EN中文

自然资源学报 >

2020 , Vol. 35 >Issue 9: 2029 - 2043

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31497/zrzyxb.20200901

“新时期的三农问题”专栏

“新三农”视域下中国耕地利用的可持续集约化：概念认知与研究框架

  • 吕晓 , 1, 2 ,
  • 牛善栋 1, 2 ,
  • 谷国政 1 ,
  • 彭文龙 2
展开
  • 1.东北大学文法学院,沈阳 110169
  • 2.曲阜师范大学地理与旅游学院,日照 276826

吕晓（1984- ）,男,山东茌平人,博士,教授,博士生导师,研究方向为土地利用与乡村发展。E-mail:

收稿日期: 2020-01-15

  要求修回日期: 2020-04-28

  网络出版日期: 2020-11-27

基金资助

国家自然科学基金项目（41671176）

辽宁省“兴辽英才计划”青年拔尖人才项目（XLYC1807060）

收起

Conceptual cognition and research framework on sustainable intensification of cultivated land use in China from the perspective of the "New Agriculture, Countryside and Peasants"

  • LYU Xiao , 1, 2 ,
  • NIU Shan-dong 1, 2 ,
  • GU Guo-zheng 1 ,
  • PENG Wen-long 2
Expand
  • 1. School of Humanities and Law, Northeastern University, Shenyang 110169, China
  • 2. School of Geography and Tourism, Qufu Normal University, Rizhao 276826, Shandong, China

Received date: 2020-01-15

  Request revised date: 2020-04-28

  Online published: 2020-11-27

Copyright

《自然资源学报》编辑部 所有
Fold

摘要

耕地利用的可持续集约化为保障粮食安全、农业绿色发展和资源永续利用提供了新思路,对于深化农民主体地位、夯实农业发展的现代化导向、破解“新三农”复杂的问题集合具有重要的现实意义。系统梳理国外可持续集约化的思想缘起,辨析可持续集约化的内涵差异,厘清“新三农”视域下中国耕地利用可持续集约化的逻辑本源;基于要素融合—结构重整—功能优化的运行轨迹,遵循耕地利用系统过程—格局—机制—效应的逻辑进路,尝试从学理辨析、水平测度、演化机理和优化调控等方面厘清耕地利用系统基本问题域并阐释其研究主题,构建耕地利用可持续集约化的研究框架。探索性提出未来研究需重点关注的农业生态空间—人地关系—耕地利用可持续集约化等科学问题,探讨因素+机理、功能+系统、过程+格局、尺度+界面的关键路径。

关键词： 新三农; 耕地利用; 可持续集约化; 思想缘起; 研究框架

本文引用格式

吕晓 , 牛善栋 , 谷国政 , 彭文龙 . “新三农”视域下中国耕地利用的可持续集约化：概念认知与研究框架[J]. 自然资源学报, 2020 , 35(9) : 2029 -2043 . DOI: 10.31497/zrzyxb.20200901

Abstract

Promoting sustainable intensification of cultivated land use (SICL) has provided a new idea for ensuring food security and green development of agriculture and sustainable use of resources. It is of important practical significance to deepen the dominant position of farmers, strengthen the modernization orientation of agricultural development, and solve the problem "New Agriculture, Countryside and Peasants", which is a complex collection of problems. This paper reviews the research on the ideologial origin of sustainable intensification abroad, identifies the connotation differences of SICL, and clarifies the logic origin of SICL of China under the background of "New agriculture, Countryside and Peasants". Based on the trajectory of "factor fusion-structural reorganization-functional excellence", following the logical approach of "process-pattern-mechanism-effect" in the system of cultivated land use, this paper clarifies the problem domain of cultivated land use system from the aspects of theoretical analysis, level measurement, evolution mechanism and optimal regulation, so as to construct a research framework of SICL. Finally, it proposes the scientific issues of "agricultural ecological space-human-land relationship-SICL", and discusses the significance and key issues of "factor & mechanism, function & system, process & pattern, scale & interface".

Key words： New Agriculture, Countryside and Peasants; cultivated land use; sustainable intensification (SI); ideologial origin; research framework

如何协调日益增长的粮食需求与资源环境约束之间的矛盾,并因地制宜地优化耕地利用模式,是政府和学术界长期关注的热点议题[1,2,3]。到2050年,世界上将有98亿人需要养活,然而耕地面积却一直波动变化,2012年以来呈现净减少趋势[4],这给全世界粮食生产带来巨大压力。虽然高效集约利用耕地可以缓解资源刚性约束和经济发展需求之间的窘境,但过度的耕地集约利用和农用化学品持续投入也给生态环境带来了严重威胁。尤为典型的是农业面源污染问题,2016年我国的化肥施用强度接近国际公认安全上限（225 kg/hm2）的2倍[5,6]。因此,耕地利用模式的转型及隐性产能损失不容忽视,加快转变农业发展方式,推动农村生态文明建设和农业绿色发展成为时代发展的必然要求。2015年原国家农业部发布实施《到2020年化肥使用量零增长行动方案》和《到2020年农药使用量零增长行动方案》,2019年中央一号文件《关于坚持农业农村优先发展做好“三农”工作的若干意见》要求“统筹推进山水林田湖草系统治理,推动农业农村绿色发展”,继续提倡鼓励节肥、节药行动,强调绿色发展是农业现代化的关键。2020年中央一号文件《关于抓好“三农”领域重点工作确保如期实现全面小康的意见》强调持续抓好农业稳产保供和农民增收,推进农业高质量发展。不难发现,新时代中国的耕地利用正在面临重要转型,对耕地集约利用的部分观点和发展规律也渐渐得以制度性澄清和法制性修正。在当前气候变化、科技变革、社会转型的时代背景下,生态文明建设、乡村振兴战略、生态退耕与占补平衡制度等接续深入实施,中国仍应坚持“紧平衡”的新时代粮食安全观,实施最严格的耕地保护制度。同时,由于农户生计转型与区域耕地利用模式的时空错配,以投入/产出结构的科学配置为基础,多维度推动耕地利用可持续集约化,成为自然资源统一管理背景下解析“新三农”科学问题的重要一环。
着眼我国“新三农”问题的价值意蕴,需要坚持思想认知与科学实践相统一：一是坚持问题导向,继续提高农民的主体地位、深化农业的现代化程度、促进农村空间的包容增长;二是坚持目标导向,强化农民对资源的控制能力,引导、培育农民成为农业产业体系的现代化主体,继而转向耕地利用可持续集约化的系统实践。可持续集约化以存量耕地的集约利用为目标,以正向调节土地投入/产出关系、减轻环境响应压力为过程,突破资源约束背景下集约利用可能对环境产生的负面影响,从而倒逼有限的土地可持续地提供物质生产与功能服务[7]。从目标内涵来看,农业可持续集约化的研究集合包含耕地利用可持续集约化,体现为从农业科学问题的显隐互鉴到以耕地利用研究为主。农业可持续集约化研究已林立于国际可持续发展研究的前沿热点和重点领域,国内外学者围绕该问题进行了有益探索,并遵照研究逻辑初步对其内涵进行界定与辨析[8,9,10]。作为农业可持续集约化的核心目标和破解“新三农”问题的关键路径,耕地利用可持续集约化与生态集约化的内涵究竟有何差异?“新三农”对耕地利用可持续集约化的提出究竟有何启示?耕地利用可持续集约化的研究框架应如何构建?
基于以上思考,本文梳理了国际可持续集约化的相关研究成果,基于“新三农”视域,分析耕地利用可持续集约化的逻辑本源,从学理辨析、水平测度、演化机理和优化调控等方面厘清耕地利用系统基本问题域并阐释其研究主题,构建耕地利用可持续集约化的研究框架,为深入推进耕地利用的可持续集约化研究提供理论支撑。

1 可持续集约化的思想缘起与研究进展

1.1 国际上可持续集约化的思想缘起

近几十年来,理论界不断深化在环境效应、机制、影响等方面的研究,国际上萌发了有关可持续集约化的理念思潮（表1）。印度尼西亚作为可持续集约化的发祥地,早在1983年便开展协调改善水生环境和其他自然资源的利用与保护研究,首次引入可持续集约化概念对潮汐湿地进行环境评估[8],但该研究仅提出可持续集约化却未明晰其定义与原则。而后,相关研究基于集约化的理念基础,明确了可持续集约化的两大内涵,即农作物产量增长不影响资源复用[9]、资源复用不造成土壤退化[10,11]。Ruben等[12]则关注土壤养分的长期平衡稳定,认为可持续集约化的本质应符合农业经济学中土地与劳动力协同增长逻辑。然而,生态学学者认为可持续集约化与生态集约化意义趋同,并赋予其“以单位面积产出效率最高为目标,以维护生产系统原力为前提,通过农业资源开发的集约、高效、生态利用方式实现效益最大化”的科学定义[15]。由此可见,生态集约化坚持生态优先原则,从景观尺度、生态过程与生态系统服务三个层次实现综合集约化;可持续集约化则强调土地产出效率提升与生态环境保护同步协调,以自然资本的内外互促集约提升生产效益与环境服务效能（图1）。
Table 1 Evolution of sustainable intensification connotation

