干旱区生态移民空间迁移特征与生态影响——以甘肃省古浪县为例

doi:10.12118/j.issn.1000–6060.2021.263

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

生态移民是西部乡村振兴及区域生态保护与修复的有效途径之一,探究生态移民空间迁移特征与生态影响,有助于区域减贫和生态文明建设。以典型的西北干旱生态移民搬迁区域为例,从县域空间视角出发,通过计算土地利用转移矩阵、动态度、利用归一化植被指数（Normalized difference vegetation index,NDVI）和植被恢复度（Vegetation restoration degree,VRD）等方法,系统分析2010—2018年古浪县生态移民空间迁移和植被恢复的时空变化特征。结果表明：（1） 2010—2018年生态移民空间迁移特征表现为地势由高到低、坡度由陡到缓,交通导向和空间聚集,共计移民6.24×10⁴人,占全县常住人口的20.20%。（2） 2010—2018年研究区NDVI在时空上呈现南部迁出地持续增长,北部迁入地先降后升的“V”型趋势。整体移民区NDVI最小值从0.10增至0.15,增加50.00%、NDVI最大值从0.52增至0.72,增加38.46%;移民安置区NDVI最小值从0.10减至0.09,减少10.00%、NDVI最大值从0.66增至0.72,增加9.09%。（3）研究区NDVI平均值和VRD呈现持续快速上升趋势,生态移民对生态环境保护效果显著。其中,南部整体移民区保护效果最为明显,其NDVI平均值从0.19增至0.42,增加121.05%,VRD从0.26增至0.75,增加188.46%。

关键词: 生态移民, 人口迁移, 乡村振兴, 生态修复, 干旱区

Abstract:

Ecological migration is one of the effective ways for rural revitalization and regional ecological protection and restoration in western China. Exploring the spatial characteristics and ecological impacts of ecological migrants can contribute to regional poverty reduction and ecological civilization construction. Herein, we select Gulang County in Gansu Province, which has sensitive ecological characteristics in arid areas, special resettlement sites, and many migrants. From the spatial perspective at the county level, we innovatively use indicators, such as the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) and vegetation restoration degree (VRD) intrinsically relevant to ecological migration. Combining the statistical yearbook, land use data, ecological migration information, and MODIS remote sensing data obtained from field research. The spatiotemporal characteristics and ecological impacts of ecological migration and vegetation restoration policies in Gulang County from 2010 to 2018 were systematically analyzed by calculating the land use transfer matrix, NDVI, and VRD. This study aims at providing a reference for the scientific formulation of ecological migration policies for relevant agencies in arid areas. The results of this study are as follows. (1) The ecological migrants from 2010 to 2018 are spatially characterized by the tendency of high to low terrain, steep to gentle slope, traffic-oriented, and spatial aggregation, with a total of 6.24×10⁴ migrants, accounting for 20.20% of the county’s resident population. (2) From 2010 to 2018, the NDVI of the study area continuously increased in the southern migrant areas and decreased and then increased in the northern migrant areas. The minimum NDVI value in the overall migration area increased from 0.10 to 0.15, and the maximum NDVI value increased from 0.52 to 0.72. The minimum NDVI value in the resettlement area decreased from 0.10 to 0.09, and the maximum NDVI value increased from 0.66 to 0.72. (3) The mean NDVI and VRD in the study area show a continuous and rapid increasing trend, indicating that the ecological migrants significantly affect ecological protection. The most obvious protection effect was observed in the southern part of the study area, with the NDVI mean value increasing from 0.19 to 0.42 and the VRD mean value increasing from 0.26 to 0.75. Ecological migration in arid areas is an effective approach to improve the regional ecological environment. However, it reduces the pressure of population overload in mountainous areas. Additionally, it combines resettlement with low-quality land resources, such as wastelands and deserts, to effectively reduce the damage to the ecological environment caused by human activities. Therefore, how to better use the ecological migration to improve the ecological environment in sensitive and fragile areas and achieve rural revitalization and promote sustainable development in rural areas is also a key issue in the contemporary world seeking a balance between ecological protection and rural revitalization.

