【作者】 蔡书凯；

【导师】 韩洪云；

【作者基本信息】 浙江大学 ， 农业经济管理， 2012， 博士

【摘要】 IPM技术强调以生态系统为管理单位,通过各种防治手段的协调,以控制作物病虫害。已有的研究表明IPM技术可以降低传统化学农药施用措施的环境影响,但对于农户IPM技术采纳行为决定因素、及其IPM技术效果研究却相当缺乏。在给定的经济和技术条件下,那些因素影响了农户IPM技术采纳行为?IPM技术的农户生产成本、农药节约、农民健康等方面的影响如何?如何提高IPM技术的推广效率?以上内容对于中国病虫害防治技术改进与推广意义重大。国内相关文献并没有给出令人满意的答案。本文基于安徽省芜湖市水稻种植户的调查数据,以农户作为基本的分析单元,在经验观察的基础上实证分析以下几个问题：(1)水稻种植户IPM技术采纳行为及其影响因素；(2)IPM技术采纳对农户农药施用成本的影响；(3)IPM技术采纳对农户施药健康成本的影响；(4)IPM技术采纳对农户粮食产量的影响；(5)农户对病虫害专业化统防统治服务的购买意愿及其影响因素。对以上5个问题的回答形成了本研究的主要结论：首先,水稻种植户IPM技术采纳行为及其影响因素的实证研究结果表明：在386个样本农户中,分别有64.77%、12.95%和35.75%的农户采纳化学防治型技术、物理防治型技术和生物防治型技术；户主性别、户主文化水平和农民田间学校显著影响农户各项IPM技术的采纳,显著影响农户化学防治型IPM技术采纳的因素还有：户主是否兼业、农业劳力数、耕地规模；显著影响农户物理防治型IPM技术采纳的因素还包括：收入结构、耕地规模；显著影响农户生物防治型IPM技术采纳的因素还包括：户主是否兼业、农业劳力数、收入结构、耕地规模、耕地块数。其次,IPM技术显著降低了农户施药成本。研究显示,农户采纳化学防治型IPM技术显著减少了施药成本,采纳物理防治型IPM技术显著降低了晚稻施药成本。显著影响农户农药施用成本的因素还包括：商品化率、收入结构、耕地规模、雇工施药、施药设备等。再次,农户采纳IPM技术显著降低了农药施药的健康成本。研究表明,农民施药健康成本为74.46元/年·人。农户采纳IPM技术显著降低了农药施药的健康成本。影响农药施用农民健康成本的因素还包括施药者年龄、施药者受教育年限、农民采取的防护措施、农药施用频次、每次花费的时间、种植面积、施药工具、到诊所(医院)距离以及是否是农药标签文盲。第四,农户IPM技术采纳提高了农户粮食产量。实证结果表明,在其它条件不变的情况下,相对于传统病虫害防治方式,采纳化学防治型IPM技术可以显著增加早稻粮食产量；采纳化学防治型IPM技术和生物防治型IPM技术能够显著增加晚稻产量。计量模型分析结果还表明,种子越贵、户主为男性、户主文化水平越高、耕地规模越大的农户,其作物产量也越高。最后,农户对病虫害专业化统防统治服务有一定的需求意愿。实证分析发现,有22.02%的农户愿意实行“代防代治”,12.44%的农户愿意参加“承包防治”；计量结果表明：显著影响农户“代防代治”服务需求意愿的因素包括户主年龄、户主非农就业难度、家庭农业劳力数、耕种面积、耕地距离和是否种植双季稻；显著影响农户“承包防治”服务需求意愿的因素包括：户主非农就业难度、农业劳力数、耕种面积、是否种植双季稻和收入结构。基于以上研究结论,本文认为：(1)相关主体应积极推广IPM技术,发挥其环境、经济和社会协调效应。为了引导农户的微观选择,充分利用社会化小农经济所特有的高效率配置资源优势,实现社会最优的宏观行为,政府有必要通过制度支持农户采纳IPM技术的集体行动：加大农民IPM技术的培训力度,促进IPM技术扩散；政策支持促进农民非农就业和土地流转,降低耕地细碎化水平；同时根据IPM技术特点,分类推广IPM技术。(2)综合各种措施降低农户施药成本：从信息角度看,积极健全公益性病虫害监测预警、信息传播体系；从激励角度看,发展基于病虫害控制和残留的粮食市场；从科技角度看,应加大植保机械研发和补贴力度,为农户IPM技术采纳提供经济激励；(3)积极采取措施减少农民施药健康成本：微观上亟需加强农民安全施用农药培训、提高农民健康意识；宏观上进一步加强IPM技术推广、提供方便便宜的防护设备、完善病虫害信息服务体系、加大国家对相关项目服务的补贴力度。(4)通过机制创新挖掘、释放潜在和隐藏的病虫害专业化统防统治需求；相关服务主体应采取差异化推广策略和服务形式,提高政策措施效率。更多还原

