新一轮退耕还林工程多元目标瞄准研究——基于农户决策自主权视角

doi:10.18402/resci.2018.08.07

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

退耕还林工程进入政策调整的新阶段,新一轮退耕还林工程能否瞄准多元政策目标是这一时期的关键问题。本文基于一手调查的农户及地块数据,考察新一轮退耕还林工程对生态效益、成本有效性、益贫性等多元目标的瞄准成效,并进一步探究农户决策自主权在退耕瞄准过程中的作用。结果表明,新一轮退耕还林工程基本能够瞄准生态效益较高、成本较低的地块,但并未瞄准贫困户的地块,尤其是在农户没有瞄准自主权的情况下,家庭经济贫困对参与新一轮退耕还林有显著负向影响。农户决策自主权对新一轮退耕还林工程瞄准多元目标有积极作用,由农户自主瞄准的地块更具成本有效性和益贫性。因此,为提升退耕还林工程的瞄准效率,实现成本有效性、益贫性等多元目标及成果的可持续性,应在政策实施过程中赋予农户更多决策自主权;改进新一轮退耕还林工程的瞄准方案与指标体系;完善退耕补偿方案,建立动态的、差异化的生态补偿机制等。

关键词: 新一轮退耕还林工程, 农户决策自主权, 益贫性, 生态效益, 成本有效性

Abstract:

In the new stage of policy adjustment, the New-stage Sloping Land Conversion Program (NSLCP) can aim at multiple policy objectives of ecological benefits, cost-effectiveness and poverty alleviation and whether it could target its multiple goals becomes the key issue in this period. Based on the study of rural households and plots data, this paper evaluated the targeting effects of the NSLCP on the ecological benefit, cost effectiveness, and poverty alleviation. It further explored the role of farmers' decision-making autonomy in the process of converted cropland targeting. The results showed that the NSLCP can aim at the land plots with higher ecological efficiency and lower cost, but it does not target the lands held by the poor households, especially in the case that the rural households do not have the right to target. And the family economic poverty has a significant negative impact on the participation in the NSLCP. The decision-making autonomy of rural households has a positive effect on the multiple targets of the NSLCP. The plots which are targeted by farmers are more cost-effective and the targeting process is more equitable for the poor. Therefore, in order to improve the targeting efficiency of the project, to achieve the cost-effectiveness, the pro-poor effects and the sustainability of the outcomes, the policy should give farmers more decision-making autonomy. It is essential to improve the targeting scheme and its index system in the NSLCP and also the compensation scheme by establishing dynamic and differentiated ecological compensation mechanism.

Key words: new-stage sloping land conversion program, household autonomy, pro-poor targeting, ecological benefits, cost-effectiveness

任林静, 黎洁. 新一轮退耕还林工程多元目标瞄准研究——基于农户决策自主权视角[J]. 资源科学, 2018, 40(8): 1560-1571.

Linjing REN, Jie LI. Targeting of multiple goals in new-stage Sloping Land Conversion Program based on farmers' decision-making autonomy[J]. Resources Science, 2018, 40(8): 1560-1571.

