Economic Benefits of Ecological Products of Grain for Green Project Under Background of Ecological Poverty Alleviation—Taking Walnut and Tea forests as an Example

Chen Tianao; Li Xiang

doi:10.13961/j.cnki.stbctb.2023.02.046

您当前的位置：

首页 >

文章列表页 >

Economic Benefits of Ecological Products of Grain for Green Project Under Background of Ecological Poverty Alleviation—Taking Walnut and Tea forests as an Example

- Economic Benefits of Ecological Products of Grain for Green Project Under Background of Ecological Poverty Alleviation—Taking Walnut and Tea forests as an Example
- Bulletin of Soiland Water Conservation Vol. 43, Issue 2, Pages: 409-415(2023)
- 作者机构：
  
  1. 英国卡迪夫大学地理与规划学院, WT,威尔士,卡迪夫,CF103
  2. 国家林业和草原局发展研究中心,北京,100714
- 作者简介：
- 基金信息：
- DOI：10.13961/j.cnki.stbctb.2023.02.046
  CLC： S728.4
- Published：2023
- 稿件说明：
移动端阅览
Chen Tianao, Li Xiang. Economic Benefits of Ecological Products of Grain for Green Project Under Background of Ecological Poverty Alleviation—Taking Walnut and Tea forests as an Example[J]. Bulletin of Soiland Water Conservation, 2023, 43(2): 409-415.
DOI：

Chen Tianao, Li Xiang. Economic Benefits of Ecological Products of Grain for Green Project Under Background of Ecological Poverty Alleviation—Taking Walnut and Tea forests as an Example[J]. Bulletin of Soiland Water Conservation, 2023, 43(2): 409-415. DOI： 10.13961/j.cnki.stbctb.2023.02.046.

摘要

[目的

]

将生态效益纳入成本效益分析，从生态和经济的角度研究退耕还林生态产品价值，为相关地区生态扶贫工作的顺利开展提供决策依据。 [方法

]

分别以安徽省和四川省的退耕还茶树林和核桃林为研究对象，将水土保持作为退耕还林的主要生态产品，利用通用土壤流失方程计算其实物量和价值量，并将价值量作为收益的一部分纳入经济分析。 [结果

]

①与裸地相比，研究区茶树林和核桃林均可有效减少土壤侵蚀，20 a累计减少侵蚀量分别为3.06×10

t和2.12×10

t。 ②茶树林和核桃林的单位面积水土保持价值分别为681.0和1 285.5元/(hm

·a)。将该价值纳入经济分析后，平均净收益分别为61.3和129.3万元/a，单位面积年均净收益分别为18.43和9.75万元/hm

。 ③退耕还林补助标准对净收益影响较小。标准提高1倍后，预期净收益分别下降2.1%和4.6%。林产品价格减半后，预期净收益分别下降68.1%和77.1%。 ④茶树林和核桃林的生态效益分别占成本的4.4%和6.8%，最高比例达11.9%。 [结论

]

经济林的生态效益可以抵消部分成本，应纳入经济分析净收益计算，实现生态产品价值。

Abstract

[Objective] The value of ecological products from the perspectives of ecology and economy was studied with incorporate ecological benefits into cost-benefit analysis

in order to provide decision-making basis for ecological poverty alleviation work in relevant regions. [Methods] We used data from farmland returned to tea and walnut forests in Anhui and Sichuan Province

respectively. We used soil and water conservation (SWC) as the major product of GTGP. The universal soil loss equation was employed to quantify the amounts and values of SWC

and then these SWS values were incorporated as a part of the income in the economic analysis that we conducted. [Results] ① Compared with bare land

tea and walnut forests effectively reduced soil erosion

and the cumulative erosion reduction in 20 years was 30 600 t and 212 000 t

respectively; ② The soil and water conservation values per unit area of tea and walnut were 681.0 and 1 285.5 yuan/(ha·yr)

respectively. After incorporating these values into the economic analysis

the average net income was 61.3 and 1.293 million yuan/yr

respectively. The average annual net income per unit area of tea and walnut was 184