Key words: ecological migration, population migration, rural revitalization, ecological restoration, arid area

张伟,周亮,孙东琪,胡凤宁. 干旱区生态移民空间迁移特征与生态影响——以甘肃省古浪县为例[J]. 干旱区地理, 2022, 45(2): 618-627.

ZHANG Wei,ZHOU Liang,SUN Dongqi,HU Fengning. Spatial migration characteristics and ecological impacts of ecological migrants in arid regions: A case of Gulang County, Gansu Province[J]. Arid Land Geography, 2022, 45(2): 618-627.

图/表 9

图1

图2

图3

表1

表2

图4

表3

表4

图5

参考文献 35

[1]	閤小操, 陈绍军. 重启与激活: 后扶贫时代易地搬迁移民生计转型与发展研究——以新疆W县P村为例[J]. 干旱区资源与环境, 2021, 35(5):15-21.
	[ Ge Xiaocao, Chen Shaojun. Reactivation and activation: The livelihood transformation and development of relocated migrants in the post poverty alleviation era[J]. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 2021, 35(5):15-21. ]
[2]	Morrissey J W. Understanding the relationship between environmental change and migration: The development of an effects framework based on the case of northern Ethiopia[J]. Global Environmental Change, 2013, 23(6):1501-1510. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.021
[3]	Essam E. Environmental refugees[M]. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme, 1985: 1-3.
[4]	钟水映, 冯英杰. 生态移民工程与生态系统可持续发展的系统动力学研究[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2018, 28(11):10-19.
	[ Zhong Shuiying, Feng Yingjie. Research on the system dynamics of ecological migration engineering and ecosystem sustainable development[J]. China Population, Resources and Environment, 2018, 28(11):10-19. ]
[5]	檀学文. 中国移民扶贫70年变迁研究[J]. 中国农村经济, 2019(8):2-19.
	[ Tan Xuewen,. The evolvement of poverty alleviation for resettled people in 70 years: From 1949 to 2019[J]. China Rural Economy, 2019(8):2-19. ]
[6]	Liu Y, Shuai C M, Zhou H M. How to identify poor immigrants? An empirical study of the Three Gorges Reservoir in China[J]. China Economic Review, 2017, 44:311-326. doi: 10.1016/j.chieco.2017.05.004
[7]	周华坤, 赵新全, 张超远, 等. 三江源区生态移民的困境与可持续发展策略[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境. 2010, 20(3):185-188.
	[ Zhou Huakun, Zhao Xinquan, Zhang Chaoyuan, et al. The predicament of ecological migrants and sustainable development strategy in the source area of the Three Rivers[J]. China Population, Resources and Environment, 2010, 20(3):185-188. ]
[8]	李屹峰, 罗玉珠, 郑华, 等. 青海省三江源自然保护区生态移民补偿标准[J]. 生态学报, 2013, 33(3):764-770.
	[ Li Yifeng, Luo Yuzhu, Zheng Hua, et al. Standard of payments for ecosystem services in Sanjiangyuan Natural Reserve[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2013, 33(3):764-770. ]
[9]	王亚娟, 王鹏, 韩文文, 等. 宁夏中部干旱带生态移民过程生态风险时空分异——以红寺堡区为例[J]. 干旱区地理, 2018, 41(4):817-825.
	[ Wang Yajuan, Wang Peng, Han Wenwen, et al. Spatial and temporal variation of ecological risk in the process of ecological immigration in the arid zone of central Ningxia: A case of Hongsibu District[J]. Arid Land Geography, 2018, 41(4):817-825. ]
[10]	胡西武, 刘小鹏, 黄越, 等. 宁夏生态移民村空间剥夺测度及影响因素[J]. 地理学报, 2020, 75(10):2224-2240. doi: 10.11821/dlxb202010013
	[ Hu Xiwu, Liu Xiaopeng, Huang Yue, et al. Measurement of spatial deprivation of eco-migrant villages and its impact factors in Ningxia[J]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2020, 75(10):2224-2240. ] doi: 10.11821/dlxb202010013
[11]	陈忠祥. 宁夏扶贫工程与引黄灌区开发中的吊庄移民[J]. 地理学报, 1995, 50(6):514-520. doi: 10.11821/xb199506005
	[ Chen Zhongxiang. A study on the “Diao Zhuang” villages in the new irrigated areas in Ningxia[J]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 1995, 50(6):514-520. ] doi: 10.11821/xb199506005
[12]	李王鸣, 金登杨. 扶贫移民安置模式分析与实证——以浙江省瑞安市为例[J]. 经济地理, 2008, 28(2):205-208.
	[ Li Wangming, Jin Dengyang. Analysis and empirical study on the resettlement mode of aid-the poor emigration: A case study of Rui’an City, Zhejiang Province[J]. Economic Geography, 2008, 28(2):205-208. ]
[13]	张春丽, 佟连军, 刘继斌. 湿地退耕还湿与替代生计选择的农民响应研究——以三江自然保护区为例[J]. 自然资源学报, 2008, 23(4):568-574.
	[ Zhang Chunli, Tong Lianjun, Liu Jibin. Response of farmers to conversion of cultivated land to wetland and substitute livelihood: A case of Sanjiang Reserve[J]. Journal of Natural Resources, 2008, 23(4):568-574. ]
[14]	芦清水, 赵志平. 应对草地退化的生态移民政策及牧户响应分析——基于黄河源区玛多县的牧户调查[J]. 地理研究, 2009, 28(1):143-152.
	[ Lu Qingshui, Zhao Zhiping. Eco-immigration policy for the degraded rangeland and response of herd families: A case study of Maduo County, the source region of Yellow River[J]. Geographical Research, 2009, 28(1):143-152. ]
[15]	Kevin L, Xue L Y, Mark W. Spatial restructuring through poverty alleviation resettlement in rural China[J]. Journal of Rural Studies, 2016, 47(B):496-505. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.06.006
[16]	苗红, 贾菲, 耿一睿, 等. 宁夏生态移民安置区人地耦合系统脆弱性分析[J]. 干旱区地理, 2020, 43(3):796-806.
	[ Miao Hong, Jia Fei, Geng Yirui, et al. Vulnerability analysis of man-land coupling system in Ningxia ecological resettlement area[J]. Arid Land Geography, 2020, 43(3):796-806. ]
