Scientia Geographica Sinica  2017 , 37 (7): 1095-1103 https://doi.org/10.13249/j.cnki.sgs.2017.07.015

Orginal Article

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

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

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

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

中图分类号:  K901

文献标识码:  A

文章编号:  1000-0690(2017)07-1095-09

通讯作者:  房艳刚,教授。E-mail:fangyg578@nenu.edu.cn

收稿日期: 2016-08-31

修回日期:  2016-12-23

网络出版日期:  2017-07-20

版权声明:  2017 《地理科学》编辑部 本文是开放获取期刊文献,在以下情况下可以自由使用:学术研究、学术交流、科研教学等,但不允许用于商业目的.

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

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

展开

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.

Keywords: household types ; livelihood assets ; livelihood strategies ; Shuangyushu Gaqa ; farming-pastoral area ; Inner Mongolia

0

PDF (611KB) 元数据 多维度评价 相关文章 收藏文章

本文引用格式 导出 EndNote Ris Bibtex

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]. , 2017, 37(7): 1095-1103 https://doi.org/10.13249/j.cnki.sgs.2017.07.015

Siqin Chaoketu, Fang Yan’gang, Wang Han, Xu Kai. 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 https://doi.org/10.13249/j.cnki.sgs.2017.07.015

生计是一种谋生方式,农户生计包含了农户为了生存和发展所需的能力、资产和从事的活动以及获得这些的权利[1]。目前,发展中国家和地区的农户生计问题倍受关注,特别是在偏远的生态脆弱地区,因为这些地区非农化程度低且生计多样化发展缓慢,仍主要依托自然资源维持生计[2,3]。但是,这并不意味着农户生计活动和方式没有转变和分化。已有研究发现受政策制度、技术革新、社会转型以及土地利用变化等多方面的影响[4~6],这些乡村地区的许多农户主动或被动的放弃原有的生计活动,并尝试其它的生计方式。现有研究主要基于两种思路,一种思路认为生计活动类型对提高农户生计水平起决定作用,研究主要关注农户生计活动类型的差异[7~9];另一种思路认为农户生计资产对提高农户生计水平起决定作用,研究主要分析农户生计资产值对农户福利的影响[10~13]。笔者通过实地调研发现,农户生计活动类型和农户生计资产值均对农户生计产生重要影响。因此本文综合以上两种思路,既探讨农户生计活动类型对农户生计水平的影响,也细化分析农户因生计资产禀赋及其组合不同所产生的生计差异,这对于农户生计改善更具针对性含义。

2010年代以来,有关内蒙古农户生计研究,多集中于牧区和农区[14,15],而对于农牧交错区或者是半农半牧区的关注不够[16]。本文选取科右中旗双榆树嘎查(内蒙古行政村的称谓)作为研究案例,这里属于蒙古族集中分布、生态脆弱、偏远的半农半牧区,改善与提升这里的农户生计方式,具有很高的生态环境和社会效益。为此,本文基于农户调查资料,构建农户生计资产评估体系,通过分析农户生计资产与生计活动特征,讨论生计资产对农户生计活动与方式的影响,提出有关改善农户生计的对策建议,希望可以为内蒙古半农半牧区建立可持续生计方式提供科学参考。

1 数据与方法

1.1 研究区介绍

双榆树嘎查,属科尔沁右翼中旗巴彦淖尔苏木(内蒙古乡级行政区),由双榆树、哈日温都尔、赵家套布、巴彦哈嘎、乌云必力格等5个艾里(自然屯)组成(图1)。距旗政府驻地巴彦胡硕镇东南50 km。双榆树嘎查一共293户、1 136人,其中蒙古族占98.5%。这里是科尔沁沙地北段,固定、半固定沙丘集中连片,平均海拔高度为180 m。属于中温带大陆性季风气候,年均气温5.5 ℃,无霜期140~145 d,年降水量350~360 mm。内蒙古在1982年实施了“家庭联产承包责任制”,农户分得了耕地和牲畜;到1997年实施“草场承包责任制”,农户分到了草场,但直到现在草场仍没有确权,农户共用集体草场放牧。2015年,农牧民人均纯收入为2 860元。畜牧业养殖大畜牛和马,小畜绵羊和山羊;牲畜总数为13 956头(只),其中牛2 681头、马168匹、绵羊7 529只、山羊3 578只。双榆树嘎查人均耕地为1.07 hm2。种植业以种植玉米、葵花籽为主,少量种植高粱、打瓜、糜子、荞麦等作物。

