县域空间贫困的地理识别研究——以宁夏泾源县为例

doi:10.11821/dlxb201703014

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

空间贫困研究是对多维贫困理论的丰富和发展,创新空间贫困度量方法是精准配置扶贫资源和提高农村扶贫质量的关键。本文借鉴国际空间贫困研究的基本理论思想,总结出了空间贫困三维结构分析框架,构建了县域空间贫困指标体系和地理识别方法,以宁夏泾源国家扶贫开发重点县为例,开展了空间贫困地理识别。研究发现：① 不同自然地理区SPI排序为侵蚀堆积河谷平川区（均值1.571）>剥蚀构造丘陵区（均值-0.199）>侵蚀构造石山区（均值-0.334）,表明侵蚀构造石山区贫困程度最大,是减贫重点区域,其中3个自然地理区空间贫困的共同特点是存在经济劣势（C₄~C₇、C₁₇）,主要差异是侵蚀堆积河谷平川区生态劣势（C₂₅、C₁₆）>经济劣势（C₅）>位置劣势（C₂₀）>政治劣势（C₈）;剥蚀构造丘陵区经济劣势（C₅~C₇、C₁₇）>位置劣势（C₁₈~C₂₀）>生态劣势（C₁₆、C₂₃~C₂₅）>政治劣势（C₈）;侵蚀构造石山区经济劣势（C₄~C₇、C₁₇）>政治劣势（C₈）>位置劣势（C₁₈~C₂₀）>生态劣势（C₁₆、C₂₁~C₂₅）。② 不同民族村SPI排序为汉族村（均值1.484）>回族村（均值1.262）>回汉混居村（均值-1.033）,表明县域尺度上回汉混居村是减贫重点村。不同民族村空间贫困的共同特征是由于距离最近市场远（C₁₇）形成的经济劣势,以及人均耕地面积（C₂₃）和农作物特别经济作物种植面积小（C₂₄）形成的生态劣势。不同民族村空间贫困的主要差异在于汉族村人居环境差和灾损率高形成的生态劣势,以及贷款不足（C₅）导致的经济劣势突出,回族村主要因文化知识素质较低（C₁₂、C₁₃）导致进入市场的机会成本高而形成经济劣势,回汉混居村因汉族和回族生产生活方式差异,造成扶贫资源配置困难,农户对扶贫政策满意率最低（C₈）,反映该类村空间贫困的政治劣势最为显著。③ 同一自然地理区域不同民族村空间贫困存在显著差异。侵蚀堆积河谷平川区汉族村、回族村和回汉混居村SPI均值分别为0.526、2.557和1.644,表明该类型区汉族村贫困程度高,经济劣势显著（C₅）;剥蚀构造丘陵区回族村和回汉混居村的SPI均值分别约为0.321和-1.934,表明该类型区回汉混居村贫困程度较高,经济劣势（C₂、C₆、C₇）和生态劣势（C₁₆）突出;侵蚀构造石山区汉族村、回族村和回汉混居村的SPI均值分别为1.031、-0.029和-0.842,表明该类型区回汉混居村贫困程度亦高,经济劣势（C₅~C₇、C₁₇）、政治劣势（C₈）、位置劣势（C₁₈~C₂₀）和生态劣势（C₁₆、C₂₅）并存。因此,侵蚀堆积河谷平川区的汉族村、剥蚀构造丘陵区和侵蚀构造石山区的回汉混居村是减贫重点村。

关键词: 空间贫困, 地理识别, 地理资本, 空间贫困指数, 县域

Abstract:

