生计风险及其对重点生态功能区农户生活满意度的影响

doi:10.13249/j.cnki.sgs.2020.07.009

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

基于甘南黄河水源补给区入户调查数据，在分析农户生计风险及生活满意度特征的基础上，探明生计风险对农户生活满意度的影响。结果发现：① 甘南黄河水源补给区农户面临的主要生计风险为自然灾害、家人患病和子女学费开支，其对农户的冲击最为严重且持续时间较长；② 农户大多遭受多重风险的冲击，其生计风险多样化指数为4.12，面临家人患病与自然灾害、家人患病与子女学费开支、家人患病与建房开支等风险组合冲击的家庭较多；③ 农户的生活满意度处于中等水平，且经济示范区高于重点保护区和恢复治理区；④ 农户生活满意度除受子女学费开支、草场/耕地质量下降、人畜饮水困难、家人去世开支、生态政策等风险的严重程度和持续时间、家人患病风险的持续时间以及金融资本、自然资本、社会资本、心理资本、生计方式多样化程度的影响外，受家人患病与子女学费开支、自然灾害与子女就业困难及生计风险的综合严重性程度与综合持续性程度交互作用的影响更加显著。最后，提出防范生计风险、提高生活满意度的政策建议。

关键词: 农户, 生计风险, 生活满意度, 甘南黄河水源补给区, 重点生态功能区

Abstract:

Based on the household survey data in the Yellow River water supply area, this article analyzes the characteristics of livelihood risk and life satisfaction of farmers, and explores the influence of livelihood risk on the life satisfaction of farmers. The results show that: 1) The main livelihood risk faced by farmers in the Yellow River water supply area of Gannan are natural disasters, illness of family members and tuition expenses of children, which have the most serious impact on farmers and last longer; 2) Most farmers in this area suffer from multiple risks, and their livelihood risk diversification index is 4.12, more families are affected by the risk combination of family illness and natural disaster, family illness and children's tuition expenses, family illness and housing expenses; 3) The life satisfaction of farmers in this area is at a middle level, and the economic demonstration areas is higher than that in the key protection area and rehabilitation management area; 4) The life satisfaction of farmers is not only due to the severity and duration of risks such as the tuition expenses of their children, the quality of pasture/cultivated land decline, the difficulty of drinking water for people and animals, family death expenses, ecological policies, the duration of family illness risk, as well as financial capital, nature capital, social capital, psychological capital and the diversity of livelihood methods, but also the interaction between the risk of family illness and tuition expenses of child, natural disasters and children's employment difficulties, as well as the impact of the comprehensive severity of livelihood risk and the degree of comprehensive sustainability is more significant. Finally, we propose policy recommendations to prevent livelihood risk and improve life satisfaction.

Key words: farmers, livelihood risk, life satisfaction, the Yellow River water supply area of Gannan, key ecological function area

中图分类号:

K901

赵雪雁, 苏慧珍, 何小风, 介永庆, 母方方, 薛冰. 生计风险及其对重点生态功能区农户生活满意度的影响[J]. 地理科学, 2020, 40(7): 1124-1133.

Zhao Xueyan, Su Huizhen, He Xiaofeng, Jie Yongqing, Mu Fangfang, Xue Bing. Livelihood Risk and Its Impact on Life Satisfaction of Farmers in Key Ecological Functional Areas: A Case Study of the Yellow River Water Supply Area of Gannan[J]. SCIENTIA GEOGRAPHICA SINICA, 2020, 40(7): 1124-1133.

