Degree of Abandoned Cropland and Socioeconomic Impact Factors in China: Multi-Level Analysis Model Based on the Farmer and District/County Levels
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area and Data Sources
2.2. Study Methods
2.2.1. Definition of the Degree of Abandonment
2.2.2. Multi-Level Model
2.3. Select Multi-Level Model Variables
2.4. Model Goodness of Fit Test
3. Results Analysis
3.1. Abandoned Cropland Decisions and Spatial Distribution of Degree of Abandonment
3.2. Analysis of the Influencing Factors of Cropland Abandonment Degree
3.2.1. Preliminary Inspection
3.2.2. Model Suitability and Reliability Test
3.2.3. Model Results
3.2.4. Model Goodness of Fit Test
4. Discussion
4.1. Analysis of the Influencing Factors of Cropland Abandonment
4.2. Interpretation of the Evolution Process and Mechanism of Cropland Abandonment
4.3. Policy Revelation
4.4. Model Uncertainty
5. Conclusions and Prospects
- Comprehensive use of remote sensing satellites and sampling surveys to monitor the abandonment of cropland and establish a bank of abandoned land, which is closely related to the balance of cropland occupation and reclamation.
- Protect the necessary agricultural labor force, introduce social capital and innovative-entrepreneurial talents to return to the countryside.
- Improve the comprehensive quality of cropland.
- Improve the mechanized transformation of hilly and mountainous areas.
- Develop appropriately scaled operations and promote socialized agricultural production services, such as trusteeship.
- Continue to implement agricultural subsidies and minimum purchase prices.
- Promote revenue, cost, and disaster insurance to ensure agricultural income and asset value.
- Improve the cropland transfer market and strictly implement the Administrative Measures for the Transfer of Rural Land Management Rights, in which special attention should be paid to clarifying the property rights and ownership periods and promoting the long-term investment, development and protection of cropland.
- It is necessary to fully cooperate with the construction of grain production functional zones and important agricultural production protection zones.
- “Stop the non-agriculturalization of cropland, prevent the non-grainization of cropland” 5 and strictly protect “the red line of 1.8 billion mu (120 million hectares) of cropland”.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
1 | The red line for protecting 1.8 billion mu of arable land is the minimum amount of arable land set by the Chinese government to ensure China’s food security. The area of 1.8 billion mu is equal to 120 million hectares. |
2 | The atomistic fallacy refers to the fallacy that occurs when data obtained from individual level analysis are extrapolated to the organizational level. It is used to emphasize the error of ignoring the impact of the organizational level. |
3 | Farmer-specialized cooperative economic organizations refer to the form of enterprise organization formed by farmers, especially small agricultural entities mainly operated by families, who jointly engage in specific economic activities, in order to maintain and improve their respective production and living conditions. Farmers’ participation in the organization is based on voluntary mutual assistance, equality and mutual benefit, and members are required to abide by the laws and regulations of the cooperative. |
4 | Land resources, science and technology should be taken as an important guarantee to ensure food security supply. |
5 | This is a policy of the Chinese government. The connotation is that farmers can only be engaged in agricultural production activities on cropland, planting food crops. |
References
- GFSI. The Global Food Security Index. 2020. Available online: http://foodsecurityindex.eiu.com (accessed on 1 September 2020).