图1   双榆树嘎查位置示意

Fig. 1   Location of Shuangyushu Gaqa

1.2 数据来源

笔者分别在2015年4月、7月和8月,对双榆树嘎查进行实地调研。调查方式为统计分析法和深度访谈法。根据双榆树嘎查委员会提供的统计数据,笔者统计分析了农户的收入来源和主要生计活动,将农户划为牧户、种植户和非农户3种类型;又依据牧户养殖的畜群结构,把牧户进一步分为牛户、羊户、牛羊户、马户(表1)。在此基础上,深度访谈调查了70户农户,访谈对象均为户主,访谈时长为1~3 h(表1)。被访户的职业包括嘎查干部、兽医、泥瓦匠、商人、饭店服务员、临时工以及有经验的农牧民。调查内容有农户的基本情况,如户主年龄、文化程度、家庭人口、劳动力、耕地情况、草场情况、居住房屋等;农户的经济生活情况,牧业方面有牲畜头只、畜群结构、养殖成本和收入等;种植业方面有种植结构、农机购买、耕作成本和收入等;非农业方面包括从事职业、就业地点和收入状况等。开放式问题涉及到农户生产生活中所面临的困难有哪些方面;政府和嘎查干部是怎样看待提高农户生计问题的;政府给农户提供贷款情况;国家实施的惠农政策是否切实给农牧民带来了益处;农户畜牧业和种植业的经营方式;农户选择非农就业的原因等等。

表1   双榆树嘎查农户生计活动类型划分

Table 1   Classification of rural households' livelihood activities in Shuangyushu Gaqa

农户类型牧户种植户非农户总户数
牛户羊户牛羊户马户
户数(户)/占比(%)56/1958/2085/2915/534/1245/15293/100
牧业收入(%)686075800051
种植收入(%)16211311801023
非农收入(%)330088215
补贴收入(%)131612912811
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(%)13/2316/2820/243/208/2410/2270/24

注:据双榆树嘎查调查数据,补贴收入包括草场补贴、农资补贴、粮食补贴等。马户除养马以外还养其他牲畜,马是蒙古族传统文化的象征,在当地原来每户都养马,随着农业机械化的迅速发展,马的经济和使用价值明显下降,但是目前仍有15户在养马,所以本文把马户单独划出。

新窗口打开

1.3 研究方法

1) 论文分析框架。可持续生计是指农户为改善长远的生活状况所拥有和获得的谋生能力、资产和所从事的活动,是一种以人为中心的、缓解贫困的方法途径[17]。1999年英国国际发展署(DFID)建立了可持续生计分析框架,该框架的核心是建立农户的生计资产-生计活动-生计后果的逻辑关系和相互影响机制[18]。根据此框架,结合研究区实际,笔者设计了本文如图2所示的研究理论框架:外部因素、资产和活动三者相互作用使农户表现出一定的生计类型,不同生计类型农户和不同资产禀赋的同类农户结合自身的优势和劣势,采取一定的生计方式谋求改善自身生计,从而导致某种生计产出,生计产出又反作用于资产,影响农户的生计资产存量、组合和生计活动状态,甚至改变农户生计类型。

图2   论文研究框架

Fig. 2   Methodological framework for study

2) 指标评价方法。DFID可持续生计框架将生计资产分为人力、自然、物质、金融、社会等五种资产。本文借鉴前人生计资产量化研究[2,5,7,8,13,16],在此基础上根据双榆树嘎查的生态环境、文化传统、生产方式等对相关指标进行了调整,设计了适用于当地农户的指标体系(表2)。人力资产(H)是指个人拥有的用于谋生的知识、技能以及劳动能力和健康状况,用家庭成员受教育程度、成年劳动力数量以及家庭成员年龄层次为主的劳动能力来测量。半农半牧区的农户主要从事种植业和畜牧业生产活动,耕地与草场是最为重要的自然资产(N),分别以实际种植面积和草场利用情况来测量。物质资产(P)是指用于生产与生活的基础设施和物质设备,用牲畜数量、农机资产、居住房屋来测量。金融资产(F)是指用于购买消费和生产物品的现金以及可获得的贷款和个人借款,用人均现金收入和获得贷款额度来测量。社会资产(S)是农户家庭生活交往的网络,交往人员结构越多元化,为农户提供信息越多,越有利于农户的生计选择,本文以农户社交人员的职业类型来测量,具体包括干部、商人、工人和农民。

表2   双榆树嘎查农户生计资产指标体系及量化

Table 2   Index system and quantification of rural households’ livelihood assets in Shuangyushu Gaqa

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=00.0340.0790.056H=H1×0.056+ H2×0.092+
H3×0.037
劳动力H2成年劳动力个数0.1270.0580.092
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
0.0530.0210.037
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0.1680.0730.120N=N1×0.120+ N2×0.146
草场N2草场:利用草场为1;不利用草场为00.1530.1390.146
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=0.80.1090.2050.157P=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=00.0960.0930.094
房屋P3居住房屋:彩钢瓦房和砖瓦房=3;平房=2;土坯房=1;无=00.0420.0460.044
金融F现金收入F1人均现金收入:>5000元=3;2000~5000元=2;<2000元=10.1110.1370.124F=F1×0.124+ F2×0.074
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=00.0660.0820.074
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=10.0430.0670.055S=S0×0.055

