祁连山北麓生态移民的生计风险与应对策略选择——以武威市为例

生计风险作为移民社会整合的标尺,已成为研究生态移民生计及可持续发展的重要视角。以祁连山北麓的武威市为例,利用Binary Logistic模型分析了移民生计风险对其应对策略的影响机制,以期为制定有效的生计风险防范体系提供科学支撑。结果表明：（1）武威市生态移民的生计类型以非农户为主,纯农户比例不足10%,生计多样化指数仅为1.74且存在显著的区域差异。（2）67.44%的移民面临着多重风险,以经济风险为主,生活开支大、新分棚圈耕地质量差、返贫是主要的风险要素。（3）应对策略主要为向亲朋借钱、银行贷款、外出打工和减少开支,后顾生计则多选择扩大养殖、长期打工和维持现状,不同县区移民的策略选择略有不同。（4）政策、福利和经济风险会显著影响移民对“向银行贷款”“减少开支”及“外出打工”等应对策略的选择,而后顾生计的选择更多受制于生计资本储量,而政策及经济风险的影响较低。移民户的类型对策略选择影响显著,非农型兼业户更倾向于选择“向银行贷款”和“扩大养殖”。

The livelihood risk and strategic choice of the ecological migrants at the northern foot of Qilian Mountains: A case study of Wuwei city

As the measurement of the society integration of immigrants, livelihood risk has become an important perspective for academics to study the livelihood and sustainable development of ecological migrants. In order to deeply analyze the regional and attribute differences of ecological migration livelihood risk and the logical model of strategies at the northern foot of the Qilian Mountains, this study, taking Wuwei city as an example, used the binary Logistic model to analyze the impact mechanism of livelihood risk on response strategy to providing support for formulating an effective livelihood risk prevention system and guarantee mechanism. The results showed that: (1) The attributes of rural households are mainly non-agricultural households, the proportion of pure rural households is less than 10%. The livelihood diversification index is only 1.74 and there are significant regional differences. (2) There are 67.44% of migrant peasants in Wuwei city facing the multiple risks, especially the economic risks. Large living expenses, the poor quality of cultivated land and new sub-sheds, and the return to poverty are the main risk elements. (3) The main risk response strategies of ecological migrants in the study area are borrowing money from relatives, getting bank loans, going out to work and reducing expenditures. The future livelihoods are more likely to expand breeding and maintain the status quo. The choices of ecological migrants risk response strategy in different counties are slightly different. (4) The policy, welfare, and economic risks significantly affected the ecological migrants' choices of coping strategies such as "loan to banks", "reducing expenses" and "going out to work". While their future livelihood are more restricted by their livelihood capital reserves, the impact of policy and economic risks is low. The type of migrant households has a significant impact on the choice of strategy, and the non-agricultural part-time households are more inclined to choose the strategy of "getting bank loans" and "expanding breeding".