Next Article in Journal
Spatiotemporal Change Analysis and Multi-Scenario Modeling of Ecosystem Service Values: A Case Study of the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Urban Agglomeration, China
Previous Article in Journal
Measuring Rurality and Analyzing the Drivers of Rurality in Megacities—A Case Study of Shanghai, China
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Land
Volume 13
Issue 11
10.3390/land13111790
land-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Current Scenario of Farmland Abandonment in China: A Systematic Review

by
Qiaowen Lin
1,
Peter Sammonds
2,
Mengxin Xu
1,
Zhe Zhu
3,* and
Yu Cao
1
1
School of Economics and Management, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan 430074, China
2
Institute for Risk and Disaster Reduction, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK
3
School of Management, Wuhan Institute of Technology, Wuhan 430205, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Land 2024, 13(11), 1790; https://doi.org/10.3390/land13111790
Submission received: 14 September 2024 / Revised: 17 October 2024 / Accepted: 28 October 2024 / Published: 30 October 2024
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The significant expansion of farmland abandonment not only poses a threat to agricultural sustainability, but also challenges biodiversity conservation and food security. This study aims to initiate a deep systematic analysis of the current scenario of Chinese farmland abandonment, which is timely and urgent as a starting point to fully understand the current state of knowledge of it. In total, 181 articles out of 5384 articles through four databases (CNKI, Web of Science core collection, Scopus, and CAB Abstracts) are extracted and synthesized by the PRISMA method. A total of 12 experts from 11 countries with specialized knowledge in the research field are interviewed. It is found that farmland abandonment in East China is the most frequently reported, which is followed by the Southwest. The research focus in China has shifted from mountainous areas to agricultural and pastoral areas and major grain-producing areas. Chinese farmland abandonment is defined principally from the perspective of the managerial approach. An inventory that categorizes these different drivers of farmland abandonment is built, which includes socio-economic aspects, biophysical attributes, policy, household characteristics, and specific events. Socio-economic aspects, especially off-farm employment, are the most commonly studied factors. Meanwhile, the aging of the population is also noteworthy. Different trajectories should be applied accordingly due to the significant differences between North and South China. Furthermore, there is an optimistic attitude towards the ecological impact of abandoned farmland in China. However, more evidence should be given on it. Those findings will hopefully provide some insights for the scientific community and policy makers.

1. Introduction

Farmland abandonment, largely perceived as unwanted [1,2,3], is accelerating at a global scale [4]. Up to 400 million ha of land has been abandoned since the 1950s, which is an area near half the size of Australia [4]. As much as 78.5 ± 16.4 million hectares (Mha) of gross cropland were abandoned globally just from 2003 to 2019 [5], of which Asia covered the largest area [6]. China, as one of the Asian counties, is both the largest agricultural country and the most populous developing country in the world. Since the 1980s, abandoned farmland has been reported in some provinces of China, such as Hunan and Hubei [7]. In recent years, with the development of industrialization and urbanization in China, the phenomenon of abandoning farmland has occurred more frequently [8]. From 2014 to 2015, 78.30% of villages in mountainous areas in China reported abandoned farmland, with 14.32% of farmland area being abandoned [9]. In 2017, the abandoned area of arable land in China reached approximately 137 million acres, with 95% of county-level administrative units with abandoned arable land, 30.23% of county-level administrative units having an abandonment rate exceeding 10%, and 31 provinces reporting abandoned arable land [10]. In 2019, the national rate of abandoned farmland in China reached as high as 20% [11]. That is, 20% of farmland in China was abandoned in 2019. The significant expansion of farmland abandonment not only poses a threat to agricultural sustainability [12,13], but also challenges biodiversity conservation [3] and global food security [3,14,15,16,17].
A growing body of literature has explored farmland abandonment from different point of views, identifying drivers, impacts, and alternative trajectories of farmland abandonment [12,18,19]. It is well acknowledged that farmland abandonment is a quite complex and context-dependent phenomenon [4,14,20,21]. Socio-economic reasons such as outmigration, shortage of labor force, and bio-physical indicators including slope and topography are regarded as the key drivers of cropland abandonment in Nepal [22]. The absence of land management drives the landscape trajectory across Europe [23]. Both positive and negative influences on several abiotic and biotic components of the landscape are found after farmland abandonment [24]. However, a systematic analysis mainly focusing on the evidence from China does not exist to date. Two thematically relevant articles which addressed the spatial–temporal characteristics and causes of farmland abandonment in China were found [25,26]. However, both of them only extracted information from the database of the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), a national database for scientific publications of China, which was insufficient for the global synthesis assessment of farmland abandonment in China. In addition, the articles published before 2013 explored by [25] and those from 1992 to 2017 analyzed by [26] were not enough to keep the knowledge of Chinese farmland abandonment up to date. On the other hand, the research framework of farmland abandonment in China was still unexplored. An inventory of drivers and countermeasures of farmland abandonment in China is needed. Therefore, a deeper systematic analysis of Chinese farmland abandonment is timely and urgent, and is a starting point to fully understand the current state of knowledge of it.
In light of these issues, this study initiates a systematic review of farmland abandonment in China through four databases (CNKI, Web of Science core collection, Scopus, and CAB Abstracts) using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis) methodology. A total of 12 experts from 11 countries with specialized knowledge in the field are interviewed to obtain a comprehensive understanding of it. An inventory that categorizes these different drivers of farmland abandonment is built. Consequences and countermeasures of farmland abandonment in China are deeply analyzed. Shortcomings and future studies are discussed. Lastly, a conclusion is given.

