| The report of the 20 th National Congress of the Communist Party of China pointed out that the modernization of Chinese style is the modernization of harmonious coexistence between man and nature.China has been piloting 10 national parks nationwide since 2017,and will officially set up five national parks including the giant panda in 2021.With the rapid development of national park construction,our country is constantly strengthening the ecological environmental control and strict ecological protection,"using the most strictly system and the most rigorous rule of law to protect the ecological environment".However,with the continuous strengthening of ecological control,the production and living space of residents around the protected areas is increasingly squeezed,and some residents’ livelihood risks are exposed and their livelihood vulnerability are increased.Therefore,it is urgent to promote the transformation of their traditional extensive livelihood strategies.In addition,the lack of relevant supporting policies,such as ecological compensation and livelihood transformation support,further intensifies the contradiction between "ecological protection and farmers’ livelihood development" of communities in protected areas.Then,what is the level of ecological control farmers are subjected to? Does ecological regulation affect farmers’ livelihood strategy selection? How does ecological regulation affect farmers’ livelihood strategy selection?Does subsidy policy regulate the impact of ecological regulation on farmers’ livelihood strategy selection? These questions have not been effectively answered in the existing literature.Therefore,under the realistic background of the gradual implementation of ecological regulation in national parks and the deepening impact on farmers’ livelihoods,it is necessary to explore the impact and mechanism of ecological regulation on farmers’ livelihood strategy selection,which has important theoretical and practical references for formulating targeted support policies for farmers’ ecological compensation and livelihood transformation,and promoting the construction of national parks and beautiful China with high quality.Based on the Giant Panda National Park and the practice of ecological regulation,this paper studies the key scientific issue of the impact of ecological regulation on Peasant households’ livelihood strategy selection and its mechanism by centering on the practical problems of "the in coordination between ecological protection and Peasant households’ livelihood development" and "the incompatibility between Peasant households’ livelihood transformation and supporting policies for transformation" in the construction of national parks.The general theoretical analysis framework of "ecological regulation-livelihood capital & risk perception-Peasant households’ livelihood strategy selection" is set up.Using the entropy weight method,cluster analysis method,discrete selection model,mediation effect model and other empirical analysis methods,on the basis of effectively overcoming the identification problems of "mutual causation" and "sample selection bias",(1)The ecological regulation level was measured from the micro scale of Peasant households and its influence on Peasant households’ livelihood strategy selection was tested.(2)Based on the dual approach of livelihood capital and risk perception,the mediation effect model was used to test the mediating role of livelihood capital and risk perception in the influence of ecological regulation on Peasant households’ livelihood strategy selection.The main research contents and conclusions of this paper are as follows.(1)The overall ecological regulation of farmers is restricted,but there are partial bans on land use,infrastructure construction and biological resources utilization.The industrial management regulation varies the most among farmers,and the level of ecological regulation has distinct regional differences,while the differences among groups with different economic and social characteristics are small.The results showed that:(1)The average value of the overall level of ecological regulation of the sample farmers was 1.8,which was mainly reflected in the level of "restricted use",but the average value of the three aspects of land factor use,infrastructure construction and biological resources use was more than 2,indicating that there was "definitely prohibited use behavior".(2)In ecological control,the weight of industrial management control is the largest,accounting for 54.8%,followed by biomass resource utilization control,infrastructure construction control and land element use control,with the weight of 25.8%,10.4% and 9%,respectively.(3)The maximum difference of the overall level of farmers’ ecological regulation among counties was0.548,while the difference between the national park and the outside was 0.468.(4)There was no significant difference between poor households and non-poor households,between high income group and low income group,and between high agricultural livelihood dependence group and low agricultural livelihood dependence group.(2)Ecological regulation significantly promoted peasant households to choose non-agricultural livelihood strategies,and this effect was different among Peasant households of different ethnic groups,human capital and income,but it was not adjusted by the current subsidy policy.The empirical analysis shows that:(1)Ecological regulation has a significant positive impact on Peasant households’ choice of non-agricultural oriented livelihood strategies,especially promoting their choice of working-oriented livelihood strategies,but has no significant impact on non-agricultural management oriented livelihood strategies and subsidy-dependent oriented livelihood strategies.(2)The heterogeneity analysis shows that the positive effects of ecological regulation on Peasant households’ non-agricultural livelihood strategies and working-oriented livelihood strategies are more obvious in the Han ethnic group,high human capital and high income Peasant households.(3)The adjustment analysis showed that the current subsidy level was generally low,leading to the ecological subsidies and agricultural subsidies did not play a regulatory role in the impact of ecological regulation on Peasant households’ non-agricultural livelihood strategy selection.(3)Livelihood capital plays a partial mediating role in the influence of ecological regulation on Peasant households’ livelihood strategy selection,which has both comprehensive effect and classification effect.The mechanism analysis shows that:(1)From the perspective of comprehensive effects,ecological regulation can increase the probability of Peasant households choosing non-agricultural livelihood strategies by reducing the total level of Peasant households’ livelihood capital,and the mediating effect accounts for 38.9% of the total effect.(2)In terms of classification effect,ecological regulation mainly improves the probability of Peasant households choosing non-agricultural livelihood strategies by reducing the level of natural capital and material capital of Peasant households,and its mediating effect accounts for25.7% and 6.92% of the total effect,respectively,while human capital,financial capital and social capital do not play an intermediary role.(4)Risk perception plays a partial mediating role in the influence of ecological regulation on Peasant households’ livelihood strategy selection,which has both comprehensive effect and classification effect.The mechanism analysis shows that:(1)From the perspective of comprehensive effects,ecological regulation can improve the probability of Peasant households choosing non-agricultural livelihood strategies by improving the overall level of Peasant households’ risk perception,and its intermediary effect accounts for 25% of the total effect.(2)In terms of classification effect,ecological regulation mainly increases the probability of Peasant households choosing non-agricultural livelihood strategies by improving their cognition level of ecological regulation subsidy policies and wildlife damage risks.The mediating effect accounts for 13.28% and 5.4% of the total effect,respectively,while the risk of ecological regulation intensity does not play an intermediary role.Based on the theoretical analysis and empirical results,this paper puts forward the following policy implications:(1)Attach importance to the subjective initiative of farmers and construct the independent employment service network.(2)Aiming at farmers’ livelihood strategies and encouraging diversified development of ecological industries.(3)Grasp the characteristics of farmers’ livelihood capital,optimize the structure of household livelihood capital.(4)Improve the financial investment transfer mechanism to promote the timely implementation of supporting policies.(5)Clarify the negative effects derived from regulation and promote the control of wildlife damage.The value and innovation of this paper is mainly reflected in three aspects:(1)It constructs the general theoretical analysis framework of "ecological regulation-livelihood capital-risk perception-farmers’ livelihood strategy choice",and extends the content of regulation theory,farmers’ behavior theory and sustainable livelihood analysis framework.(2)An index system for measuring the level of ecological regulation of peasant households at the micro level is constructed,which provides a reference for measuring the level of regulation faced by micro-subjects.(3)It provides new evidence for the conclusion that "rational individuals have self-adaptive behaviors when facing external constraints" in management theory. |
PDF Full Text Request