论文部分内容阅读
当前农业生产面临新挑战与新机遇,农户人力、自然、物质、金融、社会与心理资产也随之变化。鉴于此,本文以改进的DFID可持续生计分析框架为理论依据,选取23个农户生计资产指标,采用主观实地调研修正权重与客观熵值法确权相结合的方法,对湖北省农户的六维生计资产进行了量化评估及差异性分析。研究发现:(1)农户生计总资产差异性显著,极差高达5.06倍;农户分维资产分布不均,且差异明显;(2)纯农户、一兼农户、二兼农户与非农户生计总资产分布不均,且极差较大,但兼业农户的生计总资产高于纯农户;(3)不同类型农户的分维生计资产优劣不同,人力、社会与心理资产方面,一兼农户与非农户占优;物质资产方面,纯农户与二兼农户具有明显优势;金融资产方面,非农户与二兼农户占优;自然资产方面,一兼农户与纯农户具有明显优势;(4)不同类型农户的分维心理资产存在明显差异,一兼农户与纯农户的自信指数较高,非农户与一兼农户幸福感指数略高,纯农户与一兼农户能较为直观且客观的对环境感知给出评价,且评价值相近,纯农户与非农户的韧性指数较高,兼业化农户与非农户容易受到风险因素的影响。
At present, agricultural production is facing new challenges and new opportunities. As a result, the human, natural, material, financial, social and psychological assets of farmers also change. In view of this, this paper, based on the improved framework of DFID sustainable livelihood analysis, selects 23 indicators of livelihood assets and combines the correct weight of subjective field investigation with the objective entropy method to evaluate the six-dimensional Livelihood assets were quantitatively assessed and analyzed for differences. The results showed that: (1) The total assets of farmer households were significantly different, with an extremely high 5.06-fold difference. The distribution of multi-dimensional assets of farmer households was uneven with obvious differences. (2) The total livelihoods of pure farmer, Assets are distributed unevenly, and the range is very large, but the total livelihood of part-time farmers is higher than that of pure farmers; (3) The merits of different types of peasant’s livelihood are different, and that of human, social and psychological assets And non-farmer households dominate; in terms of physical assets, pure farmer and second-farmer have obvious advantages; in terms of financial assets, non-farmer and second-farmer dominate; natural assets have the obvious advantages of one-farmer and farmer; (4) There are obvious differences in the fractal dimension assets between different types of farmers. The index of self-esteem of one-farmer and pure farmer is higher, the index of happiness of non-farmer and one-farmer is slightly higher, and pure farmer and one-farmer can be more intuitive and objective Perception given evaluation, and the evaluation values are similar, pure toughness index of non-agricultural households and higher, part-time farmers and non-agricultural households are vulnerable to risk factors.