经济学院知识库

  农村农业的发展与生计资源的分布和积累息息相关，充沛的自然资源是农业良好、稳定发展的前提和保障，而长期生活在生态脆弱区农户的发展水平，在极大程度上受到资源匮乏的限制，并且水土流失、草地退化、极端天气频发等环境问题在生态脆弱区内也尤为突出。人类发展的需要与生态资源供给不足的矛盾使得人口、资源与环境三者间的问题愈演愈烈，严重的环境问题不仅破坏了原有的生态系统，还成为诱发农户生计风险和贫困的主要原因。作为环境问题的直接面对者，生态脆弱区农户的生产与生活也在严重的环境与资源问题中逐渐失衡。因此，基于科学的理论指导，针对农户面临的风险类型提出相应的应对策略，对于生态脆弱区稳固脱贫攻坚成果、提高区域内农户的生计水平、解决我国城乡发展不平衡、引导我国居民正确合理使用生态性资源等多个方面来说，起到极大的推动作用。

  本文以生态脆弱区祁连山国家级自然保护区内农户作为研究对象，首先采用参与式农村评估法对农户的生计现状与生计风险进行抽样调查；然后采用模糊综合评价法，对农户面临的生计风险和拥有的生计资本进行评估，确定农户生计风险的种类与强度，了解研究区域内农户生计资本积累方式以及构成；随后，利用多元线性回归模型，考察影响生计风险的内在因素；最后构建Logistic回归模型，分析在不同生活状态下以及不同外部风险情景下的农户的风险防御举措，总结农户应对生计风险的规避策略。结果发现：

  （1）通过对研究区农户进行生计现状及风险调查，测算农户生计资本及生计风险综合指数后发现，研究区居民生计资本综合指数处于0.001-0.653，其中，人力资本综合指数最高，物质资本次之。在研究区内，居民生计风险指数总体处于0.004-0.837，其中金融风险综合指数最高，社会风险指数最低。

  （2）生计风险的出现与农户掌握的生计资本情况之间存在着紧密的联系，通过改善生计资本的结构也能够有效降低生计风险的发生。人力资本、金融资本和自然资本与农户健康风险之间存在显著负相关关系。环境风险与自然资本存在显著正向作用，与金融资本之间为负向作用。农户金融资本和社会资本的持有量分别与金融风险呈显著负相关。农户人力资本、自然资本及社会资本的增加能够显著降低社会风险的程度。人力资本、自然资本和社会资本分别与农户信息风险之间存在显著负向作用。

  （3）事前生计策略的选择更倾向于农户的资源禀赋。人力资本丰富型农户更倾向于选择“加强与村外亲戚的联系”和“参加农业技能培训”以提高资本禀赋，形成相应的事前生计策略。拥有更多家禽牲畜、耕地类物质或自然资本的农户更偏好选择“扩大现有农业规模”、“参与村内事务决策”以及“参加农业技能培训”作为生计策略，物质资本还与“提高子女教育”间也存在显著的正相关性。金融资本丰富型农户更加倾向于选择“收入资源多样化”、“提高子女的教育”、“加强与村外亲戚的联系”作为生计风险的防范策略。社会资本丰富的农户更倾向于选择“参与村内事务决策”、“加强和村内人的联系”和“参加农业技能培训”作为风险应对策略。事后生计策略的选择更取决于面临的生计风险类型。健康风险型农户倾向于选择“资产转成现金”、“贷款”、“减少消费”、“孩子辍学”、“等待政府救援”作为生计策略；环境风险型农户倾向于选择 “贷款”、“外出打工”、“等待政府救援”作为生计策略；金融风险型农户倾向于“资产转成现金”、“贷款”、“减少消费”、“外出打工”作为风险应对策略；社会风险型农户倾向于选择“孩子辍学”、“等待政府救援”应对生计风险；信息风险型农户更不愿意选择“资产转换现金”、“孩子辍学”来抵御生计风险。