2. Methodology

2.1. Literature Search and Paper Selection

Systematic reviews are used to obtain comprehensive insights into a specific research domain, which provides a replicable, reliable, and unbiased assessment of the prevailing knowledge on a particular field [27]. This systematic review was based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis) methodology [28,29] and took reference of previous review studies [22,23,24]. To minimize bias toward academic knowledge, an extensive search of the literature was undertaken using four databases, CNKI, Web of Science core collection, Scopus, and CAB Abstracts, taking reference of previous studies [22,23,24] and considering the characteristics of these databases. Among them, the CAB Abstracts database is the world’s largest and most professional agricultural database and CNKI is the largest academic journal database in China. The search was conducted on 27 February 2023. To capture as many articles as possible, no limitation was applied on the year of publication. Considering the large number of papers and uniformity of data analysis, only original articles published in peer-reviewed journals in English and Chinese were selected for this study. Gray literature, conference papers, articles published in languages other than English and Chinese, proceedings articles, and book chapters were excluded. Several search tests were carried out to capture all the potential publications, which was followed by a thorough examination of the results. The following combinations of expressions consisting of standard bracket operators, Boolean operators, and wildcards were obtained and applied in the Web of Science core collection database, Scopus, and CAB Abstracts for the literature search: ((“land abandon*” OR “agricultur* abandonment” OR “underutili?ed agricultural land” OR “agricultural land underutili*” OR “land loss” OR “farmland abandonment” OR “cropland abandonment” OR “desertion of cultivated areas” OR “abandoned land” OR “abandoned farmland” OR “abandoned cropland” OR “abandoned pasture” OR “abandoned field” OR “abandoned property” OR “abandoned cultivated land” OR “abandoned agricultural land” OR “abandonment of farm land” OR “abandonment of farmland” OR “abandonment of cropland” OR “fallow land” OR “waste land” OR “derelict land” OR “vacant land” OR “marginal land” OR “idle land” OR “vacant land” OR “underutili?ed land”) AND (china OR chinese OR liaoning OR jilin OR heilongjiang OR beijing OR tianjin OR hebei OR shanxi OR “inner mongolia” OR shanghai OR jiangsu OR zhejiang OR anhui OR jiangxi OR fujian OR shandong OR taiwan OR henan OR hubei OR hunan OR guangdong OR guangxi OR hainan OR “hong kong” OR macao OR chongqing OR sichuan OR yunnan OR tibet OR guizhou OR shaanxi OR gansu OR qinghai OR ningxia OR xinjiang)). Meanwhile, another search string in Chinese was used in CNKI according to the Chinese definition of farmland abandonment: (Qigeng + Liaohuang + Paohuang) AND (Woguo + Zhongguo + Hebei + Shanxi + Liaoning + Jilin + Heilongjiang + Jiangsu + Zhejiang + Anhui + Fujian + Jiangxi + Shandong + Henan + Hubei + Hunan + Guangdong + Hainan + Sichuan + Guizhou + Yunnan + Shaanxi + Gansu + Qinghai + Taiwan + Beijing + Tianjin + Shanghai + Chongqing + InnerMongolia + Guangxi + Ningxia + Xinjiang + Tibet + HongKong + Macao).
A total of 5384 articles (1608 in CAB Abstracts, 994 in CNKI, 1689 in Scopus, and 1093 in Web of Science) were obtained after applying these search expressions. These records were exported to a spreadsheet file and then transferred to a bibliographic library in EndNote (Version X9). From this total list of publications, 988 duplicate articles were removed, which included 768 articles detected by EndNote and 220 articles detected manually. The remaining 4396 articles were scanned in the title reading, in which a large number of articles irrelevant to this study were detected. A flow chart of the systematic review process is shown in Figure 1. Considering the range of our research, we did not include studies which addressed fallow land, marginal land, abandoned villages or sites, abandoned coal mines or quarries, abandoned old field communities, and industrial land. The articles which targeted secondary succession and biotic communities in farmland abandonment were also removed. The remaining 832 articles proceeded to abstract reading. In total, 554 articles were removed after applying inclusion and exclusion criteria in this stage (Table 1). A total of 278 articles were selected for full-text reading. Among these, 97 articles with a focus out of the scope of this study were discarded. Finally, 181 articles were kept for this study (Table 2). Each step was checked by two authors to ensure the reliability of the result.

