放松退耕地间种约束的政策合理性与有效性检验——基于贵州省新一轮退耕还林的农户调查

doi:10.18402/resci.2021.09.12

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

新一轮退耕还林在保护生态环境和促进农户增收方面被赋予重要期待。本文基于范围经济理论,利用贵州省的退耕农户调查数据,测算农户的间种的范围经济和范围利润水平,利用似不相关回归和面板Tobit模型分析间种对农户范围经济、范围利润和经济林管护的影响。研究发现,放松退耕地间种约束具有一定的合理性,但其有效性的发挥还需进行相应的政策调整。具体表现为：①双作物间种的范围经济水平高于单作物间种,经济作物间种的范围利润水平最高。具体的,“经济林+豆类+薯类”的范围经济值最高,平均值为0.835;“经济林+豆类”和“经济林+烤烟”的范围经济水平最低,平均值分别为0.205和0.142;“经济林+豆类”的范围利润值最低,平均为-0.457,“经济林+烤烟”的范围利润值最高,平均为0.908。②间种强度与范围经济、范围利润之间存在“倒U型”关系,间种并非越多越好;间种强度每增加1%,经济林的成活率会增加3.0%,但随着间种强度的增加,经济林的成活率将逐步下降;③相比间种粮食作物,种植经济作物更不利于经济林的管护。本文研究结果可为巩固新一轮退耕还林成果提供现实依据和理论参考。

关键词: 新一轮退耕还林, 间种约束, 范围经济, 范围利润, 合理性与有效性, 似不相关回归

Abstract:

To explore the feasibility and effectiveness of the policy of relaxing constraints of interplanting in the new round of returning farmland to forests (NRRFF) in Guizhou province, and to provide a reference for consolidating the results of the NRRFF and improving the NRRFF policy, the economies of scope and profit of scope of interplanting of farming households were measured using the economies of scope model. The effects of interplanting on farmers’ economies of scope, profit of scope, and economic forest management and protection were analyzed by using quasi-irrelevant regression and panel Tobit model. The research found that: Interplanting can bring economies of scope and profit of scope to returning farmland households, of which “economic forest + food crops” has the highest degree of economies of scope, and “economic forest + cash crops” has the highest degree of profit of scope. From the perspective of the interplanting models, the degree of economies of scope brought by single-crop intercropping is slightly lower than dual-crop intercropping, but interplanting of economic crops can bring greater degree of profit of scope. There is an inverted U-shaped relationship between the intensity of interplanting, economies of scope, and profit of scope, and there exists a threshold value for interplanting intensity considering the economies of scope and profit of scope. Cross-effects indicate that interplanting intensity will affect the degrees of economies of scope and profit of scope of farmers through the survival rate of interplanted trees of economic forests. Compared to food crops, interplanting economic crops is not as beneficial to the management of economic forests.

Key words: new round of returning farmland to forests, constraints of interplanting, economies of scope, profit of scope, feasibility and effectiveness, seemingly unrelated regression

黄杰龙, 王立群. 放松退耕地间种约束的政策合理性与有效性检验——基于贵州省新一轮退耕还林的农户调查[J]. 资源科学, 2021, 43(9): 1863-1875.

HUANG Jielong, WANG Liqun. Policy feasibility and effectiveness test of relaxing constraints of interplanting in returning farmland: Based on a survey of farmers in Guizhou Province[J]. Resources Science, 2021, 43(9): 1863-1875.

