大渡河上游不同地带居民对环境退化的响应

doi:10.11821/xb200602004

地理学报 ›› 2006, Vol. 61 ›› Issue (2): 146-156.doi: 10.11821/xb200602004

大渡河上游不同地带居民对环境退化的响应

阎建忠^1,2, 张镱锂², 朱会义², 摆万奇², 郑度²

1. 西南大学资源环境学院, 重庆 400716;
2. 中国科学院地理科学与资源研究所, 北京 100101

收稿日期:2005-03-22 修回日期:2005-10-17 出版日期:2006-02-25 发布日期:2006-02-25
通讯作者: 张镱锂, zhangyl@igsnrr.ac.cn
作者简介:阎建忠 (1972-), 男, 重庆忠县人, 博士后, 副教授, 中国地理学会会员。从事地理学综合研究.E-mail: yanjz@igsnrr.ac.cn
基金资助:
国家重点基础研究发展计划 (2005CB422006); 国家自然科学基金项目 (40471009, 40261003, 30270256); 中国科学院知识创新工程重要方向项目 (KZCX3-SW-339)

Residents' Response to Environmental Degradation: Case Studies from Three Villages in the Upper Dadu River Watershed

YAN Jianzhong^1,2, ZHANG Yili², BAI Wanqi², ZHU Huiyi², ZHENG Du²

1. College of Resources & Environment, Southwest University, Chongqing 400716, China;
2. Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, CAS, Beijing 100101, China

Received:2005-03-22 Revised:2005-10-17 Online:2006-02-25 Published:2006-02-25
Supported by:
National Basic Research Program of China, No.2005CB422006; National Natural Science Foundation of China, No.40471009; No.40261003; No30270256; Knowledge Innovation Project, No.KZCX3-SW-339

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

青藏高原的环境退化引起了极大的关注,但农牧民如何认识和响应环境退化,还缺乏实证研究。采用参与性农村评估法,对大渡河上游不同地带典型村 (位于河谷区的丹扎木村、中山区的克尔马村和山原区的日科村) 的农牧民进行调查和对比分析。研究表明：① 大渡河上游不同地带的居民对环境退化具有不同的响应过程。河谷区通过劳动力向二、三产业转移,缓解了人口压力,采取积极的措施来应对自然灾害和森林退化;中山区以劳动力向二、三产业转移和发展畜牧业来缓解人口压力,没有采取积极的措施应对环境退化;山原区的劳动力不能转移到二、三产业,只能通过增加牲畜数量来解决生计,牧民仅采取一些积极的措施来应对草料不足的问题和雪灾等自然灾害。在大渡河上游,最脆弱的区域是中山区和山原区,而不是人口压力大的河谷区。② 生计方式是影响居民响应人口压力和环境退化的关键因素。基于居民的生计方式来解释和解决生态脆弱区的人口压力和环境退化问题,将是一个新的方向。③ 劳动力向二、三产业转移有利于居民改善生计。降低教育收费和进行基础设施建设,将加快劳动力向二、三产业转移。

关键词: 环境退化, 响应, 大渡河上游, 生计方式, 青藏高原

Abstract:

Environmental degeneration in the Tibetan Plateau has attracted great attention worldwide. However, case studies on how the residents understand and respond to environmental degeneration are scarce. Using Participatory Rural Appraisal method, this paper investigated how the people in different regions in the upper reaches of the Dadu River watershed understood and responded to environmental degradation, based on comparative field surveys in three villages, in which Danzamu village chosen from villages in the valley region, Kerma village from mountainside region and Rico village from mountain and plateau region. The results show that: (1) although realizing environmental degeneration, the villages in different regions responded diversely. As labor forces were transferred to the secondary and tertiary industries, population pressure in Danzamu and Kerma villages were relaxed. Residents in Danzamu village actively responded to natural hazards and forest degradation, as their livelihoods never relied on forest and rangeland. Whereas, the residents in Kerma village passively responded to natural hazards, forest and meadow degradation and exhausting of wildlife resources, as their livelihoods still relied on animal husbandry. Labor forces in Rico village were hard to be transferred to the secondary and tertiary industries, so they had to raise more livestock to make a living. Active measures were taken to avoid climate induced loss, not to avoid forest and meadow degradation and exhausting of wildlife resources. So the most fragile regions are the mountain and plateau region and mountainside region, not the valley region. (2) Livelihood strategy is the key factor affecting the villages to respond to population pressure and environmental degradation. So the framework of livelihood strategy should be used to explain and intervene in issues of population pressure and environmental degradation in ecotones. (3) Transferring labor forces to the secondary and tertiary industries was in favor of improving people's living standard. It is necessary to reduce education fee to speed up the pace of labor forces transferring in mountainside region. In mountain and plateau region, preferable ways also include development of towns, highways, education equipments and other establishments and, above all, the industrialization of traditional animal husbandry.