图/表 7

表1

表2

图1

图2

表3

表4

表5

参考文献 36

[1]	Barbier E B.Poverty, development, and environment[J]. Environment and Development Economics, 2010, 15(6): 635-660.
[2]	任林静, 黎洁. 退耕还林政策交替期补偿到期农户复耕意愿研究[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2017, 27(11): 132-140.
	[ Ren L J, Li J.Reconversion willingness of compensation-expired households in key phase of Sloping Land Conversion Program[J]. China Population, Resources and Environment, 2017, 27(11): 132-140. ]
[3]	Gauvin C, Uchida E, Rozelle S, et al. Cost-effectiveness of payments for ecosystem services with dual goals of environment and poverty alleviation[J]. Environmental Management, 2010, 45(3): 488-501.
[4]	Kolinjivadi V, Gamboa G, Adamowski J, et al. Capabilities as justice: Analysing the acceptability of payments for ecosystem services through ‘social multi-criteria evaluation’[J]. Ecological Economics, 2015, 118: 99-113.
[5]	Pascual U, Muradian R, Rodríguez L C, et al. Exploring the links between equity and efficiency in payments for environmental services: a conceptual approach[J]. Ecological Economics, 2010, 69(6): 1237-1244.
[6]	Zanella M A, Schleyer C, Speelman S.Why do farmers join payments for ecosystem services schemes? An assessment of PES water scheme participation in Brazil[J]. Ecological Economics, 2014, 105(9): 166-176.
[7]	Uchida E, Xu J T, Xu Z G, et al. Are the poor benefiting from China's land conservation program?[J]. Environment and Development Economics, 2007, 12(4): 593-620.
[8]	Démurger S, Pelletier A.Volunteer and satisfied? Rural households' participation in a payments for environmental services programme in Inner Mongolia[J]. Ecological Economics, 2015, 116: 25-33.
[9]	黎洁. 西部重点生态功能区人口资源与环境可持续发展研究[M]. 北京: 经济科学出版社, 2016. [ Li J. Studies on Sustainability of Population, Resource and Environment in Key Ecological Functional Zones of Western China[M]. Beijing: Economic Science Press, 2016. ]
[10]	Uchida E, Xu J T, Rozelle S.Grain for green: cost-effectiveness and sustainability of China's conservation set-aside program[J]. Land Economics, 2005, 81(2): 247-264.
[11]	徐晋涛, 陶然, 徐志刚. 退耕还林:成本有效性、结构调整效应与经济可持续性[J]. 经济学(季刊), 2004, 4(1): 139-162.
	[ Xu J T, Tao R, Xu Z G.Sloping land conversion program: cost- effectiveness, structural effect, and economic sustainability[J]. China Economic Quarterly, 2004, 4(1): 139-162. ]
[12]	Chen X D, Lupi F, Vina A, et al. Using cost-effective targeting to enhance the efficiency of conservation investments in payments for ecosystem services[J]. Conservation Biology, 2010, 24(6): 1469-1478.
[13]	李彧挥, 高晓屹, 郑风田. 退耕还林工程土地选择指标体系研究-基于西南地区农户调查的实证分析[J]. 中国软科学, 2007, (10): 155-160.
	[Li Y H, Gao X Y, Zheng F T.Study on farmland selection index system for the Sloping Land Conversion Program in China[J]. China Soft Science, (10): 155-160. ]
[14]	李国平, 石涵予. 退耕还林生态补偿与县域经济增长的关系分析-基于拉姆塞-卡斯-库普曼宏观增长模型[J]. 资源科学, 2017, 39(9): 1712-1724.
	[Li G P, Shi H Y.The relationship between GTGP and regional economic growth based on Ramsey-Cass-Koopmans Modeling[J]. Resource Science, 2017, 39(9): 1712-1724. ]
[15]	刘越, 姚顺波. 不同类型国家林业重点工程实施对劳动力利用与转移的影响[J]. 资源科学, 2016, 38(1): 126-135.
	[Liu Y, Yao S B.The impact of national key forestry programs on labor utilization and transfer in China[J]. Resource Science, 2016, 38(1): 126-135. ]
[16]	国家发改委. 关于印发新一轮退耕还林还草总体方案的通知(发改西部[2014]1772号)[EB/OL]. (2014-08-07)[2017-12-17]. .
	[National Development and Reform Committee. Notice of Issuing New-stage Sloping Land Conversion Program Scheme (NDRC[2014]No. 1772) [EB/OL]. (2014-08-07)[2017-12-17]. .
[17]	国家财政部和农业部. 关于扩大新一轮退耕还林还草规模的通知(财农[2015]258号)[EB/OL]. (2015-12-31)[2017-12-17]. .
	[ Sate Ministry of Finance, State Ministry of Agriculture. Notice of Enlarging the Scale of New-stage Sloping Land Conversion Program(SMF&SMA[2015]No. 258) [EB/OL]. (2015-12-31)[2017-12-17]. ]
[18]	李国平, 石涵予. 退耕还林生态补偿标准、农户行为选择及损益[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2015, (5): 152-161.
	[Li G P, Shi H Y.The Payment for Grain to Green Project: The behavior choice of peasants and their gains and losses[J]. China Population, Resources and Development, 2015, (5): 152-161. ]
[19]	王一超, 郝海广, 翟瑞雪, 等. 农户退耕还林生态补偿预期及其影响因素-以哈巴湖自然保护区和六盘山自然保护区为例[J]. 干旱区资源与环境, 2017, 31(8): 69-75.