- Levers, C.; Schneider, M.; Prishchepov, A.V.; Estel, S.; Kuemmerle, T. Spatial variation in determinants of agricultural land abandonment in Europe. Sci. Total. Environ. 2018, 644, 95–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Campbell, J.E.; Lobell, D.B.; Genova, R.C.; Field, C.B. The global potential of bioenergy on abandoned agriculture lands. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42, 5791–5794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- MacDonald, D.; Crabtree, J.R.; Wiesinger, G.; Dax, T.; Stamou, N.; Fleury, P.; Lazpita, J.G.; Gibon, A. Agricultural abandonment in mountain areas of Europe: Environmental consequences and policy response. J. Environ. Manag. 2000, 59, 47–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meyfroidt, P.; Lambin, E.F. Global Forest Transition: Prospects for an End to Deforestation. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2011, 36, 343–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weissteiner, C.J.; Boschetti, M.; Bottcher, K.; Carrara, P.; Bordogna, G.; Brivio, P.A. Spatial explicit assessment of rural land abandonment in the Mediterranean area. Glob. Planet. Chang. 2011, 79, 20–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alcantara, C.; Kuemmerle, T.; Baumann, M.; Bragina, E.V.; Griffiths, P.; Hostert, P.; Knorn, J.; Mueller, D.; Prishchepov, A.V.; Schierhorn, F.; et al. Mapping the extent of abandoned farmland in Central and Eastern Europe using MODIS time series satellite data. Environ. Res. Lett. 2013, 8, 035035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Queiroz, C.; Beilin, R.; Folke, C.; Lindborg, R. Farmland abandonment: Threat or opportunity for biodiversity conservation? A global review. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2014, 12, 288–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Angelsen, A.; Kaimowitz, D. Introduction: The role of agricultural technologies in tropical deforestation. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Agricultural Technologies and Tropical Deforestation, Ctr Agronom Trop Investigac Ensenanza, Turrialba, Costa Rica, 11–13 March 1999; pp. 1–17. [Google Scholar]
- Shively, G.; Martinez, E. Deforestation, irrigation, employment and cautious optimism in Southern Palawan, the Philippines. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Agricultural Technologies and Tropical Deforestation, Ctr Agronom Trop Investigac Ensenanza, Turrialba, Costa Rica, 11–13 March 1999; pp. 335–346. [Google Scholar]
- Izquierdo, A.E.; Grau, H.R. Agriculture adjustment, land-use transition and protected areas in Northwestern Argentina. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 858–865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lambin, E.F.; Meyfroidt, P. Land use transitions: Socio-ecological feedback versus socio-economic change. Land Use Policy 2010, 27, 108–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diaz, G.I.; Nahuelhual, L.; Echeverria, C.; Marin, S. Drivers of land abandonment in Southern Chile and implications for landscape planning. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2011, 99, 207–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, S.F.; Li, X.B. Global understanding of farmland abandonment: A review and prospects. J. Geogr. Sci. 2017, 27, 1123–1150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deng, X.; Xu, D.D.; Zeng, M.; Qi, Y.B. Does Internet use help reduce rural cropland abandonment? Evidence from China. Land Use Policy 2019, 89, 104243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, Z.; Song, W. Abandoned cropland: Patterns and determinants within the Guangxi Karst Mountainous Area, China. Appl. Geogr. 2020, 122, 102245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, J.; Yang, Z.; Li, Z.; Li, X.; Xing, L.; Sun, L. Drivers of cropland abandonment in mountainous areas: A household decision model on farming scale in Southwest China. Land Use Policy 2016, 57, 459–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sileika, A.S.; Stålnacke, P.; Kutra, S.; Gaigalis, K.; Berankiene, L. Temporal and Spatial Variation of Nutrient Levels in the Nemunas River (Lithuania and Belarus). Environ. Monit. Assess. 2006, 122, 335–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Segar, J.; Pereira, H.M.; Filgueiras, R.; Karamanlidis, A.A.; Saavedra, D.; Fernandez, N. Expert-based assessment of rewilding indicates progress at site-level, yet challenges for upscaling. Ecography 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baumann, M.; Kamp, J.; Pötzschner, F.; Bleyhl, B.; Dara, A.; Hankerson, B.; Prishchepov, A.V.; Schierhorn, F.; Müller, D.; Hölzel, N.; et al. Declining human pressure and opportunities for rewilding in the steppes of Eurasia. Divers. Distrib. 2020, 26, 1058–1070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kamp, J. Weighing up reuse of Soviet croplands. Nature 2014, 505, 483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Song, W.; Pijanowski, B.C. The effects of China’s cultivated land balance program on potential land productivity at a national scale. Appl. Geogr. 