2.2. Data Coding and Analysis

Before beginning the coding process, we built a synthetic framework based on the existing literature representing the main content of this literature to achieve full scenarios of the study of farmland abandonment in China. An initial coding scheme that captured the dimensions frequently observed of farmland abandonment was designed. This coding was developed based on previous work on land abandonment [30] and adjusted for the Chinese context using analysis of a preliminary set of studies. The coding scheme was slightly refined during the review of the rest of the articles.
At the pre-coding stage, we randomly selected ten articles for preliminary analysis to increase the inter-coder reliability of the coding process and to assure that all researchers worked uniformly. To help the researchers judge the category of the paper content in a similar way, we discussed each concept that was likely to be a subject of multiple interpretations. At this stage, we compared the results and discussed discrepancies in the way we coded the articles until we reached consensus, instead of calculating the discrepancies quantitatively as suggested by Krippendorff (2004) [31]. A table of coding was finalized to extract information from the articles selected, which refereed to the title of the article, publication year, source of publication, definition of farmland abandonment, years passed for land to be considered abandoned, research approaches of the literature, research unit of farmland abandonment, study area, data type, form of farmland abandonment, rate of farmland abandonment, different drivers, consequences and countermeasures of farmland abandonment, and so on.

2.3. Expert Interview

To validate the insights in this systematic review and expand the global discussion on the issue of farmland abandonment, twelve experts including researchers, government officers, peasants, and farmers from 11 different countries with specialized knowledge in related fields were interviewed online or face to face from the first of November 2023 to the fourth of February 2024. The selection of these experts mainly refers to their working experience, working field, and willingness to share knowledge. Their average working experience is 21 years, with three experts working for less than 10 years. The remaining nine experts have been engaged in related work for more than 12 years, with a maximum of 60 years (Table 3). They were invited to share their knowledge on farmland abandonment and supplement the insights in this systematic review. Each interview lasted for about one and a half hours. During the interviews, a structured questionnaire was used to guide the discussion, which refers to the basic information of interviewees and some crucial issues on farmland abandonment such as definition, drivers, consequences, countermeasures of farmland abandonment, and so on.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Definition of Farmland Abandonment

Farmland abandonment was not explicitly defined in the majority of articles in China. Only 34 out of 181 articles provided a clear definition of it. And among these, 22 articles defined farmland abandonment in terms of the unused years of farmland, which varied from one season to more than 5 years. In total, eight articles insisted that cultivated land that has been idle or abandoned continuously for two years or more can be defined as farmland abandonment. A total of five articles advocated that farmland should be abandoned for at least 1 year. No less than 3 years was mentioned in three articles. No more than one season was mentioned in two articles. Durations of 2–5 years, 2–4 years, and no less than 5 years were mentioned in one article, respectively. There were another 10 articles which were not defined by the period of abandonment. However, almost all of them emphasized the complete cessation of farming subjectively or passively by farmers. One article mentioned stakeholders including farmers and communities of villages as the subjects of farmland abandonment. The remaining two articles classified farmland abandonment into explicit and implicit abandonment according to the type of farmland abandonment. The duration of farmland abandonment in China which most of articles focused on is around 1–3 years, which is synchronized with the definition of it (Figure 2).
In a word, there is no consistent definition of farmland abandonment, which is also shown in the interviews (E2, E6). Farmland abandonment has been defined as a gradually ceased process of agricultural activities (E9) or a state of land which is left without farming [32,33] or permanently shifted to other use (E2). In 1995, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the World (FAO) defined abandoned farmland as arable land that has not been used for agricultural production or other agricultural purposes for at least 5 years [34]. The Japanese Ministry of Agriculture defines it as cultivated land that has not been cultivated in the past year and has no likelihood of being cultivated in the future [35]. In 2011, the International Symposium on Land Consolidation and Land Reserve defined it as land that can be cultivated but has not been used, arable land that has not been used for 2 years or more, arable land that can be cultivated but has been abandoned for an indefinite period of time, or arable land that can be cultivated but has been damaged due to improper management [36]. The concept of it is defined from different perspectives. Simona et al. [37] disentangled the multiple dimensions of farmland abandonment, which identified nine broad perspectives referring to land cover, land use intensity, land function, management activities, planning and policy, land degradation, economic viability, biodiversity, and marginalization. Subedi et al. [24] classified it based on agronomic, managerial, and ecological approaches. Although less than one-fifth of the articles give a clear definition of farmland abandonment in China, it shows that a majority of researchers defines it in favor of the managerial approach (E6). From a managerial point of view, cultivated land that has been idle or abandoned continuously for two years or more can be defined as farmland abandonment in China [10]. This may provide the option to compare findings at a regional scale. However, this is also arguable when it comes to the global context.