注:羊单位是指牲畜的计算单位,本文根据《中国草地资源》(1996年)羊单位换算系数计算。

新窗口打开

3) 权重与计算方法。因各项指标的量纲、数量级和变化幅度不同,本文采用极差标准化公式:Zij=(Xij-minXij)/(maxXij-minXij),对选取的指标进行数据处理,经过处理之后的数值介于0~1,数值越接近1,代表这一类型的资产在样本中的相对水平越高[19]。本文的指标权重选取:首先,根据被访农户对各项资产指标的重视程度,利用层次分析法(AHP)软件获得了主观权重;其次,利用熵权法[13]对标准化的指标进行数据处理获得了客观权重;最后,取主观和客观权重的均值得出组合权重。对标准化的指标进行赋权,计算出每一农户的生计资产总值(AT),AT=H+N+P+F+S,结果见表2

2 农户的生计资产

计算双榆树嘎查农户的生计资产总值(AT)得出,平均值为0.33,最高值为0.69,最低值为0.07。不同类型农户的生计资产均值存在明显差异,牧户的生计资产均值最高,为0.37,种植户为0.25,非农户为0.21。如表3所示,据农户的生计资产总值(AT)高低将农户进一步划分为3个等级:AT>0.4为高资产户(下称高户),0.2≤AT≤0.4为中资产户(下称中户),AT<0.2为低资产户(下称低户)。不同类型农户的资产等级分布比例差异明显。牧户的高、中户比例较大,而低户比例较低;种植户和非农户的低户比例大,而高户比例低。其中马户的高户比例最大(73%),而非农户高户比例最低(9%);非农户的低户比例最大(62%),而牛羊户低户比例最低(1%)。

表3   农户生计资产等级划分

Table 3   Classification of livelihood Assets of rural households

类型高户中户低户分类总户数
牧户(户)/占比(%)77/36104/4933/15214/100
牛户(户)/占比(%)17/3025/4514/2556/100
羊户(户)/占比(%)7/1234/5917/2958/100
牛羊户(户)/占比(%)42/4942/491/185/100
马户(户)/占比(%)11/733/201/715/100
种植户(户)/占比(%)6/188/2320/5934/100
非农户(户)/占比(%)4/913/2928/6245/100

注:据双榆树嘎查委员会提供数据统计得出。

新窗口打开

2.1 不同类型农户的生计资产差异分析

不同类型农户生计资产分布如图3所示,对于当地农户而言,现金、劳动力、牲畜、耕地和草场是最为重要的资产,其次是贷款、农机、房屋、社会、劳动能力以及教育等资产。从各类资产差异来看:牧户的劳动力、草场、牲畜、现金、贷款等资产均值最高,因为牧户使用未确权的草场进行放牧,独占草场资产,而且牧户有牲畜可做抵押贷款优势大,同时也体现在现金收入方面;种植户的农机和耕地资产均值最高,因为种植户农机动力充足,种植面积大;非农户的社会资产最高,因为非农户从事非农活动所接触的人员职业种类较为多样。

图3   不同类型农户生计资产分布

Fig. 3   Distribution of livelihood assets of different types of rural households

2.2 同一类型农户内部资产差异分析

2.2.1 牧户内部资产差异分析

牧户的资产等级越高,其各类资产均值越高,特别是在劳动力、牲畜、现金和贷款等方面的差距显著(图4a)。高户的劳动力资产明显高于中、低户,因为当地传统的牧业生产对劳动力数量的要求更高。牧户的资产等级越高,其牲畜规模越大,高户牲畜头数>150羊单位、中户50~150羊单位、低户<50羊单位。高户的现金和贷款资产均值明显高于中、低户,因为牧户的牲畜规模大小决定其收入高低,同样更大的牲畜规模能获得更多的贷款。

2.2.2 种植户内部资产差异分析

不同资产等级种植户的耕地、农机、现金、贷款以及社会等资产均值差距显著(图4b)。种植户的资产等级越高,其耕地资产均值越高,种植总面积高户>10 hm2、中户5~10 hm2、低户<5 hm2,产生这一差异的原因是耕地的出租和承租。种植户的种植规模和农机优势,有利于种植户提高收入,因此高户的现金收入明显高于中、低户,同时也体现在获贷能力方面。社会资产方面高户低于中、低户,这说明高户倾向于专门从事种植业。

2.2.3 非农户内部资产差异分析

不同资产等级非农户间各类资产均值差距更大,且低户的资产缺失严重(图4c)。高户的教育、房屋、现金、贷款、社会等资产均值明显高于中、低户。中户农机资产均值最高,因为他们从事客货运输较多。低户的耕地、农机和贷款等的资产值均为0,是因为低户不从事农业生产,不能够获得农业贷款。

