欢迎访问《中国农学通报》,

中国农学通报 ›› 2014, Vol. 30 ›› Issue (26): 114-122.doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.2014-0236

• 三农研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

农户生计可持续性定量测度及动态分析研究

代富强   

  • 收稿日期:2014-01-23 修回日期:2014-03-24 出版日期:2014-09-15 发布日期:2014-09-15
  • 基金资助:
    教育部人文社会科学研究青年基金项目“三峡工程农村移民生计可持续评价研究”(12XJCZH005);国家自然科学基金项目“雅鲁藏布江河谷区农户种植生计下耕地土壤肥力质量的时空变化特征”(41301351);国家社科基金重大项目“三峡库区独特地理单元‘环境-经济-社会’发展变化研究”(11&ZD161)。

A Study on Quantitative Evaluation and Dynamic Analysis of Rural Household Livelihoods Sustainability

  • Received:2014-01-23 Revised:2014-03-24 Online:2014-09-15 Published:2014-09-15

摘要: 结合生计可持续性分析框架和PSR概念模型,提出农户生计可持续性的“压力-状态-效应-响应”评价指标体系和评价模型,以重庆市为例,评价并分析了该区农户生计可持续性的现状、演进过程以及结构变化特征。研究表明:(1)提出的评价指标体系能够体现农户生计可持续性的各方面,评价结果能够反映农户生计的实际可持续性水平;(2)重庆市1997—2011年农户生计可持续性逐渐由基本不可持续逐渐提升为基本可持续;(3)状态、效应和响应指数都呈现持续向好的态势,压力指数表现出明显的波动增长特征,其中自然灾害和物价上涨压力是农户生计可持续性的主要限制因素;(4)虽然生计脆弱性压力表现出明显的不确定性,但是政府和农户自身都做出了积极响应,农户生计资产持续增加,农户收入水平和生活质量显著提升。

关键词: 纯化, 纯化

Abstract: In this study, both evaluation index system and methods were proposed to assess the rural household livelihoods sustainability with integrating sustainable livelihoods approach into PSR conceptual model. As a case study in Chongqing, rural household livelihoods sustainability from 1997 to 2011 was evaluated to analyze its evolution process and composition change characteristic. Results show that the proposed evaluation index system was comprehensively enough to reflect every aspects of livelihoods sustainability, while the evaluation results could reflect the actual level of rural household livelihoods sustainability. Furthermore, it can be found that the rural household livelihoods sustainability had been improved from slight non-sustainability to slight sustainability level. Meantime, state, impact and response indexes exhibited a trend that continued to be improved, while pressure index showed a significant fluctuation growth, because natural disasters and price rise were the main limiting factors. Moreover, although livelihood vulnerability presented an obvious uncertainty, both government and rural household themselves had made positive responses. As a result, rural household livelihood assets had increased continuously and income level and life quality had a significant improvement.