自然保护区对周边农户多维贫困的影响——基于社会资本的中介效应分析

doi:10.18402/resci.2020.06.06

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

准确评估保护区和周边社区贫困农户的关系对实现生物多样性保护和当地社区协调发展具有重要意义,然而鲜有文献从社会资本的视角分析保护区建立对农户多维贫困影响的作用机制。本文选取四川省、陕西省14个自然保护区周边787户农户为研究对象。通过构建“自然保护区—社会资本—多维贫困”的理论分析框架,采用中介效应模型分析自然保护区对周边农户多维贫困的影响。研究结果表明：①保护区内的农户比保护区外的农户更容易陷入多维贫困;②保护区的建立在一定程度上会削弱社会资本,从而导致农户多维贫困;③不同等级（国家级、省级）、不同省份及是否开展生态旅游的保护区之间社会资本的中介作用存在显著差异,其中其中省级保护区、陕西省保护区和开展生态旅游的保护区社会资本中介效应更明显。因此,保护区的管理应注重培育农户的社会网络,增强农户的社会信任,调动农户的社会参与,从而提高当地农户的社会资本质量,进而提高其生计水平。

关键词: 自然保护区, 社会资本, 多维贫困, 中介效应, 生态旅游, Sobel检验, Bootstrap检验

Abstract:

Evaluating the relationship between protected areas (PAs) and poor households of the surrounding communities accurately is crucial for realizing the dual objectives of biodiversity conservation and coordinated development of local communities. However, limited literature has analyzed the mechanism of the impact of PAs on household multidimensional poverty from the perspective of social capital. This study investigated 787 households around 14 PAs in Sichuan and Shaanxi Provinces, constructed an analytical framework of Protected Areas-Social Capital-Multidimensional Poverty, and analyzed the impact of PAs on multidimensional poverty of surrounding rural households based on an intermediary effect model. The results show that: (1) Households inside the PAs are more likely to fall into multidimensional poverty than those outside the PAs; (2) The establishment of protected areas impairs social capital to some extent, further leading to multidimensional poverty of rural households; (3) The intermediary effect of social capital shows significant differences at different administrative levels (national and provincial), between different provinces, and between PAs with and without ecotourism. Specifically, in PAs at the provincial level, PAs of Shannxi Province, and PAs having ecotourism, social capital has larger intermediary effects. Therefore, PA management should extend rural household social networks, enhance their social trust, and mobilize their social participation to improve the quality of rural household social capital and further develop their livelihoods.

Key words: protected areas, social capital, multidimensional poverty, intermediary effect, ecotourism, sobel test, bootstrap test

段伟, 欧阳波. 自然保护区对周边农户多维贫困的影响——基于社会资本的中介效应分析[J]. 资源科学, 2020, 42(6): 1074-1086.

DUAN Wei, OUYANG Bo. Impacts of protected areas on multidimensional poverty of surrounding rural households:Analysis of the intermediary effect based on social capital[J]. Resources Science, 2020, 42(6): 1074-1086.

