基于主客观生活质量评价的农村发展差异分析——以北京山区经济薄弱村为例

doi:10.11820/dlkxjz.2015.02.007

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

从居民生活质量角度评价区域发展程度长期以来备受关注。本文以北京山区经济薄弱村为例,在抽样农户调查基础上,基于小康监测体系中的生活质量指标体系,采用因子分析法构建的主观评价体系,分别测算了村级客观、主观生活质量指数,运用聚类法与差异贡献率法,开展北京山区经济薄弱村居民主客观生活质量的对比评价及影响因素分析。研究表明：①客观指数上,99.29%的村庄低于北京农村的平均水平,村间差异显著,高指数村庄主要分布在地势平坦的近郊区;②主观指数上,具有一定地域趋同性,离城区越近主观满意度越低;③综合来看,深山区与近郊区的村庄自身存在较大的主—客观差异,18.95%的村庄综合生活质量较差,文化娱乐、信息教育、生态环保等生活品质是限制居民生活质量的主要因素;④差异扶贫、提升人口综合素质、扶持生活质量高维度相关产业发展以及开展扶贫动态监测与开发规划,是进一步改善居民生活质量、提升区域发展水平的主要驱动力。主客观生活质量评价能够深入反映区域发展与居民生活质量间的关系,可作为区域综合发展决策的重要辅助方法。

关键词: 客观生活质量, 主观生活质量, 经济薄弱村, 因子分析, 聚类分析, 差异贡献率, 北京山区

Abstract:

The evaluation of regional development from the perspective of residents' life quality has been of high interest of the research community. Taking economically underdeveloped villages in the Beijing mountainous area as cases, this study calculated subjective and objective life quality indices for the villages on the basis of a farming household sampling survey. The life quality index for the evaluation of well-off community was chosen as the objective evaluation system, and the subjective system was constructed through factor analysis. Influencing factors of life quality were compared by applying the methods of cluster analysis and differential contribution rates. (1) Objective evaluation revealed that the villages differ significantly from each other. About 99% of the villages have a lower level of life quality as compared with the average of Beijing. Villages with high objective life quality index values are mainly distributed in the near suburbs on flat terrain; (2) Subjective evaluation indicated that the differences between adjacent villages are relatively small and the closer a village to the city, the lower is the subjective satisfaction; (3) Overall, subjective and objective life quality index values differ greatly in villages located in deep mountains and near suburbs. About 19% of the villages have relatively poor overall life quality. The main factors limiting residents' quality of life are culture and entertainment, information and education, ecological environmental protection, and so on, which are beyond the basic demand of subsistence. (4) The major driving forces of improving residents' life quality and promoting regional development are differentiated poverty alleviation, improvement of population quality, support for the development of industries that satisfies higher level of human needs, and development planning and dynamic monitoring of poverty areas. The subjective-objective evaluation of life quality can reflect the relationship between regional development and residents' life quality, therefore it can be used as an important auxiliary method in regional comprehensive development decision-making.

Key words: objective life quality evaluation, subjective life quality evaluation, economically underdeveloped village, factor analysis, cluster analysis, differential contribution method, Beijing mountainous area

田永霞, 刘晓娜, 李红, 孙丹峰, 涂宏汉, 文化. 基于主客观生活质量评价的农村发展差异分析——以北京山区经济薄弱村为例[J]. 地理科学进展, 2015, 34(2): 185-.

Yongxia TIAN, Xiaona LIU, Hong LI, Danfeng SUN, Honghan TU, Hua WEN. Rural development difference based on subjective and objective evaluation of life quality: a case of economically underdeveloped villages in Beijing mountainous area[J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2015, 34(2): 185-.