图/表 10

图 1

表 1

表 2

图 2

图 3

图 4

图 5

表 3

表 4

表 5

参考文献 25

[1]	The World Economic Forum. The global risk report[R]. The World Economic Forum, 2018.
[2]	Shameem M I M, Momtaz S, Rauscher R Vulnerability of rural livehoods to multiple stressors: A case study from the southwest coastal region of Bangladesh[J]. Ocean& Coastal Management, 2014. 102, 79- 87.
[3]	陈传波农户风险与脆弱性: 一个分析框架及贫困地区的经验[J]. 农业经济问题, 2005. 26 (8): 47- 50. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-6389.2005.08.010
	Chen Chuanbo The farmers' risk and vulnerability: A analysis framework and the lessons in the poverty-stricken area[J]. Issues in Agricultural Economy, 2005. 26 (8): 47- 50. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-6389.2005.08.010
[4]	Pilone E, Demichela M A semi-quantitative methodology to evaluate the main local territorial risks and their interactions[J]. Land Use Policy, 2018. 77, 143- 154. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.05.027
[5]	Quinn C H, Meg H, Hilda K et al Local perceptions of risk to livelihood in semi-arid Tanzania[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2003. 68 (2): 111- 119. doi: 10.1016/S0301-4797(03)00013-6
[6]	万文玉, 赵雪雁, 王伟军, 等高寒生态脆弱区农户的生计风险识别及应对策略: 以甘南黄河水源补给区为例[J]. 经济地理, 2017. 37 (5): 150- 157.
	Wan Wenyu, Zhao Xueyan, Wang Weijun et al Farmers' livelihood risk in ecologically vulnerable alpine region: A case of Gannan Plateau[J]. Economic Geography, 2017. 37 (5): 150- 157.
[7]	Biagi B, Ladu M G, Meleddu M Urban quality of life and capabilities: An experimental study[J]. Ecological Economics, 2018. 150, 137- 152. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.04.011
[8]	Kubiszewski I, Zakariyya N, Costanza R Objective and subjective indicators of life satisfaction in Australia: How well do people perceive what supports a good life?[J]. Ecological Economics, 2018. 154, 361- 372. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.08.017
[9]	Zhang F, Zhang C, Hudson J Housing conditions and life satisfaction in urban China[J]. Cities, 2018. 81, 35- 44. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2018.03.012
[10]	Yuana L, Shinb K, Managi S Subjective well-being and environmental quality: The impact of air pollution and green coverage in China[J]. Ecological Economics, 2018. 153, 124- 138. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.04.033
[11]	程超, 温兴祥家庭内部相对收入、性别身份认同与中国居民生活幸福感: 基于CGSS数据的实证研究[J]. 经济评论, 2019. 214 (6): 127- 139.
	Cheng Chao, Wen Xingxiang Relative income within the family, gender identity and the happiness of chinese residents: An empirical study based on CGSS data[J]. Economic Review, 2019. 214 (6): 127- 139.
[12]	苏芳, 马南南, 郑亚萍甘肃石羊河流域农户生计风险评价及其对幸福感的影响研究[J]. 冰川冻土, 2019. 42 (4): 719- 730.
	Su Fang, Ma Nannan, Zheng Yaping Livelihood risk assessment and their influence on farmers' happiness in Shiyang River basin, Gansu[J]. Journal of Glaciology and Geocryology, 2019. 42 (4): 719- 730.
[13]	张圆刚, 黄业坚, 程静静, 等城市居民压力源对幸福感的影响研究: 基于乡村旅游休闲参与的角度[J]. 地理研究, 2019. 38 (4): 971- 987. doi: 10.11821/dlyj020180660
