Impact Assessment of Farmland Lease-Out on Rural Households’ Livelihood Capital and Livelihood Strategy
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review and Theoretical Framework
2.1. Literature Review
2.2. Theoretical Analysis of the Relationship between Farmland Lease-Out and Farmers’ Livelihood Capital
2.3. Theoretical Analysis on the Change of Farmers’ Family Livelihood Strategy
3. Data and Methods
3.1. Data Source
3.2. Variables Selection and Definition
3.2.1. Dependent Variables
3.2.2. Independent Variables
4. Model and Empirical Analysis
4.1. Model Methods
4.1.1. Seemingly Unrelated Regression (SUR)
4.1.2. Binary Logistic Regression Model
4.2. Results for the Impact of Farmland Lease-Out on Rural Households’ Livelihood Capital
4.3. Results for the Impact of Farmland Lease-Out on Rural Households’ Livelihood Strategies
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Mullan, K.; Grosjean, P.; Kontoleon, A. Land tenure arrangements and rural–urban migration in China. World Dev. 2011, 39, 123–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, J.; Song, G.; Sun, X. Does labor migration affect rural land transfer? Evidence from China. Land Use Policy 2020, 99, 105096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, K.; Yang, X.; Zhang, J.; Wang, Z. Differential evolution of farmers’ livelihood strategies since the 1980s on the Loess Plateau, China. Land 2022, 11, 157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiangxi Provincial Bureau of Statistics of China (JPBSC). Jiangxi Provincial Statistical Year Book 2020; China Statistics Press: Beijing, China, 2020. (In Chinese)
- Han, W.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, X. Farmland rental participation, agricultural productivity, and household income: Evidence from rural China. Land 2021, 10, 899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andreas, J.; Zhan, S. Hukou and land: Market reform and rural displacement in China. J. Peasant. Stud. 2016, 43, 798–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ali, A.; Abdulai, A.; Goetz, R. Impacts of tenancy arrangements on investment and efficiency: Evidence from Pakistan. Agric. Econ. 2012, 43, 85–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diniz, F.H.; Hoogstra-Klein, M.A.; Kok, K.; Arts, B. Livelihood strategies in settlement projects in the Brazilian Amazon: Determining drivers and factors within the Agrarian Reform Program. J. Rural. Stud. 2013, 32, 196–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baffoe, G.; Matsuda, H. An empirical assessment of rural livelihood assets from gender perspective: Evidence from Ghana. Sustain. Sci. 2017, 13, 815–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shui, Y.; Xu, D.; Liu, S. Research on Role Cognition and Employment Strategy of Rural Female Laborers in Sichuan, China. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- National Bureau of Statistics of China (NBSC). National Monitoring Report of Migrant Workers of China in 2020; National Bureau of Statistics of China: Beijing, China, 2021. (In Chinese)
- Baulch, R.; Hoddinot, J. Economic mobility and poverty dynamics in developing countries. J. Dev. Stud. 2000, 36, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dartanto, T.; Nurkholis. The determinants of poverty dynamics in Indonesia: Evidence from panel data. Bull. Indones. Econ. Stud. 2013, 49, 61–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nega, F.; Mathijs, E.; Deckers, J. Rural Poverty Dynamics and Impact of Intervention Programs upon Chronic and Transitory Poverty in Northern Ethiopia. Afr. Dev. Rev. 2010, 22, 92–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Block, S.; Webb, P. The dynamics of livelihood diversification in post-famine Ethiopia. Food Policy 2001, 26, 333–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ubiali, B.; Alexiades, M. Forests, Fields, and Pastures: Unequal Access to Brazil Nuts and Livelihood Strategies in an Extractive Reserve, Brazilian Amazon. Land 2022, 11, 967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Asfaw, S.; Pallante, G.; Palma, A. Diversification strategies and adaptation deficit: Evidence from rural communities in Niger. World Dev. 2018, 101, 219–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kar, G.; Singh, R.; Venna, H.M. Alternative cropping strategies for assured and efficient crop production in upland rainfed rice areas of eastern India based on rainfall analysis. Agric. Water Manag. 