2014, 46, 158–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lieskovsky, J.; Bezak, P.; Spulerova, J.; Lieskovsky, T.; Koleda, P.; Dobrovodska, M.; Burgi, M.; Gimmi, U. The abandonment of traditional agricultural landscape in Slovakia—Analysis of extent and driving forces. J. Rural. Stud. 2015, 37, 75–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muller, D.; Munroe, D.K. Changing Rural Landscapes in Albania: Cropland Abandonment and Forest Clearing in the Postsocialist Transition. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 2008, 98, 855–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Novara, A.; Gristina, L.; Sala, G.; Galati, A.; Crescimanno, M.; Cerda, A.; Badalamenti, E.; La Mantia, T. Agricultural land abandonment in Mediterranean environment provides ecosystem services via soil carbon sequestration. Sci. Total. Environ. 2017, 576, 420–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Paudel, B.; Wu, X.; Zhang, Y.; Rai, R.; Liu, L.; Zhang, B.; Khanal, N.R.; Koirala, H.L.; Nepal, P. Farmland abandonment and its determinants in the different ecological villages of the Koshi river basin, central Himalayas: Synergy of high-resolution remote sensing and social surveys. Environ. Res. 2020, 188, 109711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Xu, D.D.; Deng, X.; Guo, S.L.; Liu, S.Q. Labor migration and farmland abandonment in rural China: Empirical results and policy implications. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 232, 738–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Estel, S.; Kuemmerle, T.; Alcantara, C.; Levers, C.; Prishchepov, A.; Hostert, P. Mapping farmland abandonment and recultivation across Europe using MODIS NDVI time series. Remote Sens. Environ. 2015, 163, 312–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hatna, E.; Bakker, M.M. Abandonment and Expansion of Arable Land in Europe. Ecosystems 2011, 14, 720–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Meyfroidt, P.; Schierhorn, F.; Prishchepov, A.V.; Muller, D.; Kuemmerle, T. Drivers, Constraints and Trade-Offs Associated with Recultivating Abandoned Cropland in Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan. Spat. Econ. 2016, 2, 55–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ramankutty, N.; Heller, E.; Rhemtulla, J. Prevailing Myths About Agricultural Abandonment and Forest Regrowth in the United States. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 2010, 100, 502–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smaliychuk, A.; Muller, D.; Prishchepov, A.V.; Levers, C.; Kruhlov, I.; Kuemmerle, T. Recultivation of abandoned agricultural lands in Ukraine: Patterns and drivers. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2016, 38, 70–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prishchepov, A.V.; Ponkina, E.V.; Sun, Z.; Bavorova, M.; Yekimovskaja, O.A. Revealing the intentions of farmers to recultivate abandoned farmland: A case study of the Buryat Republic in Russia. Land Use Policy 2021, 107, 105513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pazur, R.; Lieskovsky, J.; Burgi, M.; Muller, D.; Lieskovsky, T.; Zhang, Z.; Prischchepov, A.V. Abandonment and Recultivation of Agricultural Lands in Slovakia—Patterns and Determinants from the Past to the Future. Land 2020, 9, 316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ministry of Natural Resources, P. Main Data Bulletin of the Third National Land Survey. Available online: http://www.mnr.gov.cn/dt/ywbb/202108/t20210826_2678340.html (accessed on 28 August 2021).
- Zhang, Y.; Li, X.; Song, W. Determinants of cropland abandonment at the parcel, household and village levels in mountain areas of China: A multi-level analysis. Land Use Policy 2014, 41, 186–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, S.F.; Li, X.B.; Sun, L.X.; Cao, G.Y.; Fischer, G.; Tramberend, S. An estimation of the extent of cropland abandonment in mountainous regions of China. Land Degrad. Dev. 2018, 29, 1327–1342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, X.Z.; Zhao, C.S.; Dong, J.W.; Ge, Q.S. Spatio-temporal pattern of cropland abandonment in China from 1992 to 2017: A Meta-analysis. Acta Geogr. Sin. 2019, 74, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.Y.; Xin, L.J.; Wang, Y.H. Economic growth, government policies, and forest transition in China. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2019, 19, 1023–1033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.H.; Li, X.B.; Xin, L.J.; Tan, M.H. Farmland marginalization and its drivers in mountainous areas of China. Sci. Total. Environ. 2020, 719, 135132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kraemer, R.; Prishchepov, A.V.; Muller, D.; Kuemmerle, T.; Radeloff, V.C.; Dara, A.; Terekhov, A.; Fruhauf, M. Long-term agricultural land-cover change and potential for cropland expansion in the former Virgin Lands area of Kazakhstan. Environ. Res. Lett. 2015, 10, 054012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kobayashi, Y.; Higa, M.; Higashiyama, K.; Nakamura, F. Drivers of land-use changes in societies with decreasing populations: A comparison of the factors affecting farmland abandonment in a food production area in Japan. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0235846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Thünen, J.H.V. Der isolierte Staat in Beziehung auf Landwirtschaft und Nationalökonomie (German Edition); Nabu Press: Berlin, Germany, 2014; p. 696. [Google Scholar]