表1 可持续集约化内涵演化

作者 主要内涵 时间/年 参考文献
Agency for Agricultural Research and Development 通过环境评估的综合反馈结果,协调改善水生环境与其他自然资源的利用与保护,促进沿海资源的可持续利用 1983 [8]
Pretty 保护或使自然资源再生的同时产量持续增加 1997 [9]
Altieri 控制投入和产出,提高生产率或产出,保证系统和环境的完整性 1999 [11]
Ruben等 增加土地和劳动力的报酬,保持土壤养分平衡 2000 [12]
Ruben等 以更新改良后的技术投入为底层驱动,注重发挥自然、社会和人力资本资产的集约化效应,降低对环境的伤害 2006 [13]
FAO;Pretty等 减小环境负面影响,增加自然资本贡献和环境服务流,获得更多的产出 2009
2011
2011		 [14]
[15]
[16]
Campbell等 农业生态可持续集约化,整合生态原则,减少环境影响,通过生物多样性维护农业系统 2014 [17]
Mahon等 根据具体的耕作类型和规模,考虑粮食系统的社会和政治层面 2017 [18]
Fig. 1 Comparison of ecological intensification and sustainable intensification keywords

图1 生态集约化和可持续集约化的关键词对比

总体来看,可持续集约化是由静态条件（土地、劳动、资本、技术等要素排列式投入）发展演化成为一种动态平衡的集成系统（农产品、粮食、饲料、燃料等组合式产出）,在此过程中承受了气候变化与人为干扰共同作用的瞬间冲击和累积压力[13],强化提升了生态系统的韧性与生物多样性。依据区域资源利用的具体规模,可持续集约化旨在调节输入/输出关系来提高土地产出效率,增加自然资本贡献和环境服务流[14,15],通过生物多样性的变化影响农业生态系统[16,17],同时保持系统的完整性及其周边环境的长期稳定,考虑粮食系统的社会和政治层面[18],既能满足当下人类需求又能满足子孙后代的发展需要。

1.2 中国耕地利用的可持续集约化研究进展

近年来,国内学者围绕耕地集约利用研究做出了有益探索,而集约利用引致的环境效应颇受学界关注,继而激发对集约利用可持续性的理论思考。从时空双维解析耕地集约利用,时间尺度意义的内涵体现为连贯性（阶段性、可持续性）[19],空间尺度的实证研究显示区域水平上的生态系统服务价值与耕地集约利用呈现负向响应关系[20]。针对耕地利用集约程度提高所产生的环境压力,相关研究已从地块微观尺度[21],并基于等值投入[22]、生态环境保护[2]、养分管理[23]与气候变化[24]视角展开探讨,表明可通过政策纽带引导控制化肥、农药的投入结构。此外,关注水体与土壤污染、地下水下渗与土壤退化、生境质量与生物多样性等方面,综合评价集约化造成的环境影响,可明晰未来土地集约利用的发展方向——可持续集约化[25]。总体来看,耕地集约利用的现有研究大量聚焦于环境效应,但耕地利用集约化过程的可持续性研究尚待加深。
我国围绕耕地集约化与耕地可持续利用的研究已取得较多成果。从土地的多重属性来看,耕地可持续利用外在表征应从“资源环境—经济效益—社会发展”三个维度进行解读。其中,以投入/产出效益机制为核心的生态、社会、经济耦合系统的可持续程度是集约利用的内在基础,经济层面是土地利用方式影响经济效益的反映,而社会层面则主要体现社会发展与土地利用交相嵌套的复杂联系[26]。耕地可持续利用研究是一项综合性课题,应加强对复种指数、耕地生产率、耕地利用效率等关键内容的探讨[27];而集约化作为可持续利用的必要不充分条件,很大程度上影响着土地资源利用效率与可持续性的内层关联,因而指标体系的构建应从土地利用方式、集约化水平等层面选取[28];同时,如何将低生态成本投入与高产出现代化农业的体系引导、融入到传统农业中,并促使其有序转型,实现农业系统内部的有机互动,成为推动可持续集约化的重要路径[29]。此外,采用生态足迹方法追踪探索高投入背景下农田生态系统的综合变化,对农业面源污染中的节点变化规律及其防治效果进行分析,可以倒推集约化过程中农田生态系统的可持续性变化[30]。综合来看,已有相关研究在耕地利用集约化如何影响耕地可持续利用的关键方面已达成初步共识,但是如何以科学的方式实现集约过程的合理化,并以连续、稳定、高效的运作状态形成可持续集约化,是未来中国耕地可持续集约化的努力方向。
耕地利用可持续集约化对于农业可持续发展具有积极意义[31],而农业可持续集约化[32,33]的相关研究也充实着可持续集约化的内涵要义。但是农业可持续发展的现实要求较高,如生产要素的有序、稳定、合理投入,生产时序的过程效率控制等,而且部分地区长期存在的掠夺式资源开发模式不利于农业可持续发展[34]。针对农业机械化水平、作业模式与农业生产（土、种、肥、药、水等）长期不对等不协调,应不断研发与区域农业生产相匹配的机械作业模式,以资源利用方式调整促使农业生产效率提升,进而实现农业可持续发展[35]。然而,农业生产要素、技术因素的投入/产出结构也在深化调节耕地利用可持续集约化与农业可持续发展的关系[36],最为典型的是播种、灌溉、施肥、撒药、机具装备等组合形成的农业机械化特定序列,结构合理时从正向推动耕地利用可持续集约化,出现偏差时则从负向阻碍农业可持续发展[37]。须注意的是,探究高度集约化利用过程中的环境风险[38],需加强生态经济区耕地集约利用时空差异和发生过程的定量描述[3],进而探索性地界定耕地利用可持续集约化内涵[39],夯实耕地利用可持续集约化的研究基础。

2 耕地利用可持续集约化的研究框架

2.1 逻辑本源

长期以来,农业高度集约化背景下的生态环境退化、资源枯竭加速、地下水超采、面源污染等问题颇受关注。耕地资源作为农业的自然资本,其利用方式转型是农业发展新特征的具体表象。因此,耕地利用的可持续集约化理应成为农业生态文明建设的重要方面。自“新三农”的本体结构来看,其内源机体发展与农业可持续以及耕地利用的可持续集约化,在要素属性、信息交流和系统生成等层面自发形成特定的时空秩序,实质上是自然生态系统与社会人文系统交互耦合、密切渗透、循环更新的地域关系系统（图2）。
Fig. 2 The relationship chain of cultivated land use among endogenous organisms of "New Agriculture, Countryside and Peasants"

图2 “新三农”内源机体的耕地利用关系链

以“新三农”问题的核心要素为基本依据,发起构建三者耦合交流的生态关系链,对于解读机制背后蕴含的关键信息具有深远意义。从宏观圈层分析,新农村与新农业在社会、生态和经济等层面存在价值响应,新农业与新农民在投入/产出等层面存在要素交流,而新农民与新农村在人居环境需求上目标一致;从内部耦合分析,新农村的自然资源产权制度改革与美好人居环境对耕地利用提出生态环境不退化的要求,新农业的可持续发展对耕地利用设置了绿色、高效的资源节约条件,新农民的美好生活需要与福祉保障通过生产生活方式的转变促进经营的集约化。总体而言,“新三农”背景下推动耕地利用的可持续集约化,有助于夯实农业基础、推行绿色发展模式,培育新型职业农民、提高资源利用效率,提升农村生态宜居水平、激发农村内生动力,最终形成农业高效、农民富裕和农村美丽的新发展格局。
基于地理学视角,耕地利用可持续集约化可被视作一项极其复杂而又敏感的土地利用优化活动和系统工程。本文在梳理可持续集约化研究脉络的基础上,结合当前“新三农”的现实需求,基于要素融合—结构重整—功能优化的运行轨迹,遵循耕地利用系统过程—格局—机制—效应的逻辑进路,从学理辨析、水平测度、演化机理和优化调控等方面厘清耕地利用系统基本问题域并阐释其研究主题,在“新三农”与“人口—资源—环境”耦合形成的外部框架下,初步提出耕地利用可持续集约化的研究框架（图3）。
Fig. 3 Research framework of sustainable intensification of cultivated land use