2004, 67, 47–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kasem, S.; Thapa, G.B. Crop diversification in Thailand: Status, determinants, and effects on income and use of inputs. Land Use Policy 2011, 28, 618–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jansen, H.G.P.; Pender, J.; Damon, A. Policies for sustainable development in the hillside areas of Honduras: A quantitative livelihoods approach. Agric. Econ. 2010, 34, 141–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nielsen, O.J.; Rayamajhi, S.; Uberhuage, P. Quantifying rural livelihood strategies in developing countries using an activity choice approach. Agric. Econ. 2013, 44, 57–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woldenhanna, T.; Oskam, A. Income diversification and entry barriers: Evidence from the Tigray regin of northern Ethiopia. Food Policy 2001, 26, 351–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhandari, P. Relative deprivation and migration in an agricultural setting of Nepal. Popul. Environ. 2004, 25, 475–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herrmann, S.; Fox, J.M. Assessment of rural livelihoods in South-West China based on environmental, economic and social indicators. Ecol. Indic. 2014, 36, 746–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Galipeau, B.A.; Ingman, M.; Tilt, B. Dam-induced displacement and agricultural livelihoods in China’s Mekong basin. Hum. Ecol. 2013, 41, 437–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhen, N.; Fu, B.; Lü, Y. Changes of livelihood due to land use shifts: A case study of Yanchang County in the Loess Plateau of China. Land Use Policy 2014, 40, 28–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuang, F.; Jin, J.; He, R. Influence of livelihood capital on adaptation strategies: Evidence from rural households in Wushen Banner, China. Land Use Policy 2019, 89, 104228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, H.; Huang, K.; Deng, X. Livelihood Capital and Land Transfer of Different Types of Farmers: Evidence from Panel Data in Sichuan Province, China. Land 2021, 10, 532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghazali, S.; Zibaei, M.; Keshavarz, M. The effectiveness of livelihood management strategies in mitigating drought impacts and improving livability of pastoralist households. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2022, 77, 103063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Besley, T.; Burgess, R. Land reform, poverty reduction, and growth: Evidence from India. Q. J. Econ. 2000, 115, 389–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, M.; Li, M.; Jin, B. Does Livelihood Capital Influence the Livelihood Strategy of Herdsmen? Evidence from Western China. Land 2021, 10, 763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, L.; Zhao, Q.; Hong, H. What is the impact of farmland transfer behavior on the livelihood capital of farmers’ families?The evidence from the validation of the CFPS data. Tech. Econ. 2021, 40, 119–127. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, H.; Tong, J.; Su, F. To reallocate or not: Reconsidering the dilemma in China’s agricultural land tenure policy. Land Use Policy 2011, 28, 805–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, S.; Gallagher, L.; Min, Q. Examining Linkages among Livelihood Strategies, Ecosystem Services, and Social Well-Being to Improve National Park Management. Land 2021, 10, 823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarkar, A. Agricultural Mechanization in India: A study on the ownership and investment in farm machinery by cultivator households across agro-ecological regions. Millenn. Asia 2020, 11, 160–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rakodi, C. A Capital Assets Framework for Analysing Household Livelihood Strategies: Implications for Policy. Dev. Policy Rev. 1999, 17, 315–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ellis, F. Household strategies and rural livelihood diversification. J. Dev. Stud. 1998, 35, 1–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erenstein, O.; Hellin, J.; Chandna, P. Poverty mapping based on livelihood assets: A meso-level application in the Indo-Gangetic Plains, India. Appl. Geogr. 