林业科学 ›› 2020, Vol. 56 ›› Issue (8): 148-161.doi: 10.11707/j.1001-7488.20200817
潘丹1,陆雨1,孔凡斌2,*
收稿日期:
2020-03-09
出版日期:
2020-08-25
发布日期:
2020-09-15
通讯作者:
孔凡斌
基金资助:
Dan Pan1,Yu Lu1,Fanbin Kong2,*
Received:
2020-03-09
Online:
2020-08-25
Published:
2020-09-15
Contact:
Fanbin Kong
摘要:
目的: 剖析退耕还林工程对不同贫困程度农户收入的影响效应,探究退耕还林工程能否有效提高不同贫困程度退耕农户收入以及缓解退耕地区农村贫困状况,明确该工程对退耕农户收入效应的影响机制,为探索建立退耕还林工程减贫长效机制提供科学依据。方法: 基于2013年中国家庭收入调查数据,剔除城镇住户、流动人口样本以及未实施退耕还林工程省份后保留7 150户农村住户样本,采用内生转换回归模型(ESR)构建"反事实"分析框架,分别估计参与退耕还林工程对不同贫困程度农户收入的平均处理效应,用以检验退耕还林工程能否有效提升退耕农户收入水平,基于收入类型进一步剖析工程对不同贫困程度农户收入影响的直接效应和间接效应,以明确工程对退耕农户收入效应的影响机制。结果: 基于反事实假设,从家庭整体收入水平来看,参与退耕显著增加了一般贫困退耕农户和重度贫困退耕农户的人均可支配收入水平,且重度贫困退耕农户的增收效应更明显;退耕还林工程对农户收入的直接效应表现为,与未参与退耕的反事实相比,参与退耕的重度贫困农户的人均转移性收入和人均经营性收入分别增加15.9%和18.6%;退耕还林工程对不同贫困程度农户收入的间接效应表现为,非贫困农户、一般贫困农户和重度贫困农户的人均工资性收入分别提高了4.0%、7.9%和24.6%。结论: 退耕还林工程可增加一般贫困农户和重度贫困农户收入水平。其中,通过人均转移性收入和人均经营性收入对重度贫困农户收入有直接影响;通过人均工资性收入对不同贫困程度农户均有正向间接影响,且随着贫困程度的加深,间接效应越大。因此,对不同贫困程度退耕农户实施差异化补贴政策和非农生产就业的知识技能培训能更有效利用工程资金,可为实现工程增收和减贫目标及建立减贫长效机制提供思路借鉴。
中图分类号:
潘丹,陆雨,孔凡斌. 不同贫困程度农户退耕还林的收入效应[J]. 林业科学, 2020, 56(8): 148-161.
Dan Pan,Yu Lu,Fanbin Kong. Effects of Grain for Green Project on the Income of Households at Different Poverty Levels[J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2020, 56(8): 148-161.
表4
不同贫困程度农户收入的处理效应和异质性效应的测算结果①"
类型 Types | 组别 Groups | 决策阶段Decision stage | 处理效应 Treatment effect | |
退耕农户 Conversion farmers | 非退耕农户 Non-conversion farmers | |||
非贫困农户 Non-poor | 退耕农户 Conversion farmers | 9.496 (0.525) | 9.953 (0.547) | ATT=-0.457***(0.263) |
非退耕农户 Non-conversion farmers | 11.084 (0.637) | 9.532 (0.486) | ATU=1.552***(0.482) | |
异质性效应Heterogeneity effect | HT=-1.588 | HU=0.421 | Δ=-2.009 | |
一般贫困农户 General poor | 退耕农户 Conversion farmers | 9.078 (0.500) | 8.983 (0.457) | ATT=0.095***(0.350) |
非退耕农户 Non-conversion farmers | 8.666 (0.522) | 9.204 (0.454) | ATU=-0.538***(0.390) | |
异质性效应Heterogeneity effect | HT=0.412 | HU=-0.221 | Δ=0.633 | |
重度贫困农户 Severely poor | 退耕农户 Conversion farmers | 8.876 (0.514) | 8.621 (0.450) | ATT=0.255***(0.264) |
非退耕农户 Non-conversion farmers | 7.482 (0.621) | 8.910 (0.460) | ATU=-1.428***(0.382) | |
异质性效应Heterogeneity effect | HT=1.394 | HU=-0.289 | Δ=1.683 |
表2
退耕农户与非退耕农户的主要变量情况描述性统计①"
变量 Variables | 含义 Implication | 退耕农户 Conversion farmers | 非退耕农户 Non-conversion farmers | 差异 Difference | |||
均值 Means | 标准差 Standard deviation | 均值 Means | 标准差 Standard deviation | ||||
参与决策 Decision | 是否参与退耕还林(参与=1;未参与=0)Whether to participate (Participation=1; No participation=0) | 1.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | — | |
户主个体特征 Individual characteristics of head of a household | |||||||
性别Gender | 男性=1;女性=0 Male=1; Female=0 | 0.912 | 0.284 | 0.912 | 0.281 | -0.002 | |
年龄Age/a | — | 53.071 | 10.967 | 52.311 | 11.550 | 0.760** | |
