农业技术培训对农户氮肥施用行为的影响——基于山东省寿光市玉米生产的实证研究

由于生产者缺乏科学施肥知识,我国粮食生产普遍存在过量施用氮肥的现象,不但降低了氮肥的施用效率,而且也加重了农业的面源污染和温室气体的排放。本文以山东省寿光市玉米生产为例,通过对农户进行氮肥施用技术培训,实证分析技术培训对农户氮肥施用行为的影响。研究结果表明,技术培训可有效地引导农民合理施肥,在玉米生产中减少氮肥施用量23%,而单产还有所增加;同时也发现,耕地面积与农户氮肥投入量呈明显负相关关系。这意味着技术培训和耕地流转市场对减少氮肥施用、提高氮肥施用效益、控制面源污染和温室气体排放都将起重要的作用。     

农户安全农产品生产意识研究——以海南省为例

近几年来,各种农用药剂的超标、违规使用,成为农产品质量安全问题的根源。本文基于对海南省649户冬季瓜菜种植农户的一手调研数据,建立结构方程模型（SEM）,对农户的农产品安全生产意识及其若干影响因素进行了实证分析。研究结果表明农户禀赋和政府服务与规制是影响衣户安全农产品生产意识的主要原因,两者不仅直接影响衣户的安全衣产品生产意识,更可以通过间接影响农户已有的用药习惯和农户认知产生进一步的作用。同时,农户认知和衣户已有的用药习惯作为影响农户安全生产意识的第三和第四大因素,不仅不仅受到农户禀赋的影响,也受到政府服务与规制的制约。进一步完善政府的服务与规制是提高农户安全生产意识的重要途径。     

农户生产在不同政策环境下行为研究：农户系统模型的应用

本文运用农户经济学理论分析了中国张家港和兴化两地农民在不同政策环境下的生产行为以及农户行为对国家政策执行效果的影响。模拟分析得出的结论是：政府对农产品生产的限制不利于农民增加收入，也不符合比较利益原则。因而，取消限制会使农户生产发生很大变化，农户收入有大幅度提高，但同时只是减少某些农产品的供给。而这种变化在经济不发达区要较发达区为大。乡镇企业的发展是农民增加收入的最重要来源。从比较优势原则看，国家若单纯利用提高价格来鼓励农民生产并不是唯一经济有效的措施。     

影响设施农产品质量安全生产的行为因素分析一一以北疆设施生产者调查为例

新疆设施农业发展带来的经济效益日益突出。但最近几年,由于农药、添加剂、植物生长激素滥用以及环境污染等造成的农产品安全问题相当严重。本文主要研究新疆设施农产品质量安全问题,对北疆设施生产者进行实地调查,利用Logistic模型,对影响设施农产品质量安全生产的行为因素进行分析,结果表明：生产者是确保设施农产品质量安全的第一负责人,他们的行为直接影响着农产品的质量安全,目前,新疆设施生产者具有安全生产意愿,但由于家庭收入、市场机制不健全、技术指导的缺乏等原因,仍存在不安全的生产行为。通过生产者的生产行为,结合实际提出相应的对策建议,从而改善生产者的行为并加强控制,更好的发展设施农业。     

交易模式对农户安全生产行为的影响——来自苹果主产区1001户种植户的实证分析

基于山东、陕西两大苹果主产区1001户种植户微观调查数据,使用分位数回归模型、多元线性回归模型和Probit模型分析不同交易模式对苹果种植户安全生产行为的影响。结果表明,相较于市场自销模式,采用合作社、批发市场、果商交易模式的农户更倾向于安全生产,而采用网络销售的果农对其安全生产行为无显著影响。其中,合作社交易模式对农户安全生产行为的影响最大,批发市场次之,果商模式的影响最小。应不断丰富农户交易模式选择,以提升农户农产品安全生产行为。     

食品安全与农户生产技术行为选择

本文构建"禀赋特征—认知特征—生产技术行为选择"的分析框架,利用广东省331份农户问卷数据,以农药技术行为选择为例,研究了农户生产技术选择安全性的影响机制。研究结果表明,在禀赋特征中,个体禀赋对农户农药安全技术行为没有显著影响,土地禀赋会对农户农药安全技术行为起负向影响,能力禀赋和认知特征对农户农药安全技术行为起正向影响。此外,本文从认知特征维度进一步讨论了农户农药技术行为选择中"有意不安全"和"无意不安全"问题,由此发现农业生产中存在明显的"有意不安全"的现象,并指出这是值得继续深入研究的问题。     