2010, 30, 112–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, B. Converting Asset Holdings into Livelihood: An Empirical Study on the Role of Household Agency in South Africa. World Dev. 2012, 40, 1394–1406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sujakhu, N.M.; Ranjitkar, S.; He, J. Assessing the Livelihood Vulnerability of Rural Indigenous Households to Climate Changes in Central Nepal, Himalaya. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhandari, P.B. Rural livelihood change? Household capital, community resources and livelihood transition. J. Rural. Stud. 2013, 32, 126–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mushongah, J.; Scoones, I. Livelihood change in rural Zimbabwe over 20 years. J. Dev. Stud. 2012, 48, 1241–1257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thennakoon, S. Rural Livelihood Strategies and the Five Capitals: A Comparative Study in the Selected Villages of Sri Lanka 19th European Conference on Modern South Asian Studies. Int. Asienforum. 2010, 37, 425–428. [Google Scholar]
- Deininger, K.; Jin, S.; Xia, F. Moving off the farm: Land institutions to facilitate structural transformation and agricultural productivity growth in China. World Dev. 2014, 59, 505–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fan, C.C. Rural-urban migration and gender division of labor in transitional China. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 2003, 27, 24–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Z.; Rommel, J.; Feng, S.; Hanisch, M. Can land lease through land cooperatives foster off-farm employment in China? China Econ. Rev. 2017, 45, 35–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Etten, E.J. Changes to land tenure and pastoral lease ownership in Western Australia’s central rangelands: Implications for co-operative, landscape-scale management. Rangel. J. 2013, 35, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Niroula, G.S.; Thapa, G.B. Impacts and causes of land fragmentation, and lessons learned from land consolidation in South Asia. Land Use Policy 2005, 22, 358–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pavithra, S.; Vatta, K. Role of non-farm sector in sustaining rural livelihoods in Punjab. Agric. Econ. Res. Rev. 2013, 26, 257–265. [Google Scholar]
- Poole, N.; Gauthier, R.; Mizrahi, A. Rural poverty in Mexico: Assets and livelihood strategies among the Mayas of Yucatan. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2007, 5, 315–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, L.; Wang, M.; Shi, H. Empirical analysis of the current situation and the influencing factors of the rural household’ livelihood captial under the background of farmland transfer. Res. Agric. Mod. 2019, 40, 612–620. [Google Scholar]
- Nawrotzki, R.J.; Hunter, L.M.; Dickinson, T.W. Rural livelihoods and access to natural capital: Differences between migrants and non-migrants in Madagascar. Demogr. Res. 2012, 26, 661–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, Y.; Shi, G.; Dong, Y. Effects of the post-relocation support policy on livelihood capital of the reservoir resettlers and its implications—A study in Wujiang sub-stream of Yangtze river of China. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2488. [Google Scholar]
- Ahmadzai, H.; Tutundjian, S.; Elouafi, I. Policies for sustainable agriculture and livelihood in marginal lands: A review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, L.; Huang, A.; Xu, Y.; Marcos-Martinez, R.; Duan, Y.; Ji, Z. The influences of livelihood and land use on the variation of forest transition in a typical mountainous area of China. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9359. [Google Scholar]