The innovation of spatial poverty measurement method is the key to precisely allocate poverty alleviation resources and improve the quality of rural poverty alleviation. This paper summarized the three-dimensional analysis framework of spatial poverty and constructed the spatial poverty index system at county scale and the method of geographical identification. With Jingyuan county as a study case, the geographical identification of spatial poverty was carried out. The results can be obtained as follows. (1) Spatial poverty index (SPI) in different geographical areas is listed in the order: Plain Area in Valleys Formed by Erosion and Deposition of Rivers (PAVFEDR) (mean value 1.571) > Denudation Structure in Hilly Regions (DSHR) (mean value -0.199) > Erosion Structure in Mountainous Regions (ESMR) (mean value -0.334), indicating that the highest poverty degree is in ESMR, which should be the main area of poverty alleviation. The common feature of spatial poverty in the three geographical areas is economic disadvantage (C₄-C₇, C₁₇). The main differences are: for PAVFEDR, ecological disadvantage (C₂₅, C₁₆) > economic disadvantage (C₅) > location disadvantage (C₂₀) > political disadvantage (C₈); for DSHR, economic disadvantage (C₅-C₇, C₁₇) > location disadvantage > (C₁₈-C₂₀) > ecological disadvantage (C₁₆, C₂₃-C₂₅) > political disadvantage (C₈); for ESMR, economic disadvantage (C₄-C₇, C₁₇) > political disadvantage (C₈) > location disadvantage (C₁₈-C₂₀) > ecological disadvantage (C₁₆, C₂₁-C₂₅). (2) The rank of SPI for different ethnic villages is as follows: Han villages (mean value 1.484) > Hui villages (mean value 1.262) > Hui-Han mixed villages (mean value 1.033), indicating that Hui-Han mixed villages at county scale should be the key villages for poverty alleviation. The common feature of spatial poverty in different ethnic villages is the economic disadvantage resulting from the long distance to the nearest market (C₁₇), as well as the ecological disadvantage due to less arable land per capita (C₂₃) and small crop area, especially economical crop area (C₂₄). The main differences of spatial poverty in different ethnic villages are ecological disadvantage resulting from poor living conditions and high disaster loss rate in Han villages, as well as economic disadvantage caused by lack of loans (C₅). For Hui villages, it is economic disadvantage caused mainly by low level of knowledge (C₁₂, C₁₃) that leads to the high opportunity cost in entering the market. In Hui-Han mixed villages the differences of production and lifestyle resulted in difficulties in allocation of poverty alleviation resources, consequently the satisfaction rate of poverty alleviation policies (C₈) is the lowest for farmers, reflecting that the political disadvantage of spatial poverty is most significant. (3) There are significant differences in spatial poverty among different ethnic villages in the same physical geographical area. The mean values of SPI for Han, Hui, and Hui-Han mixed villages in PAVFEDR are 0.526, 2.557 and 1.644, respectively, which indicates that the Han villages have a high level of poverty and economic disadvantage (C₅); the mean values of SPI for Hui and Hui-Han mixed villages in DSHR are 0.321 and -1.934, respectively, which indicates that the poverty level for Hui-Han mixed villages is high, and economic disadvantage (C₂, C₆, C₇) and ecological disadvantage (C₁₆) are both significant; the mean values of SPI in Han, Hui and Hui-Han mixed villages in ESMR are 1.031, -0.029 and -0.842, respectively, which indicates that the poverty level of Hui-Han mixed villages is high, and economic disadvantage (C₅-C₇, C₁₇), political disadvantage (C₈), location disadvantage (C₁₈-C₂₀) and ecological disadvantage (C₁₆, C₂₅) are all present. Therefore, the Han-villages in PAVFEDR, Hui-Han mixed villages in both DSHR and ESMR should be the key villages of poverty alleviation.

Key words: spatial poverty, geographical identification, geographical capital, spatial poverty index, county scale

刘小鹏, 李永红, 王亚娟, 郭占军, 郑芳. 县域空间贫困的地理识别研究——以宁夏泾源县为例[J]. 地理学报, 2017, 72(3): 545-557.

Xiaopeng LIU, Yonghong LI, Yajuan WANG, Zhanjun GUO, Fang ZHENG. Geographical identification of spatial poverty at county scale[J]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2017, 72(3): 545-557.

