胡業(yè)翠,鄭方鈺,徐 爽
?
廣西生態(tài)移民遷入?yún)^(qū)的移民效應(yīng)評估
胡業(yè)翠1,2,鄭方鈺1,徐 爽1
(1. 中國地質(zhì)大學(xué)(北京)土地科學(xué)技術(shù)學(xué)院,北京 100083;2. 國土資源部土地整治重點(diǎn)實(shí)驗(yàn)室,北京 100035)
生態(tài)移民是新形勢下中國扶貧開發(fā)的重要戰(zhàn)略舉措,研究采用參與性農(nóng)戶評估方法,以廣西環(huán)江縣30個典型移民安置屯為例,開展生態(tài)移民背景下移民遷入?yún)^(qū)人地關(guān)系研究,將調(diào)查農(nóng)戶劃分為遷入農(nóng)戶和原駐地農(nóng)戶,通過對比2組農(nóng)戶的現(xiàn)有耕地面積、經(jīng)濟(jì)收入以及對移民政策和環(huán)境變化的響應(yīng)等問題,探討移民遷入?yún)^(qū)的移民效應(yīng)和可持續(xù)性。研究表明:生態(tài)移民工程受到農(nóng)戶的普遍認(rèn)可與支持,遷入農(nóng)戶占有的耕地資源質(zhì)量和經(jīng)濟(jì)收入較搬遷前有大幅度提高,土地利用與農(nóng)業(yè)種植業(yè)結(jié)構(gòu)進(jìn)一步優(yōu)化。但仍需關(guān)注遷入?yún)^(qū)移民較原駐民耕地占有量和經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展速度偏低、遷入?yún)^(qū)人口增加對土地資源和生態(tài)環(huán)境可持續(xù)利用造成的沖擊等問題。
經(jīng)濟(jì);評估;生態(tài);生態(tài)移民工程;參與性農(nóng)戶評估;移民效應(yīng)
生態(tài)脆弱貧困地區(qū)的生態(tài)移民是新形勢下中國扶貧開發(fā)模式的有益嘗試[1],其不單純是一種以反貧困為目標(biāo)的經(jīng)濟(jì)自利行為,同時(shí)還兼顧著緩解生態(tài)脆弱區(qū)人地矛盾、環(huán)境退化等重大問題的社會責(zé)任[2]。廣西自治區(qū)作為中國脆弱生態(tài)貧困區(qū),從20世紀(jì)90年代初,就開展了有計(jì)劃有步驟的生態(tài)移民,僅1994—2000年國家“八七”扶貧攻堅(jiān)階段,就安置農(nóng)戶近23萬人,成為中國生態(tài)移民的典型區(qū)域。然而,伴隨著生態(tài)移民工程的實(shí)施,移民遷出區(qū)和遷入?yún)^(qū)的人口-資源-環(huán)境格局將發(fā)生重新配置[3]。生態(tài)移民在改善移民遷出區(qū)資源環(huán)境配置格局的同時(shí),勢必會對遷入?yún)^(qū)自然與環(huán)境系統(tǒng)帶來巨大壓力,進(jìn)而危及生活在該區(qū)域居民的社會、經(jīng)濟(jì)與環(huán)境狀況。
世界上一些發(fā)展中國家,如印尼、巴西、埃塞俄比亞等在過去進(jìn)行的生態(tài)移民中,移民農(nóng)戶把環(huán)境災(zāi)害與貧困轉(zhuǎn)移到新遷入?yún)^(qū)成為普遍現(xiàn)象[4-7]。生態(tài)移民作為中國生態(tài)環(huán)境建設(shè)、扶貧開發(fā)的重要手段,其成敗勢必會影響國家戰(zhàn)略在地方尺度上的有效推進(jìn)[8-9]。目前國內(nèi)外大量學(xué)者對生態(tài)移民效應(yīng)進(jìn)行了研究,涉及到生態(tài)移民是否能夠改善生態(tài)脆弱區(qū)生態(tài)環(huán)境狀況[10-14],是否能夠改善貧困地區(qū)農(nóng)戶的生計(jì)條件[15-20],是否會產(chǎn)生社會問題等[21-24],但關(guān)于生態(tài)移民的綜合效應(yīng)尚無一致結(jié)論[25-29],仍需要補(bǔ)充更多案例。
本文選擇近年來生態(tài)移民較為集中的廣西環(huán)江縣作為典型案例區(qū),采用參與性農(nóng)戶評估方法(PRA,participatory rural appraisal),從農(nóng)戶視角對移民遷入?yún)^(qū)移民和當(dāng)?shù)伛v民的土地、經(jīng)濟(jì)與環(huán)境效應(yīng)開展綜合研究,探討生態(tài)移民政策背后的農(nóng)戶意識與決策行為,以期為鞏固移民成果、制定移民政策提供決策支持。