	[Wang Y C, Hao G H, Zhai R X, et al. Determinants of farm households’ ecological compensation expectation to the Grain for Green Project: An empirical analysis based on Haba Lake National Nature Reserve and Liupanshan Mountain National Nature Reserve[J]. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 2017, 31(8): 69-75. ]
[20]	张璇, 郭轲, 王立群. 基于农户意愿的退耕还林后续补偿问题研究-以河北省张北县和易县为例[J]. 林业经济, 2016, (3): 59-65.
	[Zhang X, Guo K. Wang L Q.Study on follow-up compensation of returning the grain land to the forestry based on the farmer’ s willingness[J]. Forestry Economics, 2016, (3): 59-65. ]
[21]	谢晨, 王佳男, 彭伟, 等. 新一轮退耕还林还草工程: 政策改进与执行智慧-基于2015年退耕还林社会经济效益监测结果的分析[J]. 林业经济, 2016, (3): 43-51.
	[Xie C, Wang J N, Peng W, et al. The new round of CCFP: policy improvement and implementation wisdom-based on the results of social and economic benefit inventory of CCFP in 2015[J]. Forestry Economics, 2016, (3): 43-51. ]
[22]	徐建英, 孔明, 刘新新, 等. 生计资本对农户再参与退耕还林意愿的影响-以卧龙自然保护区为例[J]. 生态学报, 2017, 37(18): 6205-6215.
	[Xu J Y, Kong M, Liu X X, et al. The effect of livelihood capital on the willingness of farmers to re-enroll in the Grain for Green Program: a case study in Wolong Nature Reserve[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2017, 37(18): 6205-6215. ]
[23]	石春娜, 姚顺波. 新一轮退耕还林优先区选择研究: 一个文献综述[J]. 林业经济, 2016, (3): 66-69.
	[Shi C N, Yao S B.The priority areas selection study of the new round Sloping Land Conversion Program: a literature review[J]. Forestry Economics, 2016, (3): 66-69. ]
[24]	Wu J, Zilberman D, Babcock B A.Environmental and distributional impacts of conservation targeting strategies[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 2001, 41(3): 333-350.
[25]	Kelly P, Huo X.Do farmers or governments make better land conservation choices? Evidence from China's Sloping Land Conversion Program[J]. Journal of Forest Economics, 2013, 19(1): 32-60.
[26]	He J, Sikor T.Notions of justice in payments for ecosystem services: insights from China's sloping land conversion program in Yunnan Province[J]. Land Use Policy, 2015, 43(1): 207-216.
[27]	Xu J T, Tao R, Xu Z G, et al. China's sloping land conversion program: does expansion equal success?[J]. Land Economics, 2010, 86(2): 219-244.
[28]	钟兴菊. 地方性知识与政策执行成效-环境政策地方实践的双重话语分析[J]. 公共管理学报, 2017, (1): 38-48.
	[Zhong X J.Local knowledge and policy enforcement effectiveness-analysis on the dual discourses of local practices towards environmental policies[J]. Journal of Public Management, 2017, (1): 38-48. ]
[29]	Lin Y, Yao S B.Impact of the Sloping Land Conversion Program on rural household income: an integrated estimation[J]. Land Use Policy, 2014, 40(1): 56-63.
[30]	Zhao M J, Yin R S, Yao L Y, et al. Assessing the impact of China's sloping land conversion program on household production efficiency under spatial heterogeneity and output diversification[J]. China Agricultural Economic Review, 2015, 7(2): 221-239.
[31]	Feng L, Xu J Y.Farmers' willingness to participate in the next-stage grain-for-green project in the Three Gorges Reservoir Area, China[J]. Environmental Management, 2015, 56(2): 505-518.
[32]	万海远, 李超. 农户退耕还林政策的参与决策研究[J]. 统计研究, 2013, 30(10): 83-91.
	[Wan H Y, Li C.Study on the participation in decision-making on sloping land conversion program for peasants[J]. Statistical Research, 2013, 30(10): 83-91. ]
[33]	邢恩德, 郭建英, 李锦荣, 等. 退耕还林工程建设对黄土丘陵区县域土壤水力侵蚀的影响-以吴起县为例[J]. 内蒙古农业大学学报, 2013, 34(6): 67-74.
	[Xing E D, Guo J Y, Li J R, et al. The effect of soil water erosion about conversion from cropland to forest on the loess hilly region: taking Wuqi County as an example[J]. Journal of Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, 2013, 34(6): 67-74. ]
[34]	Komarek A M, Shi X P, Heerink N.Household-level effects of China's sloping land conversion program under price and policy shifts[J]. Land Use Policy, 2014, 40: 36-44.
[35]	李小云, 董强, 饶小龙, 等. 农户脆弱性分析方法及其本土化应用[J]. 中国农村经济, 2007, (4): 32-39.
	[Li X Y, Dong Q, Rao X L, et al. Methods of assessing vulnerability of farmers and local use[J]. Chinese Rural Economy, 2007, (4): 32-39. ]
[36]	李棉管. 技术难题、政治过程与文化结果-“瞄准偏差”的三种研究视角及其对中国“精准扶贫”的启示[J]. 社会学研究, 2017, (1): 217-241.
	[Li M G.Technological barriers, political process and cultural consequence: three research perspectives on targeting error and the implications for “targeting poverty” in China[J]. Sociological Study, 2017, (1): 217-241. ]

