使用参与式农村评估方法对江西山江湖4县(市)的508户农民和青海三江源玛多县151户牧民进行住户访谈,使用生态时限法和EXCEL统计方法理解他们对初始参与生态建设工程的响应差异。结果表明:①山江湖农民参与生态建设的直接行为体现为投工投劳参与完成政府主导的山场造林,而三江源牧民的初始直接参与则体现为以少畜或无畜牧户为主的生态移民。对农牧民被动参与生态建设的调整上,山江湖仅需要进行产权明确,让农户自行参与和收益,而三江源的牧民行为调整并不仅仅是提高安置补偿费用和年限的问题,而更多地要考虑牧民宗教习俗的变迁;②山江湖农户的间接参与是在外来力量胁迫或冲击下自身利益最大化和产生有助于山场恢复的响应,主要受制于劳动力务农机会成本提升、养殖风险增大等的驱动,而不是农户的自觉行为,而三江源牧民的间接参与主要是在政府引导下传统牧业行为发生变迁的结果,"禁牧-围栏-减畜"是适宜于草场压力减轻和不完全改变传统牧业行为的牧民间接参与的首选响应;③山江湖农民转产具有较大的主动性,是农民综合权衡农业和非农收入差距的基础上作出的理性选择,转产后的生态效应展现出山场压力的长效减轻,反弹风险降低,而三江源牧民转产则显示出很大的被动性,是政府和牧民在对"清贫富饶"博弈后,由政府主导为牧民提供培训、就业、教育等机会和优惠政策下牧民被动参与的结果。转产后草场生态好转的反弹风险较大。该研究结果有助于为集中型生态重建和减压型生态恢复的生态建设工程中农牧民参与提供更为有效的数据和思路支撑。

The initial participating actions of farmers and herdsmen to government leading ecological construction projects usually possess certain passive characteristics. This study interviews 508 farmers’households from four counties, Mountain-River-Lake of Jiangxi Province and 151 herdsmen’s households in Maduo County, Three-River Headwaters of Qinghai Province, using participatory rural appraisal method. And the differences of the initial responses of their participation to ecological construction projects were understood. The interview data were analyzed by ecological time limits method and EXCEL statistical software. These results showed: 1) The direct actions of farmers participating in ecological construction presented that farmers provided time and labor to complete government leading mountainous afforestation in Mountain-River-Lake. However, the direct participation of herdsmen was reflected by the ecological immigrants that were constituted of the few or no herding livestock in Three-River Headwaters. The rights of mountainous land cleared was the main appropriate means, by which farmers’passive participation actions could be adjusted to ensure farmers participating and benefiting themselves in Mountain-River-Lake. While, for the adjustment of herdsmen’s passive participation actions, the main problems were more considering the changes of herdsmen’s religions and customs, but not merely increasing the standards and years of resettlement compensation in Three-River Headwaters.2) The indirect actions of farmers’participation were the responses of maximizing farmers own interests and helping mountainous land restoration under the stress and shock of foreign powers in Mountain-River-Lake. They were driven by farming opportunity cost increase and breeding risk rise, but not farmers’conscious actions. And the indirect participation of herdsmen was mainly the evolvement result of traditional animal husbandry under the government leading in Three-River Headwaters. "Forbidden-grazing-enclosure-reduced-livestock", as the first responses of herdsmen’s indirect participation, were suitable to mitigate grassland pressure and did not completely change traditional animal husbandry.3) Farmers shifted to non-agricultural industry with the larger initiative in Mountain-River-Lake. It was a spontaneous choice decided by balancing the income gap between agriculture and non-agriculture. The ecological effects after shifting industry presented the pressure of mountainous land were long-term relieved, and a lower bounce risk could be observed. However, herdsmen shifted to non-animal husbandry with the larger passivity in Three-River Headwaters. It was consequent on herdsmen’s passive participation, under the course of government providing some opportunities (e.g., training, employment, education, etc.) and favorable policies, after the game between government and herdsmen for "poor and rich". The bounce risk of grassland ecological improvement was larger after shifting production. The implications of this study help to provide effective data and ideas support for farmers and herdsmen participating in concentric ecological reconstruction and pressure-relief ecological restoration.