基于选择实验法的西双版纳人象冲突治理措施

doi:10.11707/j.1001-7488.LYKX20220252

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

目的: 厘清影响农户选择人象冲突治理措施的关键因素，为政府开展人象冲突有效治理提供决策参考，促进区域人象和谐共生。方法: 以云南省西双版纳州亚洲象分布区为研究区域，基于选择实验法设计由补偿标准提高、修建栅栏、种植结构调整、转移问题象和移民搬迁5种治理措施组成的选择集，采用混合回归模型对实地调查收集的472位农户数据进行估算，分析农户选择人象冲突治理措施的关键因素。结果: 1）农户倾向的治理措施依次为亚洲象肇事补偿80%（0.99）、转移问题象（0.97）、种植结构调整（0.96）、修建栅栏（0.45）；2）收入水平存在差异的农户对补偿标准提高、转移问题象和种植结构调整具有较高选择倾向；3）与补偿标准提高、设置栅栏、种植结构调整、转移问题象和移民搬迁组成的治理措施相比，维持现状（ASC）变量系数显著为正，表明农户倾向于整体上维持现有治理措施；4）相对于治理工作具有正向偏好的农户而言，劳动力数量、不信仰宗教的人数以及感知到人象冲突存在的农户倾向选择改进后的治理措施。结论: 农户对政府制定的治理措施表现出较高选择倾向，但移民搬迁是农户最不愿意选择的治理措施，需要关注农户对人象冲突治理措施的选择偏好以优化治理工作，构建由补偿标准提高、问题象转移、修建栅栏等多种措施组成的新型治理模式，优先为家庭劳动力多和受亚洲象肇事影响严重的农户提供治理工作参与机会。

关键词: 亚洲象保护, 野生动物肇事, 混合回归模型, 治理措施, 选择实验

Abstract:

Objective: To clarify the key factors that affect farmers' choice of measures to deal with human-elephant conflicts, provide decision-making reference for the government to effectively deal with human-elephant conflicts, and promote the harmonious coexistence of human and elephant in the region. Method: This study selected the distribution area of Asian elephants in Xishuangbanna Prefecture, Yunnan Province as the research area, and adopted the selection experiment method to design a selection consisting of five control measures, the improvement of compensation standards, the construction of fences, the adjustment of planting structure, the transfer of problem elephants, and the relocation of immigrants. The data of 472 farmers collected in the field survey were estimated by using the mixed regression method, and the results of farmers' choice of measures to controlling human-elephant conflict were obtained. Result: The result show: 1) The farmers prefer 80% compensation for Asian elephants (0.99), which followed by relocation of problematic elephants (0.97), planting re-organization (0.96), and fence building (0.45); 2) Farmers with different income levels have a higher choice tendency to improve compensation standards, transfer problems and adjust planting structure; 3) Compared with the control measures consisting of improving compensation standards, setting fences, adjusting planting structure, transferring problems and relocating immigrants, the variable coefficient of maintaining the status quo (ASC) is significantly positive, indicating that farmers tend to maintain the existing control measures as a whole; 4) Compared with the farmers who have a positive preference for governance, the number of labor force, the number of people who don't believe in religion and farmers who perceive the conflict between human and elephant tend to choose improved governance measures. Conclusion: Farmers show a high tendency to choose the governance measures formulated by the government, but resettlement and relocation are the most unwilling choice for farmers. Therefore, it is necessary to pay attention to the preference of farmers for the governance measures of human-elephant conflict in order to optimize the governance work and build a compensation system based on compensation.Policy makers need to prioritize rural households with numerous labor forces who suffered most from human-elephant conflict, and create a new governance model consisting of raising standards, transferring problematic elephants, building fences.

Key words: Asian elephant conservation, wildlife accident, mixed regression model, governance measures, selection experiment

中图分类号:

F307.2

胡宇轩,陈俊峰,谢屹. 基于选择实验法的西双版纳人象冲突治理措施[J]. 林业科学, 2023, 59(10): 162-170.

Yuxuan Hu,Junfeng Chen,Yi Xie. Measures for Governing Human-Elephant Conflicts Based on Choice Experiment of Farmers in Xishuangbanna[J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2023, 59(10): 162-170.

