【作者】 曾维军；

【导师】 侯明明；

【作者基本信息】 昆明理工大学 ， 资源环境规划与管理， 2014， 博士

【摘要】 农业面源污染是洱海流域水环境污染的最大污染源,化肥的不合理使用是造成农业面源污染的主要原因,传统的施肥观念与方式、对化肥利用率的认知又是造成化肥使用不合理的主要影响因素。鉴于洱海流域农业面源污染的严峻形势,2008年以来,洱海流域内各级人民政府共筹措资金30亿元,通过修建环湖截污管道、在河道入湖口修建湿地等方式治理洱海污染,但由于农业面源污染的分散性、随机性等特点,没能从根源上遏制洱海流域农业面源污染的危害。洱源县6乡镇位于洱海流域的上游,每年通过6乡镇注入洱海的水量约占其补水总量的70%。在农业生产中减少化肥施用量,可以有效减少农业面源污染,那么,能否利用洱海流域部分污染治理资金及生态转移支付资金用于洱源县农户减施化肥生态补偿,从源头上治理洱海流域的农业面源污染?化肥施用量在洱源县历年粮食生产中的作用如何?研究区农户在农业生产中确定施肥量、减施化肥意愿受哪些因素影响?不同农作物在不同减施化肥处理中的生态补偿标准是多少?围绕上述问题,本文分别对洱源县30年间化肥等农业生产资料投入对粮食产量的影响变化以及农户确定施肥量、参与减施化肥的影响因素进行了理论分析与实证研究；并以农用地经济等为依据,将研究区耕地划分为高、中、低三等,分别核算出水稻、玉米、大麦在不同减施化肥处理及不同耕地等级的生态补偿标准。本文主要研究内容及相关结论如下：研究内容一：化肥等农业生产资料投入对粮食产量的影响。本部分研究目标是确定不同阶段各种农业生产资料投入中化肥对粮食产量的影响及变化,为研究区种植农作物减施化肥提供理论基础。本研究利用1983-2012年洱源县统计年鉴共30年数据进行了实证分析。研究结果表明：化肥的投入-产出效益低于有效灌溉面积、粮食播种面积、农业机械总动力；在四阶段化肥年增长率相同的情况下,1983-2012年四阶段化肥对粮食产量的投入-产出效益呈逐步下降的趋势,第四阶段(2008-2012)比第一阶段(1983-1995)下降了7.8倍,四阶段化肥对粮食产量的贡献率最高的为第二阶段。研究内容二：研究区农户施肥现状及农户确定施肥量、参与减施化肥意愿的影响因素。本部分研究目标是确定农户对控制农业面源污染的认知、态度与动机,农户确定施肥量及参与减施化肥的影响因素,为政府部门决策提供理论支持。本部分研究结果表明：农户施肥行为以农作物产量最大、经济效益最高为目标,施肥行为主观性强,存在过量施肥、施肥结构不合理、化肥利用率低等问题；农户参与减施化肥的愿望较强烈,参与的动机前三位主要为政府有补贴并组织培训,全镇、全村统一实行,减少农业生产成本支出。对农户施肥量有影响的公因子大小排序为：农户个人特征>农户对环境污染的认知>政府涉农政策>农户家庭特征。对农户参与减施化肥有影响的公因子大小排序为：政府涉农政策>农户对化肥的认知>农户个人特征>农户家庭特征。研究内容三：‘核算出研究区主要粮食作物在不同减施化肥处理的生态补偿标准。本部分研究目标是确定不同等级耕地种植的主要粮食作物在不同减施化肥处理的生态补偿标准,以此评价农户在参与减施化肥、控制农业面源污染的损失。首先,以研究区农用地分等定级经济等为依据,确定了水稻、玉米、大麦高产田标准分别为>643、>638、>384kg/亩；中产田标准分别为526-643、522-638、314-384kg/亩；低产田标准分别为<526、<522、<314kg/亩。其次,构建研究区成本-收益函数模型,以常规施肥为参照,核算出了水稻、玉米、大麦在不同减施化肥处理中在高、中、低等级产田的生态补偿标准。最后,根据各个乡镇不同粮食种植面积及耕地等级,经测算,在分别实施测土配方施肥处理、减半施肥处理、不施肥处理时,6乡镇3种粮食作物的补偿总额分别为-4955.0、3181.2、9209.6万元。综合三方面研究内容得出以下结论：(1)由于存在过量施肥、施肥结构不合理、化肥利用率低等问题,化肥施用量对粮食产量的增产效应逐步下降,研究区农户现有施肥方式存在减施化肥的空间。(2)农户施肥量主要受农户对待风险的态度、性别、文化程度等个人特征与农户对环境污染的认知影响。政府补贴与政府组织教育培训是农户决定是否参与减施化肥的关键因素；农户对化肥利用率与品牌的认知对农户是否参与减施化肥产生较大影响；具有风险偏好、性别为男性、文化程度较高、有特殊经历的农户,农作物种植面积较大、产生的废弃物较多、农业收入较高、属于科技创新示范户的家庭更倾向于在农业生产中减施化肥；农户的环境污染与绿色产品的认知水平对农户是否参与减施化肥基本不产生影响。(3)以经济等为依据划分耕地等级进行减施化肥生态补偿标准核算客观地反映了不同等级耕地农户投入-产出收益,与常规施肥处理相比,在减半施肥与不施肥处理中,亏损的农户应根据种植的粮食作物在不同耕地等级得到相应的生态补偿,6乡镇粮食作物实施减半施肥与不施肥处理的生态补偿金额为每年洱海污染治理投入资金的20%,在研究区实施减施化肥生态补偿资金有保障；此外,测土配方施肥不但减少了施肥量,而且增加了农户收入,应加大推广力度。更多还原

【Abstract】 Agricultural non-point source pollution is the biggest source of Erhai’s water pollution. The unreasonable use of fertilizer is the main reason of agricultural non-point source pollution. Traditional concepts and ways of fertilization, and cognition of utilization rate are the major factors that influence the unreasonable use of fertilizer.Considering the critical situation of agricultural non-point source pollution of the Erhai waters, the government of this area has raised￥30billion since2008to deal with this problem. The government has taken measures like building pollution interception pipelines along the lake and wetlands at the riparian zones. But because of the dispersibility and arbitrariness of agricultural non-point source pollution, these measures didn’t manage to contain the harm of the pollution from the root. The six villages of Eryuan County locate at the upstream of Erhai. The water that flows into Erhai through these six villages each year takes up70%of Erhai’s total water supplement. Reducing the use of fertilizer in agricultural production can effectively cut down non-point source pollution. So, can we use a part of the Erhai pollution-control fund and ecological transfer payment fund as the subsidy for the farmers to reduce using fertilizer so that to reduce agricultural non-point source pollution from the root? What’s the effect of the quantity of