受教育年限Education years/a | — | 6.887 | 2.661 | 7.089 | 2.636 | -0.202*** | |
健康状况 Health condition | 1-5:健康状况逐渐降低A gradual decline in health | 2.328 | 0.970 | 2.264 | 0.972 | 0.064** | |
兄弟姐妹个数Number of siblings | 独生子女=0 Only child=0 | 3.182 | 1.796 | 3.110 | 1.752 | 0.072* | |
农户家庭特征 Household characteristics | |||||||
常住人口比例Proportion of permanent residents | — | 0.665 | 0.369 | 0.733 | 0.323 | -0.069*** | |
劳动力人数Labor force | — | 2.820 | 1.223 | 2.808 | 1.255 | 0.012* | |
男性比例Proportion of male | — | 0.522 | 0.174 | 0.521 | 0.171 | 0.001 | |
是否干部户 Whether official household | 0=否,1=是0=No, 1=Yes | 0.056 | 0.143 | 0.051 | 0.147 | 0.004 | |
人均疾病天数 Disease days per capita | — | 10.049 | 26.429 | 8.894 | 25.799 | 1.154* | |
人均经营土地面积Operating land area per capita/hm2 | — | 0.873 | 2.036 | 0.825 | 2.721 | 0.048 | |
人均参与公共工程天数 Days of participation in public works per capita | — | 2.393 | 10.706 | 1.479 | 9.388 | 0.914*** | |
参与低保比例 Proportion of participation in subsistence allowance | — | 0.111 | 0.269 | 0.083 | 0.237 | 0.029*** | |
识别变量 Identifying variables | |||||||
人均亲邻帮工天数Neighborhood helper days per capita | — | 4.524 | 5.538 | 3.288 | 5.294 | 1.236*** | |
样本量Observations | N=1 259 | N=5 891 |
表3
不同贫困程度农户的ESR回归结果①"
变量Variables | 模型1(非贫困农户)Model 1 (Non-poor) | 模型2(一般贫困户)Model 2 (General poor) | 模型3(重度贫困农户)Model 3 (Severely poor) | ||||||||
选择方程 Select equation | 退耕农户 Conversion farmers | 非退耕农户 Non-conversion farmers | 选择方程 Select equation | 退耕农户 Conversion farmers | 非退耕农户 Non-conversion farmers | 选择方程 Select equation | 退耕农户 Conversion farmers | 非退耕农户 Non-conversion farmers | |||
户主个体特征Individual characteristics of head of a household | |||||||||||
性别Gender | 0.104 (0.078) | -0.236**(0.110) | -0.106**(0.044) | -0.088 (0.166) | 0.124 (0.195) | -0.113 (0.095) | -0.022 (0.229) | 0.219 (0.338) | -0.356***(0.136) | ||
年龄Age | 0.004*(0.002) | -0.001 (0.003) | 0.002*(0.001) | -0.002 (0.005) | 0.008 (0.006) | 0.009***(0.003) | 0.003 (0.006) | -0.007 (0.009) | -0.001 (0.004) | ||
受教育年限 Education years | -0.007 (0.009) | 0.017 (0.013) | 0.003 (0.005) | -0.006 (0.019) | 0.003 (0.023) | 0.025**(0.011) | -0.015 (0.025) | -0.031 (0.034) | -0.018 (0.015) | ||
健康状况 Health condition | -0.003 (0.024) | -0.000 (0.034) | -0.009 (0.013) | 0.035 (0.051) | -0.049 (0.058) | -0.040 (0.028) | -0.021 (0.072) | -0.183*(0.105) | -0.111***(0.042) | ||
兄弟姐妹个数 Number of siblings | 0.123 (0.121) | -0.003 (0.017) | 0.005 (0.007) | -0.008 (0.026) | -0.026 (0.030) | 0.001 (0.014) | 0.053 (0.035) | 0.032 (0.055) | -0.016 (0.021) | ||
农户家庭特征Household characteristics | |||||||||||
常住人口比例 Proportion of permanent residents | -0.191***(0.064) | 0.029 (0.090) | -0.078**(0.038) | -0.352***(0.135) | -0.437***(0.166) | 0.091 (0.085) | -0.302*(0.184) | -0.292 (0.249) | -0.199*(0.117) | ||
