Land Use Efficiency and Total Factor Productivity—Distribution Dynamic Evolution of Rural Living Space in Chongqing, China
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methods and Data
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Data Source
- (a)
- Domestic sewage emissions (t·a−1) = total rural population × rural domestic sewage emission factor × mean sewage content × export coefficient.
- (b)
- Domestic garbage emissions (t·a−1) = total rural population × rural domestic garbage emission factor × mean landfill leachate content × export coefficient.
2.3. Methodology
2.3.1. Malmquist–Luenberger (ML) Productivity Index
2.3.2. Kernel Function
3. Results
3.1. The Results and Analysis of LUTFP of Chongqing Based on Malmquist Productivity Index Decomposition
3.2. Spatial Evolution of the Land Use Efficiency in Chongqing Rural Living Space Subsystem
4. Conclusions and Discussion
4.1. Discussion
4.2. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Tang, D.; Tang, J.; Xiao, Z.; Ma, T.; Bethel, B.J. Environmental regulation efficiency and total factor productivity—Effect analysis based on Chinese data from 2003 to 2013. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 73, 312–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turner, B.L.; Lambin, E.F.; Reenberg, A. The emergence of land change science for global environmental change and sustainability. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104, 20666–20671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Long, H.L. Land Use Transition and Rural Transformation Development. Prog. Geogr. 2012, 31, 131–138. [Google Scholar]
- Li, Y.H.; Li, Y.R.; Hans, W.L.; Liu, Y.S. Urban–rural transformation in relation to cultivated land conversion in China: Implications for optimizing land use and balanced regional development. Land Use Policy 2015, 47, 218–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beames, A.; Broekx, S.; Heijungs, R.; Lookman, R.; Boonen, K.; Geert, Y.V.; Kris, D.C.; Piet, S.J. Accounting for land-use efficiency and temporal variations between Brownfield remediation alternatives in life-cycle assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 101, 109–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morgan, C.; Mutoko, A.B.; Lars, H.; Chris, A. Shisanya Farm diversity, resource use efficiency and sustainable land management in the western highlands of Kenya. J. Rural Stud. 2014, 36, 108–120. [Google Scholar]
- Xie, H.L.; Wang, W. Exploring the spatial-temporal disparities of urban land use economic efficiency in china and its influencing factors under environmental constraints based on a sequential, slacks-based model. Sustainability 2015, 7, 10171–10190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Halleux, J.M.; Marcinczak, S.; Krabben, E.V.D. The adaptive efficiency of land use planning measured by the control of urban sprawl. The cases of the Netherlands, Belgium and Poland. Land Use Policy 2012, 29, 887–898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Färe, R.; Grosskopf, S. New Directions: Efficiency and Productivity; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2005; Volume 17, pp. 979–995. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, H.; Wang, L.; Su, F.; Tao, R. Rural residential properties in china: Land use patterns, efficiency and prospects for reform. Habitat Int. 2012, 36, 201–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, C.L.; Li, M.C.; Li, F.X.; Chen, J.L.; Shao, Y.X. Assessment of Rural Land Use Efficiency in Fenshui Town based on DEA. China Land Sci. 2011, 25, 16–21. [Google Scholar]
- Quaye, A.K.; Hall, C.A.S.; Luzadis, V.A. Agricultural land use efficiency and food crop production in Ghana. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2010, 12, 967–983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, H.L.; Wang, C.W.; Li, P. Different types of farmers’ land consciousness of land using efficiency evaluation, to wait and see the town, Beibei District, Chongqing as an example. Teach. Educ. J. 2012, 10, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Seiford, L.M.; Zhu, J. Modeling undesirable factors in efficiency evaluation. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2002, 142, 16–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Färe, R.; Grosskopf, S. Modeling undesirable factors in efficiency evaluation: Comment. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2004, 157, 242–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Molinos-Senante, M.; Maziotis, A.; Sala-Garrido, R. Assessment of the Total Factor Productivity Change in the English and Welsh Water Industry: A Färe-Primont Productivity Index Approach. Water Resour. Manag. 