	42/49	42/49	1/1	85/100
马户（户）/占比（%）	11/73	3/20	1/7	15/100
种植户（户）/占比（%）	6/18	8/23	20/59	34/100
非农户（户）/占比（%）	4/9	13/29	28/62	45/100

	单独放牧	合作放牧	托人放牧
牛	>30头	10~30头	<10头
羊	>150只	50~150只	<50只
马	>5匹	—	<5匹
备注	牧户单独放养自家的牲畜	几户邻居或亲属合作,轮流放牧	牧户托人放牧,期间支付工钱（羊：20元/月;牛：50元/月;马：100元/月）

内蒙古半农半牧区农户生计资产与生计方式研究——以科右中旗双榆树嘎查为例

Household-livelihood Assets and Strategies in Farming-pastoral Area: The Case of Shuangyushu Gaqa, Inner Mongolia

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

赞

可视化

被引次数

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 8

参考文献 21

相关文章 15

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 0

[1]	范科科, 段利民, 张强, 史培军, 刘剑宇, 顾西辉, 孔冬冬. 基于多种高分辨率卫星数据的TRMM降水数据降尺度研究——以内蒙古地区为例[J]. 地理科学, 2017, 37(9): 1411-1421.
[2]	王芳, 高晓路. 内蒙古县域经济空间格局演化研究[J]. 地理科学, 2014, 34(7): 818-824.
[3]	李喜仓, 王冀, 杨晶. 内蒙古东部牧区极端降雪变化特征及其成因[J]. 地理科学, 2013, 33(7): 884-889.
[4]	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.
[5]	张清雨, 赵东升, 吴绍洪, 戴尔阜. 基于生态分区的内蒙古地区植被覆盖变化及其影响因素研究[J]. 地理科学, 2013, 33(5): 594-601.
[6]	郭灵辉, 吴绍洪, 赵东升, 冷国勇, 张清雨. 近50年内蒙古地区生长季变化趋势[J]. 地理科学, 2013, 33(4): 505-512.
[7]	马娜, 胡云锋, 庄大方, 张学利. 基于遥感和像元二分模型的内蒙古正蓝旗植被覆盖度格局和动态变化[J]. 地理科学, 2012, 32(2): 251-256.
[8]	于国茂, 刘越, 艳燕, 胡云锋. 2000～2008年内蒙古中部地区土壤风蚀危险度评价[J]. 地理科学, 2011, 31(12): 1493-1499.
[9]	吴海珍, 阿如旱, 郭田保, 孙紫英. 基于RS和GIS的内蒙古多伦县土地利用变化对生态服务价值的影响[J]. 地理科学, 2011, 31(1): 110-116.
[10]	李喜仓, 郭瑞清, 杨丽桃, 侯琼. 近50年内蒙古东部水热变化及对农业的影响[J]. 地理科学, 2009, 29(5): 755-759.
[11]	陈效逑, 郑婷. 内蒙古典型草原地上生物量的空间格局及其气候成因分析[J]. 地理科学, 2008, 28(3): 369-374.
[12]	王爱玲, 朱文泉, 李京, 陈云浩. 内蒙古生态系统服务价值遥感测量[J]. 地理科学, 2007, 27(3): 325-330.
[13]	王学全, 高前兆, 卢琦, 李彬. 内蒙古河套灌区水盐平衡与干排水脱盐分析[J]. 地理科学, 2006, 26(4): 455-460.
[14]	路云阁, 李双成, 蔡运龙. 近40年气候变化及其空间分异的多尺度研究——以内蒙古自治区为例[J]. 地理科学, 2004, 24(4): 432-438.
[15]	杨志荣. 内蒙古中西部地区全新世大暖期气候与环境初步研究[J]. 地理科学, 1998, 18(5): 479-485.