图/表 9

图1

图2

表1

县域空间贫困地理识别指标体系

	维度	序号	指标名称	指标释义
地理资本 A	经济地理资本B₁	C₁	农民人均纯收入(元/人)	以2011年国家标准2300元/人为基数。
		C₂	农闲经济家庭收入贡献率(%)	反应农闲时节贫困农户创收比重。
		C₃	农村恩格尔系数(%)	反应农民的温饱状况,值越大,温饱程度越高。
		C₄	农民生活信息化程度(%)	0.2×彩色电视机普及率+0.4×电话普及率+0.4×计算机普及率。
		C₅	农户贷款满足率(%)	实际贷款金额/期望贷款金额。
		C₆	至少掌握一门致富技术农户比(%)	反应贫困农户可持续致富能力。
		C₇	至少拥有一项致富项目农户比(%)	反应贫困农户可持续致富能力。
		C₈	扶贫政策满意度(%)	包括扶贫政策对脱贫的影响程度,是否存在扶贫政策(项目)区位偏向等,反映是否存在政治劣势。
	社会地理资本B₂	C₉	农村贫困发生率(%)	村贫困人口数量/村总人口数量。
		C₁₀	农村少数民族人数比例(%)	反应不同民族生产生活方式对扶贫脱贫的作用影响。
		C₁₁	农村妇女社会地位提升程度(%)	0.25×妇女体检比率+0.2×参加村级公共事务的妇女比例+0.2×女性劳动时间与男性劳动时间比+0.2×女性平均受教育年限与男性平均受教育年限比+0.15×到本县(区)以外的地方探亲、旅游人数比。
		C₁₂	农村普及义务教育人口覆盖率(%)	反应贫困户“学有所教”社会和政治获得。
		C₁₃	农村青壮年文盲率(%)	反应贫困户“学有所教”社会和政治获得。
		C₁₄	新型农村合作医疗参合率(%)	反应贫困户“病有所医”、“老有所养”社会和政治获得。
		C₁₅	新型农村社会养老保险参保率(%)	反应贫困户“病有所医”、“老有所养”社会和政治获得。
		C₁₆	农村居民居住质量指数	0.1×人均住房面积≥25 m²户数占总户数的比例+0.05×住房结构为钢筋混凝土结构户数占总户数的比例+0.05×住房结构为砖木结构户数占总户数的比例+0.25×饮水状况为自来水的户数占总户数的比例+0.15×家庭能源为燃气和电的户数占总户数的比例+0.25×家庭水冲式卫生厕所占总户数的比例+0.1×室外道路为水泥路或柏油路户数占总户数的比例+0.05×室外道路为石头或石板等硬质路户数占总户数的比例。
	环境地理资本B₃	C₁₇	到最近集市(市场)的距离(km)	指市场的连通性(包括自然连通和人为连通),反应经济整合的脆弱性。
		C₁₈	到最近车站的距离(km)	指市场的连通性(包括自然连通和人为连通),反应经济整合的脆弱性。
		C₁₉	到最近初级中学的距离(km)	指村庄到基础设施(如卫生服务等)的距离,教育的可获得性(到学校距离和成本)。
		C₂₀	到最近乡/镇医院的距离(km)	指村庄到基础设施(如卫生服务等)的距离,教育的可获得性(到学校距离和成本)。
		C₂₁	地形起伏度(m)	代表农业生态基本条件,主要反应土地的可利用性和质量,衡量农业生产率和粮食安全。
		C₂₂	灾损率(%)
		C₂₃	人均耕地面积(hm²/人)
		C₂₄	农作物总播种面积比(%)
		C₂₅	环境质量指数(%)	0.20×生活污水处理率+0.25×生活垃圾处理率+0.30×农药使用量+0.25×化肥使用量。