300 and 97

500 yuan/ha respectively; ③ The GTGP subsidy standard had little impact on net income. After the subsidy standard for returning farmland to forest was doubled

the simulated net income value (NPV) only dropped by 2.1% and 4.6%

respectively

while simulated NPV dropped 68.1% and 77.1%

respectively

if tea and walnut prices decreased by 50%; ④ The ecological benefits of tea forest and walnut forest accounted for 4.4% and 6.8%

respectively

of the cost

with the highest proportion reaching 11.9%. [Conclusion] The ecological benefits of economic forests can offset part of the costs

and should be included in the calculation of net income value so that the value of ecological products can be accounted for.

关键词

Keywords

references

中共中央办公厅，国务院办公厅.关于建立健全生态产品价值实现机制的意见[OL].北京：中共中央办公厅，国务院办公厅2021.

Liu Jianguo, Li Shuxin, Ouyang Zhiyun, et al. Ecological and socioeconomic effects of China’s policies for ecosystem services [J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2008,105(28):9477-9482.

人民网.中国累计退耕还林还草超5亿亩[EB/OL]. [2019-09-06](2022-08-12).http://health.people.com.cn/n1/2019/0906/c14739-31340112.html.

谢晨,张坤,王佳男,等.退耕还林动态减贫:收入贫困和多维贫困的共同分析[J].中国农村经济,2021(5):18-37.

国家林业和草原局.退耕还林综合效益监测国家报告(2020)[M].北京:中国林业出版社,2022.

刘艳,温玉红,窦俊杰,等.甘肃省麦积区退耕还林生态效益评价[J].温带林业研究,2022,5(1):41-47.

杨致远,刘琪璟,秦立厚,等.延安市退耕还林工程生态效益评价[J].西北林学院学报,2022,37(1):259-266.

赵建东,杨洋,万文侠,等.河南省退耕还林工程效益监测与评价[J].河南林业科技,2022,42(1):26-29.

鲁绍伟,李少宁,刘逸菲,等.北京市退耕还林生态效益评估[J].生态学报,2021,41(15):6170-6181.

Ding Zhenmin, Yao Shunbo. Ecological effectiveness of payment for ecosystem services to identify incentive priority areas: Sloping land conversion program in China [J]. Land Use Policy, 2021,104(6):105350.

Ding Zhenmin, Yao Shunbo. Assessing the ecological effectiveness of sloping land conversion programme to identify vegetation restoration types: A case study of Northern Shaanxi Loess Plateau, China [J]. Ecological Indicators, 2022,145(6):105350.

王庶,邓泽林.退耕还林的经济效益研究[J].中央财经大学学报,2016,36(5):9-16.

谢晨,王佳男,彭伟,等.新一轮退耕还林还草工程:政策改进与执行智慧:基于2015年退耕还林社会经济效益监测结果的分析[J].林业经济,2016,38(3):43-51,81.

饶芳萍,木合塔尔·沙地克,阿布都热合曼·阿布迪克然木.林果种植对农民收入的影响研究:基于新疆县级面板和微观农户调查的实证[J].干旱区资源与环境,2021,35(3):36-42.

高清,朱凯宁,靳乐山.新一轮退耕还林规模的收入效应研究：基于还经济林、生态林农户调查的实证分析[J/OL].农业技术经济:1-15[2023-04-01].DOI:10.13246/j.cnki.jae.20211214.006.

段伟,申津羽,温亚利.西部地区退耕还林工程对农户收入的影响:基于异质性的处理效应估计[J].农业技术经济,2018(2):41-53.

朱玉娇.退耕还林对经济和生态效益的影响研究[J].农业科技与信息,2021(8):64-65.

李世东,陈应发.退耕还林还草工程综合效益监测进展与展望[J].林业资源管理,2021(5):1-9.

高嵩.秦州区退耕还林工程20周年效益综合评价[J].林业科技通讯,2021(1):34-36.

国家林业局.2016退耕还林工程生态效益监测国家报告[M].北京:中国林业出版社,2017.

国家林业和草原局.2017退耕还林工程综合效益监测国家报告[M].北京:中国林业出版社,2019.