图/表 7

表1

表2

表3

表4

表5

表6

表7

参考文献 22

[1]	谢晨, 张坤, 王佳男, 等. 退耕还林动态减贫: 收入贫困和多维贫困的共同分析[J]. 中国农村经济, 2021, (5):18-37.
	[ Xie C, Zhang K, Wang J N, et al. Dynamic poverty reduction by converting cropland to forest programs: A joint analysis of income poverty and multidimensional poverty[J]. China’s Rural Economy, 2021, (5):18-37.]
[2]	高清, 靳乐山. 新一轮退耕还林对农户收入影响的机理研究: 基于赣南、鄂北农户调查的实证分析[J]. 中国土地科学, 2021, 35(5):57-66.
	[ Gao Q, Jing L S. Research on the impact mechanism of the new round of sloping land conversion program on rural household income: Based on rural household surveys in South Jiangxi and North Hubei provinces[J]. China Land Science, 2021, 35(5):57-66.]
[3]	韩洪云, 喻永红. 退耕还林的土地生产力改善效果: 重庆万州的实证解释[J]. 资源科学, 2014, 36(2):389-396.
	[ Han H Y, Yu Y H. Has grain for green improved land productivity? A study of Wanzhou District, Chongqing[J]. Resources Science, 2014, 36(2):389-396.]
[4]	田晓宇, 徐霞, 江红蕾, 等. 退耕还林(草)政策下土地利用结构优化研究: 以内蒙古太仆寺旗为例[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2018, 28(S2):25-30.
	[ Tian X Y, Xu X, Jiang H L, et al. Optimization of land use structure under grain for green project: A case study in Taibus banner in inner Mongolia[J]. China’s Population, Resources and Environment, 2018, 28(S2):25-30.]
[5]	郭怀林, 李鸿杰, 罗广元, 等. 西北半干旱区经济林复合生态农业模式研究与实践[J]. 经济林研究, 2017, 35(1):108-112.
	[ Guo H L, Li H J, Luo G Y, et al. Research and practice of compound ecological agriculture model of non-wood forest at northwest semi-arid mountains areas[J]. Economic Forest Research, 2017, 35(1):108-112.]
[6]	汤复跃, 陈文杰, 韦清源, 等. 不同行比配置和玉米株型对玉米大豆间种产量及效益影响[J]. 大豆科学, 2019, 38(5):726-732.
	[ Tang F Y, Chen W J, Wei Q Y, et al. Effects of row ratio and maize plant type on yield and benefit of maize soybean intercropping[J]. Soybean Science, 2019, 38(5):726-732.]
[7]	张聪颖, 畅倩, 霍学喜. 适度规模经营能够降低农产品生产成本吗: 基于陕西661个苹果户的实证检验[J]. 农业技术经济, 2018, (10):26-35.
	[ Zhang C Y, Chang Q, Huo X X. Can the moderate-scale management really reduce the production costs of agricultural products: An empirical analysis based on 661 Shaanxi apple farmers[J]. Journal of Agrotechnical Economics, 2018, (10):26-35.]
[8]	黄杰龙, 邓桢柱, 王立群. 新一轮退耕还林对贫困山区农地生产力的影响研究[J]. 林业经济问题, 2021, 41(4):378-386.
	[ Huang J L, Deng Z Z, Wang L Q. Study on the impact of a new-stage grain for green project on cultivated land productivity in poverty-stricken mountainous areas[J]. Issues of Forestry Economics, 2021, 41(4):378-386.]
[9]	李建钦. 云南藏区农林牧复合生计系统与生态安全的内在逻辑[J]. 云南社会科学, 2020, (2):141-148.
	[ Li J Q. The inherent logic of the compound livelihood system of agriculture, forestry and animal husbandry and ecological security in Yunnan Tibetan areas[J]. Social Sciences in Yunnan, 2020, (2):141-148.]
[10]	龚成宇, 石淼, 龚荣高. 间种不同绿肥对大渡河干暖河谷黄果柑产量及果实品质的影响[J]. 应用与环境生物学报, 2021, 27(2):289-293.
	[ Gong C Y, Shi M, Gong R G, et al. Effects of interplanting different green manures on Huangguo fruit yield and quality in the dry-warm valley of the Dadu River[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied and Environmental Biology, 2021, 27(2):289-293.]
