从政府与农户的动态博弈分析退耕还林工程的可持续性

退耕还林工程的实施取得了一定的成绩，但是也存在一些问题，制约了工程的可持续性。其中一个重要的原因就是补偿问题。通过经济学中的博弈理论构建退耕还林动态模型，从补偿的角度分析了退耕还林工程中存在的问题，并提出工程可持续性建议，即：①对生态林和经济林实行差别补偿；②对不同地区实行差别补偿标准；③延长补偿期限，实行分年度对农户进行不同数量的补偿；④对工程区进行产业结构调整，加强农户技能培训。     

甘肃张掖市退耕还林(草)工程影响综合评价

利用抽样调查和收集资料得到的数据,对张掖市实施退耕还林（草）工程的影响从社会、经济和生态三个方面进行了评价。结果表明：张掖市退耕还林（草）社会可持续性的评价结果为“较好”;2002—2004年的退耕还林（草）工程在三年内给农户带来了17229．62万元的纯收入;通过三年的退耕还林（草）,能增加植物碳量累积（NPP）170658．11t,NEP总量增加44544．94t。同时,还针对退耕还林（草）政策的完善提出建议：希望继续增加退耕还林（草）面积,在今后的退耕还林（草）工程中安排合理的还草面积,增加退耕还林（草）工程的配套费用。政府有关部门应切实解决退耕农户关心的问题。     

退耕还林政策交替期补偿到期农户复耕意愿研究

退耕还林政策交替期是首轮退耕补偿到期、延长期退耕成果巩固以及新一轮退耕规模扩大的关键时期。本文以土地依赖为视角,基于补偿到期农户农林业生计分析,探究土地依赖对农户复耕意愿的影响。利用西安交通大学人口与发展研究所课题组2015年11月陕西延安吴起县所收集的农户调查数据,建立内生样本选择三阶段模型,从农林业收入和劳动力投入两方面分析了退耕补偿到期农户的土地依赖程度,及其对农户复耕意愿和计划复耕程度的影响。研究表明,退耕还林政策交替期退耕补偿收入及退耕地上相关收益较少,不足以支持补偿到期农户发展替代生计和保障口粮安全,农户对土地生产的需求会构成其复耕或不愿退耕的重要原因。农户对土地的依赖与退耕还林的可持续性之间并非简单的冲突对立关系,补偿到期农户对土地的收入依赖程度越强,其复耕的可能性越低,计划复耕程度越低,可见,一定程度的土地依赖为其发展多样化生计提供生存基础和粮食安全保障,反而会促使农户巩固退耕还林成果;相反,补偿到期农户对土地生产投入越多的劳动力,其复耕的意愿越强,计划复耕程度越高。因此,保障退耕还林成果的可持续性重点在于提升农户农林生产效率,发展劳动集约型土地生产,优化农村劳动力配置。此外,以农村扶贫与发展为目标的移民搬迁工程在促进新型城镇化的同时,对农户退耕还林行为的可持续性也有重要、积极的影响。退耕还林工程与易地扶贫搬迁工程等农村扶贫与发展项目相结合,更有助于实现贫困山区生态保护与发展的双赢目标。     

补贴期后农户退耕还林的态度研究——以重庆万州为例

如何在项目结束停止补贴后长期巩固退耕还林成果,是政府和全社会共同关注的焦点。基于重庆万州退耕农户的微观调查数据,采用Ordered probit方法首次就补贴期后的农户退耕还林态度进行实证分析。数据显示,有相当大一部分农户在补贴结束不会再继续为退耕还林做出努力,项目的可持续性令人担忧;对补贴期后农户退耕还林态度的影响因素分析发现,男性、文化程度较高、非党员和非农就业的户主在补贴期后保持退耕还林的积极性较低;劳动力较多、年人均收入较低、退耕面积较大和还生态林的农户保持退耕还林的积极性较低。结论建议在现有的直接经济补偿结束后,尽快建立与生态服务提供紧密相连的生态补偿机制,并通过多种非货币性补偿方式保障退耕农户的利益。最后根据研究结果给出了巩固退耕还林成果的相关措施     