图4   农户资产等级分布

Fig. 4   Distribution of status of livelihood assets of rural households

3 农户的生计方式

双榆树嘎查在政策制度、环境效应、文化传统、技术革新以及市场经济等多重因素的作用下,农户的生计资产和活动发生了重新组合,不同类型农户采取不同的生计方式,而且同一类型不同资产等级的农户间差异明显。牧户放牧为主,同时还种地,不同资产等级牧户采取不同的放牧方式;农田多种玉米,多用有机肥,牲畜的种类和数量越多,种玉米的比重越大。种植户多种葵花籽,兼种玉米,多使用化肥,不同资产等级种植户间种植方式差异大。非农户以非农就业为主,生计多样化明显,因农户所掌握的资本和技能的差异,不同资产等级非农户从事不同的非农活动。

3.1 牧户

双榆树嘎查共有214户牧户,占总数的73.1%。牧户通过放牧和种地获得收入,各资产等级间牲畜结构和规模差别大,且种植种类和比重差别也大,因此牧户分别采取不同的放牧和种植方式。高户多采取单独放牧,中户多为合作放牧(表4);同时,高、中户多采取购买农机服务( 农机服务包括旋耕(375元/hm2),播种(225元/hm2),收割(450元/hm2)。)的方式种地,农田多种玉米补充饲草料,尤其是马户和牛羊户高、中户比例大,除玉米外,很少种其他作物。低户多采取托人放牧,期间更多地从事种植业,尤其是羊户低户比例大,相比其他牧户种植种类多样,除种玉米外,还种些葵花籽、高粱、打瓜、荞麦等作物。

表4   双榆树嘎查牧户放牧方式

Table 4   Herding mode of pastoral households in Shuangyushu Gaqa

单独放牧合作放牧托人放牧
>30头10~30头<10头
>150只50~150只<50只
>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)

注:“—”为空白项。

新窗口打开

2010年代以后,草场退化严重,牲畜在草场上很难吃饱,多数情况下畜群依靠玉米秸秆和饲草料,造成牧户投入增多。另外,草场退化引起牲畜的免疫力下降,尤其是羊群容易得病甚至死亡,造成牧户收入减少。目前,针对草场退化,国家和地方政府制定了减少牲畜、改良品种的政策,同时实施禁牧小畜,并发放禁牧补贴。牲畜改良方面,牧户对牛的品种改良很重视,其中大部分高户购买优质种牛,专门改良自家的牛群;而中、低户因为牲畜少、财力有限,一般采取购买冷冻精液,请村里的兽医进行人工配种。然而,牧户对小畜的改良较少,因为改良技术不成熟、成活率低。禁牧后,牧户由于草料短缺严重,养羊困难,特别是那些低户生计陷入困境。于是牧户采取偷牧,白天圈羊,而夜间放牧。当前,减轻牧户的经济压力是减轻环境压力的前提[20],牧户因保护草场而收入受损,加剧了生计的脆弱性,尤其是低户规避风险能力差,生活趋于贫困。

3.2 种植户

双榆树嘎查有34户种植户,占总数的11.6%。高、中户种植自家的耕地外,还租地种植,同时给其他农户提供农机服务来增加收入。低户因劳动力较少、老化严重、农机动力不足等原因,只种自家的耕地,又因当地农忙期和招工单位用人时段的冲突,很难外出务工增加收入。

双榆树嘎查积温低、降水少,耕地沙化、盐碱化严重,脆弱的自然条件限制了种植业的发展。过往研究认为,干旱区的农户通过扩大种植面积和农作物多样化来规避规风险[3,21]。在当地,以上两种方式均有采用,同时农户还采取改良耕地质量和种植成熟期较短的作物来保障收成。种植户种葵花籽较多,兼种些玉米。葵花籽性价比要高于玉米( 当地玉米产量约3 800~4 500 kg/hm2,收购价约为1.6~2.0元/kg,去掉费用约得4 800~7 000元/hm2;葵花籽产量约1 400~2 000 kg/hm2,收购价约为5.5~7.8元/kg,去掉费用约得7 500~12 000元/hm2。),但是玉米的产量稳定、价格波动较小,可以规避风险,还可以避免连续种葵花籽而导致的重茬。高、中户获贷额度大,多用于农田建设和农机更新,而且农业生产技术高,通过深耕、平整耕地、填土盖沙等方法改良沙化、盐碱化的耕地,能够提高耕地产能。低户获贷额度小,主要用于购买种子、化肥、农药等基本农资投入。而且低户的农业技能低,规避风险能力较差。据一些低户讲述,曾多次遭到风沙掩埋葵花籽和玉米幼苗,导致重新播种;当误了农时,则种些成熟期较短的作物(如爬豆、荞麦、糜子等),这虽然规避了风险,但是收入降低了。