- Kyer, B.L. A note on Ricardo’s differential rent theory. Atl. Econ. J. 1991, 19, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liang, X.; Li, Y.; Zhou, Y. Study on the abandonment of sloping farmland in Fengjie County, Three Gorges Reservoir Area, a mountainous area in China. Land Use Policy 2020, 97, 104760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kerckhof, A.; Spalevic, V.; Van Eetvelde, V.; Nyssen, J. Factors of land abandonment in mountainous Mediterranean areas: The case of Montenegrin settlements. Springerplus 2016, 5, 485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Shi, T.C.; Li, X.B.; Xin, L.J.; Xu, X.H. Analysis of Farmland Abandonment at Parcel Level: A Case Study in the Mountainous Area of China. Sustainability 2016, 8, 988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shi, T.; Li, X.; Xin, L.; Xu, X. The spatial distribution of farmland abandonment and its influential factors at the township level: A case study in the mountainous area of China. Land Use Policy 2018, 70, 510–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qiu, B.W.; Yang, X.; Tang, Z.H.; Chen, C.C.; Li, H.W.; Berry, J. Urban expansion or poor productivity: Explaining regional differences in cropland abandonment in China during the early 21st century. Land Degrad. Dev. 2020, 31, 2540–2551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baumann, M.; Kuemmerle, T.; Elbakidze, M.; Ozdogan, M.; Radeloff, V.C.; Keuler, N.S.; Prishchepov, A.V.; Kruhlov, I.; Hostert, P. Patterns and drivers of post-socialist farmland abandonment in Western Ukraine. Land Use Policy 2011, 28, 552–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, X.; Yang, J.; Wang, S. China has reached the Lewis turning point. China Econ. Rev. 2011, 22, 542–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Terres, J.-M.; Scacchiafichi, L.N.; Wania, A.; Ambar, M.; Anguiano, E.; Buckwell, A.; Coppola, A.; Gocht, A.; Kallstrom, H.N.; Pointereau, P.; et al. Farmland abandonment in Europe: Identification of drivers and indicators, and development of a composite indicator of risk. Land Use Policy 2015, 49, 20–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zaragozi, B.; Rabasa, A.; Rodriguez-Sala, J.J.; Navarro, J.T.; Belda, A.; Ramon, A. Modelling farmland abandonment: A study combining GIS and data mining techniques. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2012, 155, 124–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ito, J.; Nishikori, M.; Toyoshi, M.; Feuer, H.N. The contribution of land exchange institutions and markets in countering farmland abandonment in Japan. Land Use Policy 2016, 57, 582–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, X.Y.; Zheng, G.Q. Research progress on arable land abandonment in China and abroad. China Popul. Resour. Environ. 2018, 28, 37–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shao, J.A.; Zhang, S.; Li, X. Effectiveness of farmland transfer in alleviating farmland abandonment in mountain regions. J. Geogr. Sci. 2016, 26, 203–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, D.; Guo, S.; Xie, F.; Liu, S.; Cao, S. The impact of rural laborer migration and household structure on household land use arrangements in mountainous areas of Sichuan Province, China. Habitat Int. 2017, 70, 72–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, Z.; Liu, L.; Zhang, H.; Liang, J. Exploring the Factors Driving Seasonal Farmland Abandonment: A Case Study at the Regional Level in Hunan Province, Central China. Sustainability 2017, 9, 187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhang, L.; Tan, S.; Liu, C.; Wang, S. Influence of labor transfer on farmland sustainable development: A regional comparison of plain and hilly areas. Qual. Quant. 2018, 52, 431–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vu, T.-T.; Shen, Y. Land-Use and Land-Cover Changes in Dong Trieu District, Vietnam, during Past Two Decades and Their Driving Forces. Land 2021, 10, 798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, Z.; Song, W. Spatiotemporal variations in cropland abandonment in the Guizhou-Guangxi karst mountain area, China. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 238, 238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xie, H.; Wang, P.; Yao, G. Exploring the Dynamic Mechanisms of Farmland Abandonment Based on a Spatially Explicit Economic Model for Environmental Sustainability: A Case Study in Jiangxi Province, China. Sustainability 2014, 6, 1260–1282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wang, Y.; Peng, P.; Li, Q.; Chen, Z.; Tang, W. Spatial Heterogeneity of Farmland Abandonment in the Sichuan Province, China. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Institute, C.I.D.R. China Household Income Projects, CHIP2013. Available online: http://www.ciidbnu.org/chip/chips.asp?year=2013 (accessed on 2 October 2020).