[17]	欧阳漪, 黄剑, 陈晓亮. “文化转向”视角下移民地理学研究进展与趋势[J]. 地理科学进展, 2020, 39(12):2118-2128. doi: 10.18306/dlkxjz.2020.12.013
	[ Ouyang Yi, Huang Jian, Chen Xiaoliang. Research progress and trends of geographies of migration from the perspective of “cultural turn”[J]. Progress in Geography, 2020, 39(12):2118-2128. ] doi: 10.18306/dlkxjz.2020.12.013
[18]	韩晓佳, 王亚娟, 刘小鹏, 等. 基于不同利益相关者认知分析的生态移民安置区生态风险识别[J]. 应用生态学报, 2017, 28(9):3061-3070.
	[ Han Xiaojia, Wang Yajuan, Liu Xiaopeng, et al. Ecological risks identification of ecological resettlement area based on cognitive analysis of different stakeholders[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2017, 28(9):3061-3070. ]
[19]	邰秀军, 畅冬妮, 郭颖. 宁夏生态移民居住安置方式的减贫效果分析[J]. 干旱区资源与环境, 2017, 31(4):47-53.
	[ Tai Xiujun, Chang Dongni, Guo Ying. Poverty reduction effects of ecological migrants resettlement ways for Ningxia[J]. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 2017, 31(4):47-53. ]
[20]	唐宏, 张新焕, 杨德刚. 农户生态移民意愿及影响因素研究——基于新疆三工河流域的农户调查[J]. 自然资源学报, 2011, 26(10):1658-1668.
	[ Tang Hong, Zhang Xinhuan, Yang Degang. Study on ecological migration willingness and its affecting factors: A case of Sangonghe River Watershed of Xinjiang[J]. Journal of Natural Resources, 2011, 26(10):1658-1668. ]
[21]	王黎明, 杨燕风, 关庆锋. 三峡库区退耕坡地环境移民压力研究[J]. 地理学报, 2001, 56(6):649-656. doi: 10.11821/xb200106003
	[ Wang Liming, Yang Yanfeng, Guan Qingfeng. Environmental emigration stress of slope farmland in the Three Gorges Area[J]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2001, 56(6):649-656. ] doi: 10.11821/xb200106003
[22]	王倩, 邱俊杰, 余劲. 移民搬迁是否加剧了山区耕地撂荒——基于陕南三市1578户农户面板数据[J]. 自然资源学报, 2019, 34(7):1376-1390.
	[ Wang Qian, Qiu Junjie, Yu Jing. Does rural resettlement accelerate farmland abandonment in mountainous areas: A case study of 1578 households in southern Shaanxi[J]. Journal of Natural Resources, 2019, 34(7):1376-1390. ]
[23]	周丽, 黎红梅, 李培. 易地扶贫搬迁农户生计资本对生计策略选择的影响——基于湖南搬迁农户的调查[J]. 经济地理, 2020, 40(11):167-175.
	[ Zhou Li, Li Hongmei, Li Pei. Impact of livelihood capital on the choice of livelihood strategy for resettled farmers: Based on the survey of resettled farmers in Hunan Province[J]. Economic Geography, 2020, 40(11):167-175. ]
[24]	王亚娟, 孔福星, 刘小鹏, 等. 中国生态移民村社会空间的生产分析——以宁夏固原市典型生态移民村为例[J]. 经济地理, 2020, 40(11):158-166.
	[ Wang Yajuan, Kong Fuxing, Liu Xiaopeng, et al. The social production of space in ecological migration village in China: Take the ecological migration village in Guyuan of Ningxia as an example[J]. Economic Geography, 2020, 40(11):158-166. ]
[25]	刘伟, 徐洁, 黎洁. 陕南易地扶贫搬迁农户生计脆弱性研究[J]. 资源科学, 2018, 40(10):2002-2014.
	[ Liu Wei, Xu Jie, Li Jie. Livelihood vulnerability of rural households under poverty alleviation relocation in southern Shaanxi, China[J]. Resources Science, 2018, 40(10):2002-2014. ]
[26]	Graeme H. Future demographic change and its interactions with migration and climate change[J]. Global Environmental Change, 2011, 21(Suppl. 1):21-33.
[27]	Gemenne F. Why the numbers do not add up: A review of estimates and predicting of people displaced by environmental change[J]. Global Environmental Change, 2011, 21(Suppl. 1):41-49.
[28]	吴琳娜, 杨胜天, 刘晓燕, 等. 1976年以来北洛河流域土地利用变化对人类活动程度的响应[J]. 地理学报, 2014, 69(1):54-63.
	[ Wu Linna, Yang Shengtian, Liu Xiaoyan, et al. Response analysis of land use change to the degree of human activities in Beiluo River Basin since 1976[J]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2014, 69(1):54-63. ]
[29]	杨勇, 任志远. 基于GIS的关中地区土地利用/覆盖变化对比研究[J]. 干旱区资源与环境, 2013, 27(5):40-45.
	[ Yang Yong, Ren Zhiyuan. A comparative study on LUCC of Guanzhong area based on GIS[J]. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 2013, 27(5):40-45. ]
[30]	Sun H Y, Wang C Y, Niu Z, et al. Analysis of the vegetation cover change and the relationship between NDVI and environmental factors by using NOAA time series data[J]. Journal of Remote Sensing, 1998, 2(3):205-210.
[31]	Purevdorj T S, Tateishi R, Ishiyama T, et al. Relationships between percent vegetation cover and vegetation indices[J]. Remote Sensing, 1998, 19(18):3519-3535.
[32]	Li H X, Liu S Z. A model of grassland degradation assessment based on NDVI: Taking the grassland in Tibet as an example[J]. Journal of Mountain Research, 2003, 21(Suppl. 1):69-71.
[33]	刘春霞, 韩烈保. 高速公路边坡植被恢复研究进展[J]. 生态学报, 2007, 27(5):2090-2098.
	[ Liu Chunxia, Han Liebao. Review of researches in vegetation restoration of freeway slopes[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2007, 27(5):2090-2098. ]
[34]	Wang J Y, Liu Y J, Li Y R. Ecological restoration under rural restructuring: A case study of Yan’an in China’s Loess Plateau[J]. Land Use Policy, 2019, 87:1-9.
[35]	周亮, 车磊, 周成虎. 中国城市绿色发展效率时空演变特征及影响因素[J]. 地理学报, 2019, 74(10):2027-2044. doi: 10.11821/dlxb201910006
	[ Zhou Liang, Che Lei, Zhou Chenghu. Spatio-temporal evolution and influencing factors of urban green development efficiency in China[J]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2019, 74(10):2027-2044. ] doi: 10.11821/dlxb201910006