图/表 8

图1

表1

表2

表3

表4

表5

表6

表7

参考文献 44

[1]	中华人民共和国生态环境部. 2017中国生态环境状况公报[EB/OL]. (2018-05-31) [2019-08-27]. http://www.mee.gov.cn/hjzl/zghjzkgb/lnzghjzkgb/201805/P020180531534645032372.pdf.
	[Ministry of Ecology and Environment of the People’s Republic of China. 2017 Bulletin on the State of the Ecological Environment of China[EB/OL]. (2018-05-31) [2019-08-27]. http://www.mee.gov.cn/hjzl/zghjzkgb/lnzghjzkgb/201805/P02018053153464 5032372.pdf. ]
[2]	马奔, 丁慧敏, 温亚利. 生物多样性保护对多维贫困的影响研究: 基于中国7省保护区周边社区数据[J]. 农业技术经济, 2017, (4):116-128.
	[ Ma B, Ding H M, Wen Y L. Impact of biodiversity conservation on multidimensional poverty: Based on data from communities around protected areas in 7 provinces of China[J]. Journal of Agrotechnical Economics, 2017, (4):116-128.]
[3]	中共中央, 国务院. 关于打赢脱贫攻坚战的决定[EB/OL]. (2018-08-20) [2019-08-27]. http://www.xjcz.gov.cn/xjcztpgz/zcfg/201908/t20190807_36536.html.
	[Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, State Council. Decision on Winning the Tough Battle against Poverty[EB/OL]. (2018- 08-20) [2019-08-27]. http://www.xjcz.gov.cn/xjcztpgz/zcfg/201908/t20190807_36536.html. ]
[4]	段伟. 保护区生物多样性保护与农户生计协调发展研究[D]. 北京: 北京林业大学, 2016.
	[ Duan W. The Study on Harmonious Development between Biodiversity Conservation of Protection Area and Rural Livelihoods[D]. Beijing: Beijing Forestry University, 2016.]
[5]	段伟, 赵正, 马奔, 等. 保护区周边农户对生态保护收益及损失的感知分析[J]. 资源科学, 2015,37(12):2471-2479.
	[ Duan W, Zhao Z, Ma B, et al. Perceptions of rural household surrounding the protection area on protection benefits and losses[J]. Resources Science, 2015,37(12):2471-2479.]
[6]	Deni, Adiwibowo D S, Satria A, et al. Alternative livelihood dilemmas and the degradation of protected areas: Power contestation and social-ecological interests in Gede Pangrango National Park[J]. IOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science, 2019, DOI: 10.1088/1755-1315/285/1/012001.
[7]	Krishna V V, Drucker A G, Pascual U, et al. Estimating compensation payments for on-farm conservation of agricultural biodiversity in developing countries[J]. Ecological Economics, 2013,87:110-123. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.12.013
[8]	Noelia Z C, Eneko G, Unai P, et al. Progress toward equitably managed protected areas in Aichi target 11: A global survey[J]. Bioscience, 2019,69(3):191-197. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biy143 pmid: 30914829
[9]	Jongeneel R, Polman N, Slangen L. Cost-benefit analysis of the Dutch nature policy: Transaction costs and land market impacts[J]. Land Use Policy, 2012,29(4):827-836. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.12.010
[10]	Branco P S, Merkle J A, Pringle R M, et al. An experimental test of community-based strategies for mitigating human-wildlife conflict around protected areas[J]. Conservation Letters, 2019,13:e12679.
[11]	Muboko N, Murindagomo F. Wildlife control, access and utilization: Lessons from legislation, policy evolution and implementation in Zimbabwe[J]. Journal for Nature Conservation, 2014,22(3):206-211. doi: 10.1016/j.jnc.2013.12.002
[12]	Bowy D B, Evans K L, Oldekop J A. Impact of protected areas on poverty, extreme poverty, and inequality in Nepal[J]. Conservation Letters, 2018,11(6):1-9.
[13]	Duan W, Wen Y L. Impacts of protected areas on local livelihoods: Evidence of giant panda biosphere reserves in Sichuan Province, China[J]. Land Use Policy, 2017,68:168-178. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.07.015
[14]	Sen A. Development As Freedom[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
