尼泊尔中部山区Melamchi流域农户类型及其土地利用方式
|
摘要
农户生计策略变化为土地利用变化提供了新的研究视角。基于问卷调查、半结构访谈、数理统计等方法,对尼泊尔中部山区Melamchi流域4个典型村进行了系统调查,分析了不同类型农户的生计策略及土地利用特征。结果表明:农为主和非农为主型农户生计策略组合较优,生计多样性指数相对较高,生计风险相对较小。不同类型农户在耕作面积、土地利用结构、劳动力投入、土地增产性投入等方面均表现出不同特征。不同类型农户对改善生计的认识及策略不同,其对土地的作用及影响也有所差异。非农生计活动不仅降低了生计脆弱性和生计风险,同时也降低了农户对土地的依赖程度和垦殖率,促进了土地所有权改变和土地再分配,提高了农业生产率,但也增加了土地质量退化和环境污染的风险。针对尼泊尔山区资源环境特点及影响农户生计改善的不利因素,从农户和区域层次分别提出农户生计优化及土地可持续利用的建议。
Changes in household livelihood strategy have provided a new research perspective for land utilization changes. By means of questionnaire survey, semi-structured interview, mathematical statistics and other research methods, this research conducts a systematic investigation on the households and land plots of 4 typical villages located at the Melamchi basin in the central mountainous areas in Nepal. Then based on the income combinations, this research classifies the peasant households into 4 types, which are pure agriculture type, agriculture-dependent type, non-farming-dependent type and non-agriculture type. With above classification, the analysis is carried out on different types of households' livelihood strategies and land use patterns, in terms of the number of land plots, the area of land, the renting of land, the arrangement of labor forces and the yield-increasing input and so on. Through contrastive study on different types of households' perceptions and strategies of livelihood improving, this paper analyzes their influences on land use and comes up with the suggestions including properly utilizing land resources as well as improving household livelihood capability and level. The results show that different types of households reflect different characteristics in their family scale, family member, labor allocation, age structure and cultural level. To be specific, for the households of agriculture-dependent type and non-farming-dependent type, their livelihood strategy combination is better and livelihood diversity index is higher, and hence they possess relatively lower livelihood risks. Different households' land use patterns are obviously different. From the angle of the area of land, land area per household and per capita, it can be summarized as the sequence of agriculture-dependent type>pure agriculture type>non-farming-dependent type>non-agriculture type. Among these, the households of agriculture-dependent type possess the largest renting land coverage. From the perspective of cultivating land structure, various types of households all plant food crops as the primary crop, whereas relatively fewer households and fewer lands focus on economic crops. Comparatively, the households of agriculture-dependent type occupy the highest proportion and area of economic crop planning; as for labor input, agriculture-dependent type has the largest labor input and their male labor proportion is the highest as well; as for land yield-increasing input, the proportion of households using fertilizer in Helambu Village shows agriculture-dependent type>pure agriculture type>non-farming-dependent type, but the proportion of households in the other 3 villages shows non-farming-dependent type>pure agriculture type>agriculture-dependent type. And non-farming-dependent type occupies the largest land yield-increasing input per unit area land. Because different types of households' perceptions and strategies of livelihood improving are not same, their influences on land use are varied. The largest demands of households are to establish irrigation facilities, increase agricultural yield-increasing input, improve breeding technology guide, enhance skill training and increase local employment opportunities, encourage loans with interest subsidy or lower interest, and construct roads and so on. And they are important measures to reduce the rate of land reclamation. Non-agricultural livelihood activities will not only reduce the vulnerability and risks of livelihood, but also reduce household's dependency degree and reclamation ratio to the land, which will promote the change of land ownership and land re-distribution and improve agricultural production rate. However, this will also increase the risk of land quality devolution and environmental pollution. Given the resource environment features in the mountainous areas of Nepal and unfavorable factors hindering the improvement of households' livelihood, this paper comes up with feasible strategies of improving household's livelihood and promoting the sustainable utilization of land from both household level and regional level.