退耕还林工程对农户生产生活影响研究

研究退耕还林工程与农户的关系对于退耕还林后续问题解决,完善工程具有重要意义.该研究在准格尔旗多年农户调查的基础上,对该旗退耕还林工程初期(2002年)和后期(2010年)农户生产生活情况进行了对比研究,主要探讨了退耕还林工程对农户家庭结构、收入水平和结构的影响,以及农户对退耕还林态度、禁牧圈养态度变化和对退耕还林工程评价,最后分析了农户返耕决策.研究结果表明:受访农户平均年龄由2002年的35.02岁上升为2010年的45.32岁,年轻农户比重明显下降;户均人口从2002年的3.75人下降到2010年的2.8人.农户人均毛收入由2002年的1 332.03元增长为2010年的5447.77元;收入结构也由牧业为主转为外出务工为主;养羊农户比重明显减小,但户均规模有增大的趋势.农户依然高度支持退耕还林,但对退耕补贴的满意度下降,大部分依然赞成禁牧和圈养,但支持力度有不同程度的下降.农户将退耕地返耕可能性较小,且大部分受访农户还支持进一步退耕.     

影响退耕还林农户返耕决策的因素识别与分析

可持续收入能力是西部贫困地区退耕还林农户返耕决策的关键。而可持续收入能力又可以表征为收入水平、途径和结构。以及决定其实现的各种条件。理论分析与调研结果发现．农户可持续收入能力受制于自身资本积累。当地自然条件和经济条件三方面。其中．人力和物资等资本存量不足限制了农户在可能的收入途径问的选择；自然条件影响农户依靠自然资源所获得的收入；基础设施落后、产业结构单一、就业机会缺乏等经济条件制约了退耕还林后短期内农户形成较稳定的收入途径和结构。本文提出政策调整的方向应该是消除这些限制因素的影响。为退耕还林农户可持续收入能力的提高创造条件。以确保退耕还林的长期生态效果的巩固和实现。     

中国退耕还林工程是否有助于劳动力结构调整

退耕还林工程是我国"十一五"和"十二五"期间旨在治理水土流失、防御洪涝灾害、改善生态环境的重点生态计划,自1999年实施以来取得了良好的生态效益和人文效益。但是,其对农户劳动力转移产生的影响,学术界目前尚无定论。本文使用文献析出法对相关研究进行了系统的分析和总结。分析表明:退耕还林工程实施后,农户的生活水平显著提高;然而在该工程是否促进农村剩余劳动力转移的问题上,仍存在两种对立的观点,即:"退耕还林造成了农村剩余劳动力转移","退耕还林没有造成劳动力转移"。我们着重对此问题进行探讨,总的来说这一科学问题在未来还需进一步深入研究。     

退耕还林:农户、地方政府与中央政府的博弈关系

自退耕还林工程实施以来,该工程进展顺利,并取得了显著的成绩.但随着财政补贴陆续到期,却未能解决退耕还林农户的长远生计问题.从博弈论的视角探讨退耕还林实施中的行为主体关系有利于该工程成果的巩固和工程的持续推进.文章首先评述退耕还林的相关文献,然后,用动态博弈模型分析农户与政府以及中央政府与地方政府的利益互动关系.文章得出的关键结论有:在贴现因子足够大的条件下任何短期的机会主义行为所带来的收益都小于长期合作所带来的长远收益,农户和政府采取长期合作是理性的选择行为;在中央政府先行动的情况下,地方政府实施退耕还林工程所带来的收益要大于中央政府后行动所带来的收益.基于上述结论,文章提出要确保国家政策的稳定性从而提高政府的信誉度、永久性地对退耕还林农户发放财政补贴、提高农户的贴现值从而稳定其预期、确保地方政府执行退耕还林工程的收益等政策建议.     