 Livelihood resources’ distribution and accumulation is essential to the development of rural agriculture, as well as abundant natural resources provide more possibilities for agricultural production. Although resources and environment are vital to human beings, agriculture is largely limited by the lack of resources in ecologically fragile areas, in addition, environmental problems such as water loss and soil erosion, degeneration of the grassplot, and frequent extreme weather are also particularly prominent in ecologically fragile areas. In the process of human development, the contradiction between the limitless demand for ecological resources and the limited supply of ecological resources makes the problems more and more serious among population, resources and environment, resources and environment. The serious environmental problems not only destroy the original ecosystem, but also become the inducement of poverty of farmers. As a direct face of environmental issues, farmers’ production and life are also gradually out of balance due to serious environmental and resource problems. Therefore, the scientific and targeted prevention opinions of livelihood strategy will play a great role in farmers’ life to stabilize the results of poverty alleviation, improve the livelihood of farmers in the region, solve the imbalance of urban and rural development in China, and guide Chinese residents to use ecological resources correctly and rationally, etc.

   This paper takes farmers in the ecologically fragile Qilian Mountain National Nature Reserve as the research objects. Firstly, the participatory rural appraisal is used to conduct a sample survey of the livelihood status and livelihood risks of farmers in the research area. Secondly, the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method that is an extremely suitable tool could be used to evaluate the livelihood risk and capital of farmers, the assessment results can help us determine the type and intensity of farmers’ livelihood risks and understand the accumulation mode and composition of farmers’ livelihood capital in the study area. Thirdly, the multivariate linear regression model is constructed to investigate the internal factors affecting livelihood risk. Finally, the logistic regression model is used to analyze the choices of livelihood strategies of farmers under different scenarios and summarize the strategies of farmers to avoid livelihood risks. The results show that:

    (1) By investigating the current situation and risk of livelihood of farmers in Qilian Mountain Nature Reserve, and measuring the livelihood capital and risk of farmers, the result show that the livelihood capital value of residents in the study area was between 0.001 and 0.653, among which the composite index value of human capital is the highest, followed by material capital, and risk value is between 0.004 and 0.837, among which composite index value of financial risk is the highest and the composite index value of social risk is the lowest.

    (2) Livelihood risk interact with livelihood capital, therefore, the reduction of livelihood risk can be realized by adjusting the combination of livelihood capital. The results show that there is a significant negative correlation between human capital (HC), financial capital (FC), natural capital (NC) and the health risk of farmers. Environmental risks are positively correlated with NC and negatively correlated with FC. The holdings of FC and social capital (SC) of peasant households are negatively correlated with financial risks. Social risk has a significant negative correlation with HC, NC and SC respectively. HC, NC and SC have significant negative effects on farmers’ information risk respectively.

    (3) The choice of livelihood pre-strategy is more inclined to the resource endowment of farmers. Farmers with rich human capital are more inclined to choose “strengthening contact with relatives outside the village” and “participating in agricultural skill training” as their livelihood strategies. Farmers with rich physical capital and rich natural capital tend to choose “increasing the number of livestock”, “attending in village affairs” and “participating in agricultural skill training”. There is also a significant positive correlation between the amount of physical capital owned by farmers and “improving children’s education”. Farmers with rich financial capital are more inclined to choose “diversification of income resources”, “improving children’s education”, and “strengthening contact with relatives outside the village” as their livelihood risk prevention strategies. Farmers with rich social capital are more inclined to choose “participating in decision-making of affairs in the village”, “strengthening contact with people in the village” and “participating in agricultural skill training” as risk coping strategies. The choice of livelihood strategy after the livelihood risk occurs is more dependent on the type of livelihood risk faced. Health-risk farmers tend to choose “assets into cash”, “loans”, “reducing consumption”, “children drop out”, and “waiting for government assistance” as their livelihood strategies. Environmental risk farmers tend to choose “loans”, “going out to work”, and “waiting for government assistance” as livelihood strategies. Financial risk farmers tend to “turn assets into cash”, “loans”, “reducing consumption”, and “going out to work” as risk response strategies; social risk farmers tend to choose “children drop out of school” and “waiting for government assistance” to deal with livelihood risks. Information risk farmers are even more reluctant to choose “asset conversion cash” and “children drop out of school” as anti-risk strategies.