草原牧区旅游发展对牧户生计的影响 ——以内蒙古希拉穆仁草原为例

草原牧区旅游发展是牧区实现乡村振兴的重要引擎。以内蒙古希拉穆仁草原旅游地牧户为研究案例,分析草原牧区旅游发展对牧户生计的影响。研究结果：① 草原旅游使牧户生计模式分化为纯牧户、务工主导型、旅游主导型、旅游专营型,且呈现纯牧户向务工主导型牧户过度,务工主导型牧户向旅游主导型牧户过度,旅游主导型牧户向旅游专营型牧户过度的一般演替规律;② 草原旅游发展总体上提高了牧户的生计资本存量,但不同类型牧户生计资本存量具有显著差异,生计资本存量由高到低排序为：旅游专营型牧户、旅游主导型牧户、务工主导型牧户、纯牧户;③ 牧户参与草原旅游,准则层因子障碍度由大到小排序为：人力资本、金融资本、物质资本、社会资本、自然资本;障碍度指数前6位的指标层因子分别是：成人受教育程度、成人劳动力人数、借债情况、社团网络、生产生活设备、社会参与;④ 不 同类型牧户参与草原旅游发展的首要障碍因素不同,纯牧户是受教育程度,务工主导型牧户是家庭人均收入,旅游主导型与旅游专营型牧户是借债情况。

Impact of Tourism Development on the Herdsmen Livelihood in Pastoral Areas: A Case Study of XilaMuren Pastoral Area in Inner Mongolia

The development of prairie tourism is an important driving force for rural revitalization in pastoral areas. The herdsmen of XilaMuren prairie tourism area in Inner Mongolia was selected as the research object, and the impact of grassland tourism development on the livelihood of herdsmen was analyzed. The results indicated that: 1) Prairie tourism differentiated the herdsmen into pure herdsmen, predominantly herdsmen, tourism-leading herdsmen, and tourism-exclusive herdsmen. In addition, it presented the general rule that the pure herdsmen were excessive to the dominant herdsmen. The dominant model was excessive to the tourism-leading type, and the tourism-leading model was excessive to the exclusive herdsmen. 2) The livelihood capital stock of herdsmen had been generally increased due to the development of prairie tourism. However, there were significant differences in the stocks of livelihoods between different types of pastoral households. The order of livelihood capital from high to low was: tourism franchise, tourism dominant, worker dominant, pure shepherd. 3) From the criterion level, the obstacles for herdsmen’s participation from high to low in prairie tourism were: human capital, financial capital, material capital, social capital, natural capital . From the indicator level, the top 6 barrier indicators were: adult education, adult labor force, debt, community network, production and living equipment and social participation. 4) There were significant differences among different types of herdsmen to the participation in the development of prairie tourism. The main obstacle for pure herdsmen was the low level of education, for the dominant herdsmen was the low per capita income of the family, and for the tourism-dominated and tourism-exclusive herdsmen was the pressure on external debt.