农户蔬菜质量安全控制意愿的影响因素分析——基于河北省藁城市151份农户的调查

本文运用计划行为理论,以是否使用规定的农药、是否按间隔期使用农药和是否安全施用化肥三者联动作为蔬菜质量安全生产的标志,通过引入心理行为特征变量和外部环境变量,考虑农户特征及其资源禀赋因素,建立了基于农户的蔬菜质量安全生产行为理论分析框架,并利用实地调查数据和Probit模型进行实证检验。研究发现,农户的认知态度、安全生产行为的预期目标收益以及安全生产行为的认知和自我控制等心理行为因素是农户蔬菜质量安全行为选择的内在动力因素,无公害蔬菜的市场价格是影响农户安全蔬菜生产行为选择的重要激励因素,同行影响、接受培训、行业环保压力响应与行业组织化程度等行业导向因素是影响农户蔬菜质量安全生产行为选择的行业促进因素,而种植面积和政策因素与其呈反向关系。基于此,文章提出了提高农户蔬菜生产行为选择的政策建议。     

浅议农业产业化经营

一、农业产业化经营的内涵农业产业化经营就是从农用物资的生产和供应到农产品的收购、储运、加工、包装销售等组成一体化的农业,在这个农业综合体内,农业生产只是其中一个环节,其基本特征是生产的专业化,经营的一体化,管理的企业化,农户不再是身兼数职的小商品生产者,而是从事生产这一一切的专业商品生产者。从这个意义上说:首先,它是农民有组织进入市场的制度创新。在市场经济发展的初期,农民即是生产者又是经销者,这是小商品经济的表现。把农户纳入一定的组织与市场对接,让农户从组织中得到产前、产中、产后的指导,这是产业化的根本要求。其次,它是农民在市场导向和利益驱使下的重新     

实际价格、粮食可获性与农业生产决策——基于农户模型的分析框架和实证检验

按照市场一价定律的逻辑,所有生产者和消费者在市场上面临同一个价格并据此作出生产或消费决策。然而,农产品生产者和消费者的双重身份却导致农户在同一个农产品市场上得到或付出不同的价格,其差异主要取决于运销成本。因此,影响农户生产或消费决策的是其实际获得或付出的价格而非统一的市场价格。此外,出于对粮食安全的追求,农户所在地区的...     

集体林区资源异质性农户林业生产行为动态特征及差异研究——以湖南省为例

分别以商品林农户、公益林农户和兼有林农户作为研究对象,采用描述性分析从林业生产过程和投入产出两个维度客观揭示3类农户林业生产行为动态特征及差异。打破将林区农户作为同质整体的传统假设进行研究的结果表明:商品林、公益林和兼有林农户林业生产行为整体趋势比较积极,但在造林、管护、采伐行为及林业投入产出等方面存在明显差异。因此,建议通过政策引导、市场调剂等方式形成商品林、公益林差异化经营优势,确保农户利益的同时,更好的贯彻森林分类经营管理理念,维护国家生态安全。     

USGS"2000世界油气评价"待发现油气资源预测法

美国地质调查局 2 0 0 0年的油气资源评价中 ,主要进行了两个方面的预测 :待发现油气资源预测和储量增长预测。待发现油气资源的预测主要运用了油气藏规模分布预测方法及蒙特卡洛模拟方法。     

20世纪中期关中地区的土地问题 --以高陵县通远乡为例

本文通过对土地改革前后高陵县通远乡的土地状况的个案分析，论证了正是因为关中地区人地关系的宽松，租佃关系不普遍，地主和富农拥有的土地不多，结果在土地改革期间，关中地区可供分配的土地比较少，当地政府无法同时做到既完全贯彻中央精神，又充分考虑到地方实际情况，最终在实际执行中，导致了中央政令与地方具体实践在一定程度上的背离；而就产中地区的土地改革本身而言，其效果是不经济的。     