退耕还林工程经济补偿机制研究——以雅安市雨城区为例

本文通过对4个乡镇8个村,120户农户的调查,取得第一手资料,分析退耕还林对退耕农户利益的影响,针对西部退耕还林经济补偿机制运行中存在的问题进行了初步探讨,并提出了建立和完善西部退耕还林经济补偿机制的建议,从而对进一步调动农户参与生态建设的积极性,巩固还林成果,持续开展退耕还林工程具有重要意义。     

退耕还林生态补偿标准、农户行为选择及损益

合理的补偿标准是激励农户自愿参与退耕还林工程的关键,而现有退耕还林补偿标准的测算方式没有考虑农户机会成本和损益状况的动态变化和不确定性,激励机制有待完善。文章将实物期权理论引入农户收益测算中,通过数值模拟探讨南北不同地区收益不确定条件下成本收益等额补偿的转换边界,结果表明农户退耕的机会成本随时间和地域变动而变动,科学高效的退耕补偿标准也应随之变动。随后,根据2002-2013年相关统计数据以小麦和稻谷为代表估算南北不同地区退耕地块上退耕农户的机会成本,结合相关政策规定的初值密度和生态林认定标准以杉木和刺槐为代表估算南北不同地区造林成本,进而得到退耕还林的造林净收益,通过比较历年种植农作物和造林的净收益,表明种植农作物的净收益呈现波动上升的状态,2002-2009年期间的退耕还林净收益高于种植农作物的净收益,农户因退耕受益,2010-2013年期间的退耕还林净收益低于种植农作物的净收益,农户因退耕受损。最后,利用几何布朗运动模拟2014-2030年的退耕机会成本的可能走势并与转换边界进行比较,得到粮食产量、补偿标准与农户受损概率之间的关系,结果表明,新一轮退耕还林政策下退耕农户的受损概率随农作物产量的增加而增加,随补偿标准的增加而减小,在相同立地条件和相同补偿标准下南方地区退耕农户受损的概率更大。文章为新一轮退耕还林政策的有效实施提供了理论依据,其政策含义是在中央政府"一刀切"政策现状下,地方政府应结合地域特征和机会成本的变化制定退耕还林补偿标准,在选择退耕地块时应考虑地块的立地条件,避免宜耕地被退。     

Digital sustainability: basic conditions for sustainable digital artifacts and their ecosystems

The modern age has heralded a shift from the industrial society, in which natural resources are crucial input factors for the economy, towards a knowledge society. To date, sustainability literature has treated knowledge—and in particular digital artifacts—mainly as a means to the end of achieving sustainable development. In this conceptual paper, we argue that digital artifacts themselves ought also to be considered as resources, which also need to be sustainable. While over-consumption is a problem facing natural resources, with sustainable digital artifacts, underproduction, and underuse are the biggest challenges. In our view, the sustainability of digital artifacts improves their potential impact on sustainable development. A theoretical foundation for digital artifacts and their ecosystem allows us to present the relevant research on digital information, knowledge management, digital goods, and innovation literature. Based on these insights, we propose ten basic conditions for sustainable digital artifacts and their ecosystem to ensure that they provide the greatest possible benefit for sustainable development. We then apply those characteristics to four exemplary cases: Linux kernel development, Bitcoin cryptocurrency, the Wikipedia project, and the Linking Open Drug Data repositories. The paper concludes with a research agenda identifying topics for sustainability scholars and information systems academics, as well as practitioners. A number of suggestions for future studies on digital sustainability are also put forward.     

Assessing the impacts of sustainable development projects in the Amazon: the DURAMAZ experiment

Since 1992, a boom of “sustainable development projects” has been registered in the Brazilian Amazon, turning it into a kind of open-air laboratory for sustainability. But their real impacts remain unclear, especially because of inadequate evaluation tools. A new device is therefore needed to unveil the inner mechanisms of development aid despite the difficulties linked with the diversity of contexts or the heterogeneity in the relevant parameters. Those are the challenges we met when we engaged in comparing the impacts of sustainable development programs in 13 sites throughout the Brazilian Amazon in order to identify determining factors of sustainability. To achieve our objective, we conceived an indicator system based on the results of intensive fieldwork, including social, economic, environmental, and biographical issues. Our results show that the most prominent problem of sustainability—evaluation of effectiveness—has not been tackled; life conditions and environmental preservation continue to appear antagonistic. At the same time, variability appears among outwardly coherent social groups, showing that a case-to-case approach is definitely indispensable and confirming the need to go “beyond panaceas” to find resolutions. This article successively addresses three points. First, we present the starting point of our research, or how the Amazon region was turned into a laboratory for sustainability and how our research project aimed at analyzing the consequences of this trend. Second, we discuss how available indicator systems fail to respond to the need for a multidimensional evaluation at the local level and, therefore, how we constituted our own analytical tool. Third, we focus on some results that can be derived from our system, especially in terms of identifying key factors needed to achieve sustainability in the Amazon.     