- Ha-Mim, N.M.; Hossain, M.Z.; Rahaman, K.R.; Mallick, B. Exploring vulnerability–resilience–livelihood nexus in the face of climate change: A multi-criteria analysis for Mongla, Bangladesh. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7054. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, W.; Gong, J.; Wang, Y.; Shen, Y. The causal pathway of rural human settlement, livelihood capital, and agricultural land transfer decision-making: Is it regional consistency? Land 2022, 11, 1077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yideg, A.; Degefa, T. Livelihood impacts of large-scale agricultural investments using empirical evidence from shashamane rural district of oromia region, Ethiopia. Sustainability 2022, 14, 9082. [Google Scholar]
- Mamun, A.A.; Islam, A.R.M.T.; Alam, E.; Chandra Pal, S.; Alam, G.M.M. Assessing riverbank erosion and livelihood resilience using traditional approaches in Northern Bangladesh. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2348. [Google Scholar]
- Ou, M.; Zhong, Y.; Ma, H.; Wang, W.; Bi, M. Impacts of policy-driven transformation in the livelihoods of fishermen on agricultural landscape patterns: A case study of a fishing village, island of Poyang Lake. Land 2022, 11, 1236. [Google Scholar]
Features | Feature Description | Frequency | Proportion (%) |
---|---|---|---|
Age | 35 years old and below | 23 | 6.02% |
36–50 years old | 127 | 33.25% | |
51–65 years old | 87 | 22.77% | |
Over 65 years old | 145 | 37.96% | |
Years of education | 6 years and below | 287 | 75.13% |
6–12 years | 84 | 21.99% | |
12 years and above | 11 | 2.88% | |
Whether had mastered a certain technology | Yes | 37 | 20.16% |
No | 345 | 79.84% |
Livelihood Capital | Aggregated Weights | Indicators | Definitions | Weights |
---|---|---|---|---|
Natural Capital (N) | 0.18 | Per capita area of paddy field | Total area of paddy field/total population of family (mu/person) | 0.65 |
Per capita area of dry land | Total area of dry land/total population of family (mu/person) | 0.35 | ||
Physical capital (P) | 0.12 | Living equipment value | Total value of household living equipment such as tv, refrigerator, washing machine, air conditioner and electric vehicle (yuan) | 0.53 |
Production equipment value | Total value of tractor, tiller, harvester, agricultural tricycle and other agricultural machinery and equipment (yuan) | 0.34 | ||
Livestock value | Total value of livestock and poultry raised (yuan) | 0.13 | ||
Financial Capital (P) | 0.14 | Per capita cash income | Household per capita income in 2019 (yuan) | 0.67 |
Number of rural households they can turn to when in large capital demand | Number of rural households they can turn to when in large capital demand (e.g., marriage, illness, operation, etc.) (household) | 0.18 | ||
The availability of bank loans and non-profit organizations | Whether able to receive bank loans or support from non-profit organizations (yes or no) | 0.15 | ||
Human capital (H) | 0.28 | Number of the household adult labor force | Number of the household adult labor force (person) | 0.13 |
Proportion of labor force under 45 years old | Labor force under 45 years old/total household adult labor force (%) | 0.18 | ||
Education level of the adult labor force | Total number of the adult labor force with education level above junior middle school/total household adult labor force (%) | 0.21 | ||
Health status of the family members | Total number of the adult labor force with good or average health status/total household adult labor force (%) | 0.31 | ||
Whether family members have received employment or entrepreneurship training | Whether the family members have received employment or entrepreneurship training (yes or no) | 0.17 | ||
Social capital (S) | 0.15 | Number of households where they can seek off-farm work | Number of households to which family members can turn for help when looking for off-farm jobs (household) | 0.20 |
Number of urban relatives | Number of relatives that households will contact in the city (person) | 0.34 | ||
Number of relatives serving as village/township cadres or civil servants | Number of relatives serving as village/township cadres or civil servants (person) | 0.30 | ||
Family communication fees | Expenses incurred for household communication equipment in the last month at time of the survey (yuan) | 0.16 | ||
Future expectation (F) | 0.13 | Are you confident in your future life | Are the surveyed farmers confident about their future life (yes or no) | 0.47 |