图3 耕地利用可持续集约化研究框架

2.2 学理辨析

2.2.1 内涵界定
可持续发展与生态文明建设的理念统一,人们日益增长的物质需求转型与有限的土地资源矛盾,使得耕地利用与保护问题成为影响社会、经济、生态协调发展的掣肘因素,因而科学控制耕地资源的集约利用水平并不断提高集约化的可持续性,成为确保粮食安全、社会稳定、可持续发展的关键途径。从理论视角来讲,可持续发展理论[40]的核心内涵是社会、经济、生态的协调发展,涉及到世代伦理、自然生态、经济学、社会学、科学技术、人与自然协调、空间公平、增长效率等重要内容;而土地集约利用理论[41]则强调通过调节同一土地（地块、地类、区域）上的要素介入,追求理想的投入/产出关系。但由于生态环境上限、土地利用报酬递减规律[42]等因素的综合作用,土地利用集约度必然不可能无限提升。因此,耕地利用的可持续集约化在T0, T1, T2, …, Tn的时间节点（图4）,首先完成从不可持续集约到可持续集约的关键突破,此后可持续集约化水平发生由低到高的趋势转变,整个转化过程中伴随着耕地质量、土壤环境、经营方式、种植结构、综合投入等要素的变化。具体而言,在T0时间节点,当耕地连续投入物质、技术、管理等临近经济报酬递减点时,不再继续追加投入而是追求要素投入的有效性,进一步提高耕地的生产能力,到达P0点进入可持续集约阶段;在T1时间节点,耕地利用更加侧重社会—经济—生态协调发展的可持续性,通过控制规模、重划范围、优化供给、创新政策等措施,精准配置要素结构、优化挖潜耕地产能、科学保护生态环境,使得曲线逐步逼近可持续集约化的阈值点（P1）,从而具备函数列空间连续的收敛特征。
Fig. 4 Theoretical model of sustainable intensification of cultivated land use

图4 耕地利用可持续集约化理论模式

立足我国独特的地理国情,基于对“新三农”问题的逻辑剖释,遵循可持续集约化的核心要义,可将耕地利用可持续集约化的基础内涵概括为：（1）经营集约化。资源约束倒逼经营方式转型调整,加强生产中的过程控制,协调投入/产出的时空联系,提升要素利用效率。（2）产出高效化。集约化生产注重在增加生产要素投入的同时更加强调要素结构的合理性,通过要素利用效率提升来提高产出。（3）资源节约化。坚持合理利用、高效利用为基础,节约资源为理念,加强统筹劳动、技术、资金等要素投入比例与时间节点,缩减要素追加过程带来的资源浪费,尤其是灌溉不合理导致的耕地盐碱化等现象。（4）生态环境不退化。坚持生态优先原则,源头治理思维,通过调节农药、化肥、地膜等易污染要素的投施结构,减小耕地土壤和水资源污染现象,降低耕地利用可持续集约化过程中可能对环境造成的各种负面影响。
2.2.2 系统结构与功能
在可持续集约化系统内部,信息、能量、物质的交流互换通常在农业基础环境等空间载体完成,因而生境质量、农作物、生物多样性、土壤特性均可以作为耕地利用系统的“资源单元”。土地利用方式、经营行为、种植结构作为可持续集约化系统的重要部分,三者之间的时空耦合为要素交流、信息传递、功能表达提供了系统廊道。以“新三农”为逻辑框架,以人口—资源—环境发展变化为内部核心,耕地利用系统的利用形态、经营方式、种植结构等随着生产、生活中物质/非物质元素交互嵌套而发生适应性响应,这种内源要素的自变动与外部调控的共同作用,最终引致耕地利用可持续集约化的功能演化与时空分异。
耕地利用可持续集约化紧密联系社会发展、经济转型、生态文明,从层级结构、多元内容、政策运转、时空分异等方面,创造出稳定连续的耕地利用秩序（宏观层次）与生态绿色的农业产出环境（微观层次）。基于农业现代化和可持续发展的时代背景,受资源利用、经营行为、作物产量、生态环境的综合作用,长期存在的“要素—结构—功能”耕地利用系统组织链或将发生多元性演进,在如此关键的时间节点却面临耕地利用系统生态关系蜕变、空间格局失衡引发的诸多挑战,因而亟需通过可持续集约化的调整,即系统要素的整合、结构的重组和功能的优化,在提升经济价值的同时,不超过资源环境上限,实现耕地利用的可持续集约化。

2.3 水平测度

可持续集约化的水平测度主要包括评价指标、方法与尺度选择三个方面。首先,可从生产力水平、经济可持续、生态环境可持续、社会发展、人类福祉与健康等五个层面构筑指标体系。（1）生产力水平作为评测可持续集约化的必要指标,主要依据生产要素的利用效率进行评测分析,具体包括投入效率[43,44]与产出效率[45]。Chikowo等[46]通过对作物轮作、土壤耕作、机械和化学除草以及作物管理方面的综合研究,依据研究结果提出水资源的使用效率可作为评价指标。Herrero等[47]则专注于动物资源的卫生健康研究,并认为生产力水平评价体系是一个系统集合,还应包括牲畜的自然增长率（营养状况、健康水平等）。（2）经济层面的可持续性主要体现在农业产业的收入效益[48,49],如农业收入变化趋势、产业生态化[50]、效益弹性空间、溢出效应[51]、成本比率等都可以从细节层次描述可持续集约化的发展演变。同时也要兼顾部分特色地区的经济作物产值[52],以衡量典型区域的可持续盈利能力。（3）环境的可持续发展内涵广泛,理论界常从水、土、气、生等方面切入,但就耕地利用可持续集约化而言,可按照耕地利用变化及生态服务价值响应[53]、土壤质量[54]及其内部生物活动[55,56]、生态系统稳定性与生物多样性[57]等因素进行循序评价,也可以从更细微的碳封存指标[58]感知评测农业生态系统中气候变化的时空轨迹。（4）社会方面的可持续性测度主要面向农民的信息存取[59],决策、管理、种植行为及其他。（5）人类健康的宏观视角聚焦于粮食安全和膳食营养[60,61],常用人均粮食占有量与营养结构效率来反映。关于可持续集约化的评价方法较为多元,基于生态效率指数方法可以衡量农业系统生态功能的实现程度[62],若综合考虑农业系统产生的经济价值和环境压力的效率测度则采取DEA模型[63];同时,设定粮食产量与生态系统服务平衡框架[64],运用荟萃分析（meta-analysis）寻找比对农业生产过程与环境功能发挥的双向变化[65],使用Tobit模型探究可持续集约利用实践的影响因素[66],可以总结不同类型农场之间的可持续集约化差异规律[67];此外,多元概率（MVP）模型多用于评估区域尺度农业可持续集约化过程中的投入/产出决策组合[68]。
依照空间等级的大小关系,耕地利用可持续集约化的测度尺度可划分为宏观—中观—微观三种层次[19],宏观尺度按照“全球—大陆—国家”等较大区域层次的顺序,中观尺度依据“流域—城市群—市县”等中等层次的次序,微观尺度遵照“乡镇—村庄—多元经营主体—农户—地块”等细微层次的顺序（图5）。理论框架的尺度效应具有较强的异质性,譬如研究耕地利用可持续集约化的整体变化与系统规律需选择宏观尺度,而影响因素及其调控措施的研究则要落于中观尺度。微观尺度的科学研究常基于农户视角开展实施,从农户认知探究管理决策,从家庭行为分析耕地利用方式,从地块种植结构观测作物投入/产出等,进而汇总形成耕地利用可持续集约化微观层次的研究成果[19]。因此,分析尺度选择在研究框架的构建中具有重要地位。
Fig. 5 Measure scale of sustainable intensification

图5 可持续集约化测度尺度

时间尺度注重多源数据的信息挖掘与综合分析,主要包含截面数据、时间序列数据和面板数据三类。时间序列作为追踪观测时空匹配视角下的连续变化过程的最佳选择,对于总结一定时期内的格局演化趋势具有积极意义。统计数据强调时间发展维度上的连贯一致性,为后期长时间序列的相关研究提供基础条件。鉴于长期跟踪调查获取农户数据的现实困难性,有关农户和地块等微观尺度的研究常使用截面数据,此类研究便具有一定的局限性,即仅反映特定区域在一定时期等客观条件下耕地利用可持续集约化的现状特点及其内在关联。与之相比,长时间序列面板数据的使用在相关科学问题的现状趋势和变化规律的探索分析颇具优势,持续深化基于农户等耕地利用主体相关经济活动的观测统计和调查数据资源共享,推动形成多源数据融合、多尺度转换背景下耕地利用“过程—格局—机制”的全面研究,可以较为细致地反映多元农业经营主体的内部差异。
同时,农户微观尺度研究视角的优势体现在两个方面,一是农户作为耕地利用过程的第一作用主体,二是管理决策与耕作行为的差异关联着土地利用/覆被变化的复用程度。耕地利用可持续集约化的系统回路本质上仍在遵循“过程—格局—机制—效应”分析层次,理顺不同研究尺度的适宜节点与转换时序,通过多尺度背景下的集约化格局反演耕地利用可持续集约化过程,深入研究时空分异格局与演化规律以刻画耕地利用过程中集约演化的内源机制,剖析耕地利用可持续集约化在各个空间尺度层次上的差异特征与耦合效应,优化土地供给、提升系统稳定、合理配置资源,全面总结各个节点、不同时序、不同阶段的演化特征及其跃动趋向。