图/表 5

表1

表2

表3

表4

表5

参考文献 0

	蔡　静, 蒋志刚. 人与大型兽类的冲突: 野生动物保护所面临的新挑战. 兽类学报, 2006, 26 (2): 183- 190.
	Cai J, Jiang Z G. Human-large mammals conflicts: a new challenge of wildlife conservation. Acta Theriologica Sinica, 2006, 26 (2): 183- 190.
	陈　鸣. 农户宅基地退出补偿偏好与异质性来源: 基于选择实验法的分析. 资源科学, 2021, 43 (7): 1467- 1478.
	Chen M. Compensation preference and heterogeneity sources of homestead withdrawal of farming households: based on choice experiment method. Resources Science, 2021, 43 (7): 1467- 1478.
	刀慧娟, 谭文斌. 新时代生态文明背景下野生动物生态补偿机制研究: 以西双版纳傣族自治州亚洲象肇事补偿为例. 北方民族大学学报, 2021, (3): 151- 156.
	Dao H J, Tan W B. Mechanism of wildlife ecological compensation under the background of ecological civilization in the new era: a case of compensation for Asian elephant accident in Xishuangbanna Dai autonomous prefecture. Journal of North Minzu University (Philosophy and Social Science), 2021, (3): 151- 156.
	郭贤明, 何謦成, 王兰新, 等. 西双版纳亚洲象食物源基地对缓解人象冲突的效应. 生态学杂志, 2012, 31 (12): 3133- 3137.
	Guo X M, He Q C, Wang L X, et al. Effects of Asian elephant food source base on the mitigation of human-elephant conflict in Xishuangbanna of Yunnan Province, Southwest China. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2012, 31 (12): 3133- 3137.
	韩洪云, 喻永红. 退耕还林的环境价值及政策可持续性: 以重庆万州为例. 中国农村经济, 2012, (11): 44- 55.
	Han H Y, Yu Y H. Environmental value and policy sustainability of returning farmland to forests: a case study of Wanzhou, Chongqing. Chinese Rural Economy, 2012, (11): 44- 55.
	胡柳娟. 现阶段官僚主义的发生逻辑、表现形式及治理对策. 理论视野, 2022, (1): 80- 85.
	Hu L J. Current bureaucracy in China today: origination, manifestation, and countermeasures. Theoretical Horizon, 2022, (1): 80- 85.
	胡宇轩, 杜宇晨, 陈俊峰, 等. 我国人象冲突演变历程的回顾与展望. 野生动物学报, 2022, 43 (3): 830- 835.
	Hu Y X, Du Y C, Chen J F, et al. Evolution process of human-elephant conflict in China: retrospect and prospect. Chinese Journal of Wildlife, 2022, 43 (3): 830- 835.
	胡宇轩, 张忠义, 杜宇晨, 等. 人象冲突的国内外研究进展及展望: 基于亚洲象对人的负面影响分析. 北京林业大学学报(社会科学版), 2021, 20 (2): 72- 79.
	Hu Y X, Zhang Z Y, Du Y C, et al. Research progress and prospects of human-elephant conflict at home and abroad. Journal of Beijing Forestry University (Social Sciences), 2021, 20 (2): 72- 79.
	李雯雯. 2017. 西双版纳人象冲突风险评估研究. 昆明: 云南财经大学.
	Li W W. 2017. Risk assessment of human-elephant conflict in Xishuangbanna. Kunming: Yunnan University of Finance and Economics.［in Chinese］
	刘　欣. 2012. 基于亚洲象保护的我国野生动物损害补偿机制研究. 哈尔滨: 东北林业大学.
	Liu X. 2012. Wildlife damage compensation mechanism based on conservation of Asian elephants in China. Harbin: Northeast Forestry University.［in Chinese］
	刘金龙, 徐拓远, 则　得. 自然保护区“封闭式”保护合理性研究: 西双版纳亚洲象肇事事件反思. 林业经济问题, 2020, 40 (1): 1- 7.
	Liu J L, Xu T Y, Ze D. Study on the rationality of“closed”protection model in nature reserve: reflections on the incidents of the Asian elephants in Xishuangbanna. Problems of Forestry Economics, 2020, 40 (1): 1- 7.
	檀学文. 中国移民扶贫70年变迁研究. 中国农村经济, 2019, (8): 2- 19.
	Tan X W. The evolvement of poverty alleviation for resettled people in 70 years: from 1949 to 2019. Chinese Rural Economy, 2019, (8): 2- 19.
	谭永忠, 王庆曰, 陈　佳, 等. 耕地资源非市场价值评价方法的研究进展与述评. 自然资源学报, 2012, 27 (5): 883- 892.
	Tan Y Z, Wang Q Y, Chen J, et al. Research progress and review on non-market value evaluation methods of farmland resource. Journal of Natural Resources, 2012, 27 (5): 883- 892.
	王　方, 郑　璇, 马　杰, 等. 无人机技术在中国野生亚洲象调查研究及监测中的应用. 林业建设, 2019, (6): 38- 44.
	Wang F, Zheng X, Ma J, et al. Usage of unmanned aerial vehicle technology in investigation and monitoring of wild Asian elephant’s population and distribution in China. Forestry Construction, 2019, (6): 38- 44.
	王亚华, 舒全峰. 2021. 公共事物治理的集体行动研究评述与展望. 中国人口·资源与环境, 31(4): 118-131.
	Wang Y H, Shu Q F. 2021. Review and prospect of collective action studies on commons governance. China Population, Resources and Environment, 31(4): 118−131.［in Chinese］
	尹文嘉. 整体治理的现实困境与路径选择. 华东经济管理, 2010, 24 (1): 129- 132.
	Yin W J. The practical difficulty of the holistic governance and it’s path selection. East China Economic Management, 2010, 24 (1): 129- 132.
	喻永红, 张志坚, 刘耀森. 农业生态保护政策目标的农民偏好及其生态保护参与行为: 基于重庆十区县的农户选择实验分析. 中国农村观察, 2021, (1): 85- 105.
	Yu Y H, Zhang Z J, Liu Y S. Farmers’preferences for agro-ecological protection policy goals and their participation behaviors: evidence from choice experimental analysis of farmers from ten districts(counties) in Chongqing. China Rural Survey, 2021, (1): 85- 105.
	俞振宁, 谭永忠, 茅铭芝, 等. 重金属污染耕地治理式休耕补偿政策: 农户选择实验及影响因素分析. 中国农村经济, 2018, (2): 109- 125.
	Yu Z N, Tan Y Z, Mao M Z, et al. The subsidy policies on fallow of farmland contaminated with heavy metals: a farmers’ choice experiment and influencing factors analysis. Chinese Rural Economy, 2018, (2): 109- 125.
	曾令发. 整体型治理的行动逻辑. 中国行政管理, 2010, (1): 110- 114.