Do you think living standards will improve in the future | Do the surveyed farmers think that their living standards will improve in the future (yes or no) | 0.53 |
Variable Classification | Variable Name | Definition | Mean | Standard Deviation |
---|---|---|---|---|
Livelihood strategy | Agricultural type or not | Whether the household livelihood strategy is agricultural type: no = 0; yes = 1 | 0.12 | 0.213 |
Agricultural pluriactivity type or not | Whether the household livelihood strategy is agricultural pluriactivity type: no = 0; yes = 1 | 0.29 | 0.296 | |
Off-farm pluriactivity type or not | Whether the household livelihood strategy is off-farm pluriactivity type: no = 0; yes = 1 | 0.42 | 0.497 | |
Off-farm type or not | Whether the household livelihood strategy is off-farm type: no = 0; yes = 1 | 0.17 | 0.245 | |
Farmland lease-out | Whether to carry out farmland lease-out | Whether the household carried out farmland lease-out: no = 0; yes = 1 | 0.54 | 0.499 |
The scale of farmland lease-out | The household lease-out farmland area: continuous variable | 2.39 | 3.405 | |
Household head characteristics | Gender | Gender of the household head: male = 1; female = 2 | 1.18 | 0.381 |
Age | Age of the household head: (year) continuous variable | 53.07 | 15.038 | |
Education level | Years of education of the household head: (year) continuous variable | 6.30 | 3.416 | |
Health status | Health status of the household head: healthy = 1; normal = 2; long-term chronic disease = 3; serious disease = 4; disability = 5 | 1.91 | 1.137 | |
Political status | Political status of the household head: formal or probationary CPC member = 1; non-CPC party member = 2; Non-partisan = 3 | 2.27 | 0.508 | |
Skill mastery | Whether the household head has mastered a certain skill (e.g., breeding, medicine, cooking, performance, etc.): yes = 1; no = 2 | 0.45 | 0.248 | |
Family characteristics | Family labor force ratio | Number of the household adult labor force: (person) continuous variable | 0.49 | 0.215 |
Family migration labor force ratio | Number of family migration labor force/total number of household adult labor force | 0.38 | 0.453 | |
Village characteristics | Village-level labor transfer ratio | Village migration labor force/total labor force (%) | 0.32 | 0.449 |
Village household average income | Household average monthly income in the surveyed village (yuan) | 5651 | 15.87 | |
Distance from town center | Distance from the village to the town center (km) | 4.22 | 2.416 |
Variable Classification | Variable Name | N | P | F | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | Model 6 | ||
Farmland lease-out | Whether to carry out farmland lease-out | −0.311 ** (0.147) | —— | 0.048 *** (0.019) | —— | 0.011 ** (0.007) | —— |
The scale of farmland lease-out | —— | −0.257 ** (0.146) | —— | −0.444 (0.209) | —— | 0.255 (0.248) | |
Household head characteristics | Gender | 0.089 (0.006) | 0.087 (0.059) | 0.013 (0.002) | 0.115 (0.082) | −0.088 (0.015) | 0.768 (0.157) |
Age | 0.023 (0.001) | 0.023 (0.169) | −0.285 * (0.132) | −0.274 * (0.133) | 0.042 (0.043) | 0.045 (0.439) | |
Education level | 0.051 (0.07) | 0.057 (0.073) | 0.089 ** (0.051) | 0.093 ** (0.058) | 0.045 ** (0.019) | 0.059 ** (0.023) | |
Health status | 0.032 (0.010) | 0.029 (0.017) | 0.016 * (0.009) | 0.023 * (0.014) | 0.188 (0.287) | 0.208 (0.287) | |
Political status | 0.064 (0.045) | 0.078 (0.048) | 0.059 (0.061) | −0.074 (0.061) | 0.028 (0.011) | 0.231 (0.011) | |
Skill mastery | −0.060 (0.094) | 0.064 (0.093) | 0.154 * (0.012) | 0.132 * (0.012) | 0.035 ** (0.025) | 0.054 ** (0.029) | |
Family characteristics | Family labor force ratio | −0.013 (0.002) | −0.013 (0.008) | 0.011 ** (0.005) | 0.009 ** (0.003) | 0.025 * (0.021) | 0.019 * (0.013) |
Family migration labor force ratio | −0.012 ** (0.084) | −0.011 ** (0.081) | 0.019 * (0.005) | 0.009 ** (0.003) | 0.110 * (0.022) | 0.099 * (0.027) | |
Village characteristics | Village-level labor transfer ratio | 0.0334 (0.030) | 0.202 (0.073) | 0.047 * (0.025) | 0.023 ** (0.013) | 0.035 (0.525) | 0.012 (0.278) |
Village household average income | 0.5337 (0.044) | 0.493 (0.021) | 0.041 * (0.016) | 0.032 * (0.013) | 0.015 ** (0.011) | 0.019 ** (0.014) | |
Distance from town center | 0.162 (0.083) | 0.053 (0.039) | 0.506 (0.414) | 0.203 (0.078) | 0.372 (0.114) | 0.241 (0.114) | |
