本文選題：武陵山區(qū) + 退耕還林政策�。� 參考：《中南民族大學》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：2002年全面開展的退耕還林工程,是建國以來最重大的生態(tài)建設工程,其涉及范圍最廣、為最大投資規(guī)模、群眾參與度最高,同時任務量也最重。再新一輪的退耕還林工程開始實施時,對之前退耕還林工程經(jīng)驗總結與學習,特別是,退耕后改變了農(nóng)戶土地利用方式,一方面在實施退耕還林工程恢復生態(tài)脆弱區(qū)的生態(tài)環(huán)境的同時,另一方面,要注重農(nóng)戶改變土地利用方式對土地可持續(xù)利用的影響。這也為新一輪退耕還林政策有效開展提出參考建議,隨著土地利用變化的研究越來越受到各方重視,人類與土地長期相互作用的機理受關注。因而,隨著退耕后,農(nóng)戶傳統(tǒng)土地利用方式發(fā)生了怎樣的變化?土地是農(nóng)戶賴以生存的資本,保證土地可持續(xù)利用是保障農(nóng)戶基本生活的根本,嘗試性對之后退耕還林工程的實施提出政策建議。這些問題的解釋需要對退耕還林后地區(qū)的農(nóng)戶土地利用變化進行分析對比。退耕還林工程實施以來,許多專家和學者對農(nóng)戶土地利用進行了研究,也取得了一些成果。然而研究多以宏觀的角度分析退耕還林政策對農(nóng)村土地利用變化,以農(nóng)戶的角度從微觀層面分析農(nóng)戶對土地利用的變化較少,特別是農(nóng)戶土地利用變化后對土地可持續(xù)利用的影響研究較少。為此,本文在總結已有退耕還林政策對農(nóng)戶土地利用研究成果的基礎上,以武陵山區(qū)退耕戶為研究對象,以問卷調(diào)查數(shù)據(jù)為依據(jù)實證分析,對比分析了退耕戶與非退耕戶土地利用的變化,主要從四個方面進行分析,構建模型對退耕后農(nóng)戶土地利用變化的回歸分析,在實證分析的基礎上,結合調(diào)查結果,提出政策建議,為持續(xù)健康的實施退耕還林和完善相關政策及可持續(xù)性的利用土地提供科學依據(jù)。主要研究結論如下:1退耕后,退耕戶經(jīng)濟收入狀況差退耕后,農(nóng)戶人均耕地面積減少,同時,人均現(xiàn)金收入的減少幅度也小于非退耕戶人均現(xiàn)金收入。農(nóng)戶家庭耕地與林地面積比值越來越小,由于退耕后經(jīng)濟林的生長周期遠較糧食作物周期長,退耕后,即使農(nóng)戶獲得了一定的政府補助,但農(nóng)戶的經(jīng)濟收入可能因為失地后,仍出現(xiàn)家庭經(jīng)濟收入減少的情況。因而,表明退耕戶人均現(xiàn)金收入少于非退耕戶。2退耕后,外出務工的農(nóng)戶增多退耕后一方面耕地減少,另一方面卻也解放了勞動力,致使其能夠有機會選擇社會經(jīng)濟發(fā)展所提供的就業(yè)機會,選擇外出務工的人員增多,且以青壯年居多,留下以婦女和老人在家務農(nóng)居多�？傮w上,退耕戶與非退耕戶在外出農(nóng)戶數(shù)量上差別不大,同時,近年來農(nóng)戶家庭人均現(xiàn)金收入都呈增長趨勢。3退耕后,土地利用集約度提高退耕后,農(nóng)戶土地經(jīng)營結構發(fā)生變化,人均耕地面積減少,一般情況下,以農(nóng)為生的農(nóng)戶家庭沒有特大變故,家庭勞動力數(shù)變化小。因而,會增加對耕地的勞動力投入,另一方面,特別是貧困戶和有學生的農(nóng)戶家庭其家庭經(jīng)濟負擔重,退耕后,耕地減少會更大程度上增加對土地的投入及提高土地復種指數(shù),以來減輕家庭負擔。4退耕后,撂荒的情況發(fā)生較普遍在耕地面積減少與勞動力外出務工的情況下,外出務工反而比在家務農(nóng)更能帶來高且穩(wěn)定的經(jīng)濟收入,選擇務農(nóng)的農(nóng)戶減少。因而,在將土地租賃不成的情況時,土地就被撂荒。退耕戶與非退耕戶中撂荒的情況差異不大。而撂荒對象中主要是旱地,水田基本無人撂荒。
[Abstract]:The overall project of returning farmland to forest in 2002 is the most important ecological construction project since the founding of the people's Republic of China. It has the most extensive scope, the largest scale of investment, the highest participation of the masses, and the heaviest task. In the new round of returning farmland to forest project, the experience of the previous reforestation project is summarized and studied, especially after the conversion of farmland. On the other hand, we should pay more attention to the effect of changing the land use mode to the sustainable utilization of land. On the other hand, we should pay more attention to the effect of the change of land use mode on the sustainable utilization of land. This also provides some suggestions for the effective development of a new round of land reforestation policy, with the change of land use. More and more attention has been paid to the mechanism of the long-term interaction between human and land. As a result, what has happened to farmers' traditional land use after returning farmland? Land is the capital on which farmers depend on the land, ensuring the sustainable use of land is the basic of ensuring the basic life of farmers, and after trying to return the farmland to forest project Policy suggestions are put forward. The explanation of these problems needs to be analyzed and compared to the land use change of farmers in the area after returning farmland to forest. Since the implementation of the project of returning farmland to forest, many experts and scholars have studied the land use of farmers and have made some achievements. Rural land use changes, from the perspective of farmers, from the micro level analysis of land use change less, especially after the change of farmers' land use change to the land sustainable use of less research. The research object, based on the questionnaire survey data, contrasts and analyzes the change of land use between the farmers and non returning households, analyzes mainly from four aspects, and constructs the regression analysis of the land use change of farmers after returning farmland. On the basis of the empirical analysis, combining the results of the investigation, it puts forward the policy suggestions, which is sustainable and healthy. The main research conclusions are as follows: 1 after returning farmland, the per capita cultivated land area of peasant households is less than that after returning farmland, and the decrease of per capita per capita cash income is less than that of non returning households. The ratio of land area is getting smaller and smaller, because the growth cycle of economic forest after returning farmland is much longer than that of grain crop. After returning farmland, even if farmers get some government subsidies, the economic income of farmers may still be reduced because of the loss of land. Therefore, the per capita cash income of the households is less than that of non returning farmers.2. After returning farmland, the farmers who have gone out to work have increased their cultivated land on the one hand and liberated the labor force on the other hand, resulting in the opportunity to choose the employment opportunities provided by the social and economic development, the increase in the number of migrant workers, and the majority of the young people in the young and strong years. There is little difference in the number of non returning farmers in the number of rural households. At the same time, in recent years, the per capita cash income of households in the household has been growing in.3, after the intensive degree of land use is improved, the land management structure of farmers has changed, and the per capita cultivated land area is reduced. As a result, the labor input to the cultivated land will be increased, on the other hand, the economic burden of the families, especially the poor households and the families with the students, will be heavier. After returning farmland, the land reduction will be increased and the land replanting index will be increased to a greater extent. Since the family burden of.4 is reduced, the situation of abandonment is more common. When the area of cultivated land is reduced and labor is out to work, migrant workers can bring more high and stable economic income than housework, and the farmers choose farmers to reduce their income. Therefore, the land is abandoned when the land lease is not completed. Mainly dry land, no land is abandoned in the paddy field.
【學位授予單位】：中南民族大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：F327

