贫困山区不同生计策略类型脱贫农户生计风险识别与评估

IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT OF LIVELIHOOD RISK OF FARMERS OUT OF POVERTY WITH DIFFERENT TYPES OF LIVELIHOOD STRATEGIES IN POOR MOUNTAINOUS AREAS

关键词:  农户生计策略  生计风险  贫困山区  识别  评估

Key words:  farmers' livelihood strategy  livelihood risk  poor mountainous areas  identification  assessment

摘要:

目的 尽管2020年后我国已经全面脱贫，但脱贫农户仍然面临自然、市场、政策等多重生计风险冲击，非常容易再次掉入贫困陷阱。识别与评估贫困山区不同生计策略类型脱贫农户生计风险，为政府更好地制定相关政策，巩固脱贫成果提供实证依据，具有必要性和现实意义。方法 文章以武陵山连片特困地区的768户脱贫农户调查问卷为样本数据，运用ESI为综合评价指数，识别与评估不同生计策略类型脱贫农户的生计风险。结果 （1）样本区农业兼业型脱贫农户的户主平均年龄最大、家庭规模最小、劳动力数量最少、受教育程度相对最低；非农业兼业型脱贫农户的家庭规模最大；纯农型脱贫农户的家庭劳动力数量最多，且劳动力受教育程度相对最高。（2）不同生计策略类型脱贫的生计风险总值依次是纯农型＞农业兼业型＞非农业兼业型＞非农业型，呈现出兼业程度越高，生计风险越小的特征；纯农型是所有类型脱贫农户中最脆弱的群体，生计风险和返贫风险都最大。结论 当地政府一方面应积极帮助脱贫农户增强非农生计的能力；另一方面应完善农业生产配套设施，营造良好的外部基础设施环境，引导脱贫农户寻求适合自身资源的产业发展方式，提高其兼业水平和兼业质量。同时，继续加大对纯农型脱贫农户的政策帮扶，帮助他们增强现代农业专业技能，扶持他们发展特色精品农产品，引导他们深入农业产业链，分享现代农业发展成果，进而提升其抵御风险的能力。

Abstract:

Although China has completely out of poverty after 2020, but out of poverty, farmers are still facing the impact of multiple livelihood risks such as nature, market and policy, and they are very easy to fall into the poverty trap again. It is necessary and practical to identify and evaluate the livelihood risks of farmers with different livelihood strategies, so as to provide an empirical basis for the government to better formulate relevant policies and consolidate the results of poverty alleviation. Based on this, this study took the questionnaire of 768 out of poverty farmers in Wuling Mountain Area as the sample data, and used ESI as the comprehensive evaluation index to identify and evaluate the livelihood risk of farmers. The results showed that: (1) Agricultural part-time poverty relief farmers had the largest average age of the head of household, the smallest family size, the least number of labor force and the relatively lowest level of education. agricultural part-time poverty relief farmers. The family size of non-agricultural part-time poverty relief farmers was the largest. The number of household labor force was the largest of pure agricultural farmers, and the labor force had the highest education level. (2) The total livelihood risk of poverty alleviation of different livelihood strategy types was pure agricultural type > agricultural and part-time type > non-agricultural and part-time type > non-agricultural type, the higher the degree of part-time employment, the smaller the livelihood risk, and pure agriculture was the most vulnerable group among all types of poverty alleviation farmers. In summary, on the one hand, the local government should make great efforts to enhance the ability of poverty alleviation farmers to find non-agricultural livelihoods. On the other hand, it is necessary to improve agricultural production supporting facilities, create a good external infrastructure environment, guide farmers to seek industrial development methods suitable for their own resources, and improve their part-time level and quality. Meanwhile, we should continue to increase the policy assistance to pure agricultural poverty alleviation farmers, support them to develop characteristic high-quality agricultural products, guide them to go deep into the agricultural industrial chain, share the achievements of modern agricultural development, so as to improve their ability to resist risks.