fertilizer amount on crop production of Eryuan County? What are the factors that determine the farmers’ decision of whether to use fertilizer and its amount in agricultural production? What is the standard of ecological compensation subsidy of reducing fertilizer in different crops? Based on these four questions, this dissertation conducts theoretical analysis and empirical study on the influence of production materials input(fertilizer, etc.) on grain output during30years, and on the factors that affecting farmers’ use and amount of fertilizer. According to economic value of the farmlands, we divide the research areas into three ranks:high, medium and low, and calculate the ecological compensation standards for paddy, corn and barley in different fertilizer reduction treatment and of different ranks of the farmlands. The research contents and findings are listed bellow:Researchl:The influence of production materials input(fertilizer, etc.) on grain output.The aim of research1is to identify the influence of fertilizer, among many other production materials, on grain production at different phrases, and further to establish theoretical foundation for studying crop fertilizer reduction. Our empirical analysis is conducted based on the data from Eryuan County’s Statistic Yearbook1983-2012. The result shows that the input-output efficiency of fertilizer is lower than the effective irrigation area, sowing area and the total power of agricultural machines. Given the same fertilizer growth rate of the four phrases from1983to2012, the input-output efficiencies of grain production during the four phrases shows a decreasing trend. The input-output efficiency of the fourth phrase(2008-2012) is7.8times lower than that of the first phrase(1983-1995). The contribution of fertilizer to grain production in the second phrase is the highest among the four phrases.Research2:The status quo of fertilization in the research area, and the factors that influence the farmers’decision on fertilizer amount and their willingness to reducing the use of fertilizer.The aim of research2is to identify the farmers’cognition, attitudes and motivations of agricultural non-point source pollution, the factors that influencing their decision on fertilizer amount and their willingness to reducing the use of fertilizer, thus to provide theoretical support for government policy-making. Research2shows that the farmers’fertilization activities aim at the highest production and the biggest economic benefits. Consequently, their fertilization activities are overly subjective, thus there are problems of over use of fertilizer, unreasonable fertilizer structure and low utilization rate of fertilizer. The farmers hold strong motivations to join the fertilizer reduction project. The three major motivations are subsidy and basic training offered by the government, uniform implementation throughout the whole village or county, and measures to reduce the cost of agricultural production. The sequential order of the common factors influencing farmers’fertilizer amount is as follows:the farmers’personal characteristics> their cognition of environmental pollution> governmental agricultural policy> the characteristics of the farmers’family. The sequential order of common factors influencing the farmers’willingness to reduce using fertilizer is as follows:official agricultural policy> the farmers’ cognition of fertilizer> the farmers’personal characteristics> the characteristics of the farmers’family.Research3:Calculate the ecological compensation standards for different