- Tao, Z.; Guanghui, J.; Guangyong, L.; Dingyang, Z.; Yanbo, Q. Neglected idle rural residential land (IRRL) in metropolitan suburbs: Spatial differentiation and influencing factors. J. Rural. Stud. 2020, 78, 163–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mackenbach, J.P. Roaming through methodology. XXVI. The ecological fallacy and its less well-known counterpart, the atomistic fallacy. Ned. Tijdschr. Voor Geneeskd. 2000, 144, 2097–2100. [Google Scholar]
- Seok, J.-H.; Park, W. Merit Pay and Motivation—A Multilevel Analysis of Organizational Moderators. Rev. Bus. Hist. 2012, 27, 177–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stephen, W.; Raudenbush, A.S.B. Multilevel Linear Models: Applied to Data Analysis Methods; Social Sciences Academic Press: Beijing, China, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Hox, J. Multilevel Analysis: Techniques and Applications; Lawrence Erlbaum Associated Inc.: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2002; p. 342. [Google Scholar]
- Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 1988; p. 559. [Google Scholar]
- Wen, F.X.; Qiu, Z.H. Methodology of Multi-Level Models: Key Problems and Solutions of Hierarchical Linear Models; Economic Management Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2015; p. 221. [Google Scholar]
- Calvin, J.A. Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods. In Technometrics; Taylor Francis Group: Abingdon, UK, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Raudenbush, S.W.; Bryk, A.S. Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods, 2nd ed.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, L.L.L.G.B. Applied Multilevel Data Analysis; Educational Science Publishing House: NanJing, China, 2003; p. 198. [Google Scholar]
- Qianru, C.; Hualin, X. Research Progress and Discoveries Related to Cultivated Land Abandonment. J. Resour. Ecol. 2021, 12, 165–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, W.; Zhang, Y. Farmland Abandonment Research Progress: Influencing Factors and Simulation Model. J. Resour. Ecol. 2019, 10, 345–352. [Google Scholar]
- He, Y.; Xie, H.; Peng, C. Analyzing the behavioural mechanism of farmland abandonment in the hilly mountainous areas in China from the perspective of farming household diversity. Land Use Policy 2020, 99, 104826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, J.; Oh, Y.G.; Yoo, S.H.; Suh, K. Vulnerability assessment of rural aging community for abandoned farmlands in South Korea. Land Use Policy 2021, 108, 105544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yamashita, R.; Hoshino, S. Development of an agent-based model for estimation of agricultural land preservation in rural Japan. Agric. Syst. 2018, 164, 264–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lasanta, T.; Arnáez, J.; Pascual, N.; Ruiz-Flaño, P.; Errea, M.P.; Lana-Renault, N. Space–time process and drivers of land abandonment in Europe. Catena 2017, 149, 810–823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- López-Iglesias, E.; Sineiro-García, F.; Lorenzana-Fernández, R. Processes of Farmland Abandonment: Land Use Change and Structural Adjustment in Galicia (Spain). In Agriculture in Mediterranean Europe: Between Old and New Paradigms; Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.: Bingley, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Li, Z.; Yan, J.; Hua, X.; Xin, L.; Li, X. Factors influencing the cultivated land abandonment of households of different types: A case study of 12 typical villages in Chongqing Municipality. Geogr. Res. 2014, 33, 721–734. [Google Scholar]
- National Bureau of Statistics of China. Statistical Bulletin of the People’s Republic of China on National Economic and Social Development. 2020. Available online: http://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2021-02/28/content_5589283.htm (accessed on 15 March 2021).