3.3 非农户

双榆树嘎查有45户非农户,占总数的15.3%。非农户的生计活动多样化明显。高户社会网络广泛,并利用资本优势在村内从事经营性活动(如商店、超市、贩卖牲畜等),同时还种地,有固定的收入来源,且收入高。中户多从事技能型活动,收入比较稳定,如瓦工户在周围村庄盖房子;客运户,用面包车或者小轿车载客往返中心城镇;货运户,用农用卡车运输农牧产品、建筑材料等。低户离村进城务工,职业多为建筑工地力工、饭店服务员、服装店员以及其他临时工,收入低且不稳定,而且在城镇租房居住,日常生活支出较大。

非农户中的高户和中户住在村里依靠自身掌握的资本与技能主动选择了非农部门。然而,低户却因资产和技能严重缺失,只能被动的从事非农活动。但是多数低户的就业状况并不理想。目前,低户面临的风险较大,且规避能力差,甚至一些家庭成为了无房户;因常年在外打工,房屋缺乏照管,破损严重甚至倒塌。

4 结论与讨论

1) 不同类型农户的生计资产均值存在明显差异,牧户最高,为0.37,种植户为0.25,非农户为0.21。牧户资产均值高是因为草场和牲畜是他们独有的资产,非农户资产均值低主要因为他们实质上多为从事农牧活动失败而被迫务工。这也体现在不同类型农户的资产等级分布比例的差异上,即牧户的高、中户比例较大,而低户比例较低;种植户和非农户的低户比例大,而高户比例低。

2) 不同类型农户的各类资产分布不均衡,差距较大。农户的生计类型与生计资产禀赋和组合存在相互依赖和相互影响,一般地与生计类型密切相关的资产值高,与生计类型相关性弱的资产值低。

3) 从同一类型农户内部资产差异来看,牧户的资产等级越高,其各类资产均值越高;不同资产等级种植户的耕地、农机、现金、贷款以及社会等资产均值差距显著。不同资产等级非农户间各类资产均值差距更大,并且低户的资产缺失严重。

4) 农户资产禀赋和组合的差异,最终导致他们采取不同的生计方式。牧户的生计方式存在专业化和多样化两种倾向,高、中户的经营方式趋于专业化,牧业生产投入大量的劳动力、资金、技术以及精力,采取单独放牧或者是合作放牧,农田种植采取购买农机服务;低户属于多样化,在农忙期采取托人放牧,期间自己种地。对种植户而言,专业化特征更明显,因为当地农忙时期,恰好也是招工单位用人时期,时间上互相冲突,限制了种植户从事非农活动。所以高、中户利用农业技术和农机优势扩大种植面积来提高收入,那些种植较少的低户趋于贫困。非农户中的高、中户住在村里依靠所掌握的资本与技能主动选择非农部门;而那些低户,因资产和技能缺失严重,被迫选择进城务工,生活困难。

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,但是当地草场退化、耕地沙化、盐渍化等资源环境压力限制了农牧业的稳步发展,农牧民面对脆弱的生态环境,生计风险加剧。同时,农牧民通过非农就业来提高收入以及改善生计很难,原因在于,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。综合来看,半农半牧区人均耕地虽多但质量差,应对退化严重的耕地实施休耕或退耕,并保护优质耕地、完善农田水利设施、改良土壤建设,通过合理轮作稳定耕地产量。同时,发展适宜当地条件的种养结合的家庭经济,种植业辅助畜牧业,通过牲畜改良以及调整农业种植结构,稳定农业生产、提高农户收入、改善农户生计。笔者认为目前阶段,半农半牧区的农户弃农弃牧,进城务工从事非农活动,不是很适合;相反,在当地通过农业多样化经营、适度的农业规模化与专业化来提升收入比较有效。

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.


参考文献

[1] Ellis F.

Household strategies and rural livelihood diversification

[J]. The Journal of Development Studies, 1998, 35(1): 1-38.

[本文引用: 1]     

[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.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2013.01.002      URL      [本文引用: 2]      摘要

The changing contexts in the drylands of Africa in which pastoralists operate pose potential negative effects for the livelihood sustenance of pastoralists. We examined present livelihood adaptations among Afar pastoralists in north eastern Ethiopia through a household survey. With an average per capita income of 1.20 USD a day (PPP-adjusted in 2006), all households surveyed in the study area fall below the international 2 USD a day poverty line. Most Afar pastoralists have become increasingly involved in farming and non-farming/non-pastoral activities, but do not display a total detachment from traditional mobile herding. Pastoral households are still less likely to diversify their livelihoods, while semi-pastoral and agro-pastoral households keep livestock more as an additional insurance against failure in other livelihood activities such as farming. This indicates combining livestock production and farming has improved or at least constrained declines in livelihood outcomes. Our quantitative findings are congruent with the general patterns of pastoral livelihood contraction occurring in the region even if a substantial group of pastoralists continue to engage in keeping livestock. These findings are highly relevant in a management context, suggesting more encompassing, and locally adapted policy and development strategy rather than a wholesale abandonment of support to pastoral livelihood styles.
[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.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-013-9636-2      URL      [本文引用: 2]      摘要