3.2. Trends and Source of the Literature

The number of publications that have a research focus on farmland abandonment in China has increased in recent years (Figure 3), which indicates a gradual concern regarding this issue. In total, 181 articles were published until 27 February 2023. During 1997–2012, a steady and relatively low number of articles were published. Nevertheless, this number greatly increased from 2013 onwards. An analysis of publication by year indicated that there were 12 articles published in 2014 and 13 articles published in 2016. A total of 20 articles were published in 2019 and 2020. There were 30 articles and 35 articles published in 2021 and 2022, respectively. Eight articles had already been published up to the date of the literature search.
Farmland abandonment has been reported in Europe since the early 1900s, which is much earlier than in China. This may be attributed to the different stages of land use trajectories. The three high peaks in the literature on the year of abandoning farmland in China were distributed in 1992, 2000, and 2015, respectively (Figure 4). In the past 20 years, there have been three peaks of the phenomenon of abandoning farmland in China’s agricultural land use process, while large-scale abandonment occurred twice, mainly concentrated in 1992–1995 and 1998–2003 [38]. This analysis is basically consistent with this. Overall, the study of farmland abandonment in China has been initiated since the last few decades.
As far as the source of the literature is concerned, it was shown that a majority of articles were published in the field of geography, resources, and the environment. The most common journals included five English journals, which were Land Use Policy (12 articles), Land (10 articles), Sustainability (9 articles), Land Degradation Development (5 articles), the Journal of Environmental Management (4 articles), and four Chinese journals, which were the Journal of Natural Resources (9 articles), the Journal of Agricultural Engineering (5 articles), Acta Geographica Sinica (4 articles), and China Land Science (4 articles).

3.3. Geographical Distribution and Research Approaches of the Literature

Through the analysis of the geographical distribution of the literature, it was found that this study involved all 34 provinces across the country, which includes seven regions including the Northeast, North China, East China, Central China, South China, the Northwest, and the Southwest (Figure 5). East China (Shanghai, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Anhui, Shandong, Taiwan, Fujian, and Jiangxi), an important area for China’s economic development, is where farmland abandonment is the most frequently reported. It is followed by the Southwest (Chongqing, Sichuan, Guizhou, Yunnan, and Tibet). Northeast China (Heilongjiang, Jilin, Liaoning) is the least reported. At the provincial level, the majority of studies were conducted in Hunan (14 articles), Henan (14 articles), Jiangxi (14 articles), and Sichuan (14 articles), which is followed by Hubei (13 articles), Guizhou (12 articles), and Yunnan (12 articles). It is shown that the research focus in China has shifted from mountainous areas to agricultural and pastoral areas and major grain-producing areas.
The research focus of farmland abandonment in China referred to land plot, farmers, households, and all levels of administrative divisions. However, the majority of research mainly focused on farmers’ farmland abandonment behavior and the farmland abandonment phenomenon in countries, which accounted for 55% and 34% of the total research, respectively. Overall, this phenomenon of farmland abandonment exists in each administrative division of China, covering villages and provinces.
A range of research approaches were applied in these publications, which included both qualitative and quantitative analysis according to the research means, such as interview, fieldwork observation, experimental study, sample survey, remote sensing, and so on (Figure 6). In total, 175 articles used quantitative analysis, which accounted for 97% of the total research. Among these, 55 articles used statistical modeling, which mainly included the Logistic model (16 articles), OLS model (16 articles), and Tobit model (10 articles). A total of 105 articles, 46% of the total research, used qualitative analysis, among which 60 articles used questionnaires. There were 84 articles which employed both qualitative and quantitative analysis, accounting for 46% of the total research.
The literature on this issue regardless of research region took a range of research approaches including interviews, fieldwork observation, experimental study, sample surveys, and remote sensing. However, articles addressing China preferred to use questionnaire investigation and statistical modeling. Research focusing on other countries mostly used field work observations, aerial photography, or orthophotography. Europe provides ground field survey information on land cover and land management every 3 years through the Land Use/Land Cover Area Framework Survey (LUCAS) [39]. Japan began tracking and investigating the abandonment of arable land nationwide in 2013. China has not included abandoned land in the national land survey; therefore, there are no authoritative statistical data on abandoned farmland nationwide. The distribution of abandoned farmland is scattered in China due to the fragmentation of ownership and the terrain, coupled with variable climate conditions. Remote sensing recognition is subject to multiple limitations such as data quality and resolution [10]. Furthermore the fact that abandoned farmland is mostly distributed in mountainous and hilly areas in China [40] also hinders the usage of other methods. This may potentially explain the preferences of choosing farmers and countries as the research focus, since the related data of these are more available.