	Zeng L F. Action logic of holistic governance. Chinese Public Administration, 2010, (1): 110- 114.
	张　立. 2018. 中国亚洲象保护研究. 北京: 科学出版社.
	Zhang L. 2018. Research on Asian elephant conservation in China. Beijing: Science Press.［in Chinese］
	张馨予, 胡宇轩, 张忠义, 等. 中国公众的国际野生动物保护意愿调查: 以非洲象为例. 生物多样性, 2021, 29 (10): 1358- 1368. doi: 10.17520/biods.2021082
	Zhang X Y, Hu Y X, Zhang Z Y, et al. Chinese public willingness of international wildlife conservation: a case study of African elephant. Biodiversity Science, 2021, 29 (10): 1358- 1368. doi: 10.17520/biods.2021082
	赵　宇, 金　崑. 亚洲象分布、数量、栖息地状况及种群管理. 世界林业研究, 2018, 31 (2): 25- 30.
	Zhao Y, Kun J. Distribution, population, habitat status and population management of Asian elephant. World Forestry Research, 2018, 31 (2): 25- 30.
	朱战国, 董　鑫, 张　彤. 农产品生态系统价值的标签化策略: 基于选择实验法的实证分析. 南京农业大学学报(社会科学版), 2022, 22 (1): 160- 171.
	Zhu Z G, Dong X, Zhang T. Labeling strategy of ecosystem value of agricultural products: an empirical analysis based on choice experiment. Journal of Nanjing Agricultural University (Social Sciences Edition), 2022, 22 (1): 160- 171.
	Ayechew B, Tolcha A. Assessment of human-wildlife conflict in and around Weyngus Forest, Dega Damot Woreda, West Gojjam Zone, Amhara Region, Ethiopia. International Journal of Scientific Engineering and Science, 2020, 4, 1- 10.
	Chang'A A, de Souza N, Muya J, et al. Scaling-up the use of chili fences for reducing human-elephant conflict across landscapes in Tanzania. Tropical Conservation Science, 2016, 9 (2): 921- 930. doi: 10.1177/194008291600900220
	Chen S, Yi Z F, Campos-Arceiz A, et al. Developing a spatially-explicit, sustainable and risk-based insurance scheme to mitigate human-wildlife conflict. Biological Conservation, 2013, 168, 31- 39. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2013.09.017
	Dhakal B, Thapa B. 2019. Residents’ perceptions of human-elephant conflict: case study in Bahundangi, Nepal. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 21(1): 461−481.
	Fentaw T, Duba J. Human-wildlife conflict among the pastoral communities of southern rangelands of Ethiopia: the case of yabello protected area. Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy, 2017, 20 (2): 198- 206.
	Hoare R E. Lessons from 15 years of human-elephant conflict mitigation: management considerations involving biological, physical and governance issues in Africa. Pachyderm, 2012, 51, 60- 74.
	Kansky R, Kidd M, Fischer J. 2020. Does money “buy” tolerance toward damage-causing wildlife? Conservation Science and Practice, 3(3): 262.
	Khai H V, Yabe M. Choice modeling: assessing the non-market environmental values of the biodiversity conservation of swamp forest in Vietnam. International Journal of Energy and Environmental Engineering, 2014, 5, 1- 8. doi: 10.1186/2251-6832-5-1
	King L, Pardo M, Weerathunga S, et al. Wild Sri Lankan elephants retreat from the sound of disturbed Asian honey bees. Current Biology, 2018, 28 (2): R64- R65. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2017.12.018
	Lancaster K J. 1976. A new approach to consumer theory. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 106−107.
	Lee P C, Graham M D. African elephants Loxodonta africana and human-elephant interactions: implications for conservation . International Zoo Yearbook, 2006, 40 (1): 9- 19. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-1090.2006.00009.x
	Liu P, Wen H, Harich F K, et al. Conflict between conservation and development: cash forest encroachment in Asian elephant distributions. Scientific Reports, 2017, 7 (1): 442- 449. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-00575-0
	Meyerhoff J, Liebe U. Status quo effect in choice experiments: empirical evidence on attitudes and choice task complexity. Land Economics, 2009, 85 (3): 515- 528. doi: 10.3368/le.85.3.515
	Nyhus P J. Human-wildlife conflict and coexistence. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 2016, 41, 143- 171. doi: 10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085634
	Seip K, Strand J. Willingness to pay for environmental goods in Norway: a contingent valuation study with real payment. Environmental and Resource Economics, 1992, 2 (1): 91- 106. doi: 10.1007/BF00324691
	Su K W, Ren J, Yang J, et al. Human-elephant conflicts and villagers’ attitudes and knowledge in the Xishuangbanna nature reserve, China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2020, 17 (23): 8910. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17238910
	Wang S K, Cai Z, Hu Y X, et al. Chinese resident preferences for African elephant conservation: choice experiment. Diversity, 2020a, 12 (12): 453. doi: 10.3390/d12120453
	Wang Z H, Li Z L, Tang Y J, et al. China’s dams isolate Asian elephants. Science, 2020b, 367 (6476): 373- 374.