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baležentis, T. The Sources of the Total Factor Productivity Growth in Lithuanian Family Farms: A Färe-Primont Index Approach. Prague Econ. Pap. 2015, 24, 225–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baležentis, T.; Baležentis, A. Dynamics of the total factor productivity in Lithuanian family farms with a statistical inference: The bootstrapped Malmquist indices and Multiple Correspondence Analysis. Econ. Res. Ekonomska Istraživanja 2016, 29, 643–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hong, H.K.; Liao, H.P.; Wei, C.F.; Xie, D.T. Health assessment of a land use system used in the ecologically sensitive area of the Three Gorges reservoir area, based on the improved TOPSIS Method. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2015, 35, 8016–8027. [Google Scholar]
- Yan, J.; Zhuo, R.; Xie, D.; Zhang, Y. Land use characters of farmers of different livelihood strategies: Cases in three gorges reservoir area. Acta Geogr. Sin. 2010, 65, 1401–1410. [Google Scholar]
- Ni, J.P.; Gao, M.; Wei, C.F. Watershed sediment yield and effect of spatial scale based on high resolution digital elevation model and GEOWEPP. Acta Pedol. Sin. 2010, 47, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, X.J.; Ma, Q.F. The material metabolism response of regional land use change. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2008, S1, 6–11. [Google Scholar]
- Xiao, X.C.; Ni, J.P.; He, B.H.; Xie, D.T. Estimation of Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Loads and Regional Differentiation in Chongqing Section of the Three Gorges Reservoir Region. J. Basic Sci. Eng. 2014, 22, 634–645. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, G.N.; Shao, J.A.; Wang, J.L. Spatial and Temporal Variations of Agricultural Non-point Source Pollution in the Three Gorges Reservoir Area of Chongqing. J. Natl. Resour. 2015, 30, 1197–1209. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, M.P.; Chen, J.N.; Lai, S.Y. Inventory analysis and spatial distribution of Chinese agricultural and rural pollution. China Environ. Sci. 2006, 26, 751–755. [Google Scholar]
- Seto, K.C.; Fragkias, M. Quantifying spatiotemporal patterns of urban land use change in four cities of China with time series landscape metrics. Landsc. Ecol. 2005, 20, 871–888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zanten, H.H.E.V.; Mollenhorst, H.; Klootwijk, C.W.; Middelaar, C.E.V.; Boer, I.J.M.D. Global food supply: Land use efficiency of livestock systems. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2015, 21, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Szabó, S.; Bertalan, L.; Ágnes, K.; Novák, T.J. Possibilities of land use change analysis in a mountainous rural area: A methodological approach. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 2016, 4, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Charnes, A.; Hornes, K.E.; Hazleton, J.E.; Ryan, M.J. A hierarchical goal programming approach to environmental land-use management, 1998–2002. Geogr. Anal. 1975, 7, 121–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, X.B. Quantitative Analysis of Land Use Efficiency in China. Ph.D. Thesis, Liaoning University, Shenyang, China, June 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Pan, D.; Ying, R.Y. Agricultural Total Factor Productivity Growth in China under the Binding of Resource and Environment. Resour. Sci. 2013, 35, 1329–1338. [Google Scholar]
- Xie, H.L.; Wang, W. Spatiotemporal differences and convergence of urban industrial land use efficiency for China’s major economic zones. J. Geogr. Sci. 2015, 25, 1183–1198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feng, X.L.; Huo, X.X. Total factor productivity of apple industry in China considering non-point source pollution and its spatial concentration analysis. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2015, 31, 204–211. [Google Scholar]
- Bryan, B.A.; Crossman, N.D.; Nolan, M.; Li, J.; Navarro, J.; Connor, J.D. Land use efficiency: Anticipating future demand for landsector greenhouse gas emissions abatement and managing trade-offs with agriculture, water, and biodiversity. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2015, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Caves, D.W.; Christensen, L.R.; Diewert, W.E. The economic theory of index numbers and the measurement of input, output, and productivity. Econometrica 1982, 50, 1393–1414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nishimizu, M.; Page, J.M. Total Factor Productivity Growth, Technological Progress and Technical Efficiency Change: Dimensions of Productivity Change in Yugoslavia. Econ. J. 1982, 92, 920–936. [Google Scholar]
- Färe, R.; Grosskopf, S.; Norris, M.; Zhang, Z. Productivity growth, technical progress, and efficiency change in industrialized countries. Am. Econ. Rev. 1994, 84, 66–83. [Google Scholar]