表1

图3

表2

表3

图4

图5

图6

参考文献 39

[1]	He Renwei, Liu Shaoquan, Chen Guojie, et al.Research progress and tendency of sustainable livelihoods for peasant household in China. Progress in Geography, 2013, 32(4): 657-670. doi: 10.11820/dlkxjz.2013.04.018
	[何仁伟, 刘邵权, 陈国阶, 等. 中国农户可持续生计研究进展及趋向. 地理科学进展, 2013, 32(4): 657-670.] doi: 10.11820/dlkxjz.2013.04.018
[2]	Atkinson A B.Social exclusion, poverty and unemployment//Atkinson A B, Hills J. Exclusion, Employment and Opportunity. London: Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics, 1998.
[3]	Pacione M.Quality of life-research in urban geography. Urban Geography, 2003, 24(3): 314-339.
[4]	Amartya S.Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1983. doi: 10.1016/0306-9192(83)90040-4
[5]	Noble M, Wright G, Smith G, et al.Measuring multiple deprivation at the small-area level. Environment & Planning A, 2006, 38(1): 169-185.
[6]	Yuan Yuan, Xu Xueqiang.Review on foreign geography of deprivation and its enlightenments to urban poverty studies in China. World Regional Studies, 2008, 17(2): 121-128. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-9479.2008.02.016
	[袁媛, 许学强. 国外综合贫困研究及对我国贫困地理研究的启示. 世界地理研究, 2008, 17(2): 121-128.] doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-9479.2008.02.016
[7]	Luo Qing, Li Xiaojian.The research progress of foreign rural poverty geography. Economic Geography, 2014, 34(6): 1-8.
	[罗庆, 李小建. 国外农村贫困地理研究进展. 经济地理, 2014, 34(6): 1-8.]
[8]	Jalan J, Ravallion. M.Spatial Poverty Traps. The World Bank, Development Research Group, 1997.
[9]	Bird K, Shepherd A.Livelihoods and chronic poverty in semiarid Zimbabwe. World Development, 2003, 31(3): 591-610. doi: 10.1016/S0305-750X(02)00220-6
[10]	Kam S, Hossain M, Bose M L, et al.Spatial patterns of rural poverty and their relationship with welfare influencing factors in Bangladesh. Food Policy, 2005, 30(5): 551-567. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2005.10.001
[11]	Epprecht M, Müller D, Minot N.How remote are Vietnam's ethnic minorities? An Analysis of spatial patterns of poverty and inequality. The Annals of Regional Science, 2011, 46(2): 349-368. doi: 10.1007/s00168-009-0330-7
[12]	Okwi P O, Ndeng G, Kristjanson P, et al.Spatial determinants of poverty in rural Kenya. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2007, 104(43): 16769-16774. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0611107104 pmid: 17942704
[13]	Olivia S, Gibson J, Rozelle S, et al.Mapping poverty in rural China: How much does the environment matter?Environment and Development Economics, 2011(16): 129-153. doi: 10.1017/S1355770X10000513
[14]	Elbers C, Fujii T, Lanjouw P, et al.Poverty alleviation through geographic targeting: How much does disaggregation help? Journal of Development Economics, 2007, 83(1): 198-213. doi: 10.1016/j.jdeveco.2006.02.001
[15]	Huddleston B, Ataman E, Salvatore M et al. A geospatial framework for the analysis of poverty and environment links. Environment and Natural Resources. Working Paper (FAO), 2006.
[16]	Burke W J, Jayne T S.Spatial disadvantages or spatial poverty traps: Household evidence from rural Kenya. Michigan State University, Development Working Paper No. 93. 2008.
[17]	Murayama Y, Thapa R B.Spatial analysis and modeling in geographical transformation process: GIS-based applications. Springer Science & Business Media, 2011. doi: 10.1177/0743558413510968