劳动力人数Labor force | 0.003 (0.019) | 0.250***(0.027) | 0.246***(0.010) | 0.049 (0.040) | 0.345***(0.050) | 0.245***(0.022) | -0.007 (0.054) | 0.284***(0.076) | 0.242***(0.032) | ||
男性比例Proportion of male | -0.146 (0.127) | 0.361**(0.181) | 0.325***(0.071) | 0.299 (0.276) | 0.196 (0.307) | 0.469***(0.158) | -0.507 (0.363) | 0.593 (0.491) | 0.395*(0.211) | ||
是否干部户Whether official household | 0.193**(0.090) | -0.265**(0.123) | -0.030 (0.057) | 0.146*(0.219) | -0.385 (0.246) | 0.208*(0.119) | 0.110 (0.255) | 0.310 (0.344) | 0.118 (0.169) | ||
人均疾病天数Disease days per capita | 0.001 (0.001) | -0.000 (0.001) | -0.000 (0.000) | -0.001 (0.002) | 0.000 (0.003) | 0.000 (0.001) | -0.001 (0.002) | 0.002 (0.003) | 0.000 (0.001) | ||
人均经营土地面积 Operating land area per capita | 0.003 (0.006) | 0.009 (0.131) | 0.013***(0.004) | -0.014 (0.019) | -0.012 (0.018) | 0.016***(0.009) | 0.009***(0.027) | 0.021 (0.037) | 0.018*(0.020) | ||
人均参与公共工程天数 Public works days per capita | 0.008 (0.006) | -0.022**(0.010) | 0.004 (0.004) | -0.016 (0.025) | -0.042 (0.039) | -0.008 (0.011) | 0.046 (0.030) | 0.027 (0.037) | 0.009 (0.024) | ||
识别变量Identifying variables | |||||||||||
人均亲邻帮工天数 Neighborhood helper days per capita | 0.012***(0.003) | — | — | 0.022***(0.008) | — | — | 0.018*(0.009) | — | — | ||
常数项Constant | -0.663***(0.211) | 12.473***(0.314) | 11.114***(0.127) | -0.526 (0.503) | 10.545***(0.695) | 10.001***(0.307) | -1.153*(0.677) | 11.276***(1.170) | 11.185***(0.406) | ||
省份Province | 已控制Controlled | ||||||||||
ρt或ρu | — | -0.908***(0.019) | -0.227***(0.099) | — | -0.913***(0.015) | -0.236***(0.089) | — | 0.367**(0.450) | -0.585**(0.128) | ||
样本数Observations | 5 213 | 926 | 4 287 | 1 214 | 206 | 1 008 | 723 | 127 | 596 | ||
对数似然值Logarithmic likelihood | -8 188.909 | -1 897.748 6 | -1 171.296 8 | ||||||||
联合独立似然比检验 Joint independent likelihood ratio test | 45.210*** | 0.49 | 4.83** |
表5
退耕对不同贫困程度农户不同收入影响的处理效应"
收入类型 Income types | 组别 Groups | 决策阶段Decision stage | 处理效应 Treatment effect(ATT) | |
拟合收入 Fitting income | 反事实收入 Counterfactual income | |||
人均转移性收入 Per capita transfer income | 非贫困农户Non-poor | 7.538 (0.650) | 9.746 (0.998) | -2.208***(1.013) |
一般贫困农户General poor | 7.273 (0.598) | 7.841 (0.462) | -0.568***(0.721) | |
重度贫困农户Severely poor | 7.370 (0.537) | 7.211 (0.507) | 0.159***(0.456) | |
人均经营性收入 Per capita operating income | 非贫困农户Non-poor | 7.791 (0.464) | 8.689 (0.551) | -0.898***(0.619) |
一般贫困农户General poor | 7.767 (0.671) | 8.268 (0.376) | -0.501***(0.659) | |
重度贫困农户Severely poor | 7.751 (0.561) | 7.565 (0.443) | 0.186***(0.318) | |
人均工资性收入 Per capita wage income | 非贫困农户Non-poor | 8.767 (0.682) | 8.727 (0.679) | 0.040***(0.373) |
一般贫困农户General poor | 8.075 (0.835) | 7.996 (0.709) | 0.079**(0.925) | |
重度贫困农户Severely poor | 7.440 (0.724) | 7.194 (0.443) | 0.246***(0.637) | |