Constant | 0.422 ** (0.134) | 0.066 * (0.012) | 0.478 * (0.242) | 0.022 ** (0.011) | 0.021 * (0.015) | 0.208 ** (0.081) | |
Observation | 382 | 382 | 382 | 382 | 382 | 382 | |
R2 | 0.890 | 0.890 | 0.315 | 0.214 | 0.419 | 0.326 |
Variable Classification | Variable Name | H | S | Future Expectation | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Model 7 | Model 8 | Model 9 | Model 10 | Model 11 | Model 12 | ||
Farmland lease-out | Whether to carry out farmland lease-out | 0.252 (0.646) | —— | −0.112 ** (0.078) | —— | −0.127 *** (0.045) | —— |
The scale of farmland lease-out | —— | 0.347 (0.125) | —— | 0.464 (0.152) | —— | 0.211 (0.049) | |
Household head characteristics | Gender | 0.336 (0.795) | 0.223 (0.584) | 0.187 ** (0.096) | 0.202 (0.096) | 0.060 ** (0.031) | 0.065 ** (0.031) |
Age | —— | —— | 0.389 * (0.269) | 0.429 (0.212) | 0.539 (0.874) | 0.562 (0.882) | |
Education level | —— | —— | 0.592 (0.118) | 0.705 (0.118) | 0.611 ** (0.385) | 0.284 * (0.138) | |
Health status | —— | —— | 0.223 * (0.176) | 0.198 * (0.143) | 0.142 * (0.057) | 0.091 * (0.054) | |
Political status | —— | —— | 0.164 ** (0.071) | 0.157 * (0.071) | 0.025 (0.023) | 0.027 (0.023) | |
Skill mastery | —— | —— | 0.145 (0.158) | 0.169 (0.155) | 0.711 ** (0.402) | 0.648 ** (0.306) | |
Family characteristics | Family labor force ratio | —— | —— | 0.124 (0.137) | 0.209 (0.133) | 0.016 * (0.004) | 0.111 ** (0.043) |
Family migration labor force ratio | —— | —— | 0.513 (0.134) | 0.646 (0.173) | 0.113 * (0.053) | 0.148 ** (0.044) | |
Village characteristics | Village-level labor transfer ratio | 0.031 * (0.015) | 0.029 (0.017) | 0.026 (0.009) | 0.045 (0.016) | 0.021 (0.029) | 0.038 (0.032) |
Village household average income | 0.331 * (0.136) | 0.237 * (0.166) | 0.423 (0.165) | 0.260 (0.091) | 0.331 * (0.184) | 0.102 * (0.057) | |
Distance from town center | 0.171 ** (0.075) | 0.336 ** (0.137) | 0.366 (0.704) | 0.757 (0.194) | 0.228 (0.443) | 0.661 (0.552) | |
Constant | 0.512 ** (0.407) | 0.568 * (0.452) | 0.527 * (0.491) | 0.531 ** (0.355) | 0.370 ** (0.159) | 0.396 ** (0.161) | |
Observation | 382 | 382 | 382 | 382 | 382 | 382 | |
R2 | 0.962 | 0.960 | 0.342 | 0.236 | 0.475 *** | 0.260 |
Variable Classification | Variable Name | Agricultural Type | Agricultural Pluriactivity Type | Off-Farm Pluriactivity Type | Off-Farm Type | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Model 13 | Model 14 | Model 15 | Model 16 | Model 17 | Model 18 | Model 19 | Model 20 | ||
Farmland lease-out | Whether to carry out farmland lease-out | −0.037 (1.330) | —— | −0.223 * (0.124) | —— | 1.166 (0.238) | —— | 2.647 ** (1.545) | —— |
The scale of farmland lease-out | —— | −0.103 (0.210) | —— | −0.039 (0.034) | —— | 0.150 ** (0.038) | —— | 1.073 * (0.596) | |
Village characteristics | Distance from town center | 0.153 (0.099) | −0.664 (0.608) | 0.207 (0.277) | 0.054 (0.071) | 0.102 * (0.077) | 0.512 * (0.276) | 1.644 ** (0.886) | 1.257 ** (0.504) |
Controlled variables | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | |
Constant | 2.540 * (1.234) | 0.220 * (0.120) | 1.032 * (0.595) | 0.977 * (0.588) | −2.140 * (1.592) | −2.748 ** (1.264) | −2.305 ** (1.228) | −7.831 * (5.376) | |
Observation | 382 | 382 | 382 | 382 | 382 | 382 | 382 | 382 | |
Pseudo R2 | 0.266 | 0.277 | 0.267 | 0.367 | 0.130 | 0.115 | 0.311 | 0.315 | |
Log Likelihood | −97.060 | −95.565 | −243.871 | −243.834 | −227.915 | −231.784 | −20.984 | −20.844 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Xiao, H.; Xiao, J.; Xie, F. Impact Assessment of Farmland Lease-Out on Rural Households’ Livelihood Capital and Livelihood Strategy. Sustainability 2022, 14, 10736. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710736
Xiao H, Xiao J, Xie F. Impact Assessment of Farmland Lease-Out on Rural Households’ Livelihood Capital and Livelihood Strategy. Sustainability. 2022; 14(17):10736. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710736
Chicago/Turabian StyleXiao, Hui, Jianxiu Xiao, and Fangting Xie. 2022. "Impact Assessment of Farmland Lease-Out on Rural Households’ Livelihood Capital and Livelihood Strategy" Sustainability 14, no. 17: 10736. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710736