- Akaike, H.T. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control. 1974, 19, 716–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tian, Y.; Li, X.; Xin, L. Impacts of the rise of labor opportunity cost on agricultural land use changes: A case study of Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region. J. Nat. Resour. 2009, 24, 369–377. [Google Scholar]
- Li, S.; Li, X. The mechanism of farmland marginalization in Chinese mountainous areas: Evidence from cost and return changes. J. Geogr. Sci. 2019, 29, 531–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tan, Y.; Chen, H.; Xiao, W.; Meng, F.; He, T. Influence of farmland marginalization in mountainous and hilly areas on land use changes at the county level. Sci. Total. Environ. 2021, 794, 149576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, Z.H.; Hao, J.M.; Liang, L.T. Economic Analysis and strategy of farmland abandonment behavior of farmers. J. Ageotechnical Econ. 2008, 03, 43–46. [Google Scholar]
- Guo, B.B.; Fang, Y.L.; Zhou, Y.K. Influencing factors and spatial differentiation of cultivated land abandonment at the household scale. Resour. Sci. 2020, 42, 696–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- National Bureau of Statistics of China. National Migrant Workers Monitoring Survey Report. 2013. Available online: http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/zxfb/201405/t20140512_551585.html (accessed on 20 February 2021).
- van Berkel, D.B.; Verburg, P.H. Sensitising rural policy: Assessing spatial variation in rural development options for Europe. Land Use Policy 2011, 28, 447–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Renwick, A.; Jansson, T.; Verburg, P.H.; Revoredo-Giha, C.; Britz, W.; Gocht, A.; McCracken, D. Policy reform and agricultural land abandonment in the EU. Land Use Policy 2013, 30, 446–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pointereau, P.; Coulon, F.; Girard, P.; Lambotte, M.; Rio, A.D. Analysis of Farmland Abandonment and the Extent and Location of Agricultural Areas that Are Actually Abandoned or Are in Risk to be Abandoned; Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg, 2008; p. 204. [Google Scholar]
- Office, R. Data Assembly of National Rural Permanent Observation Sites Survey (2000–2009); China Agriculture Press: Beijing, China, 2010; p. 246. [Google Scholar]
- Dong, X.Y. Two-tier land tenure system and sustained economic growth in post-1978 rural China. World Dev. 1996, 24, 915–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- National Bureau of Statistics of China. Report on monitoring and Investigation of Rural Migrant Workers in 2020. Available online: http://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2021-04/30/content_5604232.htm (accessed on 16 June 2021).
- The Xinhua News Agency. Opinions of the CPC Central Committee and The State Council on Comprehensively Promoting Rural Revitalization and Accelerating Agricultural and Rural Modernization. Available online: http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/2021-02/21/content_5588098.htm (accessed on 3 March 2021).
- Bai, X.; Yan, H.; Pan, L.; Huang, H.Q. Multi-Agent Modeling and Simulation of Farmland Use Change in a Farming–Pastoral Zone: A Case Study of Qianjingou Town in Inner Mongolia, China. Sustainability 2015, 7, 14802–14833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ding, G.P.; Liu, C.W.; Huang, L.M. A theoretical analysis and empirical research of marginalization of agricultural land in hilly-mountainous area under farmer-benetitmg policy:A case study of Tongcheng County in Hubei Province. J. Geogr. Res. 2009, 028, 109–117. [Google Scholar]
Variable Category | Variable Name | Variable Definition | Mean | Standard Deviation | Minimum Value | Maximum Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dependent variable | ||||||
Degree of abandoned cropland | Proportion of the abandoned household cropland in the total household cropland area | 0.08 | 0.22 | 0.00 | 1.00 | |
Independent variable | ||||||
Level 1—The Farmer Level (n = 8071) | ||||||
Labor characteristics | Workforce per hectare | Number of family agricultural labor/Total area of household cropland (excluding already abandoned cropland) (person/hectare) | 7.80 | 12.90 | 0.00 | 300.00 |
Proportion of the male workforce | Total Male Agricultural Labor/Family Agricultural Labor Force (%) | 0.43 | 0.30 | 0.00 | 1.00 | |
Average age of labor force | Total age/number of agricultural labor force (year) | 42.35 | 21.00 | 0.00 | 87.00 | |