人均财产性收入 Per capita property income | 非贫困农户Non-poor | 6.918 (0.773) | 7.818 (0.962) | -0.900***(0.624) |
一般贫困农户General poor | 5.895 (0.832) | 7.026 (0.384) | -1.131***(0.857) | |
重度贫困农户Severely poor | 5.697 (0.525) | 5.714 (0.325) | -0.017***(0.381) |
程名望, 黄甜甜, 刘雅娟. 农村劳动力外流对粮食生产的影响:来自中国的证据. 中国农村观察, 2015. (6): 15- 21, 46, 94. | |
Cheng M W , Huang T T , Liu Y J . The influence of rural labor outflow on food production:the evidence from China. China Rural Survey, 2015. (6): 15- 21, 46, 94. | |
程名望, JinYanhong, 盖庆恩, 等. 农村减贫:应该更关注教育还是健康?——基于收入增长和差距缩小双重视角的实证. 经济研究, 2014. 49 (11): 130- 144. | |
Cheng M W , Jin Y H , Gai Q E , et al. Focusing on education or health improvement for anti-poverty in rural China:evidence from national household panel data. Economic Research Journal, 2014. 49 (11): 130- 144. | |
段伟, 申津羽, 温亚利. 西部地区退耕还林工程对农户收入的影响——基于异质性的处理效应估计. 农业技术经济, 2018. (2): 41- 53. | |
Duan W , Shen J Y , Wen Y L . The effect of the sloping land conversion program on rural households' income in western areas-treatment effect estimation based on heterogeneity. Journal of Agrotechnical Economics, 2018. (2): 41- 53. | |
郭晓鸣, 甘庭宇, 李晟之, 等. 退耕还林工程:问题、原因与政策建议——四川省天全县100户退耕还林农户的跟踪调查. 中国农村观察, 2005. (3): 72- 79. | |
Guo X M , Gan T Y , Li S Z , et al. Returning farmland to forests:problems, causes and policy suggestions-a follow-up investigation of 100 households returning farmland to forests in Tianquan county, Sichuan province. China Rural Survey, 2005. (3): 72- 79. | |
韩洪云, 史中美. 中国退耕还林工程经济可持续性分析——基于陕西省眉县的实证研究. 农业技术经济, 2010. (4): 85- 91. | |
Han H Y , Shi Z M . An analysis on the economic sustainability of China's program to convert farmland to forest-based on the empirical study of Meixian, Shaanxi province. Journal of Agrotechnical Economics, 2010. (4): 85- 91. | |
韩秀华. 退耕还林工程对农户收入影响实证分析——以陕西安康为例. 林业经济, 2015. 37 (6): 40- 43. | |
Han X H . Empirical analysis of the influence of conversion of cropland to forestland project-taking Ankang of Shaanxi as an example. Forestry Economy, 2015. 37 (6): 40- 43. | |
金江, 孟勇, 张莉. 跨方言区流动、自选择与劳动力收入. 统计研究, 2018. 35 (8): 94- 103. | |
Jin J , Meng Y , Zhang L . Cross-dialect migration, self-selection, and income. Statistical Research, 2018. 35 (8): 94- 103. | |
黎洁, 李树茁. 退耕还林工程对西部农户收入的影响:对西安周至县南部山区乡镇农户的实证分析. 中国土地科学, 2010. 24 (2): 57- 63. | |
Li J , Li S Z . The impact of the program of farmland conversion for forest land on the income of rural household in western China:An empirical evidence from the mountain area of the south part of Zhouzhi county, Xi'an City. China Land Science, 2010. 24 (2): 57- 63. | |
李若凝. 退耕还林对农村经济的影响及后续发展对策——以河南洛阳为例. 农业现代化研究, 2004. (5): 363- 366. | |
Li R N . Effects of conversion of cropland to forest on rural economy and its follow-up development countermeasures. Research of Agricultural Modernization, 2004. (5): 363- 366. | |