图/表 17

图1

图2

表1

表2

表3

表4

表5

表6

表7

表8

表9

图3

图4

图5

图6

表1

参考文献 23

1	陈有真, 贾志永, 周庭锐. 2009. 城市居民幸福感的影响因素分析[J]. 城市发展研究, 15(6): 134-137.
	[Chen Y Z, Jia Z Y, Zhou T R.2009. Analysis on factors affecting subjective welling-beings of citizens[J]. Urban Studies, 15(6): 134-137.]
2	党云晓, 张文忠, 余建辉等. 2014. 北京居民主观幸福感评价及影响因素研究[J]. 地理科学进展, 33(10): 1312-1321.
	[Dang Y X, Zhang W Z, Yu J H, et al.2014. Residents' subjective well-being and influencing factors in Beijing[J]. Progress in Geography, 33(10): 1312-1321.]
3	邓祖涛. 2011. 我国旅游收入差异的因子和空间双重解析[J]. 旅游论坛, 23(1): 51-55.
	[Deng Z T.2011. Factor and space dual-decomposition of tourism income disparity in China[J]. Tourism Forum, 23(1): 51-55.]
4	丁卫国, 吴园一, 乔桂明, 等. 2004. 论生活质量与区域创新能力之互动: 江苏不同地区生活质量的比较研究[J]. 现代经济探讨, 23(2): 35-37.
	[Ding W G, Wu Y Y, Qiao G M, et al.2004. Concerns on the interactive between the life quality and the regional innovation ability: comparative study of life quality in different areas in Jiangsu[J]. Modern Economic Research, 23(2): 35-37.]
5	董士伟, 孙丹峰, 张微微, 等. 2012. 基于农业资源与经济数据平台的资源利用决策及应用[J]. 农业工程学报, 28(1): 127-132.
	[Dong S W, Sun D F, Zhang W W, et al.2012. Application and decisions of resource use based on agricultural resources and economic data platform[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 28(1): 127-132.]
6	风笑天. 2007. 生活质量研究: 近三十年回顾及相关问题探讨[J]. 社会科学研究, 29(6): 1-8.
	[Feng X T.2007. Studies on quality of life: review of achievements during the last 30 years and discussion on relative problems[J]. Social Science Research, 29(6): 1-8.]
7	冯冬燕, 张晓欢. 2012. 西咸城市居民主观生活质量指标体系及评价[J]. 西安工程大学学报, 26(1): 117-121.
	[Feng D Y, Zhang X H.2012. The index system and evaluation on Xi'an and Xianyang urban residents' subjective quality of life[J]. Journal of Xi'an Polytechnic University, 26(1): 117-121.]
8	何仁伟, 刘邵权, 陈国阶, 等. 2013. 中国农户可持续生计研究进展及趋向[J]. 地理科学进展, 32(4): 657-670.
	[He R W, Liu S Q, Chen G J, et al.2013. Research progress and tendency of sustainable livelihoods for peasant household in China[J]. Progress in Geography, 32(4): 657-670.]
9	姜明伦, 李红. 姜翠红, 等. 2013. 北京市农村经济薄弱地区发展规划(2014-2020)[R/OL]. 2014-10-16[2014-11-01]. [Jiang M L, Li H, Jiang C H, et al. 2013. Regional development planning of Beijing rural economy weak area(2014-2020)[R/OL]. 2014-10-16[<date-in-citation content-type="access-date">2014-11-01</date-in-citation>]. .]
10	李伟. 2013. 基于变异系数法的模糊数学模型在城市生态系统健康评价中的应用[J]. 环境保护与循环经济, 35(11): 24-27, 38.
	[Li W.2013. The application of the fuzzy mathematics model basing on the variation coefficient method in urban ecosystem health evaluation.[J]. Urban and Rural Environmental Science & Technology, 35(11):24-27, 38.]
11	林南, 王玲, 潘允康, 等. 1987. 生活质量的结构与指标: 1985年天津千户户卷调查资料分析[J]. 社会学研究, 2(6): 73-89.
	[Lin N, Wang L, Pan Y K, et al.1987. Structure and indicator of life quality: thousand household survey data analysis in Tianjin 1985[J]. Sociological Research, 2(6): 73-89.]
12	林晓珊. 2010. 浙江城市居民生活质量的区域差异: 一项基于客观指标的聚类分析[J]. 西北人口, 31(3): 95-100.
	[Lin X S.2010. Regional differences in the quality of life of Zhejiang citizen: a cluster study based on objective index[J]. Northwest Population Journal, 31(3): 95-100.]
13	柳劲松. 2009. 我国居民生活质量地区差异的Topsis分析: 基于公共服务均等化视角[J]. 中国市场, 16(5): 99-101.
	[Liu J S.2009. Topsis analysis of residents' regional differences on life quality in China: basing on the perspective of public service equalization[J]. China Market, 16(5): 99-101.]
14	全面建设小康社会统计监测课题组. 2011. 中国全面建设小康社会进程统计监测报告(2011)[J]. 调研世界, 24(12): 3-7.
	[Statistical Monitoring Researching Group.2011. Statistical monitoring report on the course of building a well-off society in an all-around way in 2011[J]. The World of Survey and Research, 24(12): 3-7.]
15	汪海凤, 赵英. 2013. 基于因子分析的我国各省市高新技术企业成长性比较研究[J]. 科技管理研究, 33(4): 59-64.
	[Wang H F, Zhao Y.2013. A comparative study on the growth of hi-tech enterprises in various provinces and cities of China based on the factor analysis method[J]. Science and Technology Management Research, 33(4): 59-64.]
16	王圣云. 2009. 区域发展不平衡的福祉空间地理学透视[D]. 华东师范大学.
	[Wang S Y.2009. The space and geography perspective of welfare in different regions of unbalanced development[D]. East China Normal University.]
17	王圣云, 沈玉芳. 2010. 福祉地理学研究新进展[J]. 地理科学进展, 29(8):899-905.
	[Wang S Y, Shen Y F.2010. Advances in the researches on well-being geography[J]. Progress in Geography, 29(8):899-905.]
18	谢芳, 谢全彪. 2007. 关于幸福指数的社会调查方法的探讨[J]. 产业与科技论坛, 2(2): 126-127.
	[Xie F, Xie Q B.2007. Discuss about social investigation methods of the happiness index[J]. Industrial & Science Tribune, 2(2): 126-127.]
19	Galbraith J K.1958. The affluent society[M]. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books.
20	Haq R, Zia U.2013. Multidimensional wellbeing: an index of quality of life in a developing economy[J]. Social Indicators Research, 114(3): 997-1012.
21	Jongudomkarn, Camfield D L.2006. Exploring the quality of life of people in north-eastern and southern Thailand[J]. Social Indicators Research, 78(3): 489-529.
22	Tenenbaum J B, De Silva V, Langford J C.2000. A global geometric framework for nonlinear dimensionality reduction[J]. Science, 290: 2319-2323.
23	Zhang C, Robinson D, Wang J, et al.2011. Factors influencing farmers' willingness to participate in the conversion of cultivated land to wetland program in Sanjiang National Nature Reserve, China[J]. Environmental Management, 47(1): 107-120.