How researchers frame scientific contributions to sustainable development: a typology based on grounded theory

Given that research on sustainable development usually relates to real-world challenges, it requires researchers to align scientific knowledge production with concrete societal problem situations. To empirically explore how researchers frame scientific contributions when designing and planning projects, we conducted a qualitative study on land use–related projects based on the methodology of grounded theory. We identified major influence factors and various types of research design. Among the factors that influence project framing, scientific considerations were found to be more important than expected. Core characteristics of project framings concerned (a) type of scientific contributions envisaged; (b) real-world sustainability challenges addressed, and (c) researchers’ conceptions of how knowledge would reach its addressees. Three different types of project framing were found, suggesting that framing strongly depends on (the researchers’ perception of) how well a real-world problem situation is understood scientifically and how strongly are societal actors aware of the problem and act upon it. The spectrum of how researchers planned that knowledge would reach its addressees comprised communicating results to interactive conceptions allowing for mutual learning throughout the research process. The typology reveals a variety of useful and promising project framings for sustainable development research. The typology may serve to reconcile conceptual ideals and expectations with researchers’ realities.     

Creating a Place for Environmental Communication Research in Sustainability Science

Environmental communication scholarship is critical to the success of sustainability science. This essay outlines three pressing areas of intersection between the two fields. First, environmental communication scholarship on public participation processes is essential for sustainability science's efforts to link knowledge with action. Second, sustainability science requires collaborations across diverse institutional and disciplinary boundaries. Environmental communication can play a vital role in reorganizing the production and application of disciplinary knowledge. Third, science communication bridges environmental communication and sustainability science and can move communication processes away from one-way transmission models toward engaged approaches. The essay draws on Maine's Sustainability Solutions Initiative to illustrate key outcomes of a large project that has integrated environmental communication into sustainability science.     

Sustainability assessment as problem structuring: three typical ways

Sustainability assessment (SA) is an increasingly popular term referring to a broad range of approaches to align decision-making with the principles of sustainability. Nevertheless, in public and private sectors sustainability results are still disappointing, and this paper reflects on this problem and proposes a way forward. We argue that, because sustainability issues are generally wicked problems (i.e. a ‘complex of interconnected factors in a pluralistic context’), effective assessments need to be reflexive about the definition of the issue and about the criteria for sustainable solutions. Based on a distinction of policy problems, we characterize SA as a form of problem structuring, and we distinguish three typical ways of problem structuring, corresponding to three different ways of integrating reflexivity in the assessment. We illustrate these routes in three examples. We discuss the way reflexivity is integrated in each example by discussing the mix of methods, SA process and epistemological balance. Rather than merely calling for more stakeholder participation, our aim is to call for more reflexivity integrated into the SA approach, and we conclude by proposing a process map for reflexive sustainability assessment to support this.     

Whose values count: is a theory of social choice for sustainability science possible?

If sustainability science is to mature as a discipline, it will be important for practitioners to discuss and eventually agree upon the fundamentals of the paradigm on which the new discipline is based. Since sustainability is fundamentally a normative assertion about tradeoffs among values, how society chooses the specifics among these tradeoffs is central to the sustainability problem. Whose values should count in making social decisions and how should the multiplicity of values that exist be known and used in that decision process? Given the vast spatial domains and temporal domains at work in the sustainability problem, we need some means of reconciling the inevitably divergent choices depending on whose values we count, how we know what those values are, and how we count them in making social decisions. We propose an approach to dealing with these questions based on Rawls (A theory of justice. Belknap Press, Cambridge, 1971) and explore the problems inherent in a social choice theory for sustainability science.     