環(huán)江縣位于廣西壯族自治區(qū)西北部,國土面積居廣西第五、河池市第一,是中國唯一的毛南族聚居縣。由于該縣荒山、荒坡和幼林地分布集中、連片,有利于農(nóng)業(yè)規(guī)模開發(fā)。因此,自20世紀(jì)90年代以來,該縣作為生態(tài)移民遷入?yún)^(qū)的重點(diǎn)建設(shè)縣,成為西南喀斯特“有土安置”生態(tài)移民模式的典型安置縣。項(xiàng)目組通過2010、2011年對環(huán)江縣的實(shí)地調(diào)研,最終選取該縣大安鄉(xiāng)、思恩鎮(zhèn)等4個鄉(xiāng)鎮(zhèn)的8個行政村中的30個移民安置屯作為典型點(diǎn)進(jìn)行參與式農(nóng)戶調(diào)查。選擇的移民安置點(diǎn)具有自然和社會經(jīng)濟(jì)條件及土地利用方式相似、移民安置點(diǎn)集中且規(guī)模較大、農(nóng)戶遷入時(shí)間相近,且遷出地集中分布在都安、大化縣2個大石山區(qū)等特點(diǎn),便于探討生態(tài)移民工程實(shí)施前后農(nóng)戶人口資源與環(huán)境效應(yīng)等方面的共性問題。
本研究應(yīng)用了參與性農(nóng)戶評估方法PRA。PRA是一種“聆聽農(nóng)戶,與農(nóng)戶一起學(xué)習(xí)、認(rèn)知自身意愿與地方發(fā)展的研究方法”[20-21],通過研究和非正式訪談的方式對地方狀況進(jìn)行分析和評估,并制定符合實(shí)際的發(fā)展和研究計(jì)劃。本研究具體采用PRA的半結(jié)構(gòu)訪談工具,即不拘泥于擬定的問卷對農(nóng)戶進(jìn)行開放式提問,獲取農(nóng)戶對生態(tài)移民政策的認(rèn)知與響應(yīng)數(shù)據(jù)。研究數(shù)據(jù)均采用面對面入戶訪談形式,數(shù)據(jù)收集工作在2012年8月和2013年2月進(jìn)行,共發(fā)放近300份問卷,全部收回,其中有效問卷281份,包括遷入農(nóng)戶調(diào)查問卷237份,原駐地農(nóng)戶調(diào)查問卷44份。需要說明的是,調(diào)查采用全覆蓋方式,即每個移民安置屯只要家中戶主配合均進(jìn)行調(diào)查。由于移民遷入?yún)^(qū)遷入農(nóng)戶戶數(shù)多于原駐地農(nóng)戶戶數(shù),造成問卷數(shù)量差異較大,但為反映遷入?yún)^(qū)的實(shí)際情況,未人為增加原駐地農(nóng)戶的調(diào)查樣本量。
本研究訪談對象均為家庭戶主或其配偶,問卷內(nèi)容主要包括5部分內(nèi)容:1)調(diào)查對象的基本特征:包括農(nóng)戶性別、年齡、文化程度及職業(yè)等信息;2)農(nóng)戶家庭收入、土地利用和種植業(yè)結(jié)構(gòu):主要包括調(diào)查對象移民前后土地資源數(shù)量質(zhì)量、種植業(yè)與家庭收支等信息;3)農(nóng)戶對生態(tài)移民政策的認(rèn)知和態(tài)度;4)農(nóng)戶對生態(tài)移民前后生態(tài)環(huán)境變化的認(rèn)知情況。
受調(diào)查農(nóng)戶的基本特征(表1),其中71.17%為男性,28.83%為女性。大部分被調(diào)查者年齡在30~50歲之間。按是否參與生態(tài)移民工程,將調(diào)查農(nóng)戶分為遷入農(nóng)戶和原駐地農(nóng)戶2組。調(diào)查結(jié)果顯示(表1),2組數(shù)據(jù)的統(tǒng)計(jì)結(jié)果除外出打工地點(diǎn)外,差異并不明顯,2組數(shù)據(jù)在外出打工比例基本相似的情況下,打工地點(diǎn)呈現(xiàn)明顯差異,遷入農(nóng)戶本地打工所占比例為18.57%,而原駐地農(nóng)戶本地打工比例為6.82%;外地打工的比例分別為54.01%、63.45%。
表1 調(diào)查對象基本特征
調(diào)查結(jié)果表明(表2),移民戶耕地面積由移民前的0.57減少為0.35 hm2,而戶均林地、承包耕地與退耕還林面積卻大幅度增加,均由移民前無相關(guān)地類分別增加到0.35、0.32和0.23 hm2。盡管移民后農(nóng)戶占有耕地資源數(shù)量減少,但占有耕地資源的質(zhì)量卻大幅度提高,耕地平均畝產(chǎn)由移民前的1 875增加到4 725 kg/hm2。相較于移民前,遷入農(nóng)戶種植業(yè)結(jié)構(gòu)進(jìn)一步改善,移民前,由于地處喀斯特峰叢洼地,農(nóng)戶種植作物僅為玉米。移民后,農(nóng)戶得到了部分水田,開始種植水稻,大部分移民還通過開墾坡耕地,大量種植玉米、甘蔗、桑樹等作物;通過參加退耕還林項(xiàng)目,大面積種植桉樹等生態(tài)經(jīng)濟(jì)林。移民后種植業(yè)結(jié)構(gòu)的有序調(diào)整使得遷入農(nóng)戶在人均耕地面積減少的情況下,土地資源得到優(yōu)化利用。
表2 移民前后的農(nóng)戶占有土地利用資源面積變化
注:圖中數(shù)據(jù)均以戶為單位統(tǒng)計(jì),下同。
Note: Unit of statistics is household, the same as below.