[18]	Thongdara Romanee, Samarakoon Lal, Shrestha Ra jendra P, et al. Using GIS and spatial statistics to target poverty and improve poverty alleviation programs: A case study in Northeast Thailand. Spatial Analysis, 2012, (5): 157-182. doi: 10.1007/s12061-011-9066-8
[19]	The World Bank.More than a pretty picture:using poverty maps to design better policies and interventions. Washington D C: The World Bank, 2007.
[20]	Jiang Dehua.Types and Development of Poor Areas in China. Beijing: Tourism Education Press, 1989: 38-220.
	[姜德华. 中国的贫困地区类型及开发. 北京: 旅游教育出版社, 1989: 38-220.]
[21]	Qu Wei, Tu Qin, Niu Shuwen.Review on the relationship between poverty and environment. Gansu Social Sciences, 2010(1): 103-106. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-3637.2010.01.026
	[曲玮, 涂勤, 牛叔文. 贫困与地理环境关系的相关研究述评. 甘肃社会科学, 2010(1): 103-106.] doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-3637.2010.01.026
[22]	Feng Yan.The study on the types of poverty and alleviation on poverty in the Great Rivers' Area of Northwestern Yunnan. Yunnan Geographic Environment Research, 2001, 13(1): 87-93. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-7852.2001.01.012
	[冯彦. 滇西北“大河流域”区贫困类型及脱贫研究. 云南地理环境研究, 2001, 13(1): 87-93.] doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-7852.2001.01.012
[23]	Liu Yanhua, Xu Yong.Geographical identification and classification of multi-dimensional poverty in rural China. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2015, 70(6): 993-1007. doi: 10.11821/dlxb201506012
	[刘艳华, 徐勇. 中国农村多维贫困地理识别及类型划分. 地理学报, 2015, 70(6): 993-1007.] doi: 10.11821/dlxb201506012
[24]	Zhang Yutao, Li Jimei, Chang Shunli, et al.Spatial distribution pattern of Picea schrenkiana population in the Middle Tianshan Mountains and the relationship with topographic attributes. Journal of Arid Land, 2012, 4(1): 457-468. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1227.2012.00457
[25]	Ding Jianjun.Comparative analysis on poverty degree of China's 11 contiguous destitute areas:with view of comprehensive development index. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 2014, 34(12): 1418-1427.
	[丁建军. 中国11个集中连片特困区贫困程度比较研究: 基于综合发展指数计算的视角. 地理科学, 2014, 34(12): 1418-1427.]
[26]	Yuan Yuan, Wang Yanglin, Ma Jing, et al.Multidimensional evaluation of county poverty degree in Hebei Province. Progress in Geography, 2014, 34(1): 124-133. doi: 10.11820/dlkxjz.2014.01.014
	[袁媛, 王仰麟, 马晶, 等. 河北省县域贫困度多维评估. 地理科学进展, 2014, 34(1): 124-133.] doi: 10.11820/dlkxjz.2014.01.014
[27]	Yuan Yuan, Wu Fulong, Xu Xueqiang.The spatial pattern of poverty and deprivation in transitional Chinese city: Analysis of area-based indicators and individual data. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2009, 64(6): 753-763. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0375-5444.2009.06.012
	[袁媛, 吴缚龙, 许学强. 转型期中国城市贫困和剥夺的空间模式. 地理学报, 2009, 64(6): 753-763.] doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0375-5444.2009.06.012
[28]	Liu Xiaopeng, Su Shengliang, Wang Yajuan, et al.The index system of spatial poverty of village level to monitor in concentrated contiguous areas with particular difficulties. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 2014, 34(4): 447-453.
	[刘小鹏, 苏胜亮, 王亚娟, 等. 集中连片特殊困难地区村域空间贫困测度指标体系研究. 地理科学, 2014, 34(4): 447-453.]
[29]	Liu Xiaopeng, Su Xiaofang, Wang Yajuan, et al.Review on spatial poverty and deprivation and its enlightenments to poverty geography studies in China. Arid Land Geography, 2014, 37(1): 144-152.
	[刘小鹏, 苏晓芳, 王亚娟, 等. 空间贫困研究及其对我国贫困地理研究的启示. 干旱区地理, 2014, 37(1): 144-152.]