【相似文獻】

中國期刊全文數(shù)據(jù)庫 前10條

1 張媛;支玲;;退耕戶對補助政策的路徑依賴分析——以安定區(qū)為例[J];安徽農(nóng)業(yè)科學;2011年02期

2 任林靜;黎潔;;陜西安康山區(qū)退耕戶的復耕意愿及影響因素分析[J];資源科學;2013年12期

3 唐軻;周易;張志強;孟全省;;可持續(xù)生計分析框架下退耕戶與非退耕戶生計狀況分析[J];西北林學院學報;2013年04期

4 姚長生 ,尚升;讓退耕戶在還林草中得到更多實惠[J];甘肅林業(yè);2003年03期

5 ;退耕戶具體補助標準出臺[J];農(nóng)家顧問;2007年11期

6 陳小瑋,范民康,劉利年;生態(tài)與生存:一個都不能少[J];新西部;2002年03期

7 東梅,鐘甫寧,王廣金;退耕還林與貧困地區(qū)糧食安全的實證分析——以寧夏回族自治區(qū)為例[J];中國人口.資源與環(huán)境;2005年01期

8 ;回音壁[J];農(nóng)家顧問;2002年12期

9 王武林;;貴州省退耕還林問題跟蹤研究[J];安徽農(nóng)業(yè)科學;2011年36期

10 ;[J];;年期

中國重要報紙全文數(shù)據(jù)庫 前10條

1 本報記者 王拉田 實習生 王蓉;10萬退耕戶“退”中增收[N];寶雞日報;2006年

2 記者 高新亮　通訊員 張志軍;國家新增資金專項解決草原退耕戶生計[N];中國稅務報;2009年

3 通訊員 葉爾肯;退耕戶受益 生態(tài)環(huán)境改善[N];塔城報;2006年

4 本報記者 楊平 本報通訊員 諸世遒;蜀山青蜀水秀 退耕戶開始富[N];中國綠色時報;2007年

5 通訊員 董志鸚 爾斯別克;青河縣實行“一卡通”便利退耕戶領取補助金[N];阿勒泰日報;2009年

6 記者 林東升 李向東;抓好退耕戶口糧田和反續(xù)產(chǎn)業(yè)[N];農(nóng)民日報;2004年

7 本報記者 孟民;麟游千萬元兌付退耕戶[N];寶雞日報;2007年

8 記者 劉云云;我省去年造林800萬畝[N];四川日報;2012年

9 趙強;春節(jié)前全部兌現(xiàn)到戶[N];糧油市場報;2003年

10 杜海濤 肖正兵;玉門市“退耕戶”喜領“光榮折”[N];酒泉日報;2006年

中國碩士學位論文全文數(shù)據(jù)庫 前2條

1 向丹;武陵山區(qū)退耕農(nóng)戶土地可持續(xù)利用研究[D];中南民族大學;2015年

2 唐軻;可持續(xù)生計框架下退耕還林對農(nóng)戶生計影響研究[D];西北農(nóng)林科技大學;2013年

，

本文編號：2055373