2.4 演化机理

基于横向时间维度和纵向空间维度,发起对可持续集约化实践过程成因机理的理论探讨,从时空分异格局探寻其驱动因素,并在各个空间尺度上对集约化水平的动态演化进行量化分析,进而从集约化水平大小等级和强弱程度探讨、模拟、预测未来耕地利用可持续集约化的发展特征。耕地利用可持续集约化的系统发展过程涉及多元角色的资源、利益分配,并在空间资源利用和综合收益配置的协调中实现包容性发展——一方面要充分体现多元主体共有的多位一体（政府—市场—社会）利益联结诉求,另一方面还要在人口、资源与环境之间进行协调,统筹生物/非生物等要素（图3）。
耕地利用系统涵盖多类自然要素,不同要素间的耦合和集成,与土壤环境、水循环、生物多样性之间形成互馈关系。而且,随着科学技术的不断革新进步,由自然资源对区域农产品比较优势发展为竞争优势的约束作用逐步被技术因素削弱。资源禀赋是农业生产活动中的基本需求物质和相关投入要素,既要包括农业生产过程中必不可少的基础要素,如自然资源条件、社会经济资本、劳动力、技术,也要包含农业制度、多元信息和管理要素等现代生产因素,可以说资源禀赋是可持续集约化过程的初始投入[69]。不同的籽种品质对外部环境的抵抗力不同,可利用科学技术改进种子基因,通过植物育种来提高粮食产量。此外,作物在生长过程中以化学物质为媒介与土壤环境产生相互的化学作用,即化肥施用会对土壤造成污染,同时土壤质量一定程度上也会影响作物的生长与质量。因此,可以适度增加、合理控制绿肥、堆肥和植物残留物的投施比例,提升土壤有机质含量、改善土壤团粒结构,也可以增加固氮植物的利用,通过覆盖作物、延伸植物郁闭,尤其注意培育季节变换的自适应能力,特别是冬季耕作环境保护与水肥保持措施等。采取害虫综合治理及其生物防治措施减少对农药的需求,利用作物多样化减少害虫管理成本,以提高土壤肥力。
在非生物因素中,性别差异、年龄大小和兼业程度等直接决定农户在生产、消费和生活等方面的行为特征,进而在耕地利用时呈现出不同程度的可持续集约化水平。在生产行为特征维度上,作业对象、工具和方式的差异关系到作物收益、机械服务和种植技术。在消费行为特征维度上,消费的方式、层次、理念和驱动力不尽相同,共同催生在农药化肥等商品交易时不同的消费结构,外部人为调控也在潜移默化地改变着内部土壤的理化性质,甚至对区域生境质量产生重要影响。在生活行为特征维度上,农户的作息时间和业余活动根据区位差异形成相应的自然规律。从种植结构上来看,不同的种植结构驱动下的耕地利用形态与传统土地利用形式对既定耕地利用可持续的空间引导控制并不契合。动态农业系统包括普通栽培、间作、套作、农林复合、双季种植动态旋转等耕作方式,用以提升土地利用效益,增强作物多样性。不断寻找整合多年生植物进入生产系统,辅以精湛的农艺实践,科学合理的植株间距,实施差异化的作物轮作与生态休耕,形成可感知、可测度、可对标的智慧农业。此外,还应进一步契合“谷物基本自给、口粮绝对安全”的新粮食安全观,基于区位条件、自然禀赋、生产基础、产业效益、生态环境、政策体系、市场机制等内外因素,优化调整农作物种植结构的空间布局。

2.5 优化调控

耕地利用可持续集约化作为复杂的集成系统,以农作物产量、多元化结构、生态系统服务等因素通过投入/产出自变化折射形成地理空间幕景——人地关系,而系统内部的综合互馈效应在面对资源约束（耕地面积一定）时,同时也面临产量减少、生态退化、“人地”不协调等多重风险,从而不利于耕地利用可持续集约化的稳定发展。因而,从操作层面透视解析耕地利用的阶段性变化、多尺度对应的驱动机理、综合性反馈效应等,可以依靠内外推拉形成的机制合力确保耕地利用可持续集约化处于动态平衡的可持续状态,由此提出具备自适应、韧性强的中国耕地利用可持续集约化的调控路径。
耕地利用可持续集约化的调控路径可初步依据“规模控制—范围重划—供给支配—政策管理”的逻辑顺序构建。（1）规模控制层面,建立提升耕地利用方式与集约化机制之间的空间联系,如综合运用生物学方法中食物链管理[16]强化生态系统的稳定性、多样性。（2）范围重划层面,优化调整农田覆盖作物结构,不断改良秸秆还田与腐殖土肥转化技术[70],提升耕地土壤中的有机质含量。同时,还可以采取“农业机械化+生态集约化”方法[71],即在作物间作、轮作的同时适时追加生产要素投入[72],控制以反式基因作物[73]为主的高能农产品源输入,不断研发与农时相匹配的精准灌溉技术[15],切实提升养分吸收与作物生产效率。（3）供给支配层面,区分共享与分享的实施区域与时间节点[74]。其中,共享强调与农时生产相适应的集约利用,构建耕地生产与休养的合理比例结构;而分享则强调形成集约利用与生态服务交互运作的循环周期。（4）政策管理层面,采取渐进式引导与经济性调控。一是,从权籍形态稳定耕地的生计保障功能,改善新型城镇化与新型农村社区融合背景下的小农生产与农民就业;二是,构建“专项基金+自有资本”的双重资金保障机制,以多元化方式推动耕地利用可持续集约化;三是,实施经济补偿等惠民型激励政策,优化引导合理经营行为与温室气体减排的协同统一,减少其他可能携带经济成本的集约方式,保护生物多样性和生态系统的完整和稳定[75]。

3 结论

随着“人类世”的邻近[76],粮食安全、耕地健康、重大公共事件、高品质三生空间、生态文明、融合性区域战略和国土空间规划等汇聚成亟待破解的热议难题,以及资源要素、生产关系、科学创新与人类需求之间的叠床架屋关系,倒逼社会治理和政府决策的转型趋近至可持续发展的路径中来。而农业可持续发展作为全球可持续战略的重要议题,以及新时期发展地理学研究的核心内容之一,深入理解耕地利用的可持续集约化成为追求人类福祉和资源永续利用的关键。因此,作为地球上最基本、最重要、最可持续的资源,耕地利用的可持续集约化势必成为未来发展的主流。遵照“过程—格局—机制—效应”的逻辑,以“农业生态空间—人地关系—耕地利用可持续集约化”为横轴、以地理学命题的基本范畴“因素+机理、功能+系统、过程+格局、尺度+界面”为纵轴[77],本文梳理了耕地利用可持续集约化研究的若干科学问题（表2）。
Table 2 Several scientific issues on sustainable intensification of cultivated land use

表2 耕地利用可持续集约化研究的若干科学问题

农业生态空间—人地关系—耕地利用可持续集约化
因素+机理 农业有机生命体、耕地系统变化的时空分异规律、影响因素及其演化机理、耕地环境承载—响应—适应,人文因素作用的不确定性
功能+系统 耕地资源利用生态系统的功能与质量、耕地多功能权衡、区域性耕地生态系统（本体、母体、受体[78]）、耕地质量—产能—健康、多位阶效力的政策节理
过程+格局 耕地利用和多元经营主体互馈机制、土壤肥力和资源要素（水、肥、药）协变关系、生态环境与可持续集约化空间耦合、耕地可持续集约化系统的流空间分析（物质流、信息熵、特征算法）
尺度+界面 耕作单元到空间结构的集成、不同空间尺度耕地功能和结构的自转换、人文—自然界面对可持续集约化过程和格局的反馈、人文界面对耕地利用可持续集约化的响应
当前中国正处于供给侧改革的深水区,以质量、效率和动力变革为表征的改革内涵,已然更加关注耕地的生态安全,即在生态文明建设和乡村振兴进程中,注重形成与资源环境承载能力、国土空间开发适宜区间相匹配,兼具绿色高效、低碳集约、循环生态的耕地利用新特征,从而通过以“新三农”内里动力的科学挖潜,促成改革发展稳定的全面协调可持续。与此同时,面对特定统一的供给约束,不断变化的发展需求,区域禀赋差异、学科交叉整合、科学理论与技术革新的响应适应、人类活动与自然环境之间的互馈等,成为摆在可持续发展面前的问题困扰。因此,在满足共性、兼顾个性的原则下,以多元化、宽视角和新共识的角度切入,全面探究“新三农”问题域内的耕地利用可持续集约化的交互嵌套影响与耦合协调机制,对于推动类如美丽中国等更多绿色发展战略的实施具有重要意义。
面对可持续发展的迫切需求和科学问题的逐层明晰,加之生态文明建设战略影响和国际科学前沿的牵引,重视现代农业共同体,以科学研究、工程技术和相关政策为共有体,求解耕地利用可持续集约化的科学问题越来越成为学界共识。在资源环境科学理论研究中,叠合复杂系统的自然科学、人文科学、经济科学和管理科学,建构多学科融合的基础理论;在科学技术创新方面,不断研发可随理论发展、学科变化和知识演进而自适应的研究方法体系,注重对综合科学机理进行剖析阐释和学术价值提炼,而不是简单机械地移植其他方法理论;在政策制定层面,紧扣顶层设计的战略目标,减少政策模糊地带,提高可操作性,填补政策盲区。因此,不妨把耕地利用的可持续集约化设为预解的科学方程式,寻找地理学命题下的多元目标函数,设定一系列约束条件,筛选出相关变量,或成为近期耕地利用可持续集约化研究创新和科学跨越的关键前提。总而言之,当前对耕地利用可持续集约化的研究处在科学认知和问题计算的层次上,即明晰科学认知的未来布局,识别研究的基本单元和关键节点,重新审视新变量与新增量的逻辑关联、认知领域内新概念和新原则的科学理路。