	Zhang Yuangang, Huang Yejian, Cheng Jingjing et al Research on the impact of pressure sources on happiness of urban residents: Based on the perspective of rural tourism and leisure participation[J]. Geographical Research, 2019. 38 (4): 971- 987. doi: 10.11821/dlyj020180660
[14]	刘璐璐, 曹巍, 吴丹, 等国家重点生态功能区生态系统服务时空格局及其变化特征[J]. 地理科学, 2018. 38 (9): 1508- 1515.
	Liu Lulu, Cao Wei, Wu Dan et al Temporal and spatial variations of ecosystem services in national key ecological function zones[J]. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 2018. 38 (9): 1508- 1515.
[15]	马国霞, 周夏飞, 彭菲, 等 2015年中国生态系统生态破坏损失核算研究[J]. 地理科学, 2019. 39 (6): 1008- 1015.
	Ma Guoxia, Zhou Xiafei, Peng Fei et al Cost of ecological degradation accounting in China in 2015[J]. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 2019. 39 (6): 1008- 1015.
[16]	国家统计局.中国统计年鉴[M].北京:中国统计出版社,2018.
	National Bureau of Statistics of China.China statistical yearbook. Beijing:China Statistics Press, 2018.
[17]	甘南统计局.甘南统计年鉴[M].甘南:甘南统计出版社,2018.
	Gannan Statistical Bureau. Gannan Statistical Bureau. Gannan:Gannan Statistical Press,2018.
[18]	王亚茹, 赵雪雁, 张钦, 等高寒生态脆弱区农户的气候变化适应策略评价: 以甘南高原为例[J]. 生态学报, 2017. 35 (7): 1273- 1287.
	Wang Yaru, Zhao Xueyan, Zhang Qin et al The evaluation of famer's climate change adaptation strategies in high-frigid ecological vulnerable region: A case of Gannan Plateau[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2017. 35 (7): 1273- 1287.
[19]	Shil S, Singh U K Health risk assessment and spatial variations of dissolved heavy metals and metalloids in a tropical river basin system[J]. Ecological Indicators, 2019. 106, 105455. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105455
[20]	Islam A, Maitra P Health shocks and consumption smoothing in rural households: Does microcredit have a role to play?[J]. Journal of Development Economics, 2012. (97): 232- 243.
[21]	唐玉芝, 邵全琴, 曹巍, 等基于物质量评估的贵州南部地区生态系统服务及其县域差异比较[J]. 地理科学, 2018. 38 (1): 122- 134.
	Tang Yuzhi, Shao Quanqin, Cao Wei et al The ecosystem services and its spatial variation at countyscale in the southern Guizhou based on physical assessment method[J]. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 2018. 38 (1): 122- 134.
[22]	苏飞, 应蓉蓉, 黄建毅, 等生计安全研究的可视化分析[J]. 地理科学, 2018. 38 (12): 2058- 2065.
	Su Fei, Ying Rongrong, Huang Jianyi et al Progress and implications in livelihood security research[J]. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 2018. 38 (12): 2058- 2065.
[23]	Mcdowell J Z, Hess J J Accessing adaptation: Multiple stressors on livelihoods in the Bolivian highlands under a changing climate[J]. Global Environmental Change, 2012. 22 (2): 342- 352. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.11.002
[24]	赵雪雁, 张丽, 江进德生态补偿对农户生计的影响: 以甘南黄河水源补给区为例[J]. 地理研究, 2013. 32 (3): 531- 542.
	Zhao Xueyan, Zhang Li, Jiang Jinde et al The impact of ecological compensation on the peasants' livelihoods: A case of Yellow River water supply area of Gannan[J]. Geographical Research, 2013. 32 (3): 531- 542.
[25]	阎建忠, 喻鸥, 吴莹莹青藏高原东部样带农牧民生计脆弱性评估[J]. 地理科学, 2011. 27 (7): 858- 867.
	Yan Jiangzhong, Yu Ou, Wu Yingying Livelihood vulnerability assessment of farmers and nomads in eastern ecotone of Tibetan Plateau, China[J]. scientia Geographical Sinica, 2011. 27 (7): 858- 867.