变量 Variable	定义 Definition	属性水平 Attribute level
选择特定常数ASC Select specific constant ASC	选择特定常数变量，代表参与实验农户选择优化方案的基准效用 Selection of a specific constant variable to represent the benchmark utility of the farmers participating in the experiment to choose the optimization scheme	是Yes 否No
亚洲象肇事补偿 Asian elephant compensation for damage	提高因亚洲象肇事导致的人身或经济损失的政府补偿比例 Enhancement of proportion of government compensation for personal or economic losses caused by elephant	选择补偿50% Select compensation 50% 选择补偿80% Select compensation 80%
修建栅栏 Build a fence	采用物理手段将人象进行空间隔离 Isolation of elephant and human by physical means	不修建栅栏No fences 修建栅栏Build fences
移民搬迁 Immigration relocation	将人象冲突严重区域的村寨在政府政策支持下搬迁至其他区域 Relocation of villages from areas with serious human-elephant conflicts to other regions supported by the government	不搬迁No remove 搬迁Remove
转移问题象 Transfer problem elephant	将肇事象从一个空间转移至另一个空间 Translocation of elephant causing accident from one area to another	不转移No translocation 转移Translocation
种植结构调整 Planting structure adjustment	调整种植类型减少损失 Adjustment of vegetable plantation types to reduce losses	不调整No adjustment 调整Adjustment

选择集1 Selection 1	方案一 Option one	方案二 Option two	方案三 Option three
亚洲象肇事补偿 Asian elephant compensation for damage	80%	50%	维持现状 Maintain status quo
修建栅栏Build a fence	修建栅栏Build fences	不修建栅栏No fences
种植结构调整 Planting structure adjustment	不调整No adjustment	不调整No adjustment
转移问题象 Transfer problem elephant	转移Translocation	不转移No translocation
移民搬迁Immigration relocation	不搬迁No remove	搬迁Remove
选项（√）Option (√)