分析后感性1999-2009

前言后感性是在85新潮、89大展之后,中国社会情绪正处在一个失落的底点,85-89的艺术家大部分流落海外,与之前的70年代末星星画会情况相仿佛。而中国当代艺术的发展也正处在一个从强调自我身份(身份认同)、民族观(世界观的一部分)、颠覆与革命(89事件)、全球化(与世界接轨)等等现象迸发的转     

林业资源型城市经济转型新思路

针对资源型城市伊春市的具体情况，从产业、运作方式、创新机制和观念，合理安排劳动力就业等方面，提出了实施资源型城市转型的新思路和新措施。     

可持续发展的实质——建设资源节约型社会

我国正面临着日益严峻的资源紧缺形势.严峻资源形势呼唤资源节约型社会;可持续发展实质就是建设资源节约型社会;资源的稀缺性要求建设资源节约型社会.建设资源节约型社会是我国经济社会可持续发展的必由之路和唯一出路,势在必行.     

关于建设高素质农村基层干部队伍的思考

本文以广东省梅州市第四届村委会组成人员的文化程度和年龄结构为基本数据,对当前农村基层干部队伍现状、存在问题及原因进行分析,并提出建设高素质农村基层干部队伍的几点建议。     

森林生态效益补偿的理论探因和资金筹措浅析

阐述外部影响的概念、类型、影响,分析外部影响与市场失灵的关系及其解决办法。用经济学理论分析森林生态效益具有外部经济的原因,提出了解决森林生态效益外部经济问题的办法是进行森林生态效益补偿,并分析了其中的原因。对森林生态效益补偿资金筹措的原则和途径进行了分析,认为资金募集的途径必须具有公开性、公众性,提出了五种主要的资金筹措方式和建议。     