【Abstract】 With ecosystem as a governing unit, the technology of IPM has facilitated pest control of agriculture by combining all possible preventing and curing measures,. Although many researches have indicated that IPM technology can alleviate negative effects of traditional chemical pesticides, study on IPM technology’s adoption and promoting effects was limited. Following questions have not been fully answred, they are:to what extent did Chinese farmers adopt IPM technology and what are its influences on agricultural production, pesticide saving, and farmers’health, and so on? What was the inner mechanism of these effects? How to improve the promoting efficiency of IPM technology?Based on surveyed data from the rice planting peasants in Wuhu city of Anhui province, following issues were analyzed:(1) factors affecting farmers’IPM technology’s adoption of rice planting; (2) the effect of IPM technology on peasants’ cost of pesticide application; (3) the effect of IPM technology on farmers’health cost; (4) the effect of IPM technology on grain output; (5) farmers’potential desire on specialized uniform service against agriculture pests.Following conclusions could be reached in this paper:First, the results of empirical research indicated that:among 386 peasant household samples, there were 64.77% peasant household using chemical prevention technology,12.95% using physical prevention technology, and 35.75% using biological prevention technology. It was indicated from analyzing results that:Such factors as peasants’gender, peasants’education degree, and peasants’participation in agricultural training class had positive effects on promoting all types of IPM technology.Head of the household whether engaged in non-farm activities, agricultural labor force within a family and scale of planting area had remarkable effects on adopting chemical prevention IPM technology; percentage of planting rice income in family’s total income and scale of planting area had remarkable effects on adopting physical prevention IPM technology; head of the household whether engaged in non-farm activities, the amount of agricultural labor in a household, percentage of planting rice income in family’s total income, planting area and farming segments had remarkable effects on adopting biological prevention IPM technology. Second, the household’s pesticide cost was reduced remarkably by IPM technology. The research displayed that pesticide cost was reduced remarkably after adopting IPM technology. Moreover, there were other factors of effecting peasant household’s pesticide cost:the percentage of rice’s commercialization, the ratio of rice income/total income, planting area, employments of workers in spraying pesticide, the type of spraying tools. Third, Peasant health cost of spraying pesticide was reduced remarkably when IPM technology was adopted. Research indicated that a peasant’s health cost of spraying pesticide was 74.46 Yuan per year. Peasants’health cost of spraying pesticide was reduced notably with IPM technology adopted. The other factors of effecting peasants’health cost were:age and education of the farmer spraying pesticide, protective measures used by farmer, frequency of spraying pesticide, spraying time, planting area, spraying tools, distance form a farmer to a clinic(hospital), and farmers’ability to read pesticide’s label.Fourth, grain output increased rapidly after IPM technology was adopted. It was proved by experiments that compared with traditional pest’s prevention and cure methods, on the condition of other factors remaining the same, IPM technology of chemical prevention and curing method could enhance output of early rice; IPM technology of chemical and biological prevention and cure method could boost second rice’s output of grain. Analyzing result of econometric model indicated that output of grain was higher under following conditions:seed was more expensive, householder was a male, literacy of householder was higher, and scale of planting area was bigger. Fifth, peasants had showed certain desire and need for specialized and uniform pest specialized unified prevent service. it could be indicated by positivism analysis that 22.02% of farmers were willing to buy "Alternative Prevention", and 12.44% farmers were willing to join "Contracting Prevention"; Econometric result indicated:factors affecting farmers’desire and need for "Alternative Prevention" were:ages of householders, difficulty of householders in nonagricultural employment, the amount of agricultural labor in a household, planting area, planting distance and possibility of planting double cropping rice; the factors affecting farmer’s willingness to join "Contracting Prevention" service were:difficulty of householder’s in nonagricultural employment, the amount of agricultural labors, planting area, planting double cropping rice and income structure.On the whole, theory and positivism were closely integrated in this paper. Through the empirical research in this paper, the following policy inspiration could be reached:(1) IPM technology should be popularized actively by related departments, and its coordination effect on environment, economy and society should be exerted. Since external benefits exist, farmers’ self-selection will not achieve the socially optimal level. In order to guide the farmers choices achieve socially optimal level of adoption, the government must increase efforts in promoting IPM technologies and achieving socially optimal level. (2) Reducing farmer’s cost of using pesticide by integrating all kinds of means:in terms of information, systems of non-profit pest monitoring and warning and information spreading should be strengthened; in terms of stimulation, foodstuff market based on pest control and agricultural chemicals residue should be developed; in terms of science, research and subsidy of pest control machinery should be increased. (3) It is necessary to take active measures to reduce health cost of pesticide application: strengthening pesticide safety training for farmers, increase peasants’ awareness of pesticide risks, promotion IPM technology, provide convenient and cheap protective equipment and instructions of pesticide application, Improved pest and disease information service system, increase state subsidies for related project. (4) It is necessary to enhance policy support and publicity. Dig out and release latent and hidden desire and need for pest specialized unified prevent diseases and insect Pest through mechanism innovation. Differentiation spreading strategy and service type should be taken by related serving department to promote the efficiency of policy.更多还原