变量 Variable	变量值 Variable value	平均值 Mean value	标准差
变量 Variable	变量值 Variable value	平均值 Mean value	Standard deviation
选择特定常数ASC Select specific constant ASC	方案一或方案二=0，方案三（维持现状）=1 Scheme 1 or Scheme 2=0， Scheme 3 (maintain the status quo) = 1	0.33	0.47
亚洲象肇事补偿80% Asian elephant compensation for damage 80%	选择补偿50%=0，选择补偿80%=1 Select compensation 50%=0， Select compensation 80%=1	0.33	0.07
修建栅栏 Build a fence	不修建栅栏=0，修建栅栏=1 No fences=0，Build fences=1	0.41	0.42
移民搬迁 Immigration relocation	不搬迁=0，搬迁=1 No Remove=0，Remove=1	0.22	0.42
转移问题象 Transfer problem elephant	不转移=0，转移=1 No translocation=0，Translocation=1	0.33	0.47
种植结构调整 Planting structure adjustment	不调整=0，调整=1 No adjustment=0，Adjustment=1	0.39	0 .49
农户特征变量 Household characteristic variable
性别 Gender	0=女性，1=男性 0=Female，1=Male	0.78	0.41
宗教信仰 Religion Faith	0=无信仰，1=有信仰 0 = No faith，1 = Faith	0.17	0 .38
劳动力数量 Amount of labor	0=3人以下，1=3人及以上 0=Less than 3 people， 1=Not less than 3 person	0.49	0.50
收入 Income	1=5万以下，2=5万~10万，3=10万以上 1=Below 50 000，2=50 000-100 000， 3=More than 100 000	2.00	0.67
人象冲突 Human-elephant conflict	0=没有冲突，1=有冲突 0= No conflicts，1=Conflict	0.68	0.46

措施指标 Measure indicator	基础模型 Basic model		交叉模型 Intersection model
措施指标 Measure indicator	系数 Coefficient	标准误 Standard error	系数 Coefficient	标准误 Standard error
ASC	0.52***	0.14	1.73***	0 .34
亚洲象肇事补偿80% Asian elephant compensation for damage 80%	0.99***	0.17	0.89***	0 .17
修建栅栏Build a fence	0.45***	0 .11	0.45***	0.11
移民搬迁Immigration relocation	?0.46**	0.20	?0.63***	0.20
转移问题象Transfer problem elephant	0.97***	0.15	1.06***	0.16
种植结构调整Planting structure adjustment	0.96***	0.11	0.69***	0 .17
ASC_收入ASC_income			0.70***	0 .20
ASC_信仰ASC_Faith			?0.66***	0.25
ASC_性别ASC_Sex			?0.06	0.22
ASC_劳动力ASC_Workforce			?0.67**	0.25
ASC_人象冲突ASC_Human-elephant conflict			?0.97***	0.24
模型统计检验Model statistical testing
Likelihood	?1 307.08		?1 268.59
Prob>chi2	0.00		0.00

变量 Variable	低等收入Low income		中等收入Medium income		高等收入High income
变量 Variable	基础模型 Basic model	交叉模型 Intersection model	基础模型 Basic model	交叉模型 Intersection model	基础模型 Basic model	交叉模型 Intersection model
ASC	0.17** （0.07）	0.14 （0.12）	0.32*** （0.04）	0.41*** （0.07）	0.55*** （0.06）	0.90*** （0.10）
亚洲象肇事补偿80% Asian elephant compensation for damage 80%	0.25*** （0.06）	0.25*** （0.06）	0.34*** （0.04）	0.34*** （0.04）	0.39*** （0.05）	0.39 （0.05）
修建栅栏 Build a fence	?0.08* （0.04）	?0.08* （0.04）	0.10*** （0.02）	0.10*** （0.02）	0.05 （0.03）	0.05 （0.03）
移民搬迁 Immigration relocation	?0.08 （0.07）	?0.08 （0.07）	0.03 （0.04）	0.03 （0.04）	0.16** （0.06）	0.16** （0.06）
转移问题象 Transfer problem elephant	0.19*** （0.04）	0.19*** （0.04）	0.13*** （0.02）	0.13*** （0.02）	0.13*** （0.04）	.13*** （0.04）
种植结构调整 Planting structure adjustment	.35*** （0.04）	.35*** （0.04）	.18*** （0.02）	.18*** （0.02）	.30*** （0.03）	.30*** （0.03）
ASC_性别ASC_Sex		0.02 （0.06）		0.02 （0.03）		?0.06 （0.05）
ASC_信仰ASC_Faith		?0.00 （.08）		0.11** （.04）		0.07 （0.05）
ASC_劳动力ASC_Workforce		?0.11** （0.05）		?0.07* （0.03）		?0.06 （0.04）
ASC_人象冲突 ASC_ Degree of human-elephant conflict		0.04 （0.08）		?0.12** （0.05）		?0.33*** （0.07）
R²	0.23	0.23	0.12	0.13	0.12	0.14
F	41.76	25.51	54.67	34.17	28.18	19.93
Prob > F	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000