Over the past 10 years, mobility of livestock has been portrayed as increasing the resilience of rural households in semi-arid Africa to climate change and variability. With this recognition, there has been important work characterizing livestock mobility and the barriers to it. This paper adds to this work by addressing two gaps in the literature: 1. An understanding in the variation of livestock mobility practices among communities; and 2. An understanding of rural peoples鈥 views of the advantages and disadvantages of livestock mobility as well as the factors affecting their decisions about herd movements. A mixed-methods approach was adopted to analyze data collected by household survey and group interviews conducted in 32 multi-ethnic villages in Mali and Niger spanning the 12.5掳 N to 16.5掳 N latitudinal range. The results of regression and qualitative analyses show that: 1. A large fraction of rural households rely on livestock as part of their livelihood strategies; 2. Grazing management of a large majority of village livestock depends on movements outside of the village territory, especially during the rainy season; 3. The mobility of village livestock is not strongly influenced by the village鈥檚 sociprofessional composition (farmer, herder, fisher, artisan..etc.); and 4. The prevalence of extra-village movements of village livestock (sheep and cattle) is higher in areas of higher population density. Despite the advantages of livestock mobility cited by informants, longer-distance movements are inhibited by risks associated with climatic, land-use, and sociopolitical change. Herd managers make decisions using diverse information about potential destinations with greater trust of information gathered by themselves or close kin. The implications of these findings for livestock management and policy in the region are discussed.
[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.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-521X(02)00124-5      URL      [本文引用: 1]      摘要

The monetary value of natural resources used by rural communities for subsistence is important when addressing issues affecting the livelihoods of impoverished rural households. There is therefore the need to attribute monetary values to non-marketed products from smallholder production systems in order to reliably account for resource availability and usage to further sound policy decisions. The objective of this paper is to present an empirical analysis of the direct-use and traded values of crop production by households, and to discuss the implications for policy development. The study was undertaken in combination with an evaluation of other livelihood sectors in Thorndale, a semi-arid rural village in the Limpopo province of South Africa. The net direct-use value of crops was estimated at $443.4 per household per annum across the village. Maize ( Zea mays), watermelon ( Citrullus, vulgaris), peanuts ( Arachis hypogaea) and common beans ( Phaseolus vulgaris) contributed over 90% to the total direct-use value of crops. Maize alone contributed 40% of this value per household at an estimated $652/ha. Marketing of resources was not a common practice, limited to only maize and peanuts. Farming was basically a rain-fed鈥搈ixed cropping system with low production inputs. Farmer support services, human capital development and tenure security were major areas identified for policy development.
[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.

[本文引用: 1]     

[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.]

[本文引用: 1]     

[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.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2008.06.001      URL      [本文引用: 1]      摘要

Forest environmental resources provide substantial contributions to the wellbeing of many rural dwellers. However, the level of forest use and the degree of reliance on forest environmental products differ across households. The factors that condition a household’s economic reliance on a particular economic activity in general and on forest environmental resources in particular may vary depending on the resource endowment of the household, the household’s demographic and economic characteristics, and exogenous factors such as markets, prices and technologies. This paper identifies the factors that condition a household’s livelihood strategy choice with a particular focus on forest products. For this, we use the livelihood approach as a framework of analysis. Environmentally augmented household income data were collected from 360 sample households in Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. On the basis of the share of forest environmental income in total household income, sample households were clustered into distinct livelihood strategies. Student’s t -test and ANOVA were used to test income differences among the clusters. Multinomial logit (MNL) regression on asset-based explanatory variables was run to identify the main factors that determine households’ livelihood strategy choice and forest dependence. The analyses indicate that differential access to, or endowment of, livelihood assets determines the choice of a household’s strategy. Asset-poor households should be encouraged to engage in activities with higher economic return.
[7] 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, 31(7): 858-867.

[本文引用: 2]     

[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.]

[本文引用: 2]     

[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.

[本文引用: 1]     

[Zhao Xueyan.

Environmental Impact of Different Livelihood Strategies of Farmers: A Case of the Gannan Plateau.

Scientia Geographica Sinica, 2013, 33(5): 545-552.]

[本文引用: 1]     

[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.

https://doi.org/10.3390/su7033204      URL      [本文引用: 1]      摘要

This paper investigates the socio-ecological differences and interactions between upland and lowland areas in Shaxi Valley, Yunnan Province, Southwest China. As an analytical tool we used an extended Human–Environment System Framework by focusing particularly on the dynamics and sustainability of livelihood strategies and mountain–valley interactions. Drawing from household surveys conducted in two mountain and two valley communities in 2005 and 2009, we show that the distinct income gap between mountain and valley households in 2005 ceased to exist in 2009. The main drivers for this development are the local tourist industry, persistent demand for forest resources, as well as local off-farm and seasonal migrant employment.
[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.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.04.011      URL      [本文引用: 1]      摘要