参考文献

原文顺序 | 文献年度倒序 | 文中引用次数倒序
[1]
GAO L, BRYAN B A. Finding pathways to national-scale land-sector sustainability. Nature, 2017, 544(7649): 217-222.The 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and 169 targets under Agenda 2030 of the United Nations map a coherent global sustainability ambition at a level of detail general enough to garner consensus amongst nations. However, achieving the global agenda will depend heavily on successful national-scale implementation, which requires the development of effective science-driven targets tailored to specific national contexts and supported by strong national governance. Here we assess the feasibility of achieving multiple SDG targets at the national scale for the Australian land-sector. We scaled targets to three levels of ambition and two timeframes, then quantitatively explored the option space for target achievement under 648 plausible future environmental, socio-economic, technological and policy pathways using the Land-Use Trade-Offs (LUTO) integrated land systems model. We show that target achievement is very sensitive to global efforts to abate emissions, domestic land-use policy, productivity growth rate, and land-use change adoption behaviour and capacity constraints. Weaker target-setting ambition resulted in higher achievement but poorer sustainability outcomes. Accelerating land-use dynamics after 2030 changed the targets achieved by 2050, warranting a longer-term view and greater flexibility in sustainability implementation. Simultaneous achievement of multiple targets is rare owing to the complexity of sustainability target implementation and the pervasive trade-offs in resource-constrained land systems. Given that hard choices are needed, the land-sector must first address the essential food/fibre production, biodiversity and land degradation components of sustainability via specific policy pathways. It may also contribute to emissions abatement, water and energy targets by capitalizing on co-benefits. However, achieving targets relevant to the land-sector will also require substantial contributions from other sectors such as clean energy, food systems and water resource management. Nations require globally coordinated, national-scale, comprehensive, integrated, multi-sectoral analyses to support national target-setting that prioritizes efficient and effective sustainability interventions across societies, economies and environments.

DOI PMID

[2]
王国刚, 刘彦随, 陈秧分. 中国省域耕地集约利用态势与驱动力分析. 地理学报, 2014, 69(7): 907-915.

[WANG G G, LIU Y S, CHEN Y F. Dynamic trends and driving forces of land-use intensification in the cultivated land of China. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2014, 69(7): 907-915.]

[3]
谢花林, 邹金浪, 彭小琳. 基于能值的鄱阳湖生态经济区耕地利用集约度时空差异分析. 地理学报, 2012, 67(7): 889-902.

[XIE H L, ZOU J L, PENG X L. Spatial-temporal difference analysis of cultivated land use intensity based on emergy in Poyang Lake Eeco-economic Zone. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2012, 67(7): 889-902.]

[4]
TAN M H, LI Y Y. Spatial and temporal variation of cropland at the global level from 1992 to 2015. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2019, 10(3): 235-245.Correlated increases in population and demand for food over recent decades have caused remarkable changes in cropland area globally. Utilizing the latest data product provided by the European Space Agency (ESA), this paper analyzes annual trends and spatiotemporal variations in cropland area and discusses cropland conversion, losses, and increases globally between 1992 and 2015 at a 300 m resolution. The results show that the global area of cropland increased rapidly between 1992 and 2004, more slowly between 2004 and 2012, and began to decrease gradually since 2012. First, an increasing trend in cropland area has been maintained solely in Africa; all other regions are characterized by decreasing trends in later periods despite different transition points and change rates. A reduction in cropland area frequently emerged earlier in high-income countries. Second, increase rates in cropland area have largely decreased in recent years while the overall rate of loss has remained almost the same. Hotspot areas of global cropland increases are mainly concentrated around the edge of the Amazon forest, Eurasian Steppe, and Sahara Desert. These hotspot areas of global cropland loss shifted from Europe to Asia while built-up areas have expanded at the expense of cropland.

DOI

[5]
杨滨键, 尚杰, 于法稳. 农业面源污染防治的难点、问题及对策. 中国生态农业学报, 2019, 27(2): 236-245.

[YANG B J, SHANG J, YU F W. Difficulty, problems and countermeasures of agricultural non-point sources pollution control in China. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2019, 27(2): 236-245.]

[6]
闵继胜, 孔祥智. 我国农业面源污染问题的研究进展. 华中农业大学学报: 社会科学版, 2016, (2): 59-66.

[MIN J S, KONG X Z. Research development of agricultural non-point source pollution in China. Journal of Huazhong Agricultural University: Social Sciences Edition, 2016, (2): 59-66.]

[7]
彭文龙, 吕晓, 辛宗斐, 等. 国际可持续集约化发展经验及其对中国耕地保护的启示. 中国土地科学, 2020, 34(4): 18-26.

[PENG W L, LYU X, XIN Z F, et al. The international experience of sustainable intensification and its enlightenment to the protection of cultivated land in China. China Land Science, 2020, 34(4): 18-26.]

[8]
KEPAS (Kelompok Penelitian Agro-ekosistem-Research Group on Agro-ecosystems) (ed) Tidal swamp agro-ecosystems of Southern Kalimantan. Workshop report on Sustainable intensification of tidal swamplands in Indonesia held at Banjarmasin, South Kalimantan, July 18-24, 1983, Agency for Agricultural Research and Development, Jakarta, Indonesia, p146, 1985.

[9]
PRETTY J N. The sustainable intensification of agriculture. Natural Resources Forum, 1997, 21(4): 247-256.

DOI

[10]
XIE H L, HUANG Y Q, CHEN Q R, et al. Prospects for agricultural sustainable intensification: A review of research. Land, 2019, 8(11): 157.

DOI

[11]
ALTIERI M A. Applying agroecology to enhance the productivity of peasant farming systems in Latin America. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1999, 1(3): 197-217.

DOI

[12]
RUBEN R, LEE D R. Combining internal and external inputs for sustainable intensification, 2000. https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/16374.

[13]
RUBEN R, KRUSEMAN G, KUYVENHOVEN A. Strategies for sustainable intensification in East African highlands: Labor use and input efficiency. Agricultural Economics, 2006, 34(2): 167-181.

DOI

[14]
FAO. Organic agriculture: Glossary on organic agriculture. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 2009: 1-173.

[15]
FAO. Save and grow: A policymaker's guide to the sustainable intensification of small holder crop production. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 2011: 1-102.

[16]
PRETTY J, TOULMIN C, WILLIAMS S. Sustainable intensification in African agriculture. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 2011, 9(1): 5-24.Over the past half-century, agricultural production gains have provided a platform for rural and urban economic growth worldwide. In African countries, however, agriculture has been widely assumed to have performed badly. Foresight commissioned analyses of 40 projects and programmes in 20 countries where sustainable intensification has been developed during the 1990s-2000s. The cases included crop improvements, agroforestry and soil conservation, conservation agriculture, integrated pest management, horticulture, livestock and fodder crops, aquaculture and novel policies and partnerships. By early 2010, these projects had documented benefits for 10.39 million farmers and their families and improvements on approximately 12.75 million ha. Food outputs by sustainable intensification have been multiplicative by which yields per hectare have increased by combining the use of new and improved varieties and new agronomic-agroecological management (crop yields rose on average by 2.13-fold), and additive by which diversification has resulted in the emergence of a range of new crops, livestock or fish that added to the existing staples or vegetables already being cultivated. The challenge is now to spread effective processes and lessons to many more millions of generally small farmers and pastoralists across the whole continent. These projects had seven common lessons for scaling up and spreading: (i) science and farmer inputs into technologies and practices that combine crops animals with agroecological and agronomic management; (ii) creation of novel social infrastructure that builds trust among individuals and agencies; (iii) improvement of farmer knowledge and capacity through the use of farmer field schools and modern information and communication technologies; (iv) engagement with the private sector for supply of goods and services; (v) a focus on women's educational, microfinance and agricultural technology needs; (vi) ensuring the availability of microfinance and rural banking; and (vii) ensuring public sector support for agriculture. This research forms part of the UK Government's Foresight Global Food and Farming project.

DOI

[17]
CAMPBELL B M, BRUCE M, THOMTON P, et al. Sustainable intensification: What is its role in climate smart agriculture?. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2014, 8: 39-43.The 'sustainable intensification' (SI) approach and `climate-smart agriculture' (CSA) are highly complementary. SI is an essential means of adapting to climate change, also resulting in lower emissions per unit of output. With its emphasis on improving risk management, information flows and local institutions to support adaptive capacity, CSA provides the foundations for incentivizing and enabling intensification. But adaptation requires going beyond a narrow intensification lens to include diversified farming systems, local adaptation planning, building responsive governance systems, enhancing leadership skills, and building asset diversity. While SI and CSA are crucial for global food and nutritional security, they are only part of a multi-pronged approach, that includes reducing consumption and waste, building social safety nets, facilitating trade, and enhancing diets.

