1978—2018年中国农村环境管理政策演进特征——基于206份政策文本的量化分析

Evolution of rural environmental management policies from 1978to 2018:Based on 206policy documents quantification

基于手工搜集的1978—2018年中国政府颁布的206份农村环境管理政策文本,从政策发布年度、政策发布主体、政策发布形式、政策作用对象、政策工具及政策效力6个维度构建分析框架,运用政策文献计量和内容分析方法分析了中国农村环境管理政策的演进特征。结果表明:1978年改革开放以来,中国农村环境管理政策在数量上呈整体持续上升态势;农村环境管理政策经历了探索起步(1978—1989年)、初步形成(1990—2004年)、快速发展(2005—2013年)和全面推进(2014年以后)4个阶段的演进;政策发布主体的行政级别较高且呈现多元化特征,政策联合决策程度高,但政策之间统筹性和协调性较低;政策绝大多数以通知、意见等形式发出,缺乏权威性和规范性;政策的着力点主要在原生态保护层面,对农村人居环境整治的重视程度不够;命令控制型政策是政府最为偏好的农村环境管理政策工具,经济激励型、信息公开型和自愿参与型政策工具使用不足;政策整体效力的提升主要由政策发布数量驱动,政策反馈不足、政策措施较少和政策目标量化程度低是导致政策平均效力较低的主要原因。

Based on 206rural environmental management policies promulgated during 1978-2018,content analysis and policy documents quantification were conducted from six dimensions including promulgation time,policy-making agencies,policy forms,policy objects,policy instruments and policy efficacy.The results show that:Chinese government has formulated an increasing number of rural environmental management policies since reform and opening up.The rural environmental management policies in China have experienced four evolution stages:Beginning stage(1978-1989),initial formation stage(1990-2004),rapid development stage(2005-2013)and comprehensive advancement stage(after 2014).Many agencies have participated in policy-making and their administrative ranks were very high.However,the coordination and overall planning among different policy-making agencies was not enough.Most of policies were issued in the form of notices and opinions which lacked authority and standardization.The object of policies was mainly on the original ecological environment protection,less attention was paid to rural residential environmental management.The command-control policies were the government’s most preferred policy instrument,while the instruments of economic-incentive,information-publicity and voluntary-participation were insufficient.The policy efficacy was mainly driven by enacted policy number.Insufficient policy feedback,weak policy measures and less quantifiable policy goals were the main reasons for low policy efficacy.