Labor force square root average age | Square root of total age of agricultural labor force/square root of number of agricultural labor force (square root year) | 5.92 | 2.69 | 0.00 | 9.33 | |
Agricultural investment | Value of agricultural operational fixed assets (in log) | logarithmic (log element) of current estimated net value of agricultural operating fixed assets | 4.64 | 421 | 0.00 | 13.59 |
Farmer-specialized cooperative economic organizations | 1 means “Yes”; 0 means “No” (such as Farmers Professional Association, etc.) | 0.03 | 0.17 | 0.00 | 1.00 | |
Cropland transfer | Transfer area of cropland | Total area of peasant household cropland transferred out (hectare) | 0.03 | 0.09 | 0.00 | 2.80 |
Subcontract price of cultivated cropland (in log) | Ln (existing arable cropland subcontract family per-hectare subcontract price) (log yuan) | 10.80 | 30.60 | 0.00 | 143.25 | |
Quality of life | Per capita disposable income (in log) | Total Ln (family disposable income/family population) (log yuan) | 9.11 | 0.71 | 4.76 | 13.19 |
Level 2—The District/County Level (n = 193) | ||||||
Household part-time employment and population mobility | Proportion of part-time employees | Proportion of the number of part-time employees at the district/county level occupying the total number of the main wage work (%) | 0.26 | 0.16 | 0.00 | 1.00 |
Proportion of the number of part-time employees outside the district/county | Proportion of the number of part-time employees outside the district/county and the total number of major wage employees in the district/county (%) | 0.06 | 0.10 | 0.00 | 1.00 | |
Cropland circulation | Cropland transfer market indicators | Total area of cropland transfer/total area of cropland | 0.24 | 0.26 | 0.00 | 1.00 |
Control variable | ||||||
Natural conditions | Topography | Plateau = 1; Mountain =2; Basin = 3; Hills = 4; Plain = 5 (matching according to national standard administrative division code) | 3.55 | 1.33 | 1.00 | 5.00 |
Temperature | Average temperature at district/county level from 2011 to 2013 (℃) | 14.92 | 3.90 | 4.93 | 23.21 | |
Precipitation | Average precipitation at district/county level from 2011 to 2013 (mm) | 956.82 | 390.75 | 94.85 | 2069.61 | |
Family decision-making impact | Head of the household of formal schooling | 1 = Not attended school (including literacy classes and other informal education); 2 = Primary School; 3 = Junior High School; 4 = Senior High School; 5 = Vocational High School/Technical School; 6 = Technical School; 7 = Junior College; 8 = University Undergraduate Degree; 9 = Graduate Student | 2.69 | 0.91 | 1.00 | 9.00 |
Health status | Whether there are disabled people in the family who affect normal work, study and life. 1 = Yes; 0 = No | 0.13 | 0.33 | 0.00 | 1.00 | |
Force majeure | Cropland requisition | 1 = Yes; 0 = No | 0.11 | 0.32 | 0.00 | 1.00 |
Level | Variable | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Fixed effect | ||||
Level 1—The Farmer Level (n = 8071) | ||||
Labor characteristics | Intersection | 0.092401 *** | 0.092295 *** | 0.076400 *** |
(0.010121) | (0.026182) | (0.027243) | ||
Workforce per hectare | −0.020894 ** | −0.020533 ** | ||
(0.008131) | (0.008151) | |||
Proportion of the male workforce | −0.049368 *** | −0.049202 *** | ||
(0.009822) | (0.009808) | |||
Labor force square root average age | −0.027912 *** | −0.027912 *** | ||
(0.002820) | (0.002820) | |||
Agricultural investment | Value of agricultural operational fixed assets (in log) | −0.009514 *** | −0.009420 *** | |
(0.001388) | (0.001370) | |||
Farmer-specialized cooperative economic organizations | 0.003253 | 0.003941 | ||
(0.017318) | (0.017204) | |||
Cropland transfer | Transfer area of cropland | −0.006907 *** | −0.006940 *** | |
(0.002182) | (0.002172) | |||
Subcontract price of cultivated cropland (in log) | −0.010079 *** | −0.009588 *** | ||
(0.002061) | (0.002043) | |||
Quality of life | Per capita disposable income (in log) | 0.017576 *** | 0.017631 *** | |
(0.004288) | (0.004290) | |||
Level 2—The District/County Level (n = 193) | ||||
Part-time job and population mobility | Proportion of part-time employees | −0.144998 *** | ||
(0.051656) | ||||
Proportion of the number of part-time employees outside the district/county | 0.230789 * | |||
(0.138532) | ||||
Cropland circulation | Cropland transfer market indicators | −0.043965 ** | ||
(0.019693) | ||||
Random effects | ||||
0.03820 | 0.03244 | 0.03243 | ||
(Var) | 0.01759 | 0.01788 | 0.01692 | |
AIC criterion | −24,370.33 | −25,968.98 | −26,176.08 |
