山区农户林业经营收入如何影响其参与生态公益林的管护意愿?——来自北京市农户的证据

How Does the Income of Forestry Farmers in Mountainous Areas Affect the Willingness to Protect Ecological Public Welfare Forests?——Evidence from Farmers in Beijing

山区农户的林业生产经营区域与生态公益林划定范围具有空间交叉和重叠性,农户的林业经营收入依赖于生态公益林管护效果,研究山区农户的林业经营收入与生态公益林管护的密切关系对于提高社区村民自身参与管护意愿具有重要意义。文章基于北京市山区农户生态林管护方面的数据,运用对数互补模型Cloglog,实证分析山区农户林业经营收入对其参与生态公益林的管护意愿的影响。考虑到生态公益林外部性,研究认为有两种作用力使得农户林业经营收入对其参与生态公益林的管护意愿产生影响,分别是要素"替代效应"和森林资源的"外部效应",综合效应则取决于这两种作用力的叠加效果。研究结果表明:(1)农户林业经营收入占总收入的比重越高时,农户并没有相应增加管护意愿,综合效应体现为一种负影响,且通过1%的显著性检验;(2)集体拥有生态公益林管护队会对农户参与生态公益管护意愿产生积极的作用,且通过1%的显著性检验;(3)农户经营的林地转出后会对其参与公益林管护意愿起到消极作用,且通过10%的显著性检验。因此,提高山区农户林业经营收入并不会增强农户生态公益林管护意愿,故应给予生态公益林管护队充分的资金支持以消减负向综合影响带来的不良结果。

The forestry production and management areas of farmers in mountainous and the delimitation of ecological public welfare forests have spatial overlap. The forestry management income of farmers depends on the management and protection of ecological public welfare forests. To study the close relationship of the forestry management income and ecological public welfare forest management and protection of farmers in mountainous areas, is significant for enhancing the willingness of villagers in the community to participate in management and protection. Based on the data on the management and protection of ecological forests of farmers in mountainous areas in Beijing, using the logarithmic complementary model Cloglog, this paper empirically analyzes the impact of farmers’ forestry management income on the willingness to manage and protect ecological forests in mountainous areas. Considering the externalities of ecological public welfare forests, it is believed that there are two forces that make farmers’ forestry management income affect farmers’ willingness to participate in the management and protection of ecological public welfare forests. It depends on the superimposed effect of these two forces. The results of the study show that:(1)The higher the ratio of farmer households’ forestry management income to the total income, the higher the farmers’ willingness to manage and protect, and ultimately, the comprehensive effectis a negative impact, through the 1% significance test.(2)Collective ownership of ecological forest management guard team will have a positive effect on farmers’ willingness to manage and protect the ecological public welfare, through the 1% significance test.(3)After the forest land managed by farmers is transferred out, it will have a negative effect on their willingness to manage and protect the public welfare forest through the 10% significance test. Therefore, the increase of farmers’ forestry management income in mountainous areas will not increase farmers’ willingness to manage and protect ecological public welfare forests, so the ecological public welfare forest management and protection team should be given sufficient financial support to reduce the negative results brought about by the negative comprehensive impact.