基于化肥施用控制的稻田生态补偿标准研究——以南京市溧水区为例
|
摘要
农田生态补偿作为一种控制化肥用量与面源污染的公共政策工具,其补偿标准将决定政策内化外部效应的实际效果。以南京市溧水区水稻种植户为对象,综合运用成本收益法、能值分析法和双边界二分式CVM法,测定基于政府和农户双重视角下的稻田化肥减施生态补偿标准。研究结果表明:化肥污染环境成本量化视角下南京市水稻种植过程中的折纯化肥投入参考值为268.75 kg hm~(-2)a~(-1),相比2017年南京市的实际化肥用量312.48 kg hm~(-2)a~(-1)仍有约14%的下降空间;绝大多数种植户愿意在接受平均补偿标准为882.49元hm~(-2)a~(-1)的前提之下减少化肥投入至参考用量;受教育程度越高、家中务农人数越多、化肥投入成本越高的稻农更倾向于接受生态补偿,而种植面积较大的农户以及年长男性种植户对减施化肥持更谨慎的态度。研究结果为南京市农业面源污染防治和稻田生态补偿标准制定提供了一定的理论支撑,在实际补偿发放过程中,单一的补偿标准无法保障公平公正,需建立与作物种植类型、化肥减施成效相挂钩的分级生态补偿制度,从而激励农户尽可能减少化肥投入。
Ecological compensation is a public policy tool that can be used to cope with excessive fertilizer application and agricultural non-point source pollution; the amount of compensation significantly influences the actual level of policy implementation. This study examined government compensation for a reduction in the amount of fertilizer applied by rice farmers in Nanjing. We used cost income,energy value analysis,and double-boundary contingent valuation methods and constructed a fertilizer reduction compensation standard using the dual perspectives of the government and the farmers.. The results showed that from the perspective of environmental cost quantification resulting from chemical fertilizer pollution,the reference value for application of pure fertilizer to rice cropping systems in Nanjing is 268. 75 kg hm~(-2)a~(-1),which is still approximately 14% lower than the actual amount of fertilizer applied 312. 48 kg hm~(-2)a~(-1)in 2017 in Nanjing. The vast majority of growers were willing to reduce the amount of fertilizer to the reference dosage on the premise of accepting an ecological average compensation standard of 882. 49 yuan hm~(-2)a~(-1). Finally,rice growers with higher education,largerhouseholds,and higher fertilizer input costs tended to accept ecological compensation as well as related obligations,whereas older male farmers and those with larger planting areas tended to be more cautious about reducing fertilizer use. Our results provide theoretical support for the prevention and control of agricultural non-point source pollution in Nanjing and the formulation of an ecological compensation standard for paddy fields. In the actual compensation and distribution process,the single compensation standard cannot guarantee fairness and justice and it is necessary to establish a hierarchical ecological compensation system that is linked to the crop planting type and the effects of chemical fertilizer reduction. Farmers should reduce the input of chemical fertilizer as much as possible.
Ecological compensation is a public policy tool that can be used to cope with excessive fertilizer application and agricultural non-point source pollution; the amount of compensation significantly influences the actual level of policy implementation. This study examined government compensation for a reduction in the amount of fertilizer applied by rice farmers in Nanjing. We used cost income,energy value analysis,and double-boundary contingent valuation methods and constructed a fertilizer reduction compensation standard using the dual perspectives of the government and the farmers.. The results showed that from the perspective of environmental cost quantification resulting from chemical fertilizer pollution,the reference value for application of pure fertilizer to rice cropping systems in Nanjing is 268. 75 kg hm~(-2)a~(-1),which is still approximately 14% lower than the actual amount of fertilizer applied 312. 48 kg hm~(-2)a~(-1)in 2017 in Nanjing. The vast majority of growers were willing to reduce the amount of fertilizer to the reference dosage on the premise of accepting an ecological average compensation standard of 882. 49 yuan hm~(-2)a~(-1). Finally,rice growers with higher education,largerhouseholds,and higher fertilizer input costs tended to accept ecological compensation as well as related obligations,whereas older male farmers and those with larger planting areas tended to be more cautious about reducing fertilizer use. Our results provide theoretical support for the prevention and control of agricultural non-point source pollution in Nanjing and the formulation of an ecological compensation standard for paddy fields. In the actual compensation and distribution process,the single compensation standard cannot guarantee fairness and justice and it is necessary to establish a hierarchical ecological compensation system that is linked to the crop planting type and the effects of chemical fertilizer reduction. Farmers should reduce the input of chemical fertilizer as much as possible.
引文
[1]余亮亮,蔡银莺.基于农户受偿意愿的农田生态补偿——以湖北省京山县为例.应用生态学报,2015,26(1):215-223.