Key words: environmental degradation, response, the upper Dadu River watershed, livelihood strategy, Tibetan Plateau

阎建忠, 张镱锂, 朱会义, 摆万奇, 郑度. 大渡河上游不同地带居民对环境退化的响应[J]. 地理学报, 2006, 61(2): 146-156.

YAN Jianzhong, ZHANG Yili, BAI Wanqi, ZHU Huiyi, ZHENG Du. Residents' Response to Environmental Degradation: Case Studies from Three Villages in the Upper Dadu River Watershed[J]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2006, 61(2): 146-156.

参考文献

[1] Wang Genxu, Ding Yongjian, Wang Jian et al. Land ecological changes and evolutional patterns in the source regions of the Yangtze and Yellow rivers in recent 15 years. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2004, 59(2): 163-173.
[王根绪, 丁永建, 王建等. 近15年来长江黄河源区的土地覆被变化. 地理学报, 2004, 59(2): 163-173.]

[2] Wang Xiuhong, Fu Xiaofeng. Sustainable management of alpine meadows on the Tibetan Plateau: problems overlooked and suggestions for change. Ambio, 2004, 33(3): 153-154.

[3] Zhao Xinquan, Zhou Xingmin. Ecological basis of alpine meadow ecosystem management in Tibet: Haibei alpine meadow ecosystem research station. Ambio, 1999, 28: 639-641.

[4] Cui Guanyuan, Zhou Mingxiu, Zhang Shengqing. Viewpoints and countermeasures on constructing of ecological animal husbandry in Guoluo pasturing area. Qinghai Prataculture, 2003, 12(2): 19-22.
[崔关苑, 周明秀, 张生庆. 果洛牧区草地生态畜牧业建设的思考及对策. 青海草业, 2003, 12(2): 19-21.]

[5] Wen Chengzhi. Doing well for the reconstruction of homestead stockfarms to promote modernized development of animal raising industry. Sichuan Grassland, 1998(4): 16-18.
[文成志. 搞好家庭牧场建设促进现代化畜牧业发展. 四川草原, 1998(4): 16-18.]

[6] Talash. Herdsman settlement is the key of developing pasturing area economy. Xinjiang Livestock Industry, 1986, 4: 2-3.
[塔拉什. 实现牧民定居是牧区经济发展的关键. 新疆畜牧业, 1986, 4: 2-3.]

[7] Wang Aimin, Liu Jialin, Gao Xiang. On the human-environment systems in the north-eastern border of Tibetan Plateau and its surrounding areas. Economic Geography, 2000, 20(2): 31-35.
[王爱民, 刘加林, 高翔. 青藏高原东北缘及其毗邻地区人地关系地域系统研究. 经济地理, 2000, 20(2): 31-35.]

[8] Brogaard Sara, Zhao Xueyong. Rural reforms and changes in land management and attitudes: a case study from Inner Mongolia, China. Ambio, 2002, 31(3): 212-218.

[9] Diegues A S. The role of cultural diversity and communal participation management in Brazil. Landscape and Urban Planning, 1991, 20(1-3): 61-66.

[10] Benjaminsen Tor A. Fuelwood and desertification: Sahel orthodoxies discussed on the basis of field data from the Gourma region in Mali. Geoforum, 1993, 24(4): 397-409.

[11] Chambers Robert. Rural Appraisal: Rapid, Relaxes and Participatory. Institute of Development Studies, UK, 1992.

[12] Zhao Jie, Zhao Shidong. Application of the Participatory Rural Appraisal method in the research of land use change at local dimension: a case study of Yaoledianze village in Korqin Sand. Resources Science, 2003, 25(5): 52-57.
[赵杰, 赵士洞. 参与性评估法在小尺度土地利用变化研究中的应用: 以科尔沁山地尧勒甸子村为例. 资源科学, 2003, 25(5): 52-57.]

[13] Huang Zongzhi. The Peasant Family and Rural Development in the Yangzi River Delta. Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company, 2000.
[
[美]黄宗智. 长江三角洲小农与农村发展. 北京: 中华书局, 2000.]

[14] Lambin E F, Turner B L, Geist H J et al. The causes of land-use and land-cover change: moving beyond the myths. Global Environmental Change, 2001, (11): 261-269.