Changes in household livelihood strategy have provided a new research perspective for land utilization changes. By means of questionnaire survey, semi-structured interview, mathematical statistics and other research methods, this research conducts a systematic investigation on the households and land plots of 4 typical villages located at the Melamchi basin in the central mountainous areas in Nepal. Then based on the income combinations, this research classifies the peasant households into 4 types, which are pure agriculture type, agriculture-dependent type, non-farming-dependent type and non-agriculture type. With above classification, the analysis is carried out on different types of households' livelihood strategies and land use patterns, in terms of the number of land plots, the area of land, the renting of land, the arrangement of labor forces and the yield-increasing input and so on. Through contrastive study on different types of households' perceptions and strategies of livelihood improving, this paper analyzes their influences on land use and comes up with the suggestions including properly utilizing land resources as well as improving household livelihood capability and level. The results show that different types of households reflect different characteristics in their family scale, family member, labor allocation, age structure and cultural level. To be specific, for the households of agriculture-dependent type and non-farming-dependent type, their livelihood strategy combination is better and livelihood diversity index is higher, and hence they possess relatively lower livelihood risks. Different households' land use patterns are obviously different. From the angle of the area of land, land area per household and per capita, it can be summarized as the sequence of agriculture-dependent type>pure agriculture type>non-farming-dependent type>non-agriculture type. Among these, the households of agriculture-dependent type possess the largest renting land coverage. From the perspective of cultivating land structure, various types of households all plant food crops as the primary crop, whereas relatively fewer households and fewer lands focus on economic crops. Comparatively, the households of agriculture-dependent type occupy the highest proportion and area of economic crop planning; as for labor input, agriculture-dependent type has the largest labor input and their male labor proportion is the highest as well; as for land yield-increasing input, the proportion of households using fertilizer in Helambu Village shows agriculture-dependent type>pure agriculture type>non-farming-dependent type, but the proportion of households in the other 3 villages shows non-farming-dependent type>pure agriculture type>agriculture-dependent type. And non-farming-dependent type occupies the largest land yield-increasing input per unit area land. Because different types of households' perceptions and strategies of livelihood improving are not same, their influences on land use are varied. The largest demands of households are to establish irrigation facilities, increase agricultural yield-increasing input, improve breeding technology guide, enhance skill training and increase local employment opportunities, encourage loans with interest subsidy or lower interest, and construct roads and so on. And they are important measures to reduce the rate of land reclamation. Non-agricultural livelihood activities will not only reduce the vulnerability and risks of livelihood, but also reduce household's dependency degree and reclamation ratio to the land, which will promote the change of land ownership and land re-distribution and improve agricultural production rate. However, this will also increase the risk of land quality devolution and environmental pollution. Given the resource environment features in the mountainous areas of Nepal and unfavorable factors hindering the improvement of households' livelihood, this paper comes up with feasible strategies of improving household's livelihood and promoting the sustainable utilization of land from both household level and regional level.
引文
[1]Block S,Webb P.The dynamics oflivelihood diversification in post-famine ethiopia[J].Food Policy,2001,26(4):333-350.[2]Bouahom B,Douangsavanh L,Rigg J.Building sustainable livelihood in Loas:Untangling farm from non-farm,progress from distress[J].Geoforum,2004,35(5):607-619.[3]Barrow C J,Hicham H.Two complimentary and integrated land uses of the western High Atlas Mountains,Morocco:The potential for sustainable rural livelihoods[J].Applied Geography,2000,20(4):369-394.[4]Ellis F,Mode N.Livelihoods and rural poverty reduction in Tanzania[J].World Development,2003,31(8):1367-1384.[5]Holden S,Shiferaw B,Pender J.Non-farm income,household welfare,and sustainable land management in a less-favouredarea in the Ethiopian highlands[J].Food Policy,2004,29(4):369-392.[6]Eija Soini.Land use change patterns and livelihood dynamics on the slopes of Mt.Kilimanjaro,Tanzania[J].Agricultural Systems,2005,85(3):306-323.[7]Gina Koczberski,George N Curry.Making a living:Land pressures and changing livelihood strategies among oil palm settlers in Papua New Guinea[J].Agricultural Systems,2005,85(3):324-339.[8]McC usker B,Carr E R.The co-production of livelihoods and land use change:Case studies from South Africa and Ghana[J].Geoforum,2006,37(5):790-804.[9]Bradstock A.Land reform and livelihoods in South Africa's Northern Cape Province[J].Land Use Policy,2006,23(3):247-259.