3.4. Drivers of Farmland Abandonment in China

According to the articles, an inventory of driving forces of farmland abandonment in China is achieved, which can be mainly classified into socio-economic aspects, biophysical attributes, policy, household characteristics, and specific events (Figure 7). As for socio-economic driving forces, the most frequently discussed is off-farm employment, which results in rural population loss. Low agricultural income is also one of the main reasons for farmland abandonment in China. Slope, altitude, the farming distance from residential areas, and the quality of cultivated land are the main biophysical drivers of farmland abandonment in China. Farmland abandonment is greatly influenced by household characteristics, especially age structure. Natural hazards such as drought, frost, insect infestation, wind damage, wind erosion, and desertification also have great influence on farmers’ decisions of abandoning farmland.
It is acknowledged that farmland abandonment is a complex and multidimensional phenomenon driven by various factors, which differs across spatial and temporal scales [41,42,43]. Subedi et al. [24] identify seven categories of drivers resulting in farmland abandonment which referred to demographic, household characteristics, farm characteristics, and biophysical, economic, regulatory, and socio-political factors. Biophysical (slope, soil quality, and land suitability), economic (off-farm employment and farm income), and demographic (migration and depopulation) factors are common drivers of farmland abandonment across many regions. This study also shows the evidence of this (E6). Changes in market demand, the development of international trade, and the rising prices of agricultural materials have led to a decrease in net income from international land use (E10). The adjustment of agricultural-related policies, land system reform, agricultural technology upgrading, and agricultural commercialization also affect the farmers’ decision. In Eastern Europe, environmental and biophysical conditions are the leading factors responsible for farmland abandonment. However, these are seldom discussed in Nepal. Factors such as changes in the political system and armed conflicts are drivers only for particular regions (E10), which is consistent with the study by Prishchepov et al. [44]. In China, socio-economic aspects, especially off-farm employment, are the most commonly studied factors resulting in farmland abandonment. More and more, the young generation leave villages, looking for job opportunities in cities, which becomes a common phenomenon (E12). Urbanization and industrialization results in rural population migration and non-agriculture employment, leading to a significant reduction in the agricultural labor force (E1, E2, E12). Meanwhile, China is facing a severe aging problem. By around 2035, the proportion of elderly people aged 65 and above will reach 30% of the total population, and China will officially enter the stage of a super aging society. Therefore, household characteristics, especially age structure, become one of the crucial factors in studying Chinese farmland abandonment. However, different from other factors, natural disasters such as drought, frost, insect infestation, wind damage, wind erosion, and desertification also greatly affect farmers’ decisions of abandoning farmland in China. China’s land management system has always been taken as one of the important reasons for the exacerbation of the abandonment of farmland [45]. However, this factor is the least discussed in this analysis, which may be attributed to the gradual progress of the development of the land management system.

3.5. Consequences of Farmland Abandonment in China

Most of the reviewed articles did not mention the consequences of farmland abandonment in China, which accounted for 77.9% of the total number of publications (Figure 8). As for those who discussed it, the negative impacts were more frequently discussed than the positive impacts, accounting for 16.0% and 9.9% of the total number of papers, respectively. In terms of the positive impacts, it is believed that the organic carbon content in the surface soil increases, accumulates, and stabilizes in abandoned farmland in China [46,47]. Soil nutrients are fixed and accumulated, improving soil fertility [48]. This positive consequence ranks first in all the positive impacts of Chinese farmland abandonment, taking a percentage of 33.3%, which is followed by the benefit for ecological restoration, accounting for 27.8% of the total positive impacts. A few authors mention that farmland abandonment can achieve food security and promote sustainable agriculture [49]. However, the majority of researchers advocate that it poses a threat to food security and affects sustainable development, which is the most discussed negative impact, accounting for 37.9% of the negative impacts.
To sum up, different from many countries, the impacts of farmland abandonment in China have relatively seldom been reported. However, both positive and negative consequences exist during farmland abandonment, which mainly refer to eco-environmental and socio-economic aspects (E6, E12). Similar to other nations, Chinese farmland abandonment has gone through issues such as biological and landscape diversity, carbon sink function, soil erosion and restoration, forest fires, and so on [50]. Contrasting views also appear associated with the eco-environmental impacts of farmland abandonment in China. Some argue that farmland abandonment in China is susceptible to species invasion, causing damage to local ecosystems [13]. Abandoned farmland reduces the storage of soil organic carbon of the surface soil [51]. However, some advocate that the abandonment of arable land in China has enhanced the carbon sequestration function of soil, and soil quality is developing in a positive direction [52]. In general, there is an optimistic attitude towards the ecological impact of abandoned farmland in China. More concern is given to the socio-economic aspects relating to the reduction in grain production. However, conclusions on whether farmland abandonment affects food security and production are apparently contradictory. Many researchers hold that farmland abandonment will definitely affect food security [53]. However, some advocate that barren farmland located in remote mountainous areas, abandoned farmland originally planted with economic crops, and appropriate seasonal fallow will not directly affect grain yield [54]. The abandonment of arable land even has a positive impact on food security to a certain extent [49]. The reason for this contradiction might be attributed to the differences in geographical location, climate characteristics, and political and economic activities in different contexts (E6), which deserve deeper analysis.