crops in the fertilizer reduction project.The aim of research3is to set ecological compensation standards for different crops from farmlands of different ranks in the fertilizer reduction project, and further evaluate the farmers’loss in reducing fertilizer and controlling agricultural non-point source pollution. First, according to the classification of the farmlands in our research area, the respective criteria for paddy, corn and barley production in high-yield farmlands are>643,>638, and>384kg/mu; the criteria in medium-yield farmlands are526-643,522-638, and314-384kg/mu; the criteria for low-yield farmlands are <526,<522, and<314kg/mu. Second, we build the cost and income function model, taking conventional fertilizer as a reference, and thus calculate the ecological compensation standards for fertilizer reduction of paddy, corn and barley respectively in high, medium and low yield farmlands. Finally, according to the cultivated area of different crops in farmlands of different levels, we work out the compensation criteria for the three major crops in the six villages. The respective gross compensation for the farmers who execute soil testing and fertilizer recommendation treatment, halved fertilizer treatment and no-fertilizer treatment are￥-495.5billion,￥318.12billion and￥920.96billion.The following conclusions are made according to the previous three research:(1)The promotive effect of fertilizer in increasing grain production are gradually decreasing because of over use of fertilizer, unreasonable fertilizer structure and low utilization rate of fertilizer. Hence, we find there are possibilities to promote the farmers to reduce fertilization by studying their fertilization status quo.(2)The farmers’decisions of fertilizer amount are affected by the following factors:the farmers’attitudes towards risk, gender, education level and their cognition of environmental pollution. Governmental subsidy and organized training are the key factors that decide whether the farmers will join the fertilizer reduction project. The farmers’cognition of fertilizer utilization ratio and fertilizer brands also have great influence on their willingness to join fertilizer reduction. We find that the farmers who are more willing to reduce the use of fertilizers-have the following characteristics:prefer risks, male, higher education level, special experience, possessing bigger cultivation area, producing more wastes, higher income, and model household of scientific and technological innovation. On the other hand, the farmers’ cognitive level of environmental pollution and green products have no influence on their willingness to join the fertilizer reduction project.(3)Calculating the ecological compensation standards according to the economic classification of farmlands can objectively show the input-output efficiency of the farmlands of different levels. Compared with conventional fertilization, the farmers’loss in halved fertilizer treatment and no-fertilizer treatment should get ecological compensation according to the types of crops and levels of farmlands. The ecological compensation for the farmers of the six villages in halved fertilizer treatment and no-fertilizer treatment takes up20%of Eryuan County’s annual pollution-control fund which is a capital guarantee for the ecological compensation in the fertilizer reduction project. In addition, soil testing and fertilizer recommendation treatment needs a wider promotion because it can not only reduce the amount of fertilizer, but also increase the farmers’income.更多还原