自然资源学报 ›› 2020, Vol. 35 ›› Issue (12): 2942-2955.doi: 10.31497/zrzyxb.20201210

• 其他研究论文 • 上一篇    下一篇

激励相容理论视角下生态公益林补偿对农户的增收效应——以福建三明为例

李军龙1,2(), 邓祥征3, 张帆3, 蔡创能4   

  1. 1.三明学院经济与管理学院,三明 365004
    2.福建省高等学校人文社会科学研究基地低碳经济研究中心,三明 365004
    3.中国科学院地理科学与资源研究所,北京 100101
    4.汕头大学商学院,汕头 515063
  • 收稿日期:2019-12-31 修回日期:2020-04-23 出版日期:2020-12-28 发布日期:2021-02-28
  • 作者简介:李军龙(1977- ),男,甘肃陇西人,硕士,副教授,研究方向为生态经济与乡村振兴。E-mail: lijunlong@fjsmu.edu.cn
  • 基金资助:
    国家社会科学基金项目(西部项目)(16XJY004);国家自然科学基金项目(41771546)

The effects of ecological forest compensation on farmers' income from the perspective of incentive compatibility theory: An empirical study in Sanming, Fujian

LI Jun-long1,2(), DENG Xiang-zheng3, ZHANG Fan3, CAI Chuang-neng4   

  1. 1. School of Economics and Management, Sanming University, Sanming 365004, Fujian, China
    2. Research Base of Humanities and Social Sciences of Fujian Institutions of Higher Learning Research Center of Low Carbon Economy, Sanming 365004, Fujian, China
    3. Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, CAS, Beijing 100101, China
    4. Business School, Shantou University, Shantou 515063, Guangdong, China
  • Received:2019-12-31 Revised:2020-04-23 Online:2020-12-28 Published:2021-02-28

摘要:

基于福建三明499户农户的实地调查数据,用倾向得分匹配法测算了生态公益林现金直接补偿和岗位性补偿对农户的增收效应,结果表明:现金直接补偿和岗位性补偿对生态保护和农户增收都是正效应。现金直接补偿对农户增收效应不显著,而岗位性补偿对农户家庭总收入和家庭人均收入的净效应分别达55.4%和57%。进一步研究发现,两种补偿方式对贫困户和非贫困户的增收效应也不尽相同,其中现金直接补偿不利于贫困户增收,而岗位性补偿对不同收入的农户都具有正向显著增收效应。此外,从生态公益林的根本使命出发,可以发现现金直接补偿和岗位性补偿对生态保护的净效应也存在较大差异。故此,科学规划生态补偿方式和补偿标准是实现生态保护和农户增收双重效应的根源所在。

关键词: 生态公益林, 补偿, 激励相容, 增收效应, 生态效应

Abstract:

Based on the survey data of 499 farmers in Sanming, Fujian, the method of propensity score matching was used to measure the income effects of cash compensation and post compensation for farmers. The results show that both cash compensation and post compensation have positive effects on farmers' income. The effect of cash compensation on farmers' income is insignificant, while post compensation has 55.4% and 57% net effect on farmers' total income and per capita income, respectively. Further research found that the two compensation methods had different income effects for poor and non-poor farmers. Cash compensation is not conducive to poor farmers' income, while post compensation has significant positive effects across farmers with different income. In addition, considering the basic mission of ecological forest, it is found that the net effects of cash compensation and post compensation on ecological protection are different. Therefore, scientific planning on compensation methods and compensation standards is a fundamental way to achieve the double effects of ecological protection and farmers' income increase.

Key words: ecological forest, compensation, incentive compatibility, effect of increasing income, ecological effect