变量	变量定义	样本	平均值	标准差
地块层面
1. 是否参与新一轮退耕还林	1=是,0=否	697	0.16	0.36
2. 地块坡度
0°	1=是,0=否	692	0.64	0.48
<15°	1=是,0=否	692	0.05	0.22
15°~25°	1=是,0=否	692	0.07	0.25
26°~35°	1=是,0=否	692	0.07	0.26
>35°	1=是,0=否	692	0.17	0.37
3. 土壤海拔
低,平原	1=是,0=否	685	0.23	0.42
较低,山脚	1=是,0=否	685	0.04	0.20
较高,山腰	1=是,0=否	685	0.23	0.42
高,山顶	1=是,0=否	685	0.23	0.42
4. 土壤质量
好	1=是,0=否	690	0.76	0.43
差	1=是,0=否	690	0.24	0.43
5. 地块位置
地块到家的距离/ km		687	6.27	15.47
地块到公路的距离/ km		659	2.84	9.53
农户层面
6. 农户决策自主权	1=有瞄准退耕的自主权;0=无	294	0.49	0.50
7. 家庭经济财富状况
人均住房面积/ m²	总住房面积/家庭总人口	296	31.98	33.84
人均土地面积/ hm²	总土地面积/家庭总人口	294	0.93	0.76
人均资产拥有量/个	资产拥有量/家庭总人口	296	1.30	0.93
8. 政策执行情况
退耕指标分配的公平性	本村退耕指标是否分配不均匀： 1=是;0=否	294	0.28	0.45
农户参与退耕的自愿性	本村是否有强制退耕的情况：1=是;0=否	295	0.21	0.41
公共事务的民众参与性	本村集体事务参与程度： 1=很多,…,5=很少	295	3.83	1.48