[30]	Jalan J, Ravallion M.Geographic poverty traps? A micro model of consumption growth in rural China. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 2002, 17(4): 329-346.
[31]	Bird K, Mckay A, Shinyekwa I., 2007.
[32]	Chen Guang, Zhang Fengrong, Zhang Bailin.Change in land use form of rural settlements in the farming-pastoral transitional zone: A case study in Aluke'rqin Banner, Inner Mongolia. Progress in Geography, 2015, 34(10): 1316-1323. doi: 10.18306/dlkxjz.2015.10.012
	[晨光, 张凤荣, 张佰林. 农牧交错区农村居民点土地利用形态演变: 以内蒙古自治区阿鲁科尔沁旗为例. 地理科学进展, 2015, 34(10): 1316-1323.] doi: 10.18306/dlkxjz.2015.10.012
[33]	Wang Yanhui, Qian Leyi, Duan Fuzhou.Multidimensional poverty measurement and spatial distribution pattern at the country scale: A case study on key country from national contiguous special poverty-stricken areas. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 2013, 33(12): 1489-1497.
	[王艳慧, 钱乐毅, 段福洲. 县级多维贫困度量及其空间分布格局研究: 以连片特困区扶贫重点县为例. 地理科学, 2013, 33(12): 1489-1497.]
[34]	Zeng Yongming, Zhang Guo.Spatial simulating in regional rural poverty based on GIS and BP Neural Network: A new appraisement method on regional rural poverty. Geography and Geo-Information Science, 2011, 27(2): 70-75.
	[曾永明, 张果. 基于GIS和BP神经网络的区域农村贫困空间模拟分析: 一种区域贫困程度测度新方法. 地理与地理信息科学, 2011, 27(2): 70-75.]
[35]	He Fen, Zhao Yanxia.Experience of poverty reduction of "contiguous poor areas with special difficulties" in USA and Japan. World Regional Studies, 2015, 24(4): 20-29. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-9479.2015.04.003
	[何芬, 赵燕霞. 美、日促进集中连片特困地区减贫的经验借鉴. 世界地理研究, 2015, 24(4): 20-29.] doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-9479.2015.04.003
[36]	Cao Shisong, Zhao Wenji, Duan Fuzhou.Coupling relation analysis between ecological value and economic poverty of contiguous destitute areas in Qinling-Dabashan region. Geographical Research, 2015, 34(7): 1295-1309. doi: 10.11821/dlyj201507009
	[曹诗颂, 赵文吉, 段福洲. 秦巴特困连片区生态资产与经济贫困的耦合关系. 地理研究, 2015, 34(7): 1295-1309.] doi: 10.11821/dlyj201507009
[37]	Tong Yuquan, Long Hualou.Study on sustainable development in the poor areas coupled with vulnerable eco-environment. China's Population, Resources and Environment, 2003, 13(2): 47-51. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-2104.2003.02.010
	[佟玉权, 龙花楼. 脆弱生态环境耦合下的贫困地区可持续发展研究. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2003, 13(2): 47-51.] doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-2104.2003.02.010
[38]	Long Hualou.Land consolidation and rural spatial restructuring. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2013, 68(8): 1019-1028.
	[龙花楼. 论土地整治与乡村空间重构. 地理学报, 2013, 68(8): 1019-1028.]
[39]	Long Hualou, Tu Shuangshuang, Ge Dazhuan.Effects of new-type urbanization on poverty alleviation and development and corresponding countermeasures. Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, 2016, 31(3): 309-319.
	[龙花楼, 屠爽爽, 戈大专. 新型城镇化对扶贫开发的影响与应对研究. 中国科学院院刊, 2016, 31(3): 309-319.]

地理资本C	相关系数r	显著性水平t	地理资本C	相关系数r	显著性水平t
C₁	1.000	0.000	C₁₄	0.061^*	0.031
C₂	0.311^*	0.011	C₁₅	-0.243^*	0.049
C₃	0.575^**	0.000	C₁₆	0.423^**	0.000
C₄	0.077	0.159	C₁₇	-0.051	0.285
C₅	0.288^*	0.019	C₁₈	-0.082	0.215
C₆	0.223	0.072	C₁₉	-0.175	0.159
C₇	0.299^*	0.015	C₂₀	-0.130	0.297
C₈	0.345^**	0.005	C₂₁	-0.295^*	0.016
C₉	-0.310^*	0.012	C₂₂	-0.353^**	0.004
C₁₀	0.095	0.149	C₂₃	-0.201	0.106
C₁₁	-0.397^**	0.001	C₂₄	0.235	0.057
C₁₂	-0.110	0.098	C₂₅	-0.397^**	0.001
C₁₃	-0.212	0.088