Empirical Investigations Into The Economic Characters And Decision-making Behaviors Of Rural Households Participating In The Grain-for-Green Project In The Typical Loess Plateau Area

In the context of the implementation of the first-round Grain-for-Green Project(GGP)and the implementation of the new-round GGP policy,this study was based on the economic theory of the GGP,the theory of farmer behaviors and sustainable development,focusing on the core objectives-"improving the life of returning farmland farmers" and "continuing to play ecological benefits" of the GGP.First of all,to analyze the characteristics and changes of the rural households in the past 15 years,we investigated households involved in the GGP in 2001(the beginning of the GGP)again with the similar questionnaires in 2015 in Ansai County,Shaanxi Province,one of the pilot sites for the GGP.Then,I conducted a systematic random interview on the households in the Loess Plateau of Longzhong.This study analyzed the economic behavior and the difference of the households in different types of the GGP,and made a comprehensive evaluation of the GGP and the difference of engineering evaluation of farmland with different farming incomes.This study also investigated the households' behavior of decision-making and influencing factors of them.On the basis of the above analysis,continuity conditions and possible problems of the GGP were suggested.The main conclusions are as follows:(1)The non-agriculturalization change within the recent 15 years was obvious;More farmers involved in the GGP left the village and the labors for agriculture became less.The non-agricultural income of the households increased rapidly and the overall income structure was improved.The economic difference among the investigated households enlarged,and more households relied on more professional agricultural industries than traditional crops.Unfortunately,fewer households paid attention to the ecological protection with a higher expectation on subsidies of GGP,and more people reclaimed that they would re-cultivate the restored lands after the ending of the subsidies from the government.(2)There were obvious differences in the economic behavior in different types of the GGP,especially in the income of planting industry.The investigations in the Loess Plateau of Longzhong showed that the planting structure in the GGP type of medlar tree(0.25),pepper tree(0.63)and apple tree(0.63)were significantly lower than those of apricot tree(0.87)and jujube tree(0.84).The per capita arable land resources of different types of households were found to be obviously different.The per capita arable land resources of pepper farmers were the least,only 0.70 mu,which was lower than the standard of cultivated land of 1.5 mu per capita.There were great differences in the input of agricultural production factors among households with different types of the GGP.The total input production factors of ecological forest type and apricot tree type households were only 385 RMB Yuan/mu and 410 RMB Yuan/mu respectively,which were the lowest.The total input production factors of pepper farmers was the highest,which is 1077 RMB Yuan/mu.There were significant differences in the expenditure of farmers with different types of the GGP,and the living standard of different types of the GGP was different.The total amount of consumption expenditure of pepper tree type and apple tree type were the highest,and the amount of apricot tree type households was the lowest,only half of pepper farmers.The most intuitive differences in this study were in the farming income.The farming income of pepper tree type households,which was highest(17,756 Yuan),was 9.17 times the lowest apricot-type(1937 Yuan).(3)It is positive of farmers' evaluation of GGP in a whole,but there are also different characteristics of evaluation,and we should pay more attention to negative evaluation.At present,the willingness of households in the GGP is high(96.40% of households surveyed were willing to return farmland).Most households(92.79%)found that GGP had no or indefinite impact on the family,and only a little households thought that the GGP had a less negative impact on the family(only 7.21%)and more than half of households(53.15%)thought that the family income after GGP was getting more.With regard to the issue of subsidy cessation,most households(60.36%)argued that subsidies cessation had little or no impact on the family.And 36.38% of the households were satisfied with the ecological benefits of GGP,and the households' satisfaction with ecological benefits was high(1.90 points).However,there were some negative results in the evaluation: only 60.36% of the households were satisfied or very satisfied with the implementation of the policy,there was poor satisfaction in the implementation of the policy(1.55 points);the households had poor understanding of the policy of the GGP(only 7.21% of the households were clear about the policy of GGP).The GGP policy propaganda situation is not good at all(79.28% of the households said that the past two years there was no propaganda of the GGP).It was relatively simple and limited for the households to understand the policy of the GGP,and the problem is highlighted.Therefore,we need to pay attention to the propaganda work of the GGP,and pay attention to the diversity of propaganda channels and the popularity of propaganda content.From the evaluation of households' differentiation in different levels of income,the evaluation of the GGP in high-income farmers was much better than that of low-income farmers,but the difference was not obvious.From the purpose of the GGP,low-income farmers in the farming industry had a greater demand for "improving living conditions".But on the evaluation of subsidies payment,the evaluation of high-income farmers in the farming industry was relatively poor.In the evaluation of satisfaction,low-income farmers in the farming industry had the 1.59 points satisfaction rate of the ecological benefits and 1.94 points of the implementation of the policy,which were higher than that of the high-income farmers(1.87 and 1.52 points respectively).In the evaluation of the impact of subsidies on the family,more low-income farmers(45.10%)believed that the cessation of subsidies had a great impact on family life,which was higher than high-income farmers(36.67%).(4)Under the assumption of subsidy cessation,the proportion of farmers' re-farming(4.50%)was small,but a large number of farmers(53.15%)will not preserve the results of the GGP.The risk of rehabilitated farmland in the Loess Plateau of Longzhong was low,and the average score of sustainable cropping of GGP was 1.38(higher than 1).In the regression model,the propaganda of the policy of the GGP has a significant positive effect on the decision-making behavior of farmers(P <0.05),but the age of the head of household,the degree of education,whether the party members or cadres or not,the subsidy,and the income level of farming industry was not significantly affected(P> 0.1).The age of the head of household had a negative impact on the decision-making behavior of households,and the income level of farming industry had a positive effect on the decision-making behavior of farmers.Therefore,the government departments should improve and strengthen the propaganda of the policy of the GGP,and relevant scholars need to focus on the research on raising the income level of farmers' farming and jointly explore the modes and programs to improve the income level of farmland farming.