区域	年份	项目	耕地	林地	草地	水域	建设用地	未利用地
整体移民区	2010	面积/km²	342.08	2.45	495.75	2.88	6.68	16.32
	2015	面积/km²	342.27	2.44	495.64	3.15	6.68	15.97
	2018	面积/km²	341.57	0.68	497.80	2.87	6.86	16.39
	2010—2015	动态度/%	0.01	0.05	0.01	1.87	0.00	0.42
	2015—2018	动态度/%	0.07	24.10	0.15	2.98	0.89	0.86
核心移民区	2010	面积/km²	453.37	54.07	395.39	1.82	7.51	0.09
	2015	面积/km²	453.25	54.04	395.19	1.91	7.80	4.99
	2018	面积/km²	462.64	54.99	385.58	1.80	7.59	4.59
	2010—2015	动态度/%	0.01	0.01	0.01	-0.92	0.78	1050.30
	2015—2018	动态度/%	0.69	0.58	0.81	1.86	0.92	2.67
移民安置区	2010	面积/km²	38.18	1.33	216.80	0.28	0.32	119.90
	2015	面积/km²	39.01	1.33	209.56	0.28	4.92	121.70
	2018	面积/km²	117.13	1.23	133.06	1.00	7.47	116.92
	2010—2015	动态度/%	0.44	0.00	0.67	0.00	289.63	0.30
	2015—2018	动态度/%	66.74	23.15	12.17	84.08	17.28	1.31

