文献类型：期刊文献

中文题名：中国耕地集约化利用评价2010—2016

英文题名：Dynamic evaluation of farmland intensive use in 2010-2016 in China

作者：王向东[1,2,3];沈孝强[1];王振波[3];刘小茜[3,4]

第一作者：王向东

机构：[1]兰州大学管理学院;[2]兰州大学县域经济发展(乡村振兴战略)研究院;[3]中国科学院地理科学与资源研究所;[4]北京联合大学应用文理学院

第一机构：兰州大学管理学院,甘肃兰州730000

年份：2019

卷号：29

期号：4

起止页码：58-67

中文期刊名：中国人口·资源与环境

外文期刊名：China Population,Resources and Environment

收录：CSTPCD;;国家哲学社会科学学术期刊数据库;Scopus;北大核心:【北大核心2017】；CSSCI:【CSSCI2019_2020】；CSCD:【CSCD2019_2020】；

基金：国家自然科学基金重大项目"特大城市群地区城镇化与生态环境交互耦合决策支持系统研发"(批准号:41590845);兰州大学中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金资助项目"基于集约化度的农地集约利用动态评价"(批准号:16LZUJBWZY003)

语种：中文

中文关键词：耕地;集约化利用;单种生产率;复种生产率;集约化度;增长核算

外文关键词：farmland intensive use;single-cropping productivity;multi-cropping productivity;intensive degree;growth accounting

摘要：针对现有研究未明确集约和粗放的具体界限、初始依赖性强和横向可比性差、未区分耕地初级利用和次级利用等缺陷,本文综合采用增长核算方法和集约化度测算方法,开展针对动态过程的耕地集约化利用评价。在对农业生产增长来源进行核算分解的基础上,构建了耕地利用的初级、次级和综合集约化度测算模型,实证评价了全国2010—2016年的耕地集约化利用情况。研究指出,集约化度等于0. 5是耕地集约化利用与粗放化利用的具体界限,依据集约化度大小可将耕地利用归属为完全粗放化、高度粗放化、粗放化优势、集约化优势、高度集约化、完全集约化等不同模式。研究发现:2010—2016年整体而言,全国耕地利用综合集约化度大小为1. 11,初级集约化度(0. 35)小于次级集约化度(0. 76),表明全国农业产出(粮食产量)的增长整体上是在耕地投入数量下降情况下完全依靠耕地复种生产率提高而实现,且是以耕地单种生产率提高为主要途径、以耕地复种指数提高为次要途径。分年度来看,全国耕地利用综合集约化度大小基本呈现出连续下降态势,初级和次级集约化度都存在较大幅度年际波动,反映出全国耕地利用综合集约化动力在持续减弱,初级和次级集约化进程都不够稳定。横向比较来说,浙江、上海和北京的耕地综合利用均属于粗放化模式,而青海、贵州、宁夏和甘肃的耕地综合利用都处于完全集约化进程,表明发达地区的耕地集约化利用程度并不一定高,不发达地区的耕地集约化利用程度并不一定低。
There are several defects about the existing studies on farmland intensive use, such as unspecified boundaries between intensiveness and extensiveness, strong initial dependence and poor horizontal comparability, and failure to distinguish the primary and secondary utilization. This paper comprehensively applied growth accounting method and intensive degree measuring method to carry out the dynamic evaluation of farmland intensive use. Based on the accounting and decomposition of the sources of agricultural production growth, the primary, secondary and comprehensive intensification evaluation models of farmland utilization were constructed, and the farmland intensive use from 2010 to 2016 in China was evaluated empirically. It claimed that the intensification degree equaling to 0.5 was the specific boundary between intensiveness and extensiveness. According to intensive degree, farmland utilization could be differentiated into several modes, such as totally extensive, highly extensive, extensive advantage, intensive advantage, highly intensive and totally intensive. This study found that in 2010-2016, as a whole, the comprehensive intensive degree of farmland use in China was 1.11, and the primary intensive degree (0.35) was less than the secondary intensive degree (0.76). It showed that the growth of the national agricultural output (food production) was generally dependent on the improvement of multi-cropping productivity, with the improvement of single-cropping productivity as the main way, and the improvement of multi-cropping index as the secondary way. In different years, the comprehensive intensive degree of farmland use basically showed a continuous downward trend, and both the primary degree and secondary degree had large fluctuations. This showed that the power of comprehensive intensification was continuously weakened, and the processes of primary and secondary intensification were both not stable enough. As for different areas, the comprehensive use of farmland in Zhejiang, Shanghai and Beijing all belonged to the extensive mode, while the comprehensive use of farmland in Qinghai, Guizhou, Ningxia and Gansu were all in the process of totally intensive. It showed that the intensive degree of developed areas was not necessarily high, while the intensive degree of underdeveloped areas was not necessarily low.