Data on NTFP consumption, purchase, and sale were collected from households in three rural villages. Households were divided into three wealth classes and patterns of NTFPs use between the classes examined. There was no difference in the proportions of households in each wealth class using NTFPs, nor the total number of NTFPs used per household. Yet, there was some supporting evidence that poorer households derive greater benefits from NTFPs than do wealthy or intermediate households. One clear difference was that, with increasing wealth, households purchased significantly more NTFPs, and a greater proportion of wealthy households did so. Conversely, a greater proportion of poor households were involved in the sale of one or more NTFPs, and they sold a greater number per household, compared to wealthy and intermediate households. Detailed examination of use and value of four NTFPs (fuelwood, wild fruits, edible herbs, and grass hand brushes) revealed that in all instances, the poorest households used more of the resource per capita than the other wealth classes. This was not the case for comparisons based on the total household as the unit of analysis. Gross annual direct-use value did not differ between the wealth classes for any of the four NTFPs examined, at the household level. But on a per capita basis, a significantly higher gross annual direct-use value was evident within poorer households for fuelwood and edible herbs. The significance of these differences is discussed.
[11] 周婧, 杨庆媛, 信桂新, .

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.

https://doi.org/10.11821/yj2010100005      URL      Magsci      摘要

贫困山区农户兼业现象普遍,对相关的土地利用活动影响深刻。采用重点与随机抽样、参与式农村评估和景观格局分析等方法,从微观尺度定量分析了云阳县568户农户兼业行为与居民点用地形态变化的相互关系,可为土地利用结构调整、居民点用地整理挖潜提供认识依据。结果表明:(1)云阳县农户兼业现象普遍,依据非农收入与农业收入差、非农劳动投入比重,将农户划分为纯农业型、农业主导型、农工兼具型、非农主导型、非农业型五种兼业类型;(2)老龄和女性人口少、且平均文化水平较高的农户兼业水平最高,人口数量多、分工多元化的农户兼业水平居中;(3)以农业生产为主要生计活动的纯农业型与农业主导型农户,居民点用地规模变化较小,约为180m<sup>2</sup>,土地利用粗放且多样化程度高,其中,纯农业户圈养与堆棚用地比重较高,农业主导型院坝用地比重较高;(4)农工兼具型农户的居民点用地规模扩大,约为190m<sup>2</sup>,土地利用集约度得到提高,且多样性下降,堆棚用地弱化,住房用地占主导;(5)逐渐退出农业生产的非农主导型与非农业型农户,居民点用地规模缩减,约为160~130m<sup>2</sup>,土地集约度较高,多样性下降,居民点中生产性用地比重下降、居住性用地比重上升。研究认为,农村居民点整理挖潜必须与农户的兼业需求相适应。

[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.]

https://doi.org/10.11821/yj2010100005      URL      Magsci      摘要

贫困山区农户兼业现象普遍,对相关的土地利用活动影响深刻。采用重点与随机抽样、参与式农村评估和景观格局分析等方法,从微观尺度定量分析了云阳县568户农户兼业行为与居民点用地形态变化的相互关系,可为土地利用结构调整、居民点用地整理挖潜提供认识依据。结果表明:(1)云阳县农户兼业现象普遍,依据非农收入与农业收入差、非农劳动投入比重,将农户划分为纯农业型、农业主导型、农工兼具型、非农主导型、非农业型五种兼业类型;(2)老龄和女性人口少、且平均文化水平较高的农户兼业水平最高,人口数量多、分工多元化的农户兼业水平居中;(3)以农业生产为主要生计活动的纯农业型与农业主导型农户,居民点用地规模变化较小,约为180m<sup>2</sup>,土地利用粗放且多样化程度高,其中,纯农业户圈养与堆棚用地比重较高,农业主导型院坝用地比重较高;(4)农工兼具型农户的居民点用地规模扩大,约为190m<sup>2</sup>,土地利用集约度得到提高,且多样性下降,堆棚用地弱化,住房用地占主导;(5)逐渐退出农业生产的非农主导型与非农业型农户,居民点用地规模缩减,约为160~130m<sup>2</sup>,土地集约度较高,多样性下降,居民点中生产性用地比重下降、居住性用地比重上升。研究认为,农村居民点整理挖潜必须与农户的兼业需求相适应。

[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.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.10.007      URL      摘要

The emergence of wildlife ranching as an alternative land use option to agriculture, in Transfrontier Conservation Areas (TFCAs), has cast renewed interest on the role of cattle farming in rural livelihoods in areas close to wildlife parks. This study analysed the contribution of cattle to livelihoods and relationships between cattle and potential wildlife land uses in rural areas near Kruger National Park. Data were collected through household surveys, key informant interviews and community workshops. About 11% of households studied owned cattle, and cattle income constituted 29% of total household income. Benefits from cattle were also derived by households without cattle. About 71% of households had at least three sources of income, reflecting diversity of livelihoods. Wildlife related land uses were perceived by some households as threatening cattle production, whilst others viewed them as opportunities for alternative livelihoods. We conclude that cattle production has important livelihood roles, but is not sufficient as a driver of economic development in these areas. Incentives to encourage diversification of livelihoods at the wildlife/livestock interface, with possibilities for rural communities to explore wildlife based land uses should be put in place. In addition, land use policy and planning in such areas should focus on creating institutional mechanisms through which programmes integrating conservation and rural development goals can benefit rural communities.
[13] 蒙吉军, 艾木入拉, 刘洋, .