Editorial - Multiple-use forestry

The problem of multiple-use forestry arises because (1) a forest can be managed to provide a wide range of products and services, (2) the different uses are not perfectly compatible with each other, and (3) some products are not priced in markets and many of the services a forest provides have the characteristics of public goods. Examples of major forest products include, in addition to timber, edible berries, fungi, and hunting games. Forests also provide recreation opportunities and various environmental services (such as regulating local climate, reducing soil erosion, reducing pollutants in the atmosphere, regulating the global climate, providing habitats for wildlife, etc.). The outputs of nontimber goods in general depend on the quantity and structure of the forest, which can be changed by various forest management activities. However, a forest state most suitable for the production of one good is usually not optimal with respect to another good. Typically, there does not exist a set of management activities that simultaneously maximize the outputs of timber and all other goods.Another way to understand the conflicts between different uses is to view standing timber as an intermediate product of forestry investment, which is employed as an “input” for the production of timber products and nontimber goods. Thinking in this way, the conflicts arise partly because timber production and nontimber uses compete for the same input, and partly because of the differences in the “production technology” among different nontimber goods. A change in the standing timber may have positive impacts on some nontimber uses, but have negative effects on others. Because of the conflicts among different uses, it requires that both timber products and nontimber goods should be explicitly incorporated into forestry decision-making in order to achieve the greatest benefits to the forest owner and/or the public.Most of the economic analyses of multiple-use forestry decisions have explicitly or implicitly adopted the view that multiple-use should be achieved in individual stands. Each stand should be managed to produce an optimal mix of timber products and nontimber goods. Another view of multiple-use forestry is to manage each stand for a primary use, whereas multiple-use concerns are addressed by allocating different stands in a forest to different uses. A general argument in support of the primary-use view is that specialization makes for efficiency. The production of timber and nontimber goods is a joint process, however. Strictly speaking, one cannot separate timber production and the production of different nontimber goods. For example, managing a stand for timber production does not exclude the possibility of producing some nontimber goods in the stand. Since every stand usually produces more than one product, efficient multiple-use forestry requires that each stand should be managed for an optimal mix of timber and nontimber outputs. On the other hand, it may well be the case that the optimal multiple-use mix for a particular stand consists of a maximum output of one product. In this case the optimal multiple-use management decision would coincide with the optimal decision pertaining to a single use. In other words, it may be optimal to manage a particular stand for one primary use. Using the terminology of economics, primary-use may be efficient for stands in which the multiple-use production set is nonconvex. Recent research has explored several sources of nonconvexity in the multiple-use production set. However, there is no evidence supporting the argument that specialization is always more efficient than multiple-use management of individual stands. From an economics viewpoint, efficient primary-use is special cases of multiple-use stand management.A widely recognized limitation of multiple-use stand management is that, by considering each stand separately, one neglects the interdependence of nontimber benefits and ecological interactions among individual stands. The nontimber benefits of a stand depend on the output of nontimber goods from other stands. Likewise, the nontimber output from one stand affects the value of nontimber goods produced in the other stands. Ecological interactions among individual stands imply that the output of nontimber goods from two stands in a forest differs from the sum of the outputs from two isolated stands. These interdependence and interactions imply that the relationship between the nontimber benefits of a stand and the stand age (or standing timber stock) cannot be unambiguously determined - it depends on the flow of nontimber goods produced in the surrounding stands. Therefore, it is improper to determine optimal decisions for the individual stands independently. In stead, efficient multiple-use forestry decision should be analyzed by considering all the stands in a forest simultaneously.Another serious limitation of multiple-use stand management is that each stand is treated as a homogenous management unit to be managed according to a uniform management regime. One implicitly assumes that the boundaries of each stand is exogenously given and will remain unchanged over time. This assumption imposes a restriction on the multiple-use production set, thereby creates inefficiency. As an example, consider a large stand with a nonconvex production set. It may be possible to eliminate nonconvexity in the production set and push the production possibility frontier outwards by dividing the stand into several parts and managing each part for a primary-use. It may also be efficient to combine two adjacent stands into one to be managed following a uniform regime, because of the presences of fixed management costs, and/or because the relationship between some nontimber outputs and stand area is not linear.In contrast to income from timber production, nontimber goods produced at different time points are not perfect substitutes. The rate at which a forest owner is willing to substitute a nontimber good produced at one time point for that produced at another time point changes with the outputs of the nontimber good at the two time points. In general cases, the nontimber goods produced at one time point cannot be consumed at another time point, and the marginal utility of a nontimber good decreases when its output increases. This provides a motivation for reducing the variation in the output of nontimber goods over time. An effective approach to coordinating nontimber outputs over time is to apply different management regimes to different parts of a stand, or apply the same regime to adjacent stands, which would change the boundaries of the stands. Preserving the existing stand boundaries would limit the possibility of evening out the nontimber outputs over time, and thereby lead to intertemporal inefficiency in multiple-use management.In previous studies of multiple-use forestry decisions the nontimber outputs or benefits are usually modeled as functions of stand age or standing timber stock. Future flows of nontimber goods or benefits are incorporated into a stand/forest harvest decision model to explore the implications of nontimber uses for optimal harvest decisions. While stand age and standing timber stock may have significant impacts on nontimber outputs, other forest state variables, e. g. the spatial distribution of stands of different ages/species, may be of great importance to the production of nontimber goods. Recognition of such forest state variables could change the relationship between timber production and nontimber outputs and therefore change the optimal forest management decisions.In summary, multiple-use forestry is not simply an extension of timber management with additional flows of benefits to be considered when evaluating alternative management regimes. Recognition of multiple uses of a forest leads to two fundamental changes of the forestry decision problem. First, the optimal intertemporal consumption of forestry income is no longer separable from forest management decisions. In general, the optimal intertemporal consumption of forestry income depends on future flows of nontimber goods, implying that the consumption-saving decision should be made simultaneously with the decision on the production of timber and nontimber goods over time. Secondly, it is no longer appropriate to optimize the management regime for each stand separately. The nontimber outputs from a forest depend on the age distribution of individual stands, and on a wide range of other forest state variables such as the spatial distribution of stands of different ages and tree-species composition. Ecological interactions and interdependence among stands imply that management regimes for different stands should be optimized simultaneously. In addition to changing rotation ages and harvest levels, efficient multiple-use forestry requires optimizing the spatial allocation of harvests, redefining the boundaries of stands, coordinating the choices of tree species in regeneration of harvested area and so on.The lack of rigorous production functions for nontimber goods imposes a severe restriction on attempts to perform comprehensive economic analyses of multiple-use forestry decisions. This restriction in itself is no justification for ignoring many of the key aspects of multiple-use forestry problem and modeling the problem as one of determining the optimal rotation age or optimal harvest level. It requires that economic models of multiple-use forestry should be developed with special consideration of the vague and imprecise information regarding the relationships between nontimber outputs and forest state variables.Peichen GongDepartment of Forest EconomicsSE-90183 UmeåSweden