- Wen, T.; Wang, X.H.; Dong, W.J. Performance evaluation and improvement path of government educational resources allocation: A case study of Chongqing city. J. Southwest. Univ. Soc. Sci. Ed. 2013, 39, 48–56. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, K.; Wei, Y.M. Sources of energy productivity change in China during 1997–2012: A decomposition analysis based on the Luenberger productivity indicator. Energy Econ. 2016, 54, 50–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stegman, A.; Mckibbin, W.J. Convergence and Per Capita Carbon Emission. Brook. Discuss. Pap. Int. Econ. 2005, 167, 1–69. [Google Scholar]
- Ezcurra, R. Is There Cross-country Convergence in Carbon Dioxide Emission? Energy Policy 2007, 35, 1363–1372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, H.J.; Zhao, H. Study on the regional difference of carbon dioxide emission intensity in China. Stat. Res. 2012, 6, 46–50. [Google Scholar]
- Azizi, H.; Akbari, E.; Amiri, N. Remote Sensing and Land Use Extraction for Kernel Functions Analysis by Support Vector Machines with ASTER Multispectral Imagery. Iran. J. Earth Sci. 2012, 4, 85–94. [Google Scholar]
- Cho, G.S.; Gantulga, N.; Choi, Y.W. A comparative study on multi-class SVM & kernel function for land cover classification in a KOMPSAT-2 image. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qin, X.H.; Peng, L.; He, J. Satisfaction evaluation of rural environmental sanitation in Chongqing city based on urban and rural areas. J. Southwest. Norm. Univ. 2013, 38, 136–141. [Google Scholar]
Variable Category | Variable Name | Description | Units |
---|---|---|---|
Inputs | LABOR (A1) | Rural population | 104 Persons |
AREA (A2) | Rural residential land | km2 | |
ENERGY (A3) | Electricity consumption in rural areas | 104 kwh | |
Desirable outputs | EM1 (B1) | Rural employment | 104 Persons |
B2 | Farmers’ living space per capita | m2 | |
B3 | Rural households’ Engel coefficient inverse ratio | Percent | |
Undesirable outputs | COD (C1) | Chemical oxygen demand | Ton |
NH3-N (C2) | Ammonia nitrogen | Ton | |
TN (C3) | Total nitrogen | Ton | |
TP (C4) | Total phosphorus | Ton |
Year | Chongqing | Metropolitan Functional Area | Newly Developed Urban Area | Northeastern Ecological Conservation Area | Southeastern Environment Protection Area | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ML | EC | TC | ML | EC | TC | ML | EC | TC | ML | EC | TC | ML | EC | TC | |
2003–2004 | 0.987 | 1.065 | 0.983 | 0.961 | 0.996 | 0.986 | 1.014 | 1.185 | 0.987 | 0.976 | 1.016 | 0.975 | 0.990 | 1.009 | 0.988 |
2004–2005 | 1.002 | 0.983 | 1.011 | 1.010 | 0.986 | 1.014 | 0.998 | 0.987 | 1.004 | 1.000 | 0.975 | 1.013 | 1.005 | 0.988 | 1.017 |
2005–2006 | 1.011 | 1.011 | 1.015 | 1.020 | 1.014 | 1.019 | 0.986 | 1.004 | 1.009 | 1.017 | 1.013 | 1.006 | 1.035 | 1.017 | 1.035 |
2006–2007 | 1.014 | 1.015 | 1.046 | 1.060 | 1.019 | 1.044 | 1.008 | 1.009 | 1.041 | 0.965 | 1.006 | 1.014 | 1.055 | 1.035 | 1.116 |
2007–2008 | 1.005 | 1.046 | 0.947 | 1.035 | 1.044 | 1.009 | 0.988 | 1.041 | 0.937 | 0.995 | 1.014 | 0.943 | 1.017 | 1.116 | 0.890 |
2008–2009 | 0.998 | 0.947 | 1.079 | 0.977 | 1.009 | 1.026 | 1.000 | 0.937 | 1.122 | 1.018 | 0.943 | 1.079 | 0.984 | 0.890 | 1.064 |
2009–2010 | 1.012 | 1.079 | 0.943 | 1.040 | 1.026 | 0.978 | 1.006 | 1.122 | 0.913 | 1.011 | 1.079 | 0.959 | 0.987 | 1.064 | 0.931 |
2010–2011 | 0.997 | 0.943 | 1.000 | 1.111 | 0.978 | 1.100 | 0.950 | 0.913 | 0.935 | 0.975 | 0.959 | 0.993 | 0.979 | 0.931 | 1.008 |
2011–2012 | 1.010 | 1.000 | 0.985 | 1.014 | 1.100 | 1.024 | 1.026 | 0.935 | 0.940 | 1.007 | 0.993 | 1.005 | 0.977 | 1.008 | 0.984 |
2012–2013 | 1.004 | 0.985 | 0.963 | 1.000 | 1.024 | 1.010 | 0.999 | 0.940 | 0.895 | 1.007 | 1.005 | 0.985 | 1.012 | 0.984 | 0.999 |
average | 1.004 | 1.007 | 0.997 | 1.023 | 1.020 | 1.021 | 0.998 | 1.007 | 0.978 | 0.997 | 1.000 | 0.997 | 1.004 | 1.004 | 1.003 |
© 2017 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 ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Hong, H.; Xie, D.; Liao, H.; Tu, B.; Yang, J. Land Use Efficiency and Total Factor Productivity—Distribution Dynamic Evolution of Rural Living Space in Chongqing, China. Sustainability 2017, 9, 444. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9040444
Hong H, Xie D, Liao H, Tu B, Yang J. Land Use Efficiency and Total Factor Productivity—Distribution Dynamic Evolution of Rural Living Space in Chongqing, China. Sustainability. 2017; 9(4):444. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9040444
Chicago/Turabian StyleHong, Huikun, Deti Xie, Heping Liao, Bo Tu, and Jun Yang. 2017. "Land Use Efficiency and Total Factor Productivity—Distribution Dynamic Evolution of Rural Living Space in Chongqing, China" Sustainability 9, no. 4: 444. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9040444