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.

[本文引用: 3]     

[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.]

[本文引用: 3]     

[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.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2014.08.011      URL      [本文引用: 1]     

[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.

https://doi.org/10.3167/np.2012.160107      URL      [本文引用: 1]      摘要

Climate variability is a primary characteristic of arid and semi-arid areas where drought...
[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.

[本文引用: 2]     

[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.]

[本文引用: 2]     

[17] Scoones I.

Livelihoods perspectives and rural development

[J]. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 2009, 36(1): 171-196.

https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150902820503      URL      [本文引用: 1]      摘要

Livelihoods perspectives have been central to rural development thinking and practice in the past decade. But where do such perspectives come from, what are their conceptual roots, and what influences have shaped the way they have emerged? This paper offers an historical review of key moments in debates about rural livelihoods, identifying the tensions, ambiguities and challenges of such approaches. A number of core challenges are identified, centred on the need to inject a more thorough-going political analysis into the centre of livelihoods perspectives. This will enhance the capacity of livelihoods perspectives to address key lacunae in recent discussions, including questions of knowledge, politics, scale and dynamics.
[18] DFID.

Sustainable Livelihood Guidance Sheets

[M]. London: Department of International Development, 2000: 68-125.

[本文引用: 1]     

[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.

URL      [本文引用: 1]      摘要

Through detailed discussion of a methodology developed to quantify destitution in rural Ethiopia, the paper raises a number of issues and ideas concerning the integration of qualitative and quantitative approaches during survey analysis. It highlights the critical importance of using contextual data to inform quantitative analysis, for example in defining and scaling locally-appropriate indicators of such basic parameters as human capital and housing quality.An index of physical labour capacity, adjusted for chronic illness and disability, is suggested as a more meaningful measure of household human capital in such a low-skill, low-opportunity livelihood system than the more commonly-used education or literacy variables. The potential application of this index to calculating “real” or effective household dependency ratios is also explored. The advantages and disadvantages of “qualitative” versus “objective” methods of weighting composite indices are compared.Among the innovative aspects of the analysis is the triangulation of an “idea” destitution index constructed from discrete quantified variables with a subjective, holistic self-assessment of the household’s status. The very high correlation of results from the two approaches validates both the methods and the findings, and exemplifies the value of combined data types in representing the multi-dimensional reality of extreme poverty.In operationalising the livelihoods approach, the focus is on quantifying access to (not merely ownership of) key assets, and outcomes. Again, the importance of contextual data and of locally-appropriate interpretations of the framework’s parameters emerges as of key importance. Although the discussion necessarily involves a degree of Ethiopia-specific information, the methods and issues raised are of much broader application to applied development research, and to the current “Q-squared” debate on combining methodologies.
[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.

[本文引用: 1]     

[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.]

[本文引用: 1]     

[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.

https://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-09-00072.1      URL      [本文引用: 1]      摘要

Increasing human and livestock populations in Ethiopia are leading to a growing demand for food and feed. Cereal cropping is highly prioritized at the cost of the livestock subsector and the environment. Grazing land is decreasing, leading to overstocking and overgrazing of pastures, thus fueling conflicts over scarce resources and exacerbating further land degradation. Two independent surveys were carried out in 4 areas in the Ethiopian Highlands, using questionnaires to investigate livestock husbandry as well as farmers' perceptions and attitudes regarding the relationship among cropping, livestock, and natural resources, in the context of broader reflection on what could help support Ethiopia's human, animal, and environmental needs in a sustainable way. In total, 684 farmers were interviewed in 75 villages. The majority of animals were said to be fed on natural pasture and crop residues; only 1.3% of the respondents purchased supplementary feed. Overall, cropland had increased in the study area at the cost of grazing land, and overstocking of pastures was seen as a major problem. Decreasing grazing land was also considered to be due to drought in Woldia and increased human population in Gurage. No pasture management system was in place at community level in our study sites. Less than 2% of the respondents perceived and understood land degradation and subsequent reduced land fertility to be a constraint for sustainable feed production. Measures and priorities for future livelihoods were perceived differently by farmers from different regions. We discuss strategies for de-stocking cattle herds, the nature of which is intrinsically tied to cereal cropping. This study highlights the lack of understanding amongst farmers of the causes and effects of land degradation and the lack of community-based strategies for conservation agriculture.

/