[11]	陈隆升, 袁冬菊, 王瑞, 等. 不同间种模式对油茶幼林产量及病虫害的影响[J]. 西南林业大学学报(自然科学), 2021, 41(3):152-156.
	[ Chen L S, Yuan D J, Wang R, et al. Effects of different interplanting patterns on yield and occurrence of diseases and insect pests in young camellia oleifera[J]. Journal of Southwest Forestry University (Natural Science), 2021, 41(3):152-156.]
[12]	杨灿, 李建军, 黄静, 等. 洞庭湖洲滩人工林林农复合经营模式与综合效益研究[J]. 中南林业科技大学学报, 2017, 37(5):106-112.
	[ Yang C, Li J J, Huang J, et al. Research of agroforestry compound management model and general benefits on Dongting Lake marshland plantation[J]. Journal of Central South University of Forestry & Technology, 2017, 37(5):106-112.]
[13]	罗伯特·S·平狄克, 丹尼尔·L·鲁宾费尔德. 微观经济学7版[M]. 高远, 译. 北京: 中国人民大学出版社, 2009.
	[ Pindick R S, Rubinfeld D L. Microeconomics 7th ed.[M]. Gao Y, Trans. Beijing: China Renmin University Press, 2009.]
[14]	李锐杰. 西部地区农民专业合作社规模经济与范围经济实证分析: 基于新疆合作社调研数据[J]. 广东农业科学, 2014, 41(24):225-229.
	[ Li R J. Empirical analysis on economies of scale and scope for farmers’ professional cooperatives in western region: Based on the data of Xinjiang[J]. Guangdong Agricultural Sciences, 2014, 41(24):225-229.]
[15]	刘傲琼, 刘新宇. 多元化经营企业的范围经济与利润增益研究[J]. 管理学刊, 2018, 31(2):12-23.
	[ Liu A Q, Liu X Y. A study of the scope economy and profit grain of diversification corporations[J]. Journal of Management, 2018, 31(2):12-23.]
[16]	杨瑞龙, 侯方宇. 产业政策的有效性边界: 基于不完全契约的视角[J]. 管理世界, 2019, 35(10):82-94.
	[ Yang R L, Hou F Y. The efficient boundary of industrial policy: An incomplete contract perspective[J]. Management World, 2019, 35(10):82-94.]
[17]	袁斌, 谭涛, 陈超. 多元化经营与家庭农场生产绩效: 基于南京市的实证研究[J]. 农林经济管理学报, 2016, 15(1):13-20.
	[ Yuan B, Tan T, Chen C. Diversification and family farms’ production performance: A study based on research in Nanjing[J]. Journal of Agro-Forestry Economics and Management, 2016, 15(1):13-20.]
[18]	张朝辉. 非农就业对农户退耕还林成果保持意愿的影响: 基于1132个退耕农户的调查[J]. 中国土地科学, 2020, 34(11):67-75.
	[ Zhang C H. Assessing the impact of off-farm employment on farmers’ maintenance willingness of sloping land conversion program: Evidence from 1132 participant farmers[J]. China Land Science, 2020, 34(11):67-75.]
[19]	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.]
[20]	Liu C, Yin R S, Liu H, et al. Households’ decisions to participate in China’s sloping land conversion program and reallocate their labour times: Is there endogeneity bias?[J]. Ecological Economics, 2018, 145:380-390. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.11.020
[21]	陈强. 高级计量经济学及Stata应用2版[M]. 高等教育出版社, 2013.
	[ Chen Q. Advanced Econometrics and Stata Application. 2nd ed.[M]. Beijing: Higher Education Press, 2013.]
[22]	黄杰龙, 王旭, 王立群. 政策落实、农户参与和脱贫增收的山区治贫有效性研究[J]. 公共管理学报, 2019, 16(3):50-61.
	[ Huang J L, Wang X, Wang L Q. Validation studies on policy implementation, farmer participation and poverty alleviation of poverty governance in mountain areas[J]. Journal of Public Management, 2019, 16(3):50-61.]