DOI

[18]
MAHON N, CRUTE I, SIMMONS E, et al. Sustainable intensification-"oxymoron" or "third-way"? A systematic review. Ecological Indicators, 2017, 74: 73-97.

DOI

[19]
吕晓, 牛善栋, 李振波, 等. 中国耕地集约利用研究现状及趋势分析. 农业工程学报, 2015, 31(18): 212-224.

[LYU X, NIU S D, LI Z B, et al. Present situation and trends in research on cultivated land intensive use in China. Transactions of the CSAE, 2015, 31(18): 212-224.]

[20]
王千, 李哲, 范洁, 等. 沿海地区耕地集约利用与生态服务价值动态变化及相关性分析. 中国农学通报, 2012, 28(35): 186-191.

[WANG Q, LI Z, FAN J, et al. The change and its ecological responses of cultivated land intensive use in Jiangsu coastal district. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2012, 28(35): 186-191.]

[21]
张新焕, 杨德刚, 王昌燕, 等. 基于地块尺度的耕地集约利用与环境压力关系: 以塔里木河流域780个地块为例. 中国生态农业学报, 2012, 20(5): 635-642.

[ZHANG X H, YANG D G, WANG C Y, et al. Relationship between intensive utilization and environmental pressure of cultivated land: A case study on 780 cropland parcels in Tarim River Basin. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2012, 20(5): 635-642.]

[22]
宋敏. 耕地资源利用中的环境成本分析与评价: 以湖北省武汉市为例. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2013, 23(12): 76-83.

[SONG M. Analysis and assessment on environmental costs of arable land utilization: A case of Wuhan city. Chinese China Population, Resources and Environment, 2013, 23(12): 76-83.]

[23]
CHADWICK D, WEI J, YAN'AN T, et al. Improving manure nutrient management towards sustainable agricultural intensification in China. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2015, 209: 34-46.

[24]
LU Y L, CHADWICK D, NORSE D, et al. Sustainable intensification of China's agriculture: The key role of nutrient management and climate change mitigation and adaptation. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2015, 209: 1-4.

[25]
朱会义, 孙明慧. 土地利用集约化研究的回顾与未来工作重点. 地理学报, 2014, 69(9): 1346-1357.

[ZHU H Y, SUN M H. Main progress in the research on land use intensification. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2014, 69(9): 1346-1357.]

[26]
刘芳, 张红旗. 我国农产品主产区土地可持续利用评价. 自然资源学报, 2012, 27(7): 1138-1152.

[LIU F, ZHANG H Q. Sustainability assessment of land use in main agricultural production regions in China. Journal of Natural Resources, 2012, 27(7): 1138-1152.]

[27]
刘玉, 杨庆媛. 我国耕地可持续利用的障碍因素和对策. 地域研究与开发, 2004, 23(3): 102-105.

[LIU Y, YANG Q Y. Problems of sustainable use of cultivated land resources and countermeasures in China. Areal Research and Development, 2004, 23(3): 102-105.]

[28]
刘庆, 陈利根. 长株潭地区土地可持续利用综合评价及空间分区. 农业工程学报, 2013, 29(6): 245-253.

[LIU Q, CHEN L G. Comprehensive evaluation and spatial partition of sustainable utilization of land in Chang-Zhu-Tan Region. Transactions of the CSAE, 2013, 29(6): 245-253.]

[29]
黄飞萍. 基于能值分析的福建省农用地可持续利用态势研究. 中国农学通报, 2013, 29(26): 61-66.

[HUANG F P. The sustainable utilization situation research of agricultural land in Fujian based on the emergy analysis. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2013, 29(26): 61-66.]

[30]
赵桂慎, 王一超, 唐晓伟, 等. 基于能值生态足迹法的集约化农田生态系统可持续性评价. 农业工程学报, 2014, 30(18): 159-167.

[ZHAO G S, WANG Y C, TANG X W, et al. Evaluation of sustainability for intensive farmland ecosystem based on emergy ecological footprint. Transactions of the CSAE, 2014, 30(18): 159-167.]

[31]
牛善栋. 农户尺度耕地可持续集约利用机理研究: 以山东省典型农户调查为例. 日照: 曲阜师范大学, 2018.

[NIU S D. Research on the mechanism of sustainable intensive use of cultivated land on the scale of farmers: A case study of typical farmers in Shandong province. Rizhao: Qufu Normal University, 2018.]

[32]
ZHANG X, BOL R, RAHN C, et al. Agricultural sustainable intensification improved nitrogen use efficiency and maintained high crop yield during 1980-2014 in Northern China. Science of the Total Environment, 2017, 596: 61-68.

[33]
KUHN N J, HU Y, BLOEMERTZ L, et al. Conservation tillage and sustainable intensification of agriculture: Regional vs. global benefit analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2016, 216: 155-165.

[34]
曹执令. 区域农业可持续发展指标体系的构建与评价: 以衡阳市为例. 经济地理, 2012, 32(8): 113-116.

[CAO Z L. The construction and evaluation of regional agricultural sustainable development, index system: A case study of Hengyang city. Economic Geography, 2012, 32(8): 113-116.]

[35]
罗锡文, 廖娟, 胡炼, 等. 提高农业机械化水平促进农业可持续发展. 农业工程学报, 2016, 32(1): 1-11.

[LUO X W, LIAO J, HU L, et al. Improving agricultural mechanization level to promote agricultural sustainable development. Transactions of the CSAE, 2016, 32(1): 1-11.]

[36]
LI S, LEI Y, ZHANG Y, et al. Rational trade-offs between yield increase and fertilizer inputs are essential for sustainable intensification: A case study in wheat-maize cropping systems in China. Science of the Total Environment, 2019, 679: 328-336.

DOI

[37]
赵莹雪. 山区县域农业可持续发展综合评价研究: 以五华县为例. 地理科学, 2003, 23(2): 223-229.

[ZHAO Y X. Synthetic evaluation of sustainable agricultural development in mountain counties. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 2003, 23(2): 223-229.]

[38]
殷冠羿, 刘黎明, 起晓星, 等. 基于物质流分析的高集约化农区环境风险评价. 农业工程学报, 2015, 31(5): 235-243.

[YIN G Y, LIU L M, QI X X, et al. Environmental risk assessment in high intensive farming area based on material flow analysis. Transactions of the CSAE, 2015, 31(5): 235-243.]

[39]
牛善栋, 吕晓, 史洋洋. 山东省农地利用可持续集约化的时空格局. 应用生态学报, 2018, 29(2): 607-616.

[NIU S D, LYU X, SHI Y Y. Spatial-temporal pattern of sustainable intensification of agricultural land-use in Shandong province, China. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2018, 29(2): 607-616.]

[40]
XU Z, CHAU S N, CHEN X, et al. Assessing progress towards sustainable development over space and time. Nature, 2020, 577(7788): 74-78.To address global challenges(1-4), 193 countries have committed to the 17 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)(5). Quantifying progress towards achieving the SDGs is essential to track global efforts towards sustainable development and guide policy development and implementation. However, systematic methods for assessing spatio-temporal progress towards achieving the SDGs are lacking. Here we develop and test systematic methods to quantify progress towards the 17 SDGs at national and subnational levels in China. Our analyses indicate that China's SDG Index score (an aggregate score representing the overall performance towards achieving all 17 SDGs) increased at the national level from 2000 to 2015. Every province also increased its SDG Index score over this period. There were large spatio-temporal variations across regions. For example, eastern China had a higher SDG Index score than western China in the 2000s, and southern China had a higher SDG Index score than northern China in 2015. At the national level, the scores of 13 of the 17 SDGs improved over time, but the scores of four SDGs declined. This study suggests the need to track the spatio-temporal dynamics of progress towards SDGs at the global level and in other nations.

DOI PMID

[41]
POUZOLS F M, TOVIVONEN T, DI MININ E, et al. Global protected area expansion is compromised by projected land-use and parochialism. Nature, 2014, 516(7531): 383-386.Protected areas are one of the main tools for halting the continuing global biodiversity crisis(1-4) caused by habitat loss, fragmentation and other anthropogenic pressures(5-8). According to the Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 adopted by the Convention on Biological Diversity, the protected area network should be expanded to at least 17% of the terrestrial world by 2020 (http://www.cbd.int/sp/targets). To maximize conservation outcomes, it is crucial to identify the best expansion areas. Here we show that there is a very high potential to increase protection of ecoregions and vertebrate species by expanding the protected area network, but also identify considerable risk of ineffective outcomes due to land-use change and uncoordinated actions between countries. We use distribution data for 24,757 terrestrial vertebrates assessed under the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) 'red list of threatened species' 9, and terrestrial ecoregions(10) (827), modified by land-use models for the present and 2040, and introduce techniques for global and balanced spatial conservation prioritization. First, we show that with a coordinated global protected area network expansion to 17% of terrestrial land, average protection of species ranges and ecoregions could triple. Second, if projected land-use change by 2040 (ref. 11) takes place, it becomes infeasible to reach the currently possible protection levels, and over 1,000 threatened species would lose more than 50% of their present effective ranges worldwide. Third, we demonstrate a major efficiency gap between national and global conservation priorities. Strong evidence is shown that further biodiversity loss is unavoidable unless international action is quickly taken to balance land-use and biodiversity conservation. The approach used here can serve as a framework for repeatable and quantitative assessment of efficiency, gaps and expansion of the global protected area network globally, regionally andnationally, considering current and projected land-use pressures.