[15] Wilkes Andreas. Using the sustainable livelihoods framework to understand agro-pastoralist livelihoods in NW Yunnan. Center for Biodiversity and Indigenous Knowledge, Community Livelihoods Program Working Paper 2, 1993.

[16] Ashley C, D Carney. Sustainable livelihoods: Lessons from early experience. London, UK: Department for International Development, 1999.

[17] Goldman, Ian. Sustainable Livelihoods Approaches: Origins, Applications to Aquatic Research and Future Directions. Conference on Practical Strategies for Poverty Targeted Research. Hanoi, Vietnam, 2000.

[18] DIFD. Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets. Department for International Development, 2000.

[19] Li Jincheng. Building up new development viewpoints and promoting harmonious development between man and nature in the source regions of the Yangtze River, Yellow River and Lanchang River. Journal of Qinghai Environment, 2004, 14(2): 47-49.
[李津成. 树立科学发展观促进三江源地区人与自然和谐发展. 青海环境, 2004, 14(2): 47-49.]

[20] Zheng Lisia. An analysis of household livelihoods in Tuomunan village, Xianggelila county, NW Yunnan. Center for Biodiversity and Indigenous Knowledge, Community Livelihoods Program Working Paper 5, 2003.

大渡河上游不同地带居民对环境退化的响应

Residents' Response to Environmental Degradation: Case Studies from Three Villages in the Upper Dadu River Watershed

PDF (PC)

赞

可视化

被引次数

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	黄海, 田尤, 刘建康, 张佳佳, 杨东旭, 杨顺. 藏东地区斜坡土壤冻融侵蚀力学机制及敏感性分析[J]. 地理学报, 2021, 76(1): 87-100.
[2]	封志明, 李文君, 李鹏, 肖池伟. 青藏高原地形起伏度及其地理意义[J]. 地理学报, 2020, 75(7): 1359-1372.
[3]	孙思奥, 王晶, 戚伟. 青藏高原地区城乡虚拟水贸易格局与影响因素[J]. 地理学报, 2020, 75(7): 1346-1358.
[4]	梁馨月, 徐梦珍, 吕立群, 崔一飞, 张风宝. 基于地貌特征的青藏高原边缘泥石流沟分类[J]. 地理学报, 2020, 75(7): 1373-1385.
[5]	冯雨雪, 李广东. 青藏高原城镇化与生态环境交互影响关系分析[J]. 地理学报, 2020, 75(7): 1386-1405.
[6]	许珺, 徐阳, 胡蕾, 王振波. 基于位置大数据的青藏高原人类活动时空模式[J]. 地理学报, 2020, 75(7): 1406-1417.
[7]	王楠, 王会蒙, 杜云艳, 易嘉伟, 刘张, 涂文娜. 青藏高原人口流入流出时空模式研究[J]. 地理学报, 2020, 75(7): 1418-1431.
[8]	王彦君, 吴保生, 钟德钰. 黄河下游主槽断面形态对水沙变化响应过程的模拟[J]. 地理学报, 2020, 75(7): 1494-1511.
[9]	戚伟, 刘盛和, 周亮. 青藏高原人口地域分异规律及“胡焕庸线”思想应用[J]. 地理学报, 2020, 75(2): 255-267.
[10]	田晶, 郭生练, 刘德地, 陈启会, 王强, 尹家波, 吴旭树, 何绍坤. 气候与土地利用变化对汉江流域径流的影响[J]. 地理学报, 2020, 75(11): 2307-2318.
[11]	刘玉洁, 葛全胜, 戴君虎. 全球变化下作物物候研究进展[J]. 地理学报, 2020, 75(1): 14-24.
[12]	范科科, 张强, 孙鹏, 宋长青, 余慧倩, 朱秀迪, 申泽西. 青藏高原土壤水分变化对近地面气温的影响[J]. 地理学报, 2020, 75(1): 82-97.
[13]	高星, 康世昌, 刘青松, 陈鹏飞, 段宗奇. 1899—2011年青藏高原南部枪勇错沉积物磁性矿物的环境意义[J]. 地理学报, 2020, 75(1): 68-81.
[14]	黄木易, 岳文泽, 方斌, 冯少茹. 1970-2015年大别山区生态服务价值尺度响应特征及地理探测机制[J]. 地理学报, 2019, 74(9): 1904-1920.
[15]	郭超,蒙红卫,马玉贞,李丹丹,胡彩莉,刘杰瑞,雒聪文,王凯. 藏南羊卓雍错沉积物元素地球化学记录的过去2000年环境变化[J]. 地理学报, 2019, 74(7): 1345-1362.