遷入農(nóng)戶與原駐地農(nóng)戶土地資源占有量多少不僅涉及到資源效率公平問題,而且對生態(tài)移民政策的鞏固與可持續(xù)性有重要影響。表3顯示,遷入農(nóng)戶與原駐地農(nóng)戶的耕地、林地占有量差異明顯,尤其是水田面積差異更為突出,遷入農(nóng)戶戶均水田面積0.04 hm2,而原駐地農(nóng)戶戶均水田面積達(dá)0.14 hm2。調(diào)查結(jié)果顯示,移民所獲得的耕地多為自主開發(fā)的荒山、荒坡和幼林地等旱地,而戶均較少的水田多為從原駐民處購置所得,該類水田普遍地理位置偏遠(yuǎn),土壤質(zhì)量差,灌溉條件有限。土地資源占有量的差異使得遷入農(nóng)戶對政府和原駐地農(nóng)戶充滿怨言,也成為影響生態(tài)移民政策實(shí)施效果的重要因素。
表3 遷入農(nóng)戶與原駐地農(nóng)戶土地資源占有面積對比
對移民前后農(nóng)戶收入水平和結(jié)構(gòu)的變化進(jìn)行分析,結(jié)果顯示(表4):無論移民前還是移民后,遷入農(nóng)戶收入均以打工收入為主,其他收入為輔。遷入農(nóng)戶移民后經(jīng)濟(jì)收入增長迅速,生態(tài)移民工程實(shí)施效果明顯。林業(yè)方面,通過種植經(jīng)濟(jì)林果、獲取退耕還林政策補(bǔ)助,遷入農(nóng)戶林業(yè)收入大幅度增加。種植業(yè)方面,通過承包耕地,開墾荒草地,遷入農(nóng)戶擁有了比移民前更多、質(zhì)量更好的耕地,農(nóng)戶種植業(yè)結(jié)構(gòu)更加多樣化,尤其是甘蔗、大豆等經(jīng)濟(jì)作物的種植,大幅度提升了遷入農(nóng)戶的種植業(yè)收入;相比移民前,遷入農(nóng)戶非農(nóng)收入也大幅增加,這主要是由于遷入?yún)^(qū)擁有更完善的基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施,距離中心城市、集鎮(zhèn)更近,遷入農(nóng)戶擁有了更多從事非農(nóng)產(chǎn)業(yè)的機(jī)會。
對遷入農(nóng)戶與原駐地農(nóng)戶的家庭收入總量、構(gòu)成及其變化進(jìn)行分析(表4)。結(jié)果顯示,移民后遷入農(nóng)戶在種植業(yè)、林業(yè)和養(yǎng)殖業(yè)方面的收入總量遠(yuǎn)低于原駐地農(nóng)戶;由于耕地質(zhì)量改善和林業(yè)用地面積增加,遷入農(nóng)戶的種植業(yè)和林業(yè)收入增長速度均超過原駐地農(nóng)戶,但其他收入的增長速度仍低于原駐地農(nóng)戶。尤其是打工收入,盡管與原駐地農(nóng)戶相似,遷入農(nóng)戶的家庭收入近5成依賴于打工收入,但由于移民后獲得了更多的土地資源,遷入農(nóng)戶的大量勞動力投入到農(nóng)業(yè)生產(chǎn)中,非農(nóng)收入尤其是外出打工收入總量和增長速度仍明顯低于原駐地農(nóng)戶。
表4 移民前后農(nóng)戶經(jīng)濟(jì)收入變化
農(nóng)戶對生態(tài)環(huán)境的變化認(rèn)知態(tài)度對生態(tài)移民工程的可持續(xù)推進(jìn)有重要意義。對植被覆蓋率、水土流失、水資源總量及其生態(tài)環(huán)境總體滿意度的調(diào)查結(jié)果表明,遷入農(nóng)戶與當(dāng)?shù)伛v民對移民前后生態(tài)環(huán)境變化的認(rèn)知態(tài)度存在相似和相異兩種情況(圖1a、圖1b)。
注:A為植被覆蓋;B為水土流失;C為水資源稀缺;D為環(huán)境滿意度。
就植被覆蓋率而言,65%的遷入農(nóng)戶認(rèn)為當(dāng)?shù)氐闹脖桓采w率降低,而原駐地農(nóng)戶的這一比例則高達(dá)89.88%,且多數(shù)農(nóng)戶認(rèn)為人口增加造成的人地矛盾加劇、坡耕地濫墾和過度樵材是主要原因;與植被覆蓋率的直觀感知不同,遷入農(nóng)戶與原駐地農(nóng)戶多數(shù)認(rèn)為生態(tài)移民工程未造成水土流失現(xiàn)象的加劇。就水資源變化與生態(tài)環(huán)境總體感知變化而言,原駐民與遷入農(nóng)戶顯現(xiàn)出明顯差異。92.02%的原駐民認(rèn)為大量移民的遷入,尤其是移民遷入伴隨而來的農(nóng)業(yè)用水量增加、桉樹等經(jīng)濟(jì)林的種植直接導(dǎo)致當(dāng)?shù)乇揪拖∪钡乃Y源更為稀缺。相反,78%的遷入農(nóng)戶認(rèn)為水資源量變化不大,與遷出區(qū)相比,他們的生活用水在移民后得到了有效保障,距離水源地更近。80%的遷入農(nóng)戶認(rèn)為移民前后生態(tài)環(huán)境產(chǎn)生變化,但對目前的生態(tài)環(huán)境狀況總體滿意度較高,而96.34%的原駐地農(nóng)戶認(rèn)為移民政策實(shí)施后當(dāng)?shù)厣鷳B(tài)壓力越來越大,農(nóng)戶的生態(tài)環(huán)境滿意度減少。農(nóng)戶對生態(tài)環(huán)境的變化認(rèn)知態(tài)度表明,生態(tài)移民政策對于改善生態(tài)脆弱貧困等遷出地區(qū)農(nóng)戶的環(huán)境條件與生活狀況效果明顯,但對遷入?yún)^(qū)人地關(guān)系,特別是生態(tài)環(huán)境也造成一定負(fù)面影響。調(diào)查中,原駐地農(nóng)戶對遷入農(nóng)戶怨言較多,認(rèn)為由于大量生態(tài)移民的到來,不僅造成其資源占有量急劇下降,由于生活習(xí)慣、文化沖突等方面的原因,遷入農(nóng)戶和原駐地農(nóng)戶隔閡明顯。