3.6. Countermeasures of Farmland Abandonment in China

There are various countermeasures of farmland abandonment in China mentioned, which can be classified into four aspects referring to policy, economy, technology, and the environment. At the policy level, promoting land transfer from one farmer to another farmer or organization, implementing dynamic monitoring of cultivated land, promoting rural land reform, strengthening policy promotion of food security, adjusting the structure of the agricultural industry, and developing characteristic industries are advocated. From the economic aspect, an increase in subsidies for grain cultivation to improve the economic benefits for farmers is always the crucial concern. In addition, an increase in local non-farm employment opportunities is required. From the perspective of technology, there is a need to improve agricultural facilities such as water conservancy and irrigation, strengthen agricultural productive services, and promote the promotion of agricultural technology. Last but not the least, from the environmental perspective, controlling environmental pollution, improving the ecological environment of farmland, and strengthening the protection of abandoned surface soil are also necessary. Overall, promoting land transfer is most frequently discussed in all the countermeasures of farmland abandonment in China, which is followed by strengthening intensive land use, improving subsidies for grain cultivation, and improving agricultural facilities (Figure 9).
In terms of countermeasures for abandoned farmland, various countries have introduced a series of differentiated measures in response to the current situation of abandoned farmland, such as the EU’s FLA (Less Developed Areas) agricultural development policy, Britain’s BPS (Basic Payment Scheme), and the Japanese government’s direct subsidy policy for mountainous areas in 2000. The main purpose of these policies is to enhance the agricultural development and competitiveness of underdeveloped areas through financial support and stimulate farmers to continue cultivating arable land (E4, E9). In 2004, China abolished agricultural taxes and increased agricultural subsidies to increase farmers’ enthusiasm for grain production. In 2015, it carried out a “three-in-one” reform of agricultural subsidy policies, and gradually improved the subsidy policies for farmland conservation tillage and ecological conservation. In 2021, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs issued the “Guiding Opinions on the Coordinated Utilization of Abandoned Land to Promote Agricultural Production Development”, which put forward new requirements in improving the cultivation conditions of abandoned land, promoting large-scale management, ensuring food security, and improving the ecological environment. Besides these actions referring to the polity, economy and environment, at the technical level, it is necessary to increase investment in agricultural infrastructure to improve agricultural production conditions [8]. Furthermore, promoting land transfer is most frequently reported in China. However, different trajectories should be applied accordingly because of the significant differences between North and South China (E6, E7). It is gradually shown that land transfer and large area mechanized planting are difficult due to the fragmentation of farmland in mountainous South China. With the aging of the population, the cultivation of new business entities and innovation of small machinery are of great necessity.

3.7. Other Insights from Global Experts

The universality of abandoned farmland is acknowledged, although it seldom happens in some countries such as Australia, whose developed agriculture and animal husbandry provide it with more facilities in transferring farmland (E7). Each expert defines farmland abandonment from his/her point of view. From the economic perspective, farmland abandonment can be defined as agricultural land that is left natural, giving no benefit for many years (E4). However, some advocate that farmland abandonment is leaving a land that was once used as farm area totally as a livelihood option (E2). Some insist that no longer making use of this land that was used in farming before is the exact definition of farmland abandonment, since farmers will still reuse the land again after several years of no use (E6, E9). Economic factors including the high cost and low income of farming are taken as the core influential drivers of farmland abandonment in many countries such as Spain, Pakistan, Britain, and China (E1, E2, E4, E6, E12). In Japan, the aging of the population is one of the most influential drivers of farmland abandonment. Rice farms need physical strength, so it is difficult if people are getting old. On the other hand, it is also difficult for young people coming from big cities to start as new farmers because farming equipment is very expensive (E9). However, in Nigeria, political instability and social security issues are the main reasons that lead to farmland abandonment (E10). The prolonged civil war, incomplete domestic industrial chain, low level of mechanization, few supporting fertilizers and pesticides, and political factors all affect farmland abandonment in Angola (E11). As for the consequences of farmland abandonment, the majority of experts conclude that it is negative, since it will result in food insecurity and the waste of land (E1, E7, E10). However, some experts point out that it is environmentally beneficial, but economically negative (E2, E14). Many actions are taken to alleviate farmland abandonment accordingly such as land reform, increasing investment, and improving agricultural facilities (E4, E5, E6, E9, E12). However, there have been no effective countermeasures taken on alleviating farmland abandonment until now in some regions such as Pakistan (E2).