农户类型	户主年龄（岁）	户主务农年限（a）	家庭规模（人/户）	劳动力数量（人/户）	劳动力受教育程度（%）					年均收入（元/户）
农户类型	户主年龄（岁）	户主务农年限（a）	家庭规模（人/户）	劳动力数量（人/户）	文盲	小学	初中	高中/中专	大专及以上	年均收入（元/户）
全体受访户	45.37	23.47	5.05	3.28	20.58	33.95	23.36	9.28	12.83	28942.42
重点保护区农户	44.70	22.74	5.24	3.42	21.15	34.84	25.04	7.15	11.82	26928.49
恢复治理区农户	45.55	24.52	4.92	3.22	20.53	34.35	22.90	9.67	12.54	29331.68
经济示范区农户	46.63	20.02	5.14	3.14	16.48	35.23	24.43	10.23	13.64	33513.88

类别	指标	是否遭受该风险	风险的严重性赋值	风险的持续性赋值
环境风险	自然灾害	是=1；否=0	非常严重=5 比较严重=4 一般=3 比较轻微=2 非常轻微=1	非常长=5 比较长=4 一般=3 比较短=2 非常短=1
	草场/耕地质量下降
	人畜饮水困难
	农作物病虫害
	水土流失
健康风险	家人患病
	牲畜患病
市场风险	农/牧产品价格下降
	农/牧产品销路困难
	购买假农资产品
家庭发展需求风险	子女学费开支高
	建房开支高
家庭结构变化风险	家人去世开支高
	子女婚嫁彩礼高
政策风险	生态政策
社会风险	养老保障困难
	子女就业困难

	测量指标	赋值	均值	标准差
人力资本	家庭整体劳动能力	全劳动力（劳动年龄内具有劳动能力的人）=3；半劳动力（劳动年龄外但经常参加劳动的人）=2；非劳动力（劳动年龄内丧失劳动能力及劳动年龄外不参加劳动的人）=1	13.300	3.920
	劳动力受教育水平	大专及以上=5；高中/中专=4；初中=3；小学=2；文盲=1	6.520	2.310
自然资本	耕地面积	人均实际耕种面积（hm²）	0.092	1.540
	家庭固定资产拥有量	所拥有的固定资产项数占所列选项的比例	0.360	0.160
物质资本	牲畜数量	牛/马/骡/驴=4；羊=3；猪=2；鸡/鸭/鹅/兔=1	54.580	132.360
	房屋拥有情况	混凝土房/砖瓦房=5；砖木房=4；土木房=3；帐棚=2；棚圈=1。 5间及以上=5；4间=4；3间=3；2间=2；1间=1	20.550	13.330
金融资本	家庭现金收入	人均现金年收入（元）	5861.740	1771.810
	借贷机会	能=1；否=0	0.520	0.500
社会资本	亲友关系	与亲戚朋友关系的和谐程度：非常好=5；比较好=4；一般=3；比较差=2；非常差=1	4.230	0.690
	帮助网规模	遇到困难时主动帮忙的人数：非常多=5；比较多=4；一般=3；比较少=2；非常少=1	3.790	0.700
心理资本	面对困难或逆境时表现	非常坚强=5；比较坚强=4；一般=3；有点沮丧=2；非常沮丧=1	3.840	0.860
	应对突发事件的能力	非常好=5；比较好=4；一般=3；不太好=2；非常不好=1	3.580	0.790

变量	模型1			模型2			模型3
变量	系数（B）	S.E	卡方值	系数（B）	S.E	卡方值	系数（B）	S.E	卡方值
金融资本	2.952^***	0.366	65.194	2.821^***	0.365	59.749	2.702^***	0.363	54.690
自然资本	2.244^**	0.973	5.318	2.408^**	0.980	6.033	1.621^*	0.965	1.882
社会资本	1.562^**	0.672	5.401	1.230^*	0.678	3.292	1.441^**	0.677	4.132
心理资本	4.035^***	0.553	53.224	3.951^***	0.557	50.268	3.716^***	0.547	44.695
草场/耕地质量下降	?0.187^***	0.071	7.015	?0.299^***	0.076	15.319
人畜饮水困难	?0.164^**	0.073	5.069	?0.130^*	0.074	3.117
子女学费开支高	?0.093^**	0.045	4.219	?0.205^***	0.050	17.124
家人去世开支高	?0.166^**	0.081	4.229	?0.179^**	0.083	4.656
生态政策	?0.180^*	0.096	3.540	?0.184^*	0.102	3.271
家人患病	?0.056	0.045	1.563	?0.165^***	0.050	10.828
生计方式多样化程度	0.187^***	0.067	7.826	0.199^***	0.067	8.715	0.207^***	0.066	9.321
综合严重性程度×综合持续性程度							?0.322^**	0.135	5.859
偏差	1156.977			1125.317			1114.641
Cox-Snell R²	0.352			0.387			0.399

变量	模型4			模型5
变量	系数（B）	S.E	卡方值	系数（B）	S.E	卡方值
家人患病×子女学费开支	?0.056^***	0.018	10.145	?0.099^***	0.020	23.321
自然灾害×子女就业困难	?0.046^*	0.026	3.223	?0.035^*	0.021	2.787
自然灾害×家人患病×子女学费开支×建房开支	?0.004^**	0.002	3.893
偏差	1251.083			1275.519
Cox-Snell R²	0.046			0.094