	农户退耕地块的瞄准偏好			农户实际退耕现状
	不愿退耕的地块	愿意退耕的地块	t检验	未参与新一轮退耕的地块	参与了新一轮退耕的地块	t检验
1. 地块坡度
0°	0.81	0.58	4.64***	0.76	0.04	16.96***
<15°	0.05	0.05	-0.30	0.05	0.04	0.61
15°~25°	0.06	0.07	-0.45	0.06	0.07	-0.37
26°~35°	0.03	0.12	-3.57***	0.05	0.19	-5.07***
>35°	0.05	0.18	-3.94***	0.08	0.66	-18.12***
2. 地块海拔
低	0.64	0.31	5.28***	0.58	0.03	11.34***
较低	0.02	0.04	-0.87	0.03	0.08	-2.37***
较高	0.17	0.32	-3.12***	0.20	0.40	-4.46***
高	0.17	0.33	-3.22***	0.19	0.49	-7.09***
3. 土壤质量
好	0.41	0.48	-1.07	0.42	0.26	3.28***
差	0.59	0.52	1.07	0.58	0.74	-2.63***
4. 地块位置
地块到家的距离	6.13	5.64	0.26	5.81	8.77	-1.81**
地块到公路的距离	2.26	5.15	-2.54***	2.59	4.21	-1.59*

家庭经济财富状况	人均住房		人均土地		人均资产
家庭经济财富状况	面积/m²	t检验	面积/hm²	t检验	拥有量/个	t检验
参与新一轮退耕的农户	34.00	-0.88	1.03	-2.06**	1.31	-0.08
未参与新一轮退耕的农户	30.50	-0.88	0.85	-2.06**	1.30	-0.08

变量	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4
1. 地块坡度 (以0°为参照)
<15°	0.17***	0.20*	0.18***	0.17***
15°~25°	0.22***	0.22**	0.23***	0.21***
26°~35°	0.49***	0.48***	0.50***	0.47***
>35°	0.55***	0.56***	0.56***	0.54***
2. 地块海拔(以低为参照)
较低	0.21***	0.23*	0.22***	0.23***
较高	0.05	0.06	0.05	0.07*
高	0.10**	0.10**	0.10**	0.12***
3. 土壤质量(以质量好为参照)
质量差	0.04**	0.04*	0.04**	0.04**
4. 地块位置
地块到家的距离	10.67E-04*	10.91E-04*	9.34E-04*	11.00E-04**
地块到公路的距离	-4.70E-04	-4.23E-04	-4.50E-04	-4.53E-04
5. 家庭经济财富状况
人均住房面积		3.04E-04
人均土地面积			0.02*
人均资产拥有量				0.02**
LR chi2	267.78***	264.75***	270.66***	272.75***
R-squared	0.48	0.48	0.48	0.49

变量	选择模型	自主瞄准模型	非自主瞄准模型
1. 家庭经济财富状况^a
人均住房面积	35.57E-04**	-0.01	0.01**
人均土地面积	0.30***	-0.03	0.15
人均资产拥有量	0.30***	-0.07	0.95***
2. 地块坡度（以0°为参照）
<15°	0.74**	0.70	0.71
15°~25°	0.50*	0.71**	2.21***
26°~35°	0.32	1.69***	2.03***
>35°	-0.51***	2.03***	2.89***
3. 地块海拔（以低为参照）
较低	-0.17	0.38	2.72***
较高	0.69***	-0.11	0.98
高	0.25*	0.27	1.63**
4. 土壤质量（以质量好为参照）
质量差	-0.04	0.49**	0.39
5. 地块位置
地块到家的距离	-56.81E-04**	0.01	0.01
地块到公路的距离	71.60E-04**	-0.03*	0.00
6. 政策执行情况
退耕指标分配的公平性	0.82***
农户参与退耕的自愿性	-0.24*
公共事务的民众参与性	-0.09**
常数项	-0.11	-1.29	-4.47
rho	-0.74*
Wald chi2	52.48***