李桦, 姚顺波, 郭亚军. 退耕还林对农户经济行为影响分析——以全国退耕还林示范县(吴起县)为例. 中国农村经济, 2006. (10): 37- 42. | |
Li H , Yao S B , Guo Y J . Analysis on the influence of returning farmland to forest on farmers' economic behavior-a case study of national model county of returning farmland to forest (Wuqi county). Chinese Rural Economy, 2006. (10): 37- 42. | |
刘璨, 张巍. 退耕还林政策选择对农户收入的影响——以我国京津风沙源治理工程为例. 经济学(季刊), 2007. (1): 273- 290. | |
Liu C , Zhang W . Impacts of conversion of farmland to forestland program on household income:Evidence from a Sand Control Program in the vicinity of Beijing and Tianjin. China Economic Quarterly, 2007. (1): 273- 290. | |
卢悦, 田相辉. 退耕还林对农户收入的影响分析——基于PSM-DID方法. 林业经济, 2019. 41 (4): 87- 93. | |
Lu Y , Tian X H . Analysis on the influence of returning farmland to forest on farmers' income-based on PSM-DID method. Forestry Economy, 2019. 41 (4): 87- 93. | |
朋文欢, 黄祖辉. 农民专业合作社有助于提高农户收入吗?——基于内生转换模型和合作社服务功能的考察. 西北农林科技大学学报:社会科学版, 2017. 17 (4): 57- 66. | |
Peng W H , Huang Z H . Can cooperatives help to increase farmers' income? Analysis based on endogenous switching regression model and cooperatives' service functionality. Journal of Northwest A&F University:Social Science Edition, 2017. 17 (4): 57- 66. | |
史常亮, 栾江, 朱俊峰, 等. 土地流转对农户收入增长及收入差距的影响——基于8省农户调查数据的实证分析. 经济评论, 2017. (5): 152- 166. | |
Shi C L , Luan J , Zhu J F , et al. Land transaction and farmers' income:An analysis based on Chinese eight provinces survey data. Economic Review, 2017. (5): 152- 166. | |
王立安, 钟方雷, 王静, 等. 退耕还林工程对农户缓解贫困的影响分析——以甘肃南部武都区为例. 干旱区资源与环境, 2013. 27 (7): 78- 84. | |
Wang L A , Zhong F L , Wang J , et al. The impact of returning farmland to forest project on the poverty alleviation-Case of Wudu District, south of Gansu province. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 2013. 27 (7): 78- 84. | |
王秋菊, 王立群. 退耕还林对农户的经济影响——河北省平泉县案例研究. 北京林业大学学报:社会科学版, 2009. 8 (1): 88- 92. | |
Wang Q J , Wang L Q . Economical impact of grain for green project on farmers:A case study in Pingquan county of Hebei province. Journal of Beijing Forestry University:Social Sciences, 2009. 8 (1): 88- 92. | |
王庶, 岳希明. 退耕还林、非农就业与农民增收——基于21省面板数据的双重差分分析. 经济研究, 2017. 52 (4): 106- 119. | |
Wang S , Yue X M . The Grain-for-Green Project, non-farm employment, and the growth of farmer income. Economic Research, 2017. 52 (4): 106- 119. | |
韦荣华. 退耕还林的四大成效. 中国林业, 2004. (16): 22- 24. | |
Wei R H . Four effects of returning farmland to forests. Forestry of China, 2004. (16): 22- 24. | |
吴乐,靳乐山. 2018.生态补偿扶贫背景下农户生计资本影响因素研究.华中农业大学学报:社会科学版, (6): 55-61, 153, 154. | |
Wu L, Jin L S. 2018. Study on influential factors of peasant households' livelihood capital under the policy of eco-compensation poverty alleviation. Journal of Huazhong Agricultural University: Social Sciences Edition, (6): 55-61, 153, 154.[in Chinese] | |