2.5.1 農(nóng)戶對生態(tài)移民政策的態(tài)度
農(nóng)戶對生態(tài)移民政策是否支持、是否滿意能間接反映繼續(xù)開展生態(tài)移民工程的可能性。圖2顯示,遷入農(nóng)戶與原駐地農(nóng)戶對生態(tài)移民政策的支持率均高達(dá)96%,但對移民政策的滿意度差異明顯。就遷入農(nóng)戶而言,一種是支持并對移民政策滿意,而另一種則是支持但對移民政策不滿意,認(rèn)為移民政策存在諸多需要改進(jìn)的地方,如補(bǔ)償金額太少,遷入?yún)^(qū)基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施條件不夠完善、居住條件較差等。整體看,滿意農(nóng)戶占受訪農(nóng)戶的85%,不滿意農(nóng)戶占15%,說明移民政策普遍得到遷入農(nóng)戶的支持與認(rèn)可。就原駐地農(nóng)戶而言,96%的農(nóng)戶認(rèn)為移民政策可有效緩解人地矛盾,對解決生態(tài)脆弱區(qū)貧困問題效果顯著,應(yīng)該支持該政策的實(shí)施。但與遷入農(nóng)戶相反,支持該政策的原駐地農(nóng)戶中,僅有32%的受訪農(nóng)戶對本地區(qū)的移民政策表示滿意,64%的受訪農(nóng)戶認(rèn)為地區(qū)移民政策存在諸多弊端,如:破壞了當(dāng)?shù)厮临Y源條件、擠壓了原駐地居民的生存空間,政府未能兼顧原駐地居民資源減少引起的相關(guān)生計(jì)補(bǔ)償?shù)取?/p>
圖2 農(nóng)戶對生態(tài)移民政策的態(tài)度
2.5.2 農(nóng)戶對遷入?yún)^(qū)發(fā)展問題分析
在2組農(nóng)戶調(diào)查中(表5),遷入農(nóng)戶整體表現(xiàn)出對政府依賴性強(qiáng)、被動經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展?fàn)顟B(tài),其中45%的農(nóng)戶希望政府改善基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施,通過修路改善交通條件,修建地頭水柜解決飲水和農(nóng)業(yè)灌溉問題;19.76%、16.28%分別將焦點(diǎn)對準(zhǔn)增加政府補(bǔ)貼、改善居住條件。相反,原駐地農(nóng)戶總體呈現(xiàn)出較為活躍積極的致富思維,完善基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施、開展種植業(yè)和養(yǎng)殖業(yè)技術(shù)培訓(xùn)以及勞務(wù)輸出被認(rèn)為是改善經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展?fàn)顩r的主要途徑。在技術(shù)培訓(xùn)、政府提高補(bǔ)助、勞務(wù)輸出和依靠下一代這幾個方面,原駐地農(nóng)戶和遷入農(nóng)戶態(tài)度迥然,相比遷入農(nóng)戶,原駐地農(nóng)戶更愿意接受技術(shù)培訓(xùn)和勞務(wù)輸出這2種致富方式,而在接受政府補(bǔ)助、依靠下一代方面,原駐地農(nóng)戶沒有任何想法,相反,遷入農(nóng)戶更希望得到政府和其后代的幫助。
表5 農(nóng)戶對改善現(xiàn)狀路徑的觀點(diǎn)
分析兩組數(shù)據(jù)結(jié)果差異原因,主要包括3個方面:一、移民初期,政府對遷入農(nóng)戶均有生活、建房、開荒等補(bǔ)貼,直接造成遷入農(nóng)戶對外界援助的依賴性,并力圖實(shí)現(xiàn)利益最大化,而原駐地農(nóng)戶未得到相關(guān)政策扶持,且發(fā)展基礎(chǔ)較好,普遍具有較為明確的發(fā)展目標(biāo);二、遷入農(nóng)戶在移民后充分感受到交通條件改善,水源灌溉設(shè)施完善帶給他們的直接收益,因此,在某些遷入農(nóng)戶聚居,但基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施條件尚需完善的村屯,農(nóng)戶對交通等基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的需求愿望更為強(qiáng)烈,訪談中也發(fā)現(xiàn),遷入農(nóng)戶更傾向于將其村屯水土資源等基礎(chǔ)條件與原駐地農(nóng)戶進(jìn)行對比;三、原駐地農(nóng)戶由于占有質(zhì)量較高的土地資源,擁有更多的外地打工經(jīng)驗(yàn),致富信息更為廣泛,更希望通過學(xué)習(xí)新的種養(yǎng)技術(shù)、發(fā)展適合當(dāng)?shù)亻_發(fā)的農(nóng)業(yè)項(xiàng)目如桑蠶、甘蔗等生產(chǎn)技術(shù)發(fā)家致富,相反遷入農(nóng)戶目前滿足感較強(qiáng),普遍表現(xiàn)出對自己需要掌握的種養(yǎng)技術(shù)比較模糊和盲目的狀態(tài)。