一级指标	二级指标	权重		绝对权重	目标值/%
一级指标	二级指标	一级		绝对权重	二级
恩格尔系数		0.1739		0.17390	40
居住质量	人均居住面积(≥25 m²)	0.4783	0.10	0.04784	100
	住房结构(水泥、砖木)		0.10	0.04784	100
	自来水		0.25	0.11957	100
	清洁能源(气+电)		0.15	0.07174	100
	厕所(水冲式)		0.25	0.11957	100
	村内道路硬化率(水泥、石板、柏油)		0.15	0.07174	100
	总计		1.00	0.47830	75
文娱支出占比		0.1304		0.13040	7
信息化程度	电视	0.2174	0.20	0.04348	100
	电话		0.40	0.08696	100
	电脑		0.40	0.08696	100
	总计		1.00	0.21740	60

一级指标	二级指标	三级指标
家庭生活满意度	饮食、住房、家庭关系、收入
社会生活满意度	文化娱乐、安全感、被尊重感、社会关系
发展需求满意度	教育	学校设施、师资力量、教育投入
发展需求满意度	产业服务	科技服务、农民合作社、信息服务、就业服务
公共服务满意度	村庄基础设施	道路、交通工具、水电、居住环境、公共卫生设施
	社会保障	医疗、低保、养老
	公共安全	社会治安、环保措施、生态环境

	编号	总量修正系数	基础指标一致性	一级指标一致性	整体一致性	一级指标内部一致性
家庭层面	A₁	0.488	0.921	0.741	0.923	0.619
	A₂	0.531	0.920			0.626
	A₃	0.398	0.922			0.724
	A₄	0.346	0.923			0.751
社会层面	B₁	0.737	0.917	0.612		0.605
	B₂	0.469	0.921			0.465
	B₃	0.467	0.921			0.475
	B₄	0.363	0.924		0.648
发展需求	C₁	0.471	0.921	0.830	0.819
	C₂	0.471	0.921		0.824
	C₃	0.767	0.917		0.790
	C₄	0.721	0.917		0.781
	C₅	0.747	0.917		0.779
	C₆	0.700	0.917		0.789
	C₇	0.322	0.923		0.856
公共服务	D₁	0.548	0.920	0.849	0.831
	D₂	0.686	0.918		0.826
	D₃	0.485	0.922		0.835
	D₄	0.736	0.917		0.827
	D₅	0.751	0.917		0.831
	D₆	0.252	0.924		0.859
	D₇	0.627	0.919		0.832
	D₈	0.676	0.918		0.829
	D₉	0.655	0.918		0.832
	D₁₀	0.746	0.917		0.826
	D₁₁	0.660	0.918		0.827

一级指标	二级指标	三级指标
家庭生活A	饮食X₁
	住房X₂
	家庭关系X₃
	收入X₄
社会生活B	文化娱乐X₅
	被尊重感X₆
	社会关系X₇
发展需求C	教育X₈	学校设施Y₁
		师资力量Y₂
		教育投入Y₃
	产业服务X₉	农业科技服务Y₄
		农业合作社Y₅
		农业信息服务Y₆
		就业服务Y₇
公共服务D	村庄基础设施X₁₀	道路Y₈
		交通工具Y₉
		水电Y₁₀
		居住环境Y₁₁
		公共卫生设施Y₁₂
	社会保障X₁₁	医疗Y₁₃
		低保Y₁₄
		养老Y₁₅
	公共安全X₁₂	社会治安Y₁₆
		环保措施Y₁₇
		生态环境满意度Y₁₈

模型	t	Sig.	共线性统计量
模型	t	Sig.	容差	VIF
常量	-5.744	0.000
Y₈	45.700	0.000	0.505	1.980
Y₉	47.550	0.000	0.548	1.825
Y₁₀	39.494	0.000	0.450	2.222
Y₁₁	46.494	0.000	0.478	2.090
Y₁₂	43.582	0.000	0.532	1.878