[2]史常亮,朱俊峰,栾江.农户化肥施用技术效率及其影响因素分析——基于4省水稻种植户的调查数据.农林经济管理学报,2015,14(3):234-242.
[3]崔艳智,高阳,赵桂慎.农田面源污染差别化生态补偿研究进展.农业环境科学学报,2017,36(7):1232-1241.
[4]裴永辉,尹昌斌,程磊磊.农业面源污染控制的生态补偿机制研究.安徽农业科学,2009,37(30):14842-14844.
[5]贺思源,郭继.主体功能区划背景下生态补偿制度的构建和完善.特区经济,2006,(11):194-195.
[6]李琪,王兴杰,王爱萍,刘晓雯,徐庚.农牧业生态补偿的国际比较及其借鉴.干旱区资源与环境,2018,32(6):1-10.
[7] Link J,Graeff S,Batchelor W D,Claupein W. Evaluating the economic and environmental impact of environmental compensation payment policy under uniform and variable-rate nitrogen management. Agricultural Systems,2006,91(1/2):135-153.
[8] Herzog F,Dreier S,Hofer G,Marfurt C,Schüpbach B,Spiess M,Walter T. Effect of ecological compensation areas on floristic and breeding bird diversity in Swiss agricultural landscapes. Agriculture,Ecosystems&Environment,2005,108(3):189-204.
[9]耿翔燕,葛颜祥,张化楠.基于重置成本的流域生态补偿标准研究——以小清河流域为例.中国人口·资源与环境,2018,28(1):140-147.
[10]蔡银莺,张安录.基于农户受偿意愿的农田生态补偿额度测算——以武汉市的调查为实证.自然资源学报,2011,26(2):177-189.
[11]杨欣,张晶晶,高欣,蔡银莺,张安录.基于农户发展受限视角的江夏区基本农田生态补偿标准测算.资源科学,2017,39(6):1194-1201.
[12]刘某承,伦飞,张灿强,李文华.传统地区稻田生态补偿标准的确定——以云南哈尼梯田为例.中国生态农业学报,2012,20(6):703-709.
[13]张印,周羽辰,孙华.农田氮素非点源污染控制的生态补偿标准——以江苏省宜兴市为例.生态学报,2012,32(23):7327-7335.
[14]王风,高尚宾,杜会英,倪喜云,杨怀钦.农业生态补偿标准核算——以洱海流域环境友好型肥料应用为例.农业环境与发展,2011,28(4):115-118.
[15]吕悦风,陈会广.农业补贴政策及其对土地流转的影响研究.农业现代化研究,2015,36(3):362-367.
[16]向平安,周燕,郑华,燕惠民,黄璜,黄清云.符合经济生态效益的农田化肥施用量.应用生态学报,2006,17(11):2059-2063.
[17]赖力,黄贤金,王辉,董元华,肖思思.中国化肥施用的环境成本估算.土壤学报,2009,46(1):63-69.
[18] Pretty J N,Brett C,Gee D,Hine R E,Mason C F,Morison J I L,Raven H,Rayment M D,van der Bijl G. An assessment of the total external costs of UK agriculture. Agricultural Systems,2000,65(2):113-136.
[19]吴琼,马国霞,高阳,潘韬.自然资源资产负债表编制中的环境成本核算及实证研究——以湖州市为例.资源科学,2018,40(5):936-945.
[20]何斌,郑华,黄璜,郑华斌,陈灿.中国不同耕地类型化肥施用环境成本估算——以水田与旱地为例.作物研究,2016,30(3):288-294.
[21]刘建霞,徐卫华,黄璜,郑华斌,贺慧,姚林,陈灿.中国夏秋粮生产化肥施用环境成本估算.中国农业大学学报,2015,20(6):225-232.
[22] Goedkoop M,Spriensma R. The Eco-indicator 99:A Damage Oriented Method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment. The Netherlands:PréConsultants,2000.
[23]李双成,傅小锋,郑度.中国经济持续发展水平的能值分析.自然资源学报,2001,16(4):297-304.
[24]王宏燕,曹志平.农业生态学.北京:化学工业出版社,2008:44-46.
[25]喻永红.基于CVM法的农户保持退耕还林的接受意愿研究——以重庆万州为例.干旱区资源与环境,2015,29(4):65-70.
[26]唐建,沈田华,彭珏.基于双边界二分式CVM法的耕地生态价值评价——以重庆市为例.资源科学,2013,35(1):207-215.
[27]宁运旺,张辉,张永春.江苏省水稻种植行为的南北差异及其对化肥投入的影响——以苏州、盐城为例.江苏农业学报,2018,34(3):533-539.
[28]王华为,朱金兰.泰州市主要土壤类型水稻小麦施肥参数及适宜施氮量研究.中国农业信息,2015(22):151-154.
