农牧交错区农户生态足迹及其影响因素

利用农牧交错区典型区域农户调查数据,从生产和消费两个方面分析了农户生态足迹及其影响因素。研究结果表明：1）农户生产足迹远远高于消费足迹,草地生产足迹和草地消费足迹分别对农户总生产足迹和总消费足迹具有决定作用;2）农户生态足迹,尤其是草地生产足迹和草地消费足迹与收入水平具有显著正相关关系,农户从事非农就业一定程度上降低了对当地自然资源的占用和消耗;3）少数民族户、畜牧业收入占比大、人均牧草地多的农户,虽然耕地生产足迹和耕地消费足迹较小,但总生产足迹和总消费足迹、草地生产足迹和草地消费足迹均较大。基于农牧交错区脆弱生态系统,建议通过完善生态补偿机制、改变农户粗放化的畜牧业生产方式、促进农户非农就业,降低农户对本区域生态系统的压力。

Ecological Footprint of Rural Households and Its Determinants in Agro-pastoral Interlaced Region

The impact of human production and consumption on ecosystem is always at the center of academic attention, and an understanding of their linkages is important for effective environmental policy and decision-making. Based on rural household survey data in Taipusiqi County, Duolun County, and Zhengxiangbaiqi County in the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, China, we calculated ecological footprint of rural households to identify the impacts of production and consumption on ecosystems in agro-pastoral interlaced region, and further investigated its determinants including household characters, income, income structure, labors, and land endowment. Considering the nature of goods consumed and produced by farm households, we defined and calculated six kinds of ecological footprint (EF): total production footprint (PEF), arable land production footprint (APEF), grassland production footprint (GPEF), total consumption footprint (CEF), arable land consumption footprint (ACEF), and grassland consumption footprint (GCEF). The calculation and analysis results showed that: 1) the CEF was 0.559 ghm² per capita, and the PEF was 2.045 ghm² per capita in 2011. The PEF was three times more than the CEF. The farm households can be divided into three groups according to the size of their ecological footprint: high EF group, medium EF group and low EF group. Most of the rural households belong to the low EF group, and the size of GCEF and GPEF determines which group they belong. 2) The ecological footprint, especially the GCEF and GPEF had a significant positive correlation with income, which indicated that increasing of income more depend on livestock production and the household with more income consume more livestock products. Part-time farming or non-farming employment reduces the occupancy of local natural resources to some extent. 3) The ethnic minority households, the households with higher proportion of income obtained from livestock rearing, and the households with more grassland per capita had bigger ecological footprint and bigger GCEF and GPEF, while their ACEF and APEF were smaller. Considering the vulnerable ecosystem in agro-pastoral interlaced regions, ecosystem conservation policy makers should fully understand the differences of EF among farm households and the determinants, and take measures to reduce the ecological footprint and improve the welfare of farm households such as establishing and improving the ecological compensation mechanism, transforming livestock-rearing patterns from an extensive style to an effective style, encouraging non-farming employers to move out of rural area, and improving the diversification of livelihoods of farm households, so as to mitigate the environmental pressure caused by rural households.