西南喀斯特地區(qū)人地關(guān)系十分緊張,對糧食的外部依賴性也較強(qiáng),研究區(qū)遷入農(nóng)戶在移民前主要是種植玉米、黃豆解決基本的溫飽問題,人均口糧僅200~300 kg。實(shí)施移民工程后,不僅減輕了遷出區(qū)的人口壓力,緩解了其貧困和生態(tài)環(huán)境問題,更可喜的是遷入農(nóng)戶在新的安置點(diǎn)擁有了更多的耕地,多種經(jīng)營也給這些農(nóng)戶帶來了直接的經(jīng)濟(jì)利益[2]。調(diào)查結(jié)果顯示遷入農(nóng)戶對生態(tài)移民政策的滿意度極高。但有一個問題仍不應(yīng)忽視,即生態(tài)移民政策缺乏相應(yīng)的土地政策配套體制。正如調(diào)查數(shù)據(jù)顯示,由于政府未提供相應(yīng)的土地資源再分配政策,遷入農(nóng)戶普遍通過購置、開荒等形式獲取耕種資源,耕地、林地等資源占有量明顯低于原駐地農(nóng)戶。此外,由于沒有明確的法律保障,許多遷入農(nóng)戶對目前擁有的土地資源表示擔(dān)心,害怕原駐地農(nóng)戶收回、占有他們目前使用的土地。由于土地資源分配問題,遷入農(nóng)戶普遍反映社會分配制度不公。同時(shí),由于害怕失去目前擁有的土地,遷入農(nóng)戶加大了對土地的利用強(qiáng)度、開墾力度,忽略了土地的可持續(xù)性保護(hù),土地的規(guī)模效應(yīng)也無法顯現(xiàn)。另一方面,原駐地農(nóng)戶認(rèn)為遷入農(nóng)戶分割了本屬于他們的土地資源,造成本已緊缺的耕地等資源更為稀少,同時(shí)遷入農(nóng)戶對荒草地、坡地的開墾破壞了當(dāng)?shù)氐纳鷳B(tài)環(huán)境。在此情況下,遷入農(nóng)戶與原駐地農(nóng)戶的矛盾已逐漸從占有資源的矛盾,上升到社會矛盾,嚴(yán)重影響了遷入?yún)^(qū)和諧社會建設(shè)。因此,要從根本上解決遷入農(nóng)戶與原駐地農(nóng)戶之間的矛盾,在解除遷入農(nóng)戶的后顧之憂的同時(shí),也應(yīng)做好原駐地農(nóng)戶的相關(guān)安撫,政府應(yīng)在制定切實(shí)可行的土地分配政策,鼓勵遷入農(nóng)戶和原駐地農(nóng)戶之間簽訂土地承包協(xié)議,保障遷入農(nóng)戶享有土地的經(jīng)營使用權(quán)在一定年限內(nèi)不變。同時(shí),對政策實(shí)施過程中表現(xiàn)積極的原駐地農(nóng)戶給予適當(dāng)?shù)慕?jīng)濟(jì)補(bǔ)償。
生態(tài)移民的最終目的是重塑人與自然間的和諧共生,農(nóng)戶的生態(tài)意識將決定其重建進(jìn)程快慢[30]。研究結(jié)果表明,生態(tài)移民后農(nóng)戶對環(huán)境的整體滿意度提高??蛇@僅僅是農(nóng)戶對環(huán)境認(rèn)知的一種表象認(rèn)識。對農(nóng)戶耕種行為進(jìn)行分析,便可發(fā)現(xiàn),當(dāng)農(nóng)戶進(jìn)行坡耕地開墾增加種植面積時(shí),并沒有將生態(tài)環(huán)境擺在重要位置。在此過程中,政府應(yīng)進(jìn)一步加大環(huán)境保護(hù)的宣傳力度,加強(qiáng)綠色農(nóng)業(yè)技術(shù)的推廣,從根本上解決農(nóng)戶經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展問題。在財(cái)政允許的情況下,應(yīng)補(bǔ)償農(nóng)戶由于生態(tài)保護(hù)與治理而損失的經(jīng)濟(jì)收入,調(diào)動農(nóng)戶生態(tài)環(huán)境治理的積極性。調(diào)查發(fā)現(xiàn),原駐地農(nóng)戶絕大多數(shù)對生態(tài)移民工程的態(tài)度是接受和肯定的,但由于喀斯特地區(qū)自身的生態(tài)脆弱性,原駐地農(nóng)戶對當(dāng)?shù)氐纳鷳B(tài)環(huán)境表現(xiàn)出更高的擔(dān)憂,并由此遷怒于生態(tài)移民工程。因此,生態(tài)移民工程的實(shí)施必須高度重視遷入?yún)^(qū)生態(tài)環(huán)境問題,做好遷入?yún)^(qū)生態(tài)環(huán)境承載力分析。通過土地資源的適度開發(fā)、優(yōu)化土地利用結(jié)構(gòu)、開展多種農(nóng)業(yè)經(jīng)營,實(shí)現(xiàn)生態(tài)環(huán)境良性發(fā)展。
生態(tài)移民工程的實(shí)施,無疑是一次農(nóng)戶與外界的“輸血”過程,信息流在遷移的過程中不斷拓寬和擴(kuò)增。移民后農(nóng)戶從思想觀念、市場意識,到政策、資金、技術(shù)技能等方面的認(rèn)知水平會發(fā)展巨大改變[27,31]。訪談中原駐地農(nóng)戶更傾向于接受技術(shù)培訓(xùn)和勞務(wù)輸出等政府資助,經(jīng)濟(jì)思維活躍,表現(xiàn)出強(qiáng)烈的自我發(fā)展意愿。而遷入農(nóng)戶由于擁有了較搬遷前較多的土地資源,更容易滿足于現(xiàn)狀,對自我經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展表現(xiàn)出信心不足或沒有想法,更傾向于接受政府的“救濟(jì)性脫貧”政策。遷入農(nóng)戶如果僅僅依賴生態(tài)移民過程中政府的相關(guān)幫扶措施,不尋求自我發(fā)展路徑,對生態(tài)移民工程的可持續(xù)推進(jìn)勢必造成負(fù)面影響。因此,生態(tài)移民工程實(shí)施過程中,不僅要關(guān)注貧困戶的扶貧,更應(yīng)以習(xí)近平總書記的“三扶”脫貧論為理論指導(dǎo),即扶貧先扶志、扶貧必扶智、精準(zhǔn)扶貧,從根本上改變貧困農(nóng)戶的經(jīng)濟(jì)、生活和精神面貌。
本文以廣西環(huán)江縣典型移民遷入?yún)^(qū)為例,采用參與性農(nóng)戶評估方法,對生態(tài)移民的人口-資源-環(huán)境效應(yīng)進(jìn)行綜合評價(jià),探討移民遷入?yún)^(qū)的移民效應(yīng)和可持續(xù)性問題。主要結(jié)論為:
1)生態(tài)移民工程在解決生態(tài)脆弱貧困區(qū)人地矛盾、生態(tài)恢復(fù)等方面的作用受到農(nóng)戶的普遍認(rèn)可與支持,遷入農(nóng)戶占有的耕地資源質(zhì)量和經(jīng)濟(jì)收入較搬遷前有大幅度提高,土地利用與農(nóng)業(yè)種植業(yè)結(jié)構(gòu)進(jìn)一步優(yōu)化。
2)受到土地分配制度、基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施及資金等多重因素的制約,遷入?yún)^(qū)移民較原駐民土地資源尤其是耕地資源占有量偏少,經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展速度偏低。遷入?yún)^(qū)人口增加對土地資源和生態(tài)環(huán)境可持續(xù)利用造成了較大影響,移民對政府的依賴心理嚴(yán)重、自我經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展意識不足。
3)如何引導(dǎo)好遷入農(nóng)戶和原駐地農(nóng)戶的生產(chǎn)、生活和土地利用方式,在生態(tài)移民工程中充分考慮遷入?yún)^(qū)生態(tài)、土地承載力及當(dāng)?shù)鼐用窠邮找泼竦囊庠福乐挂鹕鐣?、文化及資源沖突,是生態(tài)移民工程可持續(xù)開展的關(guān)鍵問題。
[1] 史俊宏,趙立娟. 非自愿遷移人口生計(jì)轉(zhuǎn)型困境及發(fā)展能力提高策略研究[J]. 農(nóng)業(yè)現(xiàn)代化研究,2015,36(4):603-609.
Shi Junhong, Zhao Lijuan. The obstacles and the sustainable development strategies of livelihood transformation for the involuntary migrants[J]. Research of Agricultural Modernization, 2015, 36(4): 603-609. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[2] 胡業(yè)翠,劉桂真,李靜. 移民安置區(qū)農(nóng)戶土地利用與生計(jì)變化研究[J]. 中國土地科學(xué),2016,30(10):29-36.
Hu Yecui, Liu Guizhen, Li Jing. Research on land use and household livelihood change in immigrant area[J]. China land sciences, 2016, 30(10): 29-36. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[3] 馬力,夏立忠,李運(yùn)東,等. 三峽庫首移民安置區(qū)土地資源、移民經(jīng)濟(jì)狀況及移民滿意度的調(diào)查與分析[J]. 長江流域資源與環(huán)境,2011, 20(1):21-27.
Ma Li, Xia Lizhong, Li Yundong, et al. Investigation of land resources, economic status and satisfaction level of resettlers in resettlement region of head part of the three gorges reservoir[J]. Resources and Environment in the Yangtze Basin, 2011, 20(1): 21-27. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[4] Arnall A, Thomas D S G, Twyman C, et al. Flooding, resettlement, and change in livelihoods: evidence from rural Mozambique[J]. Disasters, 2013, 37(3): 468-488.
[5] Cavendish W. Empirical regularities in the poverty- environment relationship of rural households: evidence from Zimbabwe[J]. World Development, 2000, 28(11): 1979-2003.
[6] Finco M V A. Poverty-environment trap: A nonlinear probit model applied to rural areas in the north of Brazil. American-Eurasian[J]. Agricultural and Environment, 2009, 5(4): 533-539.
[7] Ezra M. Environmental vulnerability, rural poverty, and migration in Ethiopia: A contextual analysis[J]. Genus, 2003, 59(2): 63-91.
[8] 賈國平,朱志玲,王曉濤,等. 移民生計(jì)策略變遷及其生態(tài)效應(yīng)研究-以寧夏紅寺堡區(qū)為例[J]. 農(nóng)業(yè)現(xiàn)代化研究,2016,37(3):505-513.