[2]史常亮,朱俊峰,栾江.农户化肥施用技术效率及其影响因素分析——基于4省水稻种植户的调查数据.农林经济管理学报,2015,14(3):234-242.
[3]崔艳智,高阳,赵桂慎.农田面源污染差别化生态补偿研究进展.农业环境科学学报,2017,36(7):1232-1241.
[4]裴永辉,尹昌斌,程磊磊.农业面源污染控制的生态补偿机制研究.安徽农业科学,2009,37(30):14842-14844.
[5]贺思源,郭继.主体功能区划背景下生态补偿制度的构建和完善.特区经济,2006,(11):194-195.
[6]李琪,王兴杰,王爱萍,刘晓雯,徐庚.农牧业生态补偿的国际比较及其借鉴.干旱区资源与环境,2018,32(6):1-10.
[7] Link J,Graeff S,Batchelor W D,Claupein W. Evaluating the economic and environmental impact of environmental compensation payment policy under uniform and variable-rate nitrogen management. Agricultural Systems,2006,91(1/2):135-153.
[8] Herzog F,Dreier S,Hofer G,Marfurt C,Schüpbach B,Spiess M,Walter T. Effect of ecological compensation areas on floristic and breeding bird diversity in Swiss agricultural landscapes. Agriculture,Ecosystems&Environment,2005,108(3):189-204.
[9]耿翔燕,葛颜祥,张化楠.基于重置成本的流域生态补偿标准研究——以小清河流域为例.中国人口·资源与环境,2018,28(1):140-147.
[10]蔡银莺,张安录.基于农户受偿意愿的农田生态补偿额度测算——以武汉市的调查为实证.自然资源学报,2011,26(2):177-189.
[11]杨欣,张晶晶,高欣,蔡银莺,张安录.基于农户发展受限视角的江夏区基本农田生态补偿标准测算.资源科学,2017,39(6):1194-1201.
[12]刘某承,伦飞,张灿强,李文华.传统地区稻田生态补偿标准的确定——以云南哈尼梯田为例.中国生态农业学报,2012,20(6):703-709.
[13]张印,周羽辰,孙华.农田氮素非点源污染控制的生态补偿标准——以江苏省宜兴市为例.生态学报,2012,32(23):7327-7335.
[14]王风,高尚宾,杜会英,倪喜云,杨怀钦.农业生态补偿标准核算——以洱海流域环境友好型肥料应用为例.农业环境与发展,2011,28(4):115-118.
[15]吕悦风,陈会广.农业补贴政策及其对土地流转的影响研究.农业现代化研究,2015,36(3):362-367.
[16]向平安,周燕,郑华,燕惠民,黄璜,黄清云.符合经济生态效益的农田化肥施用量.应用生态学报,2006,17(11):2059-2063.
[17]赖力,黄贤金,王辉,董元华,肖思思.中国化肥施用的环境成本估算.土壤学报,2009,46(1):63-69.
[18] Pretty J N,Brett C,Gee D,Hine R E,Mason C F,Morison J I L,Raven H,Rayment M D,van der Bijl G. An assessment of the total external costs of UK agriculture. Agricultural Systems,2000,65(2):113-136.
[19]吴琼,马国霞,高阳,潘韬.自然资源资产负债表编制中的环境成本核算及实证研究——以湖州市为例.资源科学,2018,40(5):936-945.
[20]何斌,郑华,黄璜,郑华斌,陈灿.中国不同耕地类型化肥施用环境成本估算——以水田与旱地为例.作物研究,2016,30(3):288-294.
[21]刘建霞,徐卫华,黄璜,郑华斌,贺慧,姚林,陈灿.中国夏秋粮生产化肥施用环境成本估算.中国农业大学学报,2015,20(6):225-232.
[22] Goedkoop M,Spriensma R. The Eco-indicator 99:A Damage Oriented Method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment. The Netherlands:PréConsultants,2000.
[23]李双成,傅小锋,郑度.中国经济持续发展水平的能值分析.自然资源学报,2001,16(4):297-304.
[24]王宏燕,曹志平.农业生态学.北京:化学工业出版社,2008:44-46.
[25]喻永红.基于CVM法的农户保持退耕还林的接受意愿研究——以重庆万州为例.干旱区资源与环境,2015,29(4):65-70.
[26]唐建,沈田华,彭珏.基于双边界二分式CVM法的耕地生态价值评价——以重庆市为例.资源科学,2013,35(1):207-215.
[27]宁运旺,张辉,张永春.江苏省水稻种植行为的南北差异及其对化肥投入的影响——以苏州、盐城为例.江苏农业学报,2018,34(3):533-539.
[28]王华为,朱金兰.泰州市主要土壤类型水稻小麦施肥参数及适宜施氮量研究.中国农业信息,2015(22):151-154.