DOI

[42]
PRETTY J. Intensification for redesigned and sustainable agricultural systems. Science, 2018, 362(6417): eaav0294, Doi: 10.1126/science.aav0294.

DOI PMID

[43]
WEZEL A, SOBOKSA G, MCCLELLAND S, et al. The blurred boundaries of ecological, sustainable, and agroecological intensification: A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 2015, 35(4): 1283-1295.

DOI

[44]
FIRBANK L G, ELLIOTT J, DRAKE B, et al. Evidence of sustainable intensification among British farms. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 2013, 173: 58-65.

[45]
PETERSEN B, SNAPP S. What is sustainable intensification? Views from experts. Land Use Policy, 2015, 46: 1-10.

DOI

[46]
CHIKOWO R, FALOYA V, PRTIT S, et al. Integrated weed management systems allow reduced reliance on herbicides and long-term weed control. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 2009, 132(3): 237-242.

[47]
HERRERO M, THOMTON P K, NOTENBAERT A M, et al. Smart investments in sustainable food production: Revisiting mixed crop-livestock systems. Science, 2010, 327(5967): 822-825.Farmers in mixed crop-livestock systems produce about half of the world's food. In small holdings around the world, livestock are reared mostly on grass, browse, and nonfood biomass from maize, millet, rice, and sorghum crops and in their turn supply manure and traction for future crops. Animals act as insurance against hard times and supply farmers with a source of regular income from sales of milk, eggs, and other products. Thus, faced with population growth and climate change, small-holder farmers should be the first target for policies to intensify production by carefully managed inputs of fertilizer, water, and feed to minimize waste and environmental impact, supported by improved access to markets, new varieties, and technologies.

DOI PMID

[48]
NCUBE B, TWOMLOW S J, DIMES J P, et al. Resource flows, crops and soil fertility management in smallholder farming systems in Semi-arid Zimbabwe. Soil Use and Management, 2009, 25(1): 78-90.

DOI

[49]
SNAPP S S, BLACKIE M J, GILLBERT R A, et al. Biodiversity can support a greener revolution in Africa. PNAS, 2010, 107(48): 20840-20845.The Asian green revolution trebled grain yields through agrochemical intensification of monocultures. Associated environmental costs have subsequently emerged. A rapidly changing world necessitates sustainability principles be developed to reinvent these technologies and test them at scale. The need is particularly urgent in Africa, where ecosystems are degrading and crop yields have stagnated. An unprecedented opportunity to reverse this trend is unfolding in Malawi, where a 90% subsidy has ensured access to fertilization and improved maize seed, with substantive gains in productivity for millions of farmers. To test if economic and ecological sustainability could be improved, we preformed manipulative experimentation with crop diversity in a countrywide trial (n = 991) and at adaptive, local scales through a decade of participatory research (n = 146). Spatial and temporal treatments compared monoculture maize with legume-diversified maize that included annual and semiperennial (SP) growth habits in temporal and spatial combinations, including rotation, SP rotation, intercrop, and SP intercrop systems. Modest fertilizer intensification doubled grain yield compared with monoculture maize. Biodiversity improved ecosystem function further: SP rotation systems at half-fertilizer rates produced equivalent quantities of grain, on a more stable basis (yield variability reduced from 22% to 13%) compared with monoculture. Across sites, profitability and farmer preference matched: SP rotations provided twofold superior returns, whereas diversification of maize with annual legumes provided more modest returns. In this study, we provide evidence that in Africa, crop diversification can be effective at a countrywide scale, and that shrubby, grain legumes can enhance environmental and food security.

DOI PMID

[50]
郭付友, 佟连军, 刘志刚, 等. 山东省产业生态化时空分异特征与影响因素: 基于17地市时空面板数据. 地理研究, 2019, 38(9): 2226-2238.

[GUO F Y, TONG L J, LIU Z G, et al. Spatial-temporal pattern and influencing factors of industrial ecology in Shandong province: Based on panel data of 17 cities. Geographical Research, 2019, 38(9): 2226-2238.]

[51]
张学波, 陈思宇, 廖聪, 等. 京津冀地区经济发展的空间溢出效应. 地理研究, 2016, 35(9): 1753-1766.

[ZHANG X B, CHEN S Y, LIAO C, et al. Spatial spillover effects of regional economic growth in Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Region. Geographical Research, 2016, 35(9): 1753-1766.]

[52]
CHARTZOULAKIS K, ERTAKI M. Sustainable water management in agriculture under climate change. Agriculture & Agricultural Science Procedia, 2015, 4: 88-98.

[53]
LU X, SHI Y Y, CHEN C L, et al. Monitoring cropland transition and its impact on ecosystem services value in developed regions of China: A case study of Jiangsu province. Land Use Policy, 2017, 69: 25-40.

DOI

[54]
RUFINO M C, TITTONELL P, REIDSMA P, et al. Network analysis of N flows and food self-sufficiency: A comparative study of crop-livestock systems of the highlands of East and Southern Africa. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 2009, 85(2): 169-186.Smallholder farming systems in sub-Saharan Africa are often nutrient-limited, and therefore imports must be increased to compensate exports and losses. To explore whether the properties of nutrient cycling networks relate to the systems’ capability to sustain rural families, we investigated N flows within contrasting crop-livestock systems in Ethiopia, Kenya and Zimbabwe applying concepts from ecological network analysis. Farm households were conceptualised as networks, the compartments were the household and their farming activities which were connected by the N flows. Indicators assessing network size, activity and cycling, and the organisation and diversity of the N flows were compared with system productivity and food self-sufficiency. Results showed that organisation and diversity of N flows to, from and within the farm households differed more between farms of different resource endowments than across sites. The amount of N cycled per household was small and comparable across sites: less than 25 kg N year−1, and for the poor households less than 5 kg N year−1. Poor households with soil N stocks that were 50–60% smaller than wealthier households depended more on external inputs (e.g. a dependence of 65% vs. 45% in Zimbabwe). Productivity was positively related to network size, its organisation and N cycling, but utilisation efficiencies were different across sites in relation to soil N stock and the importance of livestock for N flows. Greater size of the N flow network and its organisation led to increased productivity and food self-sufficiency, reducing dependence, which may increase the adaptability and reliability of smallholder crop-livestock systems.]]>

DOI

[55]
GAO X D, LI H C, ZHAO X N, et al. Identifying a suitable revegetation technique for soil restoration on water-limited and degraded land: Considering both deep soil moisture deficit and soil organic carbon sequestration. Geoderma, 2018, 319: 61-69.

DOI

[56]
VANLAUWE B, COYNE D, GOCKOWSKI J, et al. Sustainable intensification and the African smallholder farmer. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2014, 8: 15-22.Sub-Saharan Africa needs to produce more food, feed, and fiber to support its growing population and intensification of smallholder agriculture is a crucial component of any strategy towards this goal. Sustainable Intensification (SI) acknowledges that enhanced productivity needs to go hand in hand with the maintenance of other ecosystem services and enhanced resilience to shocks. A very diverse group of smallholders dominate SSA agriculture, with large heterogeneity in socio-technical conditions, famer typologies, production objectives, and the biophysical environment. This potentially generates a multitude of pathways from the current low productivity based on nutrient mining to SI. The institutional context needs to be right for delivering the necessary goods and services underlying SI, ensuring inclusiveness across household types and facilitating local innovation.

DOI

[57]
PHALAN B, BALMFORD A, GREEN R E, et al. Minimising the harm to biodiversity of producing more food globally. Food Policy, 2011, 36(s1): 62-71.

[58]
GAMTY D P, AKINNIFESI F K, AJAYI O C, et al. Evergreen agriculture: A robust approach to sustainable food security in Africa. Food Security, 2010, 2(3): 197-214.Faidherbia albida. The second case is that of the Malawi Agroforestry Food Security Programme, which is integrating fertilizer, fodder, fruit, fuel wood, and timber tree production with food crops on small farms on a national scale. The third case is the dramatic expansion of Faidherbia albida agroforests in millet and sorghum production systems throughout Niger via assisted natural regeneration. The fourth case is the development of a unique type of planting pit technology (zai) along with farmer-managed natural regeneration of trees on a substantial scale in Burkina Faso. Lastly, we examine the current outlook for Evergreen Agriculture to be further adapted and scaled-up across the African continent.]]>

DOI

[59]
OWENYA M, MARIKI W, STEWART A, et al. Conservation agriculture and sustainable crop intensification in Karatu district, Tanzania. Integrated Crop Management, 2012, 68(4): 1-8.

[60]
KAMANGA B C G, WADDINGTON S R, WHITBREAD A M, et al. Improving the efficiency of use of small amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer on smallholder maize in Central Malawi. Experimental Agriculture, 2014, 58(2): 229-249.