[15]	Alkire S, Foster J. Understandings and misunderstandings of multidimensional poverty measurement[J]. The Journal of Economic Inequality, 2011,9(2):289-314. doi: 10.1007/s10888-011-9181-4
[16]	MacKenzie C A. Risk, reciprocity and retribution: Choosing to extract resources from a protected area[J]. Ecological Economics, 2018,143:314-323. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.10.009
[17]	刘雯. 收入差距、社会资本与农户消费[J]. 中国农村经济, 2018, (6):84-100.
	[ Liu W. Income gap, social capital and rural consumption[J]. Chinese Rural Economy, 2018, (6):84-100.]
[18]	王昌海. 中国自然保护区给予周边社区了什么: 基于1998—2014年陕西、四川和甘肃三省农户调查数据[J]. 管理世界, 2017, (3):63-75.
	[ Wang C H. What has China’s nature reserves given to surrounding communities: Based on survey data of farmers in Shaanxi, Sichuan and Gansu from 1998 to 2014[J]. Management World, 2017, (3):63-75.]
[19]	Cinner J E, McClanahan T R, MacNeil M A, et al. Co-management of coral reef social-ecological systems[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2012,109(14):5219-5222. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1121215109
[20]	方杰, 张敏强, 邱皓政. 中介效应的检验方法和效果量测量: 回顾与展望[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2012,28(1):105-111.
	[ Fang J, Zhang M Q, Qiu H Z. Mediation analysis and effect size measurement: Retrospect and prospect[J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2012,28(1):105-111.]
[21]	Putnam R D, Leonardi R, Nanetti R Y. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy[M]. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993.
[22]	许兴龙, 周绿林, 陈羲. 城镇化背景下失地农民社会资本异质性与其健康状况[J]. 中国农村观察, 2017, (5):74-86.
	[ Xu X L, Zhou L L, Chen X. The heterogeneity of social capital and the health of displaced farmers in the process of urbanization[J]. China Rural Survey, 2017, (5):74-86.]
[23]	Jones N. Investigating the inﬂuence of social costs and beneﬁts of environmental policies through social capital theory[J]. Policy Sciences, 2010,43:229-244. doi: 10.1007/s11077-009-9107-1
[24]	Jones N, Clark J R A, Panteli M, et al. Local social capital and the acceptance of protected area policies: An empirical study of two Ramsar river delta ecosystems in northern Greece[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2012,96(1):55-63. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.10.012
[25]	韩雅清, 杜焱强, 苏时鹏, 等. 社会资本对林农参与碳汇经营意愿的影响分析: 基于福建省欠发达山区的调查[J]. 资源科学, 2017,39(7):1371-1382. doi: 10.18402/resci.2017.07.14
	[ Han Y Q, Du Y Q, Su S P, et al. Social capital and farmer willingness for forest carbon sequestration management in underdeveloped regions of Fujian[J]. Resources Science, 2017,39(7):1371-1382.]
[26]	王恒, 秦国庆, 王博, 等. 社会资本、金融借贷与农户多维贫困: 基于秦巴山区3省的微观调查数据[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2019,29(11):167-176.
	[ Wang H, Qin G Q, Wang B, et al. Social capital, financial lending and multi-dimensional poverty of farmers: Based on micro survey data of three provinces in Qinba Mountains area[J]. China Population, Resources and Environment, 2019,29(11):167-176.]
[27]	史恒通, 赵伊凡, 吴海霞. 社会资本对多维贫困的影响研究: 来自陕西省延安市513个退耕农户的微观调查数据[J]. 农业技术经济, 2019, (1):86-99.
	[ Shi H T, Zhao Y F, Wu H X. Research on the influence of social capital on multidimensional poverty: Evidence from 513 farmer households in Yan’an City[J]. Journal of Agrotechnical Economics, 2019, (1):86-99.]
[28]	贺志武, 胡伦. 社会资本异质性与农村家庭多维贫困[J]. 华南农业大学学报(社会科学版), 2018,17(3):24-35.
	[ He Z W, Hu L. The social capital heterogeneity effect on farmers’ multidimensional poverty[J]. Journal of South China Agricultural University (Social Science Edition), 2018,17(3):24-35.]
[29]	Mogues T. Social networks near and far: The role of bonding and bridging social capital for assets of the rural poor[J]. Review of Development Economics, 2019,23(1):189-210. doi: 10.1111/rode.2019.23.issue-1
