Impact of livelihood diversification of rural households on their ecological footprint in agro-pastoral areas of northern China
Impact of livelihood diversification of rural households on their ecological footprint in agro-pastoral areas of northern China
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s40333-015-0049-5
复制
发表时间：
2015-05
影响因子：
3
通讯作者：
Haiguang Hao;Jiping Zhang;Xiubing Li;Huiyuan Zhang;Qiang Zhang
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Haiguang Hao;Jiping Zhang;Xiubing Li;Huiyuan Zhang;Qiang Zhang
人与环境的关系是学术研究的焦点，了解人与环境的关系对于制定有效的政策和决策至关重要。基于内蒙古自治区太仆寺旗、多伦县和正镶白旗的农户调查数据，运用生态足迹理论和方法，结合单因素方差分析和相关分析，研究了农牧交错带生计多样化对生态系统的影响。2011年，总消费生态足迹（EFC）为0.665 g hm 2，总生产生态足迹（EFP）为2.045 g hm 2，是EFC的3倍多。耕地消费的生态足迹在生态足迹中所占比例较大，草地生产的生态足迹在生态足迹中所占比例较大。草地消费生态足迹（EFGC）和EFGP均与收入显著正相关，说明收入主要依赖畜牧业生产，收入高的农户消费更多的畜产品。结果表明，农户的农业生产力、耕地生产生态足迹、耕地生产生态足迹和耕地生产生态足迹均以全日制农户最高，其次为兼业农户和非农农户，表明农户的兼业和非农就业在一定程度上减少了农户对当地生态系统和自然资源的占用和消耗。当农户从事畜牧业时，EFAP和EFAC均变小，而EFP、EFC、EFGC和EFGP显著增加。在制定生态系统保护政策时，应考虑不同家庭群体之间生态足迹的差异。鼓励具有非农就业优势的劳动力迁出农村，增加农户生计的多样性，对减轻环境压力、提高农户福利具有重要意义。此外，今后应更有效地利用草地。
Human-environment relationship is a focus of academic researches and an understanding of the relationship is important for making effective policies and decisions. In this study, based on rural household survey data of Taibus Banner, Duolun county and Zhengxiangbai Banner in the Inner Mongolia autonomous region of China, we identified the impact of livelihood diversification on ecosystems in these agro-pastoral areas by using the ecological footprint theory and methodology together with the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and correlation analysis methods. In 2011, the total ecological footprint of consumption (EFC) was 0.665 g hm2, and the total ecological footprint of production (EFP) was 2.045 g hm2, which was more than three times the EFC. The ecological footprint of arable land consumption (EFAC) accounted for a large proportion of the EFC, and the ecological footprint of grassland production (EFGP) occupied a large proportion of the EFP. Both the ecological footprint of grassland consumption (EFGC) and EFGP had a significant positive correlation with the income, indicating that income was mainly depended on livestock production and the households with higher incomes consumed more livestock products. The full-time farming households (FTFHs) had the highest EFP, ecological footprint of arable land production (EFAP), EFGP and EFGC, followed by the part-time farming households (PTFHs) and non-farming households (NFHs), which indicated that part-time farming and non-farming employment reduced the occupancy and consumption of rural households on local ecosystems and natural resources to some extent. When farming households engaged in livestock rearing, both the EFAP and EFAC became smaller, while the EFP, EFC, EFGC and EFGP increased significantly. The differences in ecological footprints among different household groups should be taken into account when making ecosystem conservation policies. Encouraging the laborers who have the advantages of participating in non-farming employment to move out of the rural areas and increasing the diversification of livelihoods of rural households are important in reducing the environmental pressures and improving the welfare of households in the study area. Moreover, grassland should be utilized more effectively in the future.