谢旭轩, 马训舟, 张世秋. 应用匹配倍差法评估退耕还林政策对农户收入的影响. 北京大学学报:自然科学版, 2011. 47 (4): 759- 767. | |
Xie X X , Ma X Z , Zhang S J . Evaluating income impacts of Slopping Land Conversion Program in China:a matching DID model. Journal of Peking University:Natural Science Edition, 2011. 47 (4): 759- 767. | |
邢祥娟. 2014.退耕还林对农户收入的影响研究.北京:北京林业大学博士学位论文. | |
Xing X J. 2014. Study on the effect of returning farmland to forest on farmers' income. Beijing: PhD thesis of Beijing Forestry University.[in Chinese] | |
徐晋涛, 陶然, 徐志刚. 退耕还林:成本有效性、结构调整效应与经济可持续性——基于西部三省农户调查的实证分析. 经济学(季刊), 2004. (4): 139- 162. | |
Xu J T , Tao R , Xu Z G . Conversion of farmland to forests:cost effectiveness, structural adjustment effect and economic sustainability-based on empirical analysis of rural household surveys in three western provinces. China Economic Quarterly, 2004. (4): 139- 162. | |
杨小军, 徐晋涛. 退耕还林工程经济影响结构性分析. 北京林业大学学报:社会科学版, 2009. 8 (4): 12- 19. | |
Yang X J , Xu J T . Structural analysis on economic impact of Grain for Green project in China. Journal of Beijing Forestry University:Social Sciences, 2009. 8 (4): 12- 19. | |
杨志海. 生产环节外包改善了农户福利吗?——来自长江流域水稻种植农户的证据. 中国农村经济, 2019. (4): 73- 91. | |
Yang Z H . Can outsourcing of agricultural production improve the welfare of farm households? Evidence from rice farmers in Yangtze valley. Chinese Rural Economy, 2019. (4): 73- 91. | |
易福金, 陈志颖. 退耕还林对非农就业的影响分析. 中国软科学, 2006. (8): 31- 40. | |
Yi F J , Chen Z Y . Impact of SLCP on off-farm job. China Soft Science, 2006. (8): 31- 40. | |
尹海洁, 唐雨. 贫困测量中恩格尔系数的失效及分析. 统计研究, 2009. 26 (5): 54- 58. | |
Yin H J , Tang Y . The invalidation and analysis of Engel coefficient in the urban poverty measure. Statistical Research, 2009. 26 (5): 54- 58. | |
张炜. 2019.退耕还林对农户劳动供给及收入的影响研究.杨凌:西北农林科技大学博士学位论文. | |
Zhang W. 2019. A study on the impact of returning farmland to forest on the labor supply and income of farm households. Yangling: PhD thesis of Northwest A&F University.[in Chinese] | |
张炜, 薛建宏, 张兴. 退耕还林政策对农户收入的影响及其作用机制. 农村经济, 2019. (6): 130- 136. | |
Zhang W , Xue J H , Zhang X . The effect of the policy of returning farmland to forest on farmers' income and its mechanism. Rural Economy, 2019. (6): 130- 136. | |
甄静, 郭斌, 朱文清, 等. 退耕还林项目增收效果评估——基于六省区3 329个农户的调查. 财贸研究, 2011. 22 (4): 22- 29. | |
Zhen J , Guo B , Zhu W Q , et al. Assessment of impacts of Sloping Land Conversion Program on households' income:on surveys of 3 329 households. Finance and Trade Research, 2011. 22 (4): 22- 29. | |
朱长宁, 王树进. 退耕还林、耕地约束与农户经济行为. 经济问题, 2015. (8): 86- 90. | |
Zhu C N , Wang S J . The Conversion of Cropland to Forest, cropland constraint and farmer household economic behaviors. Economic Issue, 2015. (8): 86- 90. | |