[30]	卢娟, 李斌. 社会网络、非正规金融与居民幸福感: 基于2016年中国家庭追踪调查数据的实证研究[J]. 上海财经大学学报, 2018,20(4):46-62.
	[ Lu J, Li B. Social network, informal finance and residents’ happiness: An empirical analysis based on data of CFPS in 2016[J]. Journal of Shanghai University of Finance and Economics, 2018,20(4):46-62.]
[31]	郭云南, 姚洋, Jerermy F. 宗族网络与村庄收入分配[J]. 管理世界, 2014, (1):73-89.
	[ Guo Y N, Yao Y, Jerermy F. The lineage networks and the income distribution in villages[J]. Management World, 2014, (1):73-89.]
[32]	Ringim K J, Shuaib S N. Influence of social capital on consumption per capita income and poverty alleviation in tertiary institution cooperative thrift and credit society[J]. Nephron Clinical Practice, 2017,8(3):35-43.
[33]	仇焕广, 陆岐楠, 张崇尚, 等. 风险规避、社会资本对农民工务工距离的影响[J]. 中国农村观察, 2017, (3):42-56.
	[ Qiu H G, Lu Q N, Zhang C S, et al. The effect of risk aversion and social capital on the working distance of migrant workers[J]. China Rural Survey, 2017, (3):42-56.]
[34]	蔡起华, 朱玉春. 社会信任、关系网络与农户参与农村公共产品供给[J]. 中国农村经济, 2015, (7):59-71.
	[ Cai Q H, Zhu Y C. Social trust, relationship network and farmers’ participation in the supply of rural public goods[J]. Chinese Rural Economy, 2015, (7):59-71.]
[35]	Diedrich A, Stoeckl N, Gurney G G, et al. Social capital as a key determinant of perceived benefits of community-based marine protected areas[J]. Conservation Biology, 2017,31(2):311-321. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12808 pmid: 27530721
[36]	Heslinga J, Groote P, Vanclay F. Strengthening governance processes to improve benefit-sharing from tourism in protected areas by using stakeholder analysis[J]. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 2019,27(4-6):773-787. doi: 10.1080/09669582.2017.1408635
[37]	罗必良. 现代农业发展理论: 逻辑线索与创新路径[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2009.
	[ Luo B L. Theory of Modern Agricultural Development: Logical Clues and Innovation Paths[M]. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2009.]
[38]	刘彬彬, 陆迁, 李晓平. 社会资本与贫困地区农户收入: 基于门槛回归模型的检验[J]. 农业技术经济, 2014, (11):40-51.
	[ Liu B B, Lu Q, Li X P. Social capital and farmers’ income in poor areas: Test based on threshold regression model[J]. Journal of Agrotechnical Economics, 2014, (11):40-51.]
[39]	Tumbaga J R A, Hipolito M C, Gabriel A G. Community participation toward biodiversity conservation among protected areas in Pangasinan, Philippines[J]. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 2020, ( 4):1-17.
[40]	Nepal S, Spiteri A. Linking livelihoods and conservation: An examination of local residents’ perceived linkages between conservation and livelihood benefits around Nepal’s Chitwan National Park[J]. Environmental Management, 2011,47(5):727-738. doi: 10.1007/s00267-011-9631-6
[41]	UNDP. Human Development Report 1997[R]. New York: Human Development Report, 1997.
[42]	秦海林, 李超伟, 万佳乐. 社会资本、农户异质性与借贷行为: 基于CFPS数据的测度分析与实证检验[J]. 金融与经济, 2019, (1):33-40.
	[ Qin H L, Li C W, Wan J L. Social capital, heterogeneity of farmers and lending behaviors: Measurement analysis and empirical analysis based on CFPS data[J]. Finance and Economy, 2019, (1):33-40.]
[43]	温忠麟, 叶宝娟. 中介效应分析: 方法和模型发展[J]. 心理科学进展, 2014,22(5):731-745. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2014.00731
	[ Wen Z L, Ye B J. Analysis of mediating effects: The development of methods and models[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2014,22(5):731-745.]
[44]	Baron R M, Kenny D A. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations[J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1986,51(6):1173-118. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.51.6.1173 pmid: 3806354