土地利用类型	耕地		林地		草地		水域		建设用地		未利用地
土地利用类型	2010—2015年	2015—2018年	2010—2015年	2015—2018年	2010—2015年	2015— 2018年	2010—2015年	2015—2018年	2010—2015年	2015—2018年	2010—2015年	2015—2018年
耕地	1688.86	1428.13	0.48	10.11	11.29	222.04	0.30	5.42	1.32	17.17	0.74	24.10
林地	0.51	10.97	96.89	73.58	0.56	11.56	0.00	0.08	0.19	0.57	0.02	1.20
草地	15.47	326.61	0.61	12.34	2279.92	1843.16	0.08	2.57	4.54	5.34	8.01	106.14
水域	0.20	5.28	0.00	0.00	0.11	1.83	14.52	6.93	0.00	0.22	0.03	0.96
建设用地	0.52	20.88	0.01	0.26	0.06	3.26	0.01	0.18	43.98	26.07	0.01	0.98
未利用地	1.87	67.55	0.02	0.47	4.91	98.17	0.31	0.60	1.60	7.32	866.52	700.73

区域	NDVI值
区域	2010年	2015年	2018年
整体移民区	0.10~0.52	0.11~0.57	0.15~0.72
核心移民区	0.01~0.76	0.12~0.83	0.15~0.84
移民安置区	0.10~0.66	0.09~0.71	0.10~0.72

区域	NDVI平均值			VRD
区域	2010年	2015年	2018年	2010—2015年	2015—2018年
整体移民区	0.19	0.24	0.42	0.26	0.75
核心移民区	0.31	0.35	0.52	0.13	0.49
移民安置区	0.16	0.20	0.28	0.25	0.40