Jia Guoping, Zhu Zhiling, Wang Xiaotao, et al. Research on the changes of migrant’s livelihood strategies and their ecological effects: A case study of Hongsipu District in Ningxia Province[J]. Research of Agricultural Modernization, 2016, 37(3): 505-513. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[9] 邰秀軍,暢冬妮,郭穎. 寧夏生態(tài)移民居住安置方式的減貧效果分析[J]. 干旱區(qū)資源與環(huán)境,2017,31(4):47-53.
Tai Xiujun, Chang Dongni, Guo Ying. Poverty reduction effects of ecological migrants resettlement ways for Ningxia. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment[J]. 2017, 31(4): 47-53. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[10] Sakdapolrak P, Promburom P, Reif A. Why successful in situ adaptation with environmental stress does not prevent people from migrating? Empirical evidence from northern Thailand[J]. Climate and Development, 2014, 6(1): 38-45.
[11] Arnall A, Thomas D S G, Twyman C, et al. Flooding, resettlement, and change in livelihoods: Evidence from rural Mozambique[J]. Disasters, 2013, 37(3): 468-488.
[12] Morrissey J W. Understanding the relationship between environmental change and migration: the development of an effects framework based on the case of northern Ethiopia[J]. Global Environment Change, 2013, 23(6): 1501-1510.
[13] Thornton A, Ghimire D J, Mitchell C. The measurement and prevalence of an ideational model of family and economic development in Nepal[J]. Population Studies, 2012, 66(3), 329-345.
[14] Katus S, Suhardiman D, ellamutu S S. When local power meets hydropower conceptualizing resettlement along the Nam Gnouang river in Laos[J]. Geoforum, 2016, 72(3): 6-15.
[15] Shackleton C M, Hebinck P, Kaoma H, et al. Low-cost housing developments in South Africa miss the opportunities for household level urban greening[J]. Land Use Policy, 2014, 36(1): 500-509.
[16] 胡業(yè)翠,武淑芳,王靜. 基于參與式調(diào)查的廣西生態(tài)移民遷入?yún)^(qū)農(nóng)戶收入效應(yīng)評價(jià)[J]. 農(nóng)業(yè)工程學(xué)報(bào),2016,32(21):264-270.
Hu Yecui, Wu Shufang, Wang Jing. Evaluation of farmers' income effect in immigration regions of ecological resettlement project in Guangxi Province[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering (Transactions of the CSAE), 2016, 32(21): 264-270. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[17] Adam A B, Owen J R, Kemp D. Households livelihoods and mining-induced displacement and resettlement[J]. The Extractive Industries and Society, 2015, 2(3): 581-589.
[18] 徐勁原. 生態(tài)移民政策對農(nóng)戶收入影響的實(shí)例研究[D]. 北京:中國地質(zhì)大學(xué)(北京),2012.
Xu Jinyuan. Study on the Effectiveness of Eco-Migration on the Incomes of Rural Householders[D]. Beijing: China University of Geosciences (Beijing), 2012. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[19] 馮利盈,李金香,王雅俊. 生態(tài)移民工程對農(nóng)戶生計(jì)資本的影響[J]. 農(nóng)業(yè)科學(xué)研究,2015(4):78-83.
Feng Liying, Li Jinxiang, Wang Yajun. Impacts of the immigration project on the living capital of farmer’s family[J]. Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2015(4): 78-83. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[20] 劉遠(yuǎn)新,張華忠,周維,等. 三峽庫區(qū)農(nóng)村移民安置模式對移民家庭收入的影響分析[J]. 長江流域資源與環(huán)境,2011, 20(3):352-356.
Liu Yuanxin, Zhang Huazhong, Zhouwei, et al. Effect of rural households resettlement mode on the households income in the three gorges reservoir areas[J]. Resources and Environment in the Yangtze Basin, 2011, 20(3): 352-356. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[21] Thi M H B, Pepijn S. Resettling farm households in northwestern Vietnam: Livelihood change and adaptation[J]. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 2011, 27(4): 769-785.
[22] 蘇藝,鄧偉,張繼飛,等. 尼泊爾中部山區(qū)Melamchi流域農(nóng)戶類型及其土地利用方式[J]. 農(nóng)業(yè)工程學(xué)報(bào),2016,32(9):204-211.
Su Yi, Deng Wei, Zhang Jifei, et al. Peasant household type and its land use pattern in Melamchi basin of central mountainous area in Nepal[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering (Transactions of the CSAE), 2016, 32(9): 204-211. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[23] 馮偉林,李樹茁,李聰. 生態(tài)移民經(jīng)濟(jì)恢復(fù)中的人力資本與社會資本失靈:基于對陜南生態(tài)移民的調(diào)查[J]. 人口與經(jīng)濟(jì),2016(1):98-107.
Feng Weilin, Li Shuzhuo, Li Cong. A study on the failure of human capital and social capital in economic recovery of the ecological migrants: A survey of the ecological migrants in southern shaanxi[J]. Population and Economics, 2016(1): 98-107. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[24] Ma S, Ma S. The environmental justice in ecological immigration: A case study of Sanjiangyuan Area[J]. Architectural Research, 2015, 17(4): 147-152.
[25] Ocello C, Petrucci C, Testa M R, et al. Environmental aspects of internal migration in Tanzania[J]. Population and Environment, 2015, 37(1): 99-108.
[26] Cornwall A, Pratt G. The use and abuse of participatory rural appraisal reflections[J]. Agriculture and Human Values, 2011, 28(2): 263-272.