调研时间	保护区名称	所属地区	保护区等级	面积/（hm²）	建立年份	调研村数	调研户数
2018年7月	千佛山	四川安州	国家级	11083	1993	4	45
	长青	陕西洋县	国家级	29906	1994	4	58
	太白山	陕西太白	国家级	56325	1965	4	70
	黄柏塬	陕西太白	国家级	21865	2006	2	34
	牛尾河	陕西太白	省级	13492	2004	2	28
	皇冠山	陕西宁陕	省级	12372	2001	4	66
2018年10月	唐家河	四川青川	国家级	40000	1978	4	64
2018年10月	蜂桶寨	四川宝兴	国家级	39039	1975	4	62
2019年1月	卧龙	四川汶川	国家级	200000	1963	4	60
	龙溪-虹口	四川都江堰	国家级	31000	1993	4	60
	鞍子河	四川崇州	省级	10141	1993	4	60
	黑水河	四川大邑	省级	31790	1993	4	60
	小河沟	四川平武	省级	28227	1993	4	60
	老河沟	四川平武	县级	11000	2013	4	60

指标	被剥夺临界值	权重
人均年纯收入/元	家庭人均年纯收入小于2952元赋值1,其余赋值0	0.1
做饭用水	做饭用水为非自来水/桶装水/纯净水/过滤水赋值1,其余赋值0	0.1
做饭燃料	做饭燃料以薪柴或煤为主赋值1,其余赋值0	0.1
通电情况	家中没通电或经常断电赋值1,其余赋值0	0.1
厕所形式	家中为非室外/室内冲水厕所赋值1,其余赋值0	0.1
垃圾处理	家附近没有固定/分类垃圾点赋值1,其余赋值0	0.1
子女教育	家中有6~16岁的子女未接受完义务教育赋值1,其余赋值0	0.1
医疗服务	患病不能及时获得正规医疗机构就医赋值1,其余赋值0	0.1
儿童死亡	家中有5岁以下儿童死亡赋值1,其余赋值0	0.1
金融服务	无法获得贷款或借款赋值1,其余赋值0	0.1

指标	一级指标权重	变量具体定义	二级权重指标
社会网络	0.443	家里办红白喜事本村有多少人来帮忙（用实际数据与最大值之比表示）	0.123
		常与您走动的亲朋好友中能人数量（用实际数据与最大值之比表示）	0.361
		参加多少个经济组织（用实际数据与最大值之比表示）	0.086
		是否有亲戚在城市生活（1=是;0=否）	0.177
		互联网上网人数（用实际数据与最大值之比表示）	0.253
社会信任	0.388	对村干部是否信任（1=非常信任;0.75=比较信任;0.5=一般;0.25=比较不信任;0=非常不信任）	0.582
		对本村村民是否信任（1=非常信任;0.75=比较信任;0.5=一般;0.25=比较不信任;0=非常不信任）	0.309
		对陌生人是否信任（1=非常信任;0.75=比较信任;0.5=一般;0.25=比较不信任;0=非常不信任）	0.109
社会参与	0.169	去年人情送礼支出（用实际数据与最大值之比表示）	0.833
社会参与	0.169	去年参加村集体活动程度（1=20次以上;0.75=10~20次;0.5=5~10次;0.25=5次以下;0=没有参加过）	0.167

