生态补偿给实施区带来许多影响,其有效性和持续性受到各种因素的挑战,全面评估生态补偿带来的影响是提高决策科学性的必要前提。基于多准则模糊分析模型,采用参与性农户评估方法对甘南牧民家庭进行调查,并根据分布区域将其分成纯牧区牧户、半牧区牧户和农区牧户,就实施生态补偿后对补给区内的经济、社会和环境变化造成的影响进行了分析。结果表明:①生态补偿的实施对区域发展的总体影响指数为3.39,影响程度较高,其中生态补偿对区域经济、社会发展和环境的影响指数分别为3.11、3.58和3.71;②受生态补偿的影响,研究区经济发展缓慢,其中对农户收入结构的变化影响最高,纯牧区和半牧区农户的人均收入和农畜产品商品率出现一定的下降;③受生态补偿的影响,牧民在环保意识和自身技能提高方面在三组间没有很大差异,纯牧区牧民具有更好的就业方式和维权意识,半牧区和农区牧民则对监督意识、参与意识、生活质量的提升具有更深感受;④生态补偿对环境改善的影响程度最高,影响指数为3.71,纯牧区牧民感受最为强烈,其次是半牧区和农区。
As the project of ecological compensation is being put into effect at present, all kinds of impacts have been brought about objectively in the project areas, and the validity and sustainability of the project have been faced serous challenges from various factors. Therefore, its impacts evaluation is an essential prerequisite for decision-making. The fuzzy multi-criteria analysis model was constructed to assess the economic, social and environmental effects which were brought by the ecological compensation. The paper is based on a survey of 117 herd households by means of participatory rural appraisal (PRA). According to the distribution area, all survey herds were divided into three groups, the herd household of pure pasturing area, the herd household of the semi-planting-pasturing area and the agricultural area. The results are drawn as follows: 1) The overall impact of regional development level is 3.39 by ecological compensation and it belongs to moderate positive effects. The impact which was brought by the ecological compensation is different from the regional economic, social and environmental effects, being respectively 3.11, 3.58 and 3.71. 2) Because of the ecological compensation, the development of regional economy is slow. The influence of the income structure of farmers which was brought by the ecological compensation is the highest. The per capita net income of farmers and the commodity rate of farm products reduce in the pure pasturing area and semi-planting-pasturing area. 3) Because of the ecological compensation, there is no difference in environmental awareness and herds' skills. The farmers of pure pasturing area have a better sense in employment and rights consciousness; the farmers of semi-planting-pasturing area and agricultural area have a better sense in supervision awareness, participation consciousness and life quality improvement. 4) The influence of the environmental improvement which was brought by the ecological compensation is the highest, being 3.71. The farmers in pure pasturing area have a strong sense of it, followed by the semi-planting-pasturing area and agricultural area.
[1] Stefanie Engel, Stefano Pagiola, Sven Wunder. Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues [J]. Ecological Economics, 2008, 65(4): 663-674.
[2] Ruud C, Kees J C, Annette A G. Ecological compensation of the impacts of a road. Preliminary method for the A50 road link (Eindhoven-Oss, The Netherlands) [J]. Ecological Engineering, 1996, 7(4): 327-349.
[3] Herzog F, Dreier S, Hofer G, et al. Effect of ecological compensation areas on floristic and breeding bird diversity in Swiss agricultural landscapes[J]. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 2005, 108(3): 189-204.
[4] Sven Wunder, Montserrat Albanb. Decentralized payments for environmental services: The cases of Pimampiro and PROFAFOR in Ecuador [J]. Ecological Economics, 2008, 65(4): 685-698.
[5] Carlos Munoz-Pina, Alejandro Guevarab, Juan Manuel Torres, et al. Paying for the hydrological services of Mexico's forests: Analysis, negotiations and results [J]. Ecological Economics, 2008, 65(4): 725-736.
[6] Stefano Pagiola, Elias Ramirez, et al. Paying for the environmental services of silvopastoral practices in Nicaragua [J]. Ecological Economics, 2007, 64(2): 374-385.
[7] Landell-Mills N, Porras I. Silver bulletor fools' gold? A global review of markets for forest environmental services and their impacts on the poor . International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), 2001: 89-92.
[8] Cupems R, Canters K J, Udo de Haes H A, et al. Guidelines for ecological compensation association with highways [J]. Biological Conservation, 1999, 90(1): 41-51.
[9] Bruno Locatelli, Varinia Rojas, Zenia Salinas. Impacts of payments for environmental services on local development in Northern Costa Rica: A fuzzy multi-criteria analysis [J]. Forest Policy and Economics, 2008, 10(5): 275-285.
[10] Morris J, Cowing D J G, Mills J, et al. Reconciling agricultural economic and environmental objectives: The case of recreating wetlands in the Fenland area of eastern England [J]. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 2000, 79(2): 245-257.
[11] Sven Wunder. Payments for environmental services and the poor: Concepts and preliminary evidence [J]. Environment and Development Economics, 2008, 13(1): 279-297.
[12] 侯军岐, 王亚红, 廖玉. 退耕还林对西部经济发展的影响及对策分析[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2002, 20(4): 116-119.
[13] 董捷. 坡耕地与林地价值比较研究——兼论退耕还林的效益[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2003, 13(5): 86-88.
[14] 支玲, 李怒云, 王娟, 等. 西部退耕还林经济补偿机制研究[J]. 林业科学, 2004, 40(2): 2-7.
[15] Beck R J, Kraft S E, Burde J H. Is the conservation of land from agricultural production to a bioreserve boon or bane for economic development? The Cache River Bioreserve as a case study [J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 1999, 54(1): 394-401.
[16] Siegel P B, Johnson T G. Break-even analysis of the conservation reserve program: The Virginia case [J]. Land Economics, 1991, 67(4): 447-461.
[17] 雷孝章, 王金锡, 彭沛好, 等. 中国生态林业工程效益评价指标体系[J]. 自然资源学报, 1999, 14(2): 175-182.
[18] Canadian Forest Service. Criteria and indicators for conservation and sustainable management of temperate and boreal forest . Ottawa: Montreal Process, 1999.
[19] Cornelissen A M G, Vandenberg J, Koops W J. Assessment of the contribution of sustainability indicators to sustainable development: A novel approach using fuzzy set theory [J]. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 2001, 86(2): 173-185.
[20] 赵雪雁. 甘南牧区人文因素对环境的影响[J]. 地理学报, 2010, 65(11): 1411-1420.
[21] Stefano Pagiola. Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica [J]. Ecological Economics, 2008, 65(4): 712-724.
[22] Turpie J K, Marais C, Blignaut J N. The working for water programme: Evolution of a payments for ecosystem services mechanism that addresses both poverty and ecosystem service delivery in South Africa [J]. Ecological Economics, 2008, 65(4): 788-798.
[23] 王静, 郭铌, 蔡迪花, 等. 玛曲县草地退牧还草工程效果评价[J]. 生态学报, 2009, 29(3): 1276-1284.
[24] 赵雪雁. 牧民对高寒牧区环境的感知——以甘南牧区为例[J]. 生态学报, 2009, 29(5): 2427-2436.