岳西县人民政府(政府办公室).岳西县县情介绍[EB/OL]. (2022-08-24)[2022-09-25].https://www.yuexi.gov.cn/mlyx/yxjj/2005612761.html.

广元市朝天区人民政府.朝天概况[EB/OL]. (2022-07-07)[2022-09-25]. http://www.gyct.gov.cn/detail/20181209142329949.html.

Wischmeier W H. Estimating the Soil Loss Equation’s Cover and Management Factor for Undisturbed area// In Present and Prospective Technology for Predicting Sediment Yields and Sources [M]. USDA ARS Publication ARS-S-40: 1975.

徐迪,王全九,苏李君.中国降雨侵蚀力时空分布规律研究[J].灌溉排水学报,2015,34(4):80-84.

王超.四川省降雨侵蚀力时空分布特征分析[J].地理空间信息,2017,15(2):111-114.

Whitmore T C, Burnham C P. The altitudinal sequence of forests and soils on granite near Kuala Lumpur [J]. Malayan Nature Journal, 1969,22:99-118.

梁音,刘宪春,曹龙熹,等.中国水蚀区土壤可蚀性

值计算与宏观分布[J].中国水土保持,2013(10):35-40.

Wischmeier W H, Smith D D. Predicting Rainfall Erosion Losses [M].USA: USDA Agricultural Research Service Handbook 1978.

Morgan R P C. Soil Erosion and Conservation [M]. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2005.

蔡崇法,丁树文,史志华,等.应用USLE模型与地理信息系统IDRISI预测小流域土壤侵蚀量的研究[J].水土保持学报,2000,14(2):19-24.

Roose E J. Application of the Universal Soil Loss Equation of Wischmeier and Smith in West Africa [C]//Greenland D J, Lal R.(eds), Wiley, London: Soil Conservation and Management in the Humid Tropics, 1977.

Chan C C. Evaluation of Soil Loss Factors on Cultivated Slope Lands of Taiwan [M]. Food and Fertilizer Technology Center Taipei, Technical Bulletin, 1981.

鲁绍伟,靳芳,余新晓,等.中国森林生态系统保护土壤的价值评价[J].中国水土保持科学,2005,3(3):16-21.

国家林业和草原局. GB/T 38582-2020森林生态系统服务功能评估规范[S].北京:国家市场监督管理总局、国家标准化管理委员会,2020.

龚治名.广元地区土壤肥力状况及改良培肥[D].重庆：西南农业大学,西南大学,1999.

王红霞,王兵,李保玉,等.退耕还林工程不同林种生态效益评估[J].林业资源管理,2014(3):150-155.

Wiggins S L. The Economics of Soil Conservation in the Acelhuate River Basin, El Salvador [C]//Morgan, RPC(ed). Soil Conservation: Problems and Prospects Wiely: Chichester, 1981.

Views

665

下载量

CSCD

Alert me when the article has been cited

提交

Tools

Publicity Resources

Standard system of differentiated ecological compensation for cultivated land in Chinese provinces based on realization of ecological product value

Canopy Hydrological Effects of four Economic Forests in Taihang Mountain, Hebei Province

Discussion on Some Issues About Returning Farmland to Forest or Grassland on Loess Plateau in New Era

Greenhouse Gas Budget and Net Carbon Sequestration of Different Afforestation Types Used in Grain for Green Project —A Case Study in Central South and East China

Accounting for Ecological Compensation Standards in Watersheds Based on Value of Ecological Products—A Case Study of Nandu River Basin in Hainan Province

Related Author

Liu Xianghua

Liu Lihua

Wang Huailiang

Liu Bin

Liu Fengchan

Xing Xiaoguang

Liu Xiqing

Xu Bingcheng

Related Institution

School of Marxism， Guangdong University of Education

College of Economic and Management， Henan Agricultural University

Hebei Promiotion Center of Water Resources Research and Hydrological Technology Experiment

Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Chinese Academy of Sciences and Ministry of Water Resources, Northwest A&F University, Yangling

State Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences

⁰