Di Falco S , Veronesi M , Yesuf M . Does adaptation to climate change provide food security? A micro-perspective from Ethiopia. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 2011. 93 (3): 829- 846. | |
Borjas G J . Self-selection and the earnings of immigrants. American Economic Review, 1987. 77 (4): 531- 553. | |
Falck O , Alfred Lameli A , Ruhose J . Cultural biases in migration:Estimating non-monetary migration costs. Papers in Regional Science, 2016. 2 (4): 1- 28. | |
Li J , Feldman M W , Li S Z , et al. Rural household income and inequality under the Sloping Land Conversion Program in western China. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2011. 108 (19): 7721- 7726. | |
Lin Y , Yao S . Impact of the Sloping Land Conversion Program on rural household income:An integrated estimation. Land Use Policy, 2014. 40 (1): 56- 63. | |
Liu C, Wu B. 2010a. 'Grain for Green Programme' in China: policy making and implementation? Briefing Series-Issue 60. Nottingham: China Policy Institute, University of Nottingham. | |
Liu C , Lu J Z , Yin R S . An estimation of the effects of China's priority forestry programs on farmers' income. Environmental Management, 2010b. 45 (3): 526- 540. | |
Ma W L , Abdulai A . Does cooperative membership improve household welfare? Evidence from apple farmers in China. Food Policy, 2016. 58 (1): 94- 102. | |
Maddala G S. 1983. Limited-dependent and qualitative variables in econometrics. Cambridge University Press. | |
Uchida E , Rozelle S , Xu J . Conservation payments, liquidity constraints, and off-farm labor:impact of the Grain-for-Green Program on rural households in China. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 2009. 91 (1): 70- 86. | |
Uchida E , Xu J , Rozelle S . Grain for green:cost-effectiveness and sustainability of China's conservation set-aside program. Land Economics, 2005. 81 (2): 247- 264. | |
Wang J J . The economic and ecological foundations for converting farmland into forest and grass coverage. Agricultural Economic, 2003. (8): 21- 27. | |
Yao S , Yajun G , Xxuexi H , et al. An empirical analysis of the farmers' income growth and labor transfer. Environmental Management, 2010. 45 (3): 502- 512. |
[1] | 张雅馨,刘霞,张博,谢屹. 自然保护区建立是否必然导致农户收入低——基于福建武夷山国家级自然保护区内外社区农户收入的实证研究[J]. 林业科学, 2020, 56(6): 165-178. |
[2] | 刘浩, 陈思焜, 张敏新, 刘璨. 退耕还林工程对农户收入不平等影响的测度与分析 ——基于总收入决定方程的Shapley值分解[J]. 林业科学, 2017, 53(5): 125-133. |
[3] | 赵娜, 孟平, 张劲松, 陆森, 程志庆. 华北低丘山地不同土地利用条件下的土壤呼吸比较[J]. 林业科学, 2014, 50(2): 1-7. |
[4] | 支玲;杨明;卿向阳;徐慧丽;刘燕;赵玉涛. 西部退耕还林工程可持续发展能力评价——以云南省鹤庆县、贵州省织金县和四川省朝天区为例[J]. 林业科学, 2010, 46(5): 161-168. |
[5] | 孔凡斌;. 集体林权制度改革绩效评价理论与实证研究——基于江西省2484户林农收入增长的视角[J]. 林业科学, 2008, 44(10): 132-141. |
[6] | 赵峰 鞠洪波 黄建文. 西昌地区实施退耕还林工程后的景观格局变化[J]. , 2006, 42(zk): 56-61. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||