4. Shortcomings and Future Studies

Our study does not capture the grey literature due to the consideration of the quantity and consistency of the articles. However, this does not exclude the possibility that we missed some valuable information about farmland abandonment in China. Another potential shortcoming is associated with the analysis of the distribution of farmland abandonment. Although the number of articles can potentially represent this, an accurate analysis of the spatial distribution of abandoned farmland in China is of great significance, which is also one of the research gaps of this issue. Limited by the spatial fragmentation of land and complex land use change process, the existing literature mostly focuses on small units such as land plots, townships, and villages. Literature on the monitoring and mapping of farmland abandonment at a large scale is rare. To the best of our knowledge, there have only been two articles which emphasize spatial and temporal patterns of abandoned cropland in China until now [11,55]. Definitely, before doing this, a unified definition of farmland abandonment is also needed. In addition, with the aggravation of aging, the role of community at the village level will be crucial, which deserves more attention (E9). Furthermore, risk assessment and trend prediction of farmland abandonment is also the future direction of research. In terms of research methods, future research can explore the combination of meta-analysis with big data, remote sensing image detection, and questionnaire survey statistical data to deeply analyze the underlying mechanisms and regional differences in the farmland abandonment process.

5. Conclusions

This study initiates a systematic review of farmland abandonment in China after synthesizing 181 articles out of 5384 articles through four databases (CNKI, Web of Science core collection, Scopus, and CAB Abstracts) using inclusion, exclusion, semi-automatic, and manual methods. A total of 12 experts from 11 countries with specialized knowledge in the field are interviewed to validate and supplement the insights in this systematic review. It is found that although there is a gradual concern regarding Chinese farmland abandonment, this research is still in the initial stage. Farmland abandonment in East China is the most frequently reported, which is followed by the Southwest. Although farmland abandonment exists in each administrative division of China from villages to provinces, the research focus in China has shifted from mountainous areas to agricultural and pastoral areas and major grain-producing areas. Chinese farmland abandonment is defined principally from the perspective of the managerial approach. However, there is still a need for a unified definition of it. An inventory that categorizes the different drivers of farmland abandonment is built, which includes socio-economic aspects, biophysical attributes, policy, household characteristics, and specific events. The socio-economic aspects, especially off-farm employment, are the most commonly studied factors resulting in farmland abandonment in China, which is followed by biophysical attributes including slope, altitude, farming distance from residential areas, and the quality of cultivated land. Furthermore, farmland abandonment is greatly influenced by household characteristics, especially age structure. The aging of the population is also noteworthy. Natural hazards such as drought, frost, and insect infestation also have a great influence on farmers’ decisions of abandoning farmland. Another finding is that promoting land transfer is most frequently discussed in all the countermeasures of farmland abandonment in China. However, different trajectories should be applied accordingly due to the significant differences between North and South China. Both positive and negative consequences exist during farmland abandonment, which mainly refer to eco-environmental and socio-economic aspects. However, the negative impact is more frequently discussed. Although there is an optimistic attitude towards the ecological impact of abandoned farmland in China, more evidence should be explored and whether farmland abandonment affects food security and grain production needs to be deeply analyzed according to the local context. This timely systematic analysis of Chinese farmland abandonment contributes to the full understanding of the current state of knowledge of it, which hopefully will provide some insight for the scientific community and policy makers.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Q.L.; Methodology, P.S.; Formal analysis, P.S.; Project administration, Q.L.; Writing—original draft, Q.L.; Writing—review & editing, P.S. and M.X.; Visualization, Y.C.; Funding acquisition, Q.L. and Z.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 72303218; No. 42271284) and the Ministry of Education Philosophy and Social Sciences Fund (No. 21YJC630074).