变量名称	全部样本	保护区内	保护区外	F值
变量名称	均值	均值	均值
多维贫困	0.155 (0.124)	0.166 (0.134)	0.145 (0.113)	5.003**
社会资本	0.383 (0.108)	0.371 (0.100)	0.394 (0.113)	9.026**
社会网络	0.221 (0.110)	0.214 (0.103)	0.228 (0.116)	2.789*
社会信任	0.671 (0.230)	0.651 (0.220)	0.689 (0.237)	5.347**
社会参与	0.149 (0.118)	0.141 (0.094)	0.156 (0.136)	3.120*
户主年龄/周岁	53.476 (11.584)	52.973 (12.127)	53.939 (11.056)	1.316
户主性别（1=男;0=女）	0.901 (0.299)	0.906 (0.292)	0.896 (0.306)	0.228
户主是否是村干部（1=是;0=否）	0.152 (0.320)	0.143 (0.307)	0.160 (0.332)	0.510
外出务工人数/人	0.794 (11.005)	0.697 (0.950)	0.883 (1.047)	6.536**
平均受教育年限/年	7.118 (2.660)	6.959 (2.765)	7.264 (2.555)	2.477
居住地距镇市场距离/km	8.092 (10.942)	8.972 (12.969)	7.281 (8.602))	4.531**
人均住宅面积/m²	66.805 (96.721)	59.806 (42.328)	73.253 (127.509)	3.664*
人均农地面积/亩	1.088 (1.819)	0.917 (1.611)	1.246 (1.981)	6.206**
人均林地面积/亩	8.810 (24.197)	12.843 (30.616)	5.093 (15.297)	19.865***
观测值	757	363	394

变量名称	总体	保护区等级		开展生态旅游		所在省份
变量名称	总体	国家级	省级	是	否	四川	陕西
居住地位置	0.174**	-0.179*	0.638***	0.001	0.292**	0.038	0.465**
居住地位置	(0.087)	(0.108)	(0.141)	(0.117)	(0.130)	(0.103)	(0.156)
户主年龄	0.008**	0.007	0.009	0.012**	0.002	0.008*	0.008
户主年龄	(0.004)	(0.005)	(0.006)	(0.005)	(0.006)	(0.004)	(0.007)
户主性别	-0.234	-0.256	-0.205	-0.331*	-0.197	-0.238	-0.559*
户主性别	(0.143)	(0.176)	(0.231)	(0.199)	(0.203)	(0.159)	(0.298)
户主是否是村干部	-0.103	-0.270*	0.216	-0.129	-0.060	-0.320*	0.272
户主是否是村干部	(0.136)	(0.161)	(0.232)	(0.186)	(0.197)	(0.163)	(0.228)
外出务工人数	0.004	-0.066	0.128*	-0.005	0.004	0.016	0.022
外出务工人数	(0.043)	(0.054)	(0.070)	(0.059)	(0.065)	(0.052)	(0.075)
平均受教育年限	-0.123***	-0.128***	-0.136***	-0.159***	-0.091***	-0.135***	-0.135***
平均受教育年限	(0.017)	(0.021)	(0.027)	(0.023)	(0.025)	(0.021)	(0.026)
居住地距镇市场距离	0.012***	0.007	0.016***	0.002	0.024***	0.010*	0.009
居住地距镇市场距离	(0.004)	(0.005)	(0.006)	(0.005)	(0.006)	(0.006)	(0.006)
人均住宅面积	-0.008*	-0.001	-0.001	-0.001	-0.001	-0.001	-0.001
人均住宅面积	(0.001)	(0.001)	(0.001)	(0.001)	(0.001)	(0.001)	(0.001)
人均农地面积	0.026	0.015	0.019	0.006	0.032	-0.021	0.001
人均农地面积	(0.024)	(0.033)	(0.036)	(0.049)	(0.029)	(0.036)	(0.033)
人均林地面积	0.02	0.003	-0.001	0.004	-0.001	0.003	-0.002
人均林地面积	(0.001)	(0.003)	(0.003)	(0.004)	(0.002)	(0.004)	(0.002)
常数项	2.284***	2.510***	1.868***	2.397***	2.196***	2.103***	2.760***
常数项	(0.304)	(0.378)	(0.488)	(0.430)	(0.437)	(0.361)	(0.546)
调整R²	0.123	0.113	0.152	0.152	0.103	0.113	0.162
观测值	757	432	325	373	384	507	250