间种模式	间种类型	间种作物	总收入/元	劳动投入/天	生产资料成本/元	土地成本/亩
单作物间种模式	经济林+粮食作物	经济林+豆类	535.79	9.71	319.17	1.33
		经济林+薯类	729.04	8.28	373.64	2.18
		经济林+谷类	638.46	10.96	350.55	2.02
	经济林+经济作物	经济林+烤烟	3148.80	31.03	1567.19	3.56
	经济林+经济作物	经济林+其他	661.76	19.74	277.09	1.07
双作物间种模式	经济林+粮食作物	经济林+豆类+薯类	620.61	11.12	340.10	0.79
	经济林+粮食作物	经济林+玉米+豆类	591.91	12.50	337.72	1.11
	经济林+经济作物+粮食作物	经济林+豆（薯）类+其他	611.75	11.88	300.20	0.62

变量	变量定义和计算	平均数	标准差
间种强度	间种面积/退耕面积,单位：%	61.3	68.6
间种模式	单作物模式=1,双作物模式=0	0.868	0.453
经济林+豆类作物	是否属于该间种类型?是=1;否=0	0.238	0.307
经济林+薯类作物	是否属于该间种类型?是=1;否=0	0.317	0.331
经济林+谷类作物	是否属于该间种类型?是=1;否=0	0.164	0.210
经济林+经济作物	是否属于该间种类型?是=1;否=0	0.085	0.124
劳动投入	退耕地劳动投入量,单位：天	13.7	22.48
资本投入	退耕地资本投入量,单位：元	367.02	511.87
户主年龄	户主实际年龄,单位：岁	53.49	44.02
户主受教育水平	户主受教育年限,单位：年	6.89	6.15
林地破碎化程度	林地地块数量,单位：块	4.52	3.53
非农收入比例	家庭非农收入占比,单位：%	43.00	55.00
家庭退耕面积	实际退耕面积,单位：亩	3.19	3.90
家庭劳动力数量	家庭劳动力数量,单位：个	2.94	1.28
交通便利性	林地离马路距离,单位：km	1.75	0.72

变量	估计值	t检验	变量	估计值	t检验
Y₁	0.00026	4.1324***	Y₁Y₁	0.00148	-2.2165**
Y₂	-0.00045	-2.5274**	Y₁Y₂	-0.00092	0.9065
Y₃	-0.00632	-1.0293	Y₁Y₃	-0.00206	6.1477***
P₁	0.00019	3.3761***	Y₂Y₂	0.01137	-1.0003
P₂	0.00161	0.5510	Y₂Y₃	0.00633	3.628***
Y₁P₁	0.01028	2.3213**	Y₃Y₃	-0.00119	-6.8533***
Y₁P₂	0.02274	5.1964***	P₁P₁	-0.04612	-0.4417
Y₂P₁	-0.00995	-0.3747	P₁P₂	0.02506	4.1813***
Y₂P₂	-0.01748	-4.8742***	P₂P₂	-0.01621	-0.7761
Y₃P₁	-0.00842	-0.7329	Prob>F	0.000
Y₃P₂	0.02655	0.8223	R-squard	0.619

间种模式	间种类型	间种作物	范围经济
间种模式	间种类型	间种作物	n	2015	2016	2017	2018	平均值
单作物间种模式	经济林+粮食作物	经济林+豆类	67	0.099	0.228	0.230	0.263	0.205
		经济林+薯类	89	0.532	0.484	0.479	0.338	0.458
		经济林+谷类	46	0.470	0.509	0.574	0.515	0.517
	经济林+经济作物	经济林+烤烟	19	0.432	0.311	0.299	0.281	0.331
	经济林+经济作物	经济林+其他	23	0.623	0.732	0.654	0.505	0.628
双作物间种模式	经济林+粮食作物	经济林+豆类+薯类	17	1.007	0.802	0.773	0.761	0.835
	经济林+粮食作物	经济林+玉米+豆类	9	0.716	0.626	0.704	0.615	0.665
	经济林+经济作物+粮食作物	经济林+豆类+其他	11	0.064	0.053	0.050	0.401	0.142

间种模式	间种类型	间种作物	范围利润
间种模式	间种类型	间种作物	n	2015	2016	2017	2018	平均值
单作物间种模式	经济林+粮食作物	经济林+豆类	67	-0.267	-0.385	-0.465	-1.113	-0.457
		经济林+薯类	89	0.307	0.243	0.125	0.061	0.184
		经济林+谷类	46	0.200	0.212	0.136	0.094	0.160
	经济林+经济作物	经济林+烤烟	19	1.218	1.005	0.879	0.531	0.908
	经济林+经济作物	经济林+其他	23	0.416	0.307	0.279	0.223	0.306
双作物间种模式	经济林+粮食作物	经济林+豆类+薯类	17	0.481	0.399	0.222	0.160	0.315
	经济林+粮食作物	经济林+玉米+豆类	9	0.221	0.108	0.004	-0.035	0.074
	经济林+经济作物+粮食作物	经济林+豆类+其他	11	-0.111	-0.120	-0.123	-0.137	-0.122