[27] 于一尊,王克林,陳洪松,等. 基于參與性調(diào)查的農(nóng)戶對環(huán)境移民政策及重建預(yù)案的認(rèn)知與響應(yīng):西南喀斯特移民遷出區(qū)研究[J]. 生態(tài)學(xué)報(bào),2009,29(3):1170-1180.
Yu Yizun, Wang Kelin, Chen Hongsong, et al. Farmer’s perception and response towards environmental migration and restoration plans based on participatory rural appraisal: A case study of emigration region in the karst Southwestern China[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2009, 29(3): 1170-1180. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[28] 史俊宏. 生計(jì)轉(zhuǎn)型背景下蒙古族生態(tài)移民非農(nóng)生計(jì)策略選擇及困境分析[J]. 中國農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào),2015,20(3):264-270.
Shi Junhong. Analysis on selection of off-farm livelihoods strategy and dilemma for ecological migration of the Mongol nationality in the context of livelihoods transformation[J]. Journal of China Agricultural University, 2015, 20(3): 264-270.
[29] Bessho Y. Migration for ecological preservation? Tibetan herders’ decision making process in the eco-migration policy of Golok Tibetan autonomous prefecture (Qinghai province, PRC)[J]. Nomadic Peoples, 2015, 19(2): 189-208.
[30] 朱冬亞. 環(huán)境移民及其對策[J]. 環(huán)境科學(xué)與技術(shù),2005,28(2):56-57,81. Zhu Dongya. Environment emigration and measures[J]. Environmental Science and Technology, 2005, 28(2): 56-57, 81. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[31] 曾復(fù)平,李文樣,王克林,等. 環(huán)江縣異地扶貧開發(fā)與持續(xù)發(fā)展途徑探討[J]. 資源開發(fā)與市場,1997,13(6):279-281.
Zeng Fuping, Li Wenxiang, Wang Kelin, et al. Helping the poor to improve at foreign lands and sustainable developing ways in Huanjiang County[J]. Resource Development & Market, 1997, 13(6): 279-281. (in Chinese with English abstract)
Evaluation of ecological resettlement project effect in immigration regions in Guangxi
Hu Yecui1,2, Zheng Fangyu1, Xu Shuang1
(1.,(),100083,;2.,,100035,)
Resettlement is a systematic and comprehensive program that addresses not only poverty alleviation, but also environmental degradation and human-environment relationships. The implementation of China’s resettlement program has not only profoundly impacted ecological regeneration in out-migration regions, but ecological and economic conditions in in-migration regions. The success or failure of resettlement policies in relieving the tensions between people and land is bound to affect the localized progress of such national strategy. To assess the effects of the resettlement program, 4 evaluation elements directly articulated around the objectives of the resettlement program were distinguished, namely human, resources, economy and natural environment. The following questions were answered: Whether the program achieved what it intended to accomplish; whether the incomes of migrants and areas of land resources owned by migrants increased; whether the ecological environment in immigration regions had been deteriorated; whether the farmers were satisfied with the outcome of the program; whether there were differences between migrants and natives in terms of land resource areas, income levels, sources of income, and responses to environmental policy. From this perspective, this study assessed the migration effect in the in-migration areas and the sustainability. Applying participatory rural appraisal (PRA) method to a comprehensive evaluation framework, we surveyed migrant and native households in 30 in-migration villages in Karst areas of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, China, to compare their cultivated land, incomes, and attitudes to migrant policies and cognition to eco-environment change. The results indicated that the program had already made progress in harmonizing human-earth relationship, increasing the income of immigrants, improving comprehensive capacity of natural disaster resistance and effectively guaranteeing the implementations of reforestation policy. However, some issues were also found through this study, such as the large differences in area of land resources between the immigrants and the natives; the slower development of immigrants’ economy compared with the natives; the environmental conditions impacted by a large number of immigrants; and land-use sustainability issue resulting from ecologically unsound farming practices. Studies suggest that not only should we pay attention to the environmental benefits, but also should pay attention to the balance between efficiency and equity issues. From the results of our investigation and analysis, it is apparent that there are a number of questions that are worth considering and resolving. In the future, government needs to be more empathetic toward the vital interests of farmers. Priority activities should include: Enhancing the evaluation on the carrying capacity of resources and environment in resettlement regions; acceleration of corresponding system construction and making systematic arrangements at operational level, such as the land allocation system and industrial policy support; and designing an appropriate environment and development model from the perspectives of scientific rationality, humanism, and the national culture to effectively meet ecological requirements and the economic interests of farmers. This will bring about the early realization of a resource-saving and environment-friendly industrial structure, and of a sustainable mode of economic growth. Results will provide evidence-based reference not only for China’s poverty alleviation policy but also for ecological migration practice in other parts of the world.
economics; estimation; ecology; ecological resettlement project; participatory rural appraisal; migration effect
10.11975/j.issn.1002-6819.2017.17.035
F321.1
A
1002-6819(2017)-17-0264-07
2017-06-01
2017-08-31
國家自然科學(xué)基金(41171440);中央高?;究蒲袠I(yè)務(wù)費(fèi)專項(xiàng)資金(2652015175)
胡業(yè)翠,山東淄博人,副教授,博士。主要研究方向?yàn)橥恋乩门c區(qū)域可持續(xù)發(fā)展。北京 中國地質(zhì)大學(xué)(北京)土地科學(xué)技術(shù)學(xué)院,100083。Email:huyc@163.com
農(nóng)業(yè)工程學(xué)報(bào)2017年17期