On the road to ‘research municipalities’: analysing transdisciplinarity in municipal ecosystem services and adaptation planning

Transdisciplinary research and collaboration is widely acknowledged as a critical success factor for solution-oriented approaches that can tackle complex sustainability challenges, such as biodiversity loss, pollution, and climate-related hazards. In this context, city governments’ engagement in transdisciplinarity is generally seen as a key condition for societal transformation towards sustainability. However, empirical evidence is rare. This paper presents a self-assessment of a joint research project on ecosystem services and climate adaptation planning (ECOSIMP) undertaken by four universities and seven Swedish municipalities. We apply a set of design principles and guiding questions for transdisciplinary sustainability projects and, on this basis, identify key aspects for supporting university–municipality collaboration. We show that: (1) selecting the number and type of project stakeholders requires more explicit consideration of the purpose of societal actors’ participation; (2) concrete, interim benefits for participating practitioners and organisations need to be continuously discussed; (3) promoting the ‘inter’, i.e., interdisciplinary and inter-city learning, can support transdisciplinarity and, ultimately, urban sustainability and long-term change. In this context, we found that design principles for transdisciplinarity have the potential to (4) mitigate project shortcomings, even when transdisciplinarity is not an explicit aim, and (5) address differences and allow new voices to be heard. We propose additional guiding questions to address shortcomings and inspire reflexivity in transdisciplinary projects.     

Towards an umbrella science of sustainability

Sustainability research has gained scholarly attention since the 1980s as the new science investigating the changes in social, environmental and economic systems and their impacts on the future of planetary life support systems. Whilst broad literature on sustainability has expanded significantly over the past decades, academic literature developing sustainability as a distinct science has received little attention. After more than two decades of sustainability research, the time has come for us to begin asking reflective questions about what sort of science we call sustainability science. How has the broader research on sustainability contributed to developing sustainability science as a unique discipline within the past two decades? How has the label science promoted or hindered the interdisciplinary project of integrating the natural and social sciences as well as arts and humanities in addressing human nature problems? I argue in this review paper that special efforts need to be made towards the building and positioning of sustainability as an umbrella science for global sustainability research. The benefits of the new sustainability science advocated for in this paper are that; a) it offers a universal definition of sustainability that accounts for both the needs of life and the capacity of planetary life support systems to provide for those needs and b) proposes ways of bridging gaps among different research traditions, facilitating cross disciplinary communication and addressing the challenge of multiple meanings and definitions of concepts facing sustainability research today.     

Quality criteria for visions and visioning in sustainability science

Envisioning how a desirable future might look is a long-standing effort in human evolution and social change. Utopian thought and visions provide direction for actions and behavior; more so, they create identity and community. Accordingly, the discourse on sustainability and sustainable development has recognized that positive visions about our societies’ future are an influential, if not indispensable, stimulus for change. Visioning is, thus, considered a key method in sustainability research and problem solving, for instance, in transformational sustainability science or in planning for urban sustainability. Yet, quality criteria for sustainability visions and guidelines on how to rigorously craft such visions are scattered over different strands of the literature and some are insufficiently developed. The goal of this article is to review and synthesize such quality criteria and design guidelines to inform sustainability visioning methodology. The review provides a concise reference framework for sustainability students, researchers, and professionals on how to enhance their sustainability visioning practices.     

On the concept of sustainability – assessing the sustainability of large public infrastructure investment projects

Assessing the sustainability of large public investment projects within the general framework of three-pillar thinking is a complex affair. Such ventures involve multiple actors – e.g. planners from various disciplines such as engineers, economists and social scientists, in addition to politicians, users and other people affected – each carrying with them particular agendas and priorities, and corresponding understandings of the concept of sustainability. In this paper, we propose to frame the concept of sustainability assessment within the context of investment projects, in order to enable communication between the multiple actors, to assess different impacts of an investment project against one another in a meaningful way and, ultimately, to enhance the commensurability of investment project alternatives. Our main idea is that there exist different levels according to which the assessment of sustainability ought to refer – operational, tactical and strategic – and that properly addressing these levels can permit the different actors to comprehend one another, and thereby allow for more clarity and positive action.