[61]
WARREN E, HAWKESWORTH S, KNAI C. Investigating the association between urban agriculture and food security, dietary diversity, and nutritional status: A systematic literature review. Food Policy, 2015, 53: 54-66.

DOI

[62]
BAI H, TAO F. Sustainable intensification options to improve yield potential and eco-efficiency for rice-wheat rotation system in China. Field Crops Research, 2017, 211: 89-105.

DOI

[63]
FIRBANK L G, ELLIOTT J, DRAKE B, et al. Evidence of sustainable intensification among British farms. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 2013, 173: 58-65.

[64]
KASSIE M, TEKLEWOLD H, JALETA M, et al. Understanding the adoption of a portfolio of sustainable intensification practices in Eastern and Southern Africa. Land Use Policy, 2015, 42: 400-411.

DOI

[65]
GADANAKIS Y, BENNETT R, PARK J, et al. Evaluating the sustainable intensification of arable farms. Journal of Environmental Management, 2015, 150: 288-298.Sustainable Intensification (SI) of agriculture has recently received widespread political attention, in both the UK and internationally. The concept recognises the need to simultaneously raise yields, increase input use efficiency and reduce the negative environmental impacts of farming systems to secure future food production and to sustainably use the limited resources for agriculture. The objective of this paper is to outline a policy-making tool to assess SI at a farm level. Based on the method introduced by Kuosmanen and Kortelainen (2005), we use an adapted Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) to consider the substitution possibilities between economic value and environmental pressures generated by farming systems in an aggregated index of Eco-Efficiency. Farm level data, specifically General Cropping Farms (GCFs) from the East Anglian River Basin Catchment (EARBC), UK were used as the basis for this analysis. The assignment of weights to environmental pressures through linear programming techniques, when optimising the relative Eco-Efficiency score, allows the identification of appropriate production technologies and practices (integrating pest management, conservation farming, precision agriculture, etc.) for each farm and therefore indicates specific improvements that can be undertaken towards SI. Results are used to suggest strategies for the integration of farming practices and environmental policies in the framework of SI of agriculture. Paths for improving the index of Eco-Efficiency and therefore reducing environmental pressures are also outlined.

DOI PMID

[66]
KOTU B H, ALENE A, MANYONG V, et al. Adoption and impacts of sustainable intensification practices in Ghana. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 2017, 15(5): 539-554.

DOI

[67]
ELAHI E, WEIJUN C, ZHANG H, et al. Agricultural intensification and damages to human health in relation to agrochemicals: Application of artificial intelligence. Land Use Policy, 2019, 83: 461-474.

DOI

[68]
AHMADI B V, MORAN D, BARNES A P, et al. Comparing decision-support systems in adopting sustainable intensification criteria. Frontiers in Genetics, 2015, 6: 23.Sustainable intensification (SI) is a multifaceted concept incorporating the ambition to increase or maintain the current level of agricultural yields while reduce negative ecological and environmental impacts. Decision-support systems (DSS) that use integrated analytical methods are often used to support decision making processes in agriculture. However, DSS often consist of set of values, objectives, and assumptions that may be inconsistent or in conflict with merits and objectives of SI. These potential conflicts will have consequences for adoption and up-take of agricultural research, technologies and related policies and regulations such as genetic technology in pursuit of SI. This perspective paper aimed at comparing a number of frequently used socio-economic DSS with respect to their capacity in incorporating various dimensions of SI, and discussing their application to analyzing farm animal genetic resources (FAnGR) policies. The case of FAnGR policies was chosen because of its great potential in delivering merits of SI. It was concluded that flexible DSS, with great integration capacity with various natural and social sciences, are needed to provide guidance on feasibility, practicality, and policy implementation for SI.

DOI PMID

[69]
杨锐征. 地理标志产品经济价值评价. 中国农学通报, 2011, 27(4): 432-435.

[YANG R Z. The economic value evaluation of geographical indication products. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2011, 27(4): 432-435.]

[70]
MCCUNE N M, GONZÁLEZ Y R, ALCÁNTARA E A, et al. Global questions, local answers: Soil management and sustainable intensification in diverse socioeconomic contexts of Cuba. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 2011, 35(6): 650-670.In the complex context of global food and agricultural systems, research in agriculture must respond to multidisciplinary questions of economic development, ecological sustainability and food justice. With the objective of responding to several of the most important questions facing agriculture today, this article describes recent research in three Cuban cropping systems: state farms, cooperatives, and small family farmers. Soil management is considered here as a crux of human intervention in agroecosystems, capable of determining the impacts of productive activities upon agricultural and ecosystem functions. Management practices commonly used in each farm system are evaluated using two systems of indicators, one for technological quality and one for agricultural intensification. Soil physical quality is characterized through laboratory analysis of samples taken in the same type of soil under long-term production in state, cooperative, and family farmer cropping systems. Soil structure management in the small farmer system is especially worthy of study, because this agricultural system has developed an intensive agroecological productive model on the basis of low external input use, polycultures and internal nutrient cycling. Favorable policies and farmer organizations are discussed as indispensible elements of sustainable agricultural development. The relationships between soil management, local knowledge, and food access are explored in the Cuban context and as directions for food system studies.

DOI

[71]
ERIEDRICH T, KIENZLE J, KASSAM A. A new paradigm for sustainable intensification and its implications for agricultural mechanization. International Conference of Agricultural Engineering, Valencia, 2012, P-0416.

[72]
SUMBERG J. The logic of fodder legumes in Africa. Food Policy, 2002, 27(3): 285-300.Abstract

This paper explores the long-standing interest in the introduction of fodder legumes as an essential component of mixed farming systems in Africa. The central argument is that because of certain biological characteristics and their association with historic changes in European agricultural, fodder legumes have become endowed with a mantle of absolute goodness. However, while the screening of fodder legumes has been an important theme in agricultural research for over 70 yr, the actual level of use by farmers and livestock keepers in Africa is still insignificant. This analysis leads to a call for a more realistic approach to legume research and promotion. Particular attention is placed on the idea that the bio-physical and socio-economic factors that have previously been seen as constraints to legume adoption should now be viewed as system properties and incorporated into the design specification of technology. Without such an approach the ‘logic of fodder legumes’ will continue to limit the contribution that agricultural research can make in Africa.

]]>

DOI

[73]
FLAVELL R. Knowledge and technologies for sustainable intensification of food production. New Biotechnol, 2010, 27(5): 505-516.

DOI

[74]
TILMAN D, BALZER C, HILL J, et al. Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. PNAS, 2011, 108(50): 20260-20264.Global food demand is increasing rapidly, as are the environmental impacts of agricultural expansion. Here, we project global demand for crop production in 2050 and evaluate the environmental impacts of alternative ways that this demand might be met. We find that per capita demand for crops, when measured as caloric or protein content of all crops combined, has been a similarly increasing function of per capita real income since 1960. This relationship forecasts a 100-110% increase in global crop demand from 2005 to 2050. Quantitative assessments show that the environmental impacts of meeting this demand depend on how global agriculture expands. If current trends of greater agricultural intensification in richer nations and greater land clearing (extensification) in poorer nations were to continue, ~1 billion ha of land would be cleared globally by 2050, with CO(2)-C equivalent greenhouse gas emissions reaching ~3 Gt y(-1) and N use ~250 Mt y(-1) by then. In contrast, if 2050 crop demand was met by moderate intensification focused on existing croplands of underyielding nations, adaptation and transfer of high-yielding technologies to these croplands, and global technological improvements, our analyses forecast land clearing of only ~0.2 billion ha, greenhouse gas emissions of ~1 Gt y(-1), and global N use of ~225 Mt y(-1). Efficient management practices could substantially lower nitrogen use. Attainment of high yields on existing croplands of underyielding nations is of great importance if global crop demand is to be met with minimal environmental impacts.

DOI PMID

[75]
GARNETT T, APPLEBY M C, BALMFORD A, et al. Sustainable intensification in agriculture: Premises and policies. Science, 2013, 341(6141): 33-34.

DOI PMID

[76]
刘海猛, 方创琳, 李咏红. 城镇化与生态环境“耦合魔方”的基本概念及框架. 地理学报, 2019, 74(8): 1489-1507.

[LIU H M, FANG C L, LI Y H. The coupled human and natural cube: A conceptual framework for analyzing urbanization and eco-environment interactions. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2019, 74(8): 1489-1507.]

[77]
樊杰. 人地系统可持续过程、格局的前沿探索. 地理学报, 2014, 69(8): 1060-1068.

[FAN J. Frontier approach of the sustainable process and pattern of human-environment system. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2014, 69(8): 1060-1068.]

[78]
郧文聚. 粮食安全的生命线在于耕地健康. 中国科学报, 2019-04-23(005). http://news.sciencenet.cn/sbhtmlnews/2019/4/345431.shtm?id=345431.

[YUN W J. The lifeline of food security lies in the health of cultivated land. China Science Daily, 2019-04-23(005). http://news.sciencenet.cn/sbhtmlnews/2019/4/345431.shtm?id=345431.]

Options
文章导航

/

〈 〉