[10]阎建忠,张镱锂,摆万奇,等.大渡河上游生计方式的时空格局与土地利用/覆被变化[J].农业工程学报,2005,21(3):83-89.Yan Jianzhong,Zhang Yili,Bai Wanqi,et al.Livelihood succession and land use/cover change in the Upper Reaches of Dadu River watershed[J].Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering(Transactions of the CSAE),2005,21(3):83-89.(in Chinese with English abstract)[11]鲁礼新.贵州沙坡农户行为与环境变迁:人地关系的微观研究[M].郑州:黄河水利出版社,2006.[12]李小建.农户地理理论[M].北京:科学出版社,2009.[13]张丽萍,张镱锂,阎建忠,等.青藏高原东部山地农牧区生计与耕地利用模式[J].地理学报,2008,63(4):377-385.Zhang Liping,Zhang Yili,Yan Jianzhong,et al.Livelihood diversification and cropland use pattern in agro-pastoral mountain region of the eastern Tibetan Plateau[J].Acta Geographica Sinica,2008,63(4):377-385.(in Chinese with English abstract)[14]谭淑豪,曲福田,黄贤金.市场经济环境下不同类型农户土地利用行为差异及土地保护政策分析[J].南京农业大学学报,2001,24(2):110-114.Tan Shuhao,Qu Futian,Huang Xianjin.Difference of farm households’land use decision-making and land conservation policies under market economy[J].Journal of Nanjing Agricultural University,2001,24(2):110-114.(in Chinese with English abstract)[15]Pender J.Rural population growth,agricultural change and natural resource management in developing countries:A review of hypotheses and some evidence from Honduras[J].EPTD Discussion Papers,1999:325-369.[16]Shriar A J.Food security and land use deforestation in northern Guatemala[J].Food Policy,2002,27(4):395-414.[17]Tittonell P,Muriuki A,Shepherd K D,et al.The diversity of rural livelihoods and their influence on soil fertility in agricultural systems of East Africa:A typology of smallholder farms[J].Agricultural Systems,2010,103(2):83-97.[18]向国成,韩绍凤.农户兼业化:基于分工视角的分析[J].中国农村经济,2005(8):4-9.Xiang Guocheng,Han Shaofeng.Part-time farming:An analysis based on the perspective of division of labor[J].Chinese Rural Economy,2005(8):4-9.(in Chinese with English abstract)[19]Walker R,Perz S,Caldas M,et al.Land use and land cover change in forest frontiers:The role of household life cycles[J]International Regional Science Review,2002,25(2):169-199.[20]Read L,Lawrence D,Foster D R.Recovery of biomass following shifting cultivation in dry tropical forests of the Yucatan[J].Ecological Applications,2003,13(1):85-97.[21]Rudel T K,Coomes O T,Moran E,et al.Forest transitions:Towards a global understanding of land use change[J].Global Environmental Change:Part A,2005,15(1):23-31.[22]Hecht S B,Kandel S,Gome I,et al.Globalization,forest resurgence,and environmental politics in El Salvador[J].World Development,2006,34(2):308-323.[23]Evans T P,Manire A,Castro F,et al.A dynamic model of household decision-making and parcel level land cover change in the eastern Amazon[J].Ecological Modeling,2001,143(1/2):95-113.[24]Ketterings Q M,Wibowo T T,Noordwijk M,et al.Farmers’perspectives on slash-and-burn as a land clearing method for small-scale rubber producers in Sepunggur,Jambi Province,Sumatra,Indonesia[J].Forest Ecology and Management,1999,120(1/2/3):157-169.[25]Mertens B,Sunderlin W D,Ndoye Eric O,et al.Impact ofmacroeconomic change on deforestation in South Cameroon:Integration ofhousehold survey and remotely-sensed data[J].World Development,2000,28(6):983-999.[26]Liu G,Lucas M,Shen L.Rural household energy consumption and its impacts on eco-environment in Tibet:Taking Taktse county as an example[J].Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,2008,12(7):1890-1908.[27]Jacob A L,Vaccaro I,Sengupta R,et al.Integrating land-scapes that have experienced rural depopulation and ecological homogenization into tropical conservation planning[J].Tropical Conservation Science,2008,1(4):307-320.[28]Arroyo-Mora J P,Sanchez-Azofeifa G A,Rivard B,et al.Dynamics in landscape structure and composition for the Chorotega region,Costa Rica from 1960 to 2000[J].Agriculture,Ecosystems and Environment,2005,106(1):27-39.[29]蔡基宏.关于农地规模与兼业程度对土地产出率影响争议的一个解答[J].数量经济与技术经济研究,2005,22(3):28-37.Cai Jihong.An answer to the debate upon the relationship between farm productivity and farm size and sideline activity[J].Quantitative&Technica Economics,2005,22(3):28-37.(in Chinese with English abstract)[30]王成超,杨玉盛.基于农户生计策略的土地利用/覆被变化效应综述[J].地理科学进展,2012,31(6):792-798.Wang Chengchao,Yang Yusheng.An overview of farmers’livelihood strategy change and its effect on land use/cover change in developing countries[J].Progress in Geography,2012,31(6):792-798.(in Chinese with English abstract)[31]Blaikie P,Coppard D.Environmental change and livelihood diversification in Nepal:Where is the problem?[J].Himalaya,the Journal of the Association for Nepal and Himalayan Studies,1998,18(2):11-40.[32]Thapa G B,Paudel G S.Farmland degradation in the mountains of Nepal:A study of watersheds‘with’and‘without’external intervention[J].Land Degradation&Development,2002,13(6):479-493.[33]Raut N,Sitaula B K,Bajracharya R M.Agricultural intensification:Linking with livelihood improvement and environmental degradation in mid-hills of Nepal[J].Journal of Agriculture and Environment,2010,11(11):83-94.[34]Khadka R B,Khanal A B.Environmental management plan(EMP)for Melamchi water supply project,Nepal[J].Environmental Monitoring&Assessment,2008,146(1/2/3):225-234.[35]阎建忠,卓仁贵,谢德体,等.不同生计类型农户的土地利用:三峡库区典型村的实证研究[J].地理学报,2010,65(11):1401-1410.Yan Jianzhong,Zhuo Rengui,Xie Deti,et al.Land use characters of farmers of different livelihood strategies:Cases in three gorges reservoir area[J].Acta Geographica Sinica,2010,65(11):1401-1410.[36]Joshi M,Mason T D.Land tenure,democracy,and insurgency in Nepal:Peasant support for insurgency versus democracy[J].Asian Survey,2007,47(3):393-414.