Phase 1 | Phase 2 | Phase 3 | Phase 4 | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Production activities | Mainly agriculture | Part-time job (high agricultural proportion) | Part-time job (high non-agricultural proportion) | Mainly non-agriculture |
Input | Agriculture: labor input (+) other inputs (+) Non-agricultural: no | Agriculture: labor input (−) technology input (+) Non-Agriculture: labor input (+) | Agriculture: labor input (−), even lower than the minimum input Non-agriculture: labor input (+) | Agriculture: labor input (−), until 0 Non-agricultural: labor input (+) until 100% |
Output | Economy: agricultural income (+) Society: social security value of cropland (+) | Economy: mainly agricultural income (−) non-agricultural income (+) Society: social security value of cropland (−) | Economy: mainly non-agricultural income (+) agricultural income (−) Society: social security value of cropland (−) | Economy: non-agricultural income mainly (+) Society: social security value of cropland (−), take the initiative to give up, until 0 |
Farmer’s decisions | There is no abandonment of cropland | The cropland is recessively abandoned | The cropland is predominantly abandoned—low degree of abandonment | High-degree of abandonment of cropland—completely abandoned or completely transferred or withdrawn |
Policy Advice | The District/County Level | The Farmer Level | |
---|---|---|---|
Natural Condition | |||
The comprehensive quality of cropland is poor and it is mostly located in areas with harsh natural conditions. | Orderly guidance and supervision. Natural exit is mainly dominant. Improve social security. | Class I: Generally poor families or high-age families in remote mountainous areas, we should aim to improve livelihoods among these families. Class II, III and IV: Guide farmers who have the ability to re-allocate production input factors to actively return to farmland, choose diversified livelihoods, and improve social security. | |
The comprehensive quality of cropland is medium and it is mostly located in hilly and mountainous areas. | Improve agricultural production conditions: improve infrastructure, carry out land consolidation, conduct pilot projects to strengthen the quality of cropland projects. Improve agricultural income: implement efficient planting and breeding, Internet + mode, and extend the industrial chain. Build a market mechanism: clarify the cropland property rights, improve the cropland transfer market. | Class I and II: Keep up with the “rural revitalization” strategy, attract talent and capital return, protect the necessary labor force, reasonably develop small areas of high-income crops, and increase agricultural income. Category III and IV: Encourage talented individuals to return to their hometowns to innovate and start businesses, implement support policies, and develop ecological and green agricultural industries. We will guide farmers who lack enthusiasm in agricultural management to transfer their cropland into the market and standardize its transfer procedures. | |
The comprehensive quality of cropland is excellent and it is mostly located in the plain areas. | Improve the level of mechanization, strengthen technical input, and increase output. Stabilize the prices of agricultural products and continue to implement policies based on agricultural subsidies and agricultural insurance. Standardize the market for cropland transfer and operate cropland at an appropriate scale. | Class I and II: Encourage and support large growers, drive individual farmers, and establish cooperative organizations. Class III and IV: Guide the timely transfer of cropland, especially those with strong transfer willingness and long transfer cycles, inhibit seasonal and recessive abandonment, and promote the scale and mechanization of agricultural production. |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 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
Jiang, C.; Song, W. Degree of Abandoned Cropland and Socioeconomic Impact Factors in China: Multi-Level Analysis Model Based on the Farmer and District/County Levels. Land 2022, 11, 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11010008
Jiang C, Song W. Degree of Abandoned Cropland and Socioeconomic Impact Factors in China: Multi-Level Analysis Model Based on the Farmer and District/County Levels. Land. 2022; 11(1):8. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11010008
Chicago/Turabian StyleJiang, Chong, and Wei Song. 2022. "Degree of Abandoned Cropland and Socioeconomic Impact Factors in China: Multi-Level Analysis Model Based on the Farmer and District/County Levels" Land 11, no. 1: 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11010008