农业旱灾综合风险防范多主体共识定量研究——以湖南鼎城区为例

全球气候变化背景下,干旱呈现加重趋势,加强旱灾风险防范对区域农业可持续发展具有重要意义。不同主体的共识程度会影响旱灾风险防范效果,因此,开展旱灾风险防范多主体共识定量化研究,有助于加深主体间合作抗旱机制的认识。本文从“认知—情感”维度出发,同时考虑主体情感积极程度,构建了共识指标体系和基于“距离”的模型,定量了湖南省鼎城区政府、乡镇政府、村委、农户和涉农企业等不同主体在旱灾风险防范上的共识。主要结论为：① “认知”共识中,各组主体在各项指标上的共识平均值呈现应急理解度>备灾理解度>恢复理解度的趋势,各村农户、村委、政府两两之间在恢复措施上的认知差异较为明显。② “情感”共识中,各组主体在各项指标上的共识平均值呈现公平感知<宽容感知<约束感知<归属感的趋势,主体在公平性、体谅他人和接受资源约束上的态度不够积极,其中政府、村委和企业的感知差异最为明显。③ 综合共识中,农户和乡镇政府、村委和区政府、乡镇政府和区政府共识的平均值均大于0.65,企业和其他主体共识的平均值均不超过0.6。以上结果揭示了主体间的感知差异,为社会—生态系统旱灾综合风险防范多主体“凝心聚力”研究开辟了一条定量化新思路,为进一步考虑灾害不同阶段、不同主体需求和资源配置等问题在风险防范中发挥的作用提供借鉴与参考。

Quantifying the consensus of multi-stakeholders on integrated risk governance of agricultural drought:Taking Dingcheng,Hunan,China as a case study

Under the background of global climate change, drought has become more serious than before. Therefore strengthening drought risk governance is of great significance to the sustainable development of regional agriculture. The consensus of different stakeholders will affect drought risk governance, so quantifying consensus will help to deepen the understanding of cooperation and drought relief mechanism of multi-stakeholders. Starting from the "cognitive-emotional” dimension and considering the emotional positivity, this article constructed a consensus indicator system and a model based on "distance" to quantify the consensus of Dingcheng district government, township governments, village committees, households and agricultural enterprises in Hunan Province. The main conclusions are as follows: (1) In the "cognition" consensus, the average value of each group presents a trend of emergency understanding > preparedness understanding > recovery understanding. Cognition differences among households, village committees, and governments in preparedness and recovery measures are more obvious. (2) In the "emotion" consensus, the average of each group presents a trend of fairness perception < tolerance perception < constraint perception < sense of belonging. The attitudes of stakeholders towards fairness, consideration for others, and acceptance for resource constraints are not positive. The government, village committees, and enterprises have obvious differences. (3) In the integrated consensus, the average values of households with township governments, village committees with district government, township governments with district government are greater than 0.65, while those of the enterprises with other stakeholders do not exceed 0.6. The results reveal the differences in the perceptions, and open up a new quantifiable idea for the multi-stakeholders' "consilience" research on the integrated risk governance of drought, which provides references for further consideration of different stages, requirements of different stakeholders and resource allocation in the risk governance.