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Acknowledgments

Special thanks should be given to the 12 experts who took part in the interviews and helped by sharing their insights on this research.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Fischer, J.; Hartel, T.; Kuemmerle, T. Conservation policy in traditional farming landscapes. Conserv. Lett. 2012, 5, 167–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Dantas de Miranda, M.; Pereira, H.M.; Corley, M.F.; Merckx, T. Beta diversity patterns reveal positive effects of farmland abandonment on moth communities. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 1549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Wang, L.; Pedersen, P.B.M.; Svenning, J.C. Rewilding abandoned farmland has greater sustainability benefits than afforestation. NPJ Biodivers. 2023, 2, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Daskalova, G.N.; Kamp, J. Abandoning land transforms biodiversity. Science 2023, 380, 581–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Potapov, P.; Turubanova, S.; Hansen, M.C.; Tyukavina, A.; Zalles, V.; Khan, A.; Song, X.P.; Pickens, A.; Shen, Q.; Cortez, J. Global maps of cropland extent and change show accelerated cropland expansion in the twenty-first century. Nat. Food 2022, 3, 19–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Leirpoll, M.E.; Næss, J.S.; Cavalett, O.; Dorber, M.; Hu, X.; Cherubini, F. Optimal combination of bioenergy and solar photovoltaic for renewable energy production on abandoned cropland. Renew. Energy 2021, 168, 45–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Yang, G.Y.; Xu, W.X. Consciousness of ownership, practical responses to governance and land abandonment. Reform 2015, 11, 126–131. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  8. Xiang, X.Y.; Wang, Y.H.; Li, Q.; Zeng, K.; Xie, L.P.; Liao, Q. Research progress and review of abandoned land based on CiteSpace. Sci. Geogr. Sin. 2022, 42, 670–681. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  9. 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]
  10. Li, G.Y.; Jiang, G.H.; Zhang, Y.H.; Liu, X.L.; Chen, S.J. A Study on the Mechanism and Revitalization Strategies of Abandoned Farmland in China. China Land Resour. Econ. 2021, 34, 36–41. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  11. Li, L.; Pan, Y.Z.; Zheng, R.B.; Liu, X.P. Understanding the spatiotemporal patterns of seasonal, annual, and consecutive farmland abandonment in China with time- series MODIS images during the period 2005–2019. Land Degrad. Dev. 2022, 33, 1608–1625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Chen, H.P.; Shen, Q.L.; Zang, D.G.; Li, H.J.; Sow, Y. Study on the impact of environmental pollution on farmland abandonment. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 1458–1469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Dong, S.J.; Xin, L.J.; Li, S.F.; Xie, H.L.; Zhao, Y.L.; Wang, X.; Li, X.B.; Song, H.F.; Lu, Y.H. Research on the degree and spatial pattern differentiation of abandoned terraced fields in China. J. Geogr. 2023, 78, 3–15. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  14. 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]
  15. Gu, B.; Zhang, X.; Bai, X.; Fu, B.; Chen, D. Four steps to food security for swelling cities. Nature 2019, 566, 31–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ghose, B. Food security and food self-sufficiency in China: From past to 2050. Food Energy Secur. 2014, 3, 86–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Liu, Y.; Zhou, Y. Reflections on China’s food security and land use policy under rapid urbanization. Land Use Policy 2021, 109, 105699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ustaoglu, E.; Collier, M.J. Farmland abandonment in Europe: An overview of drivers, consequences, and assessment of the sustainability implications. Environ. Rev. 2018, 26, 396–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. 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 postsocialist farmland abandonment in Western Ukraine. Land Use Policy 2011, 28, 552–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. MacDonald, D.; Crabtree, J.R.; Wiesinger, G.; Dax, T.; Stamou, N.; Fleury, P.; Gibon, A. Agricultural abandonment in mountain areas of Europe: Environmental consequences and policy response. J. Environ. Manag. 2000, 59, 47–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. 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]
  22. Ojha, R.B.; Atreya, K.; Kristiansen, P.; Devkota, D.; Wilson, B. A systematic review and gap analysis of drivers, impacts, and restoration options for abandoned croplands in Nepal. Land Use Policy 2022, 120, 106237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Fayet, C.M.J.; Reilly, K.H.; Van Ham, C.; Verburg, P.H. What is the future of abandoned agricultural lands? A systematic review of alternative trajectories in Europe. Land Use Policy 2022, 112, 105833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Subedi, Y.R.; Kristiansen, P.; Cacho, O. Drivers and consequences of agricultural land abandonment and its reutilisation pathways: A systematic review. Environ. Dev. 2022, 42, 100681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Zhao, Z. Research on the influencing factors and governance of rural farmland abandonment: Based on the secondary literature survey method. Land Nat. Resour. Res. 2014, 4, 25–27. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  26. Zhang, X.; Zhao, C.; Dong, J.; Ge, Q. Spatial and temporal characteristics of abandoned farmland in China based on meta-analysis from 1992 to 2017. J. Geogr. 2019, 74, 411–420. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  27. Webster, J.; Watson, R.T. Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Q. 2002, 26, xiii–xxiii. [Google Scholar]
  28. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Int. J. Surg. 2010, 8, 336–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Quintas-Soriano, C.; Buerkert, A.; Plieninger, T. Effects of land abandonment on nature contributions to people and good quality of life components in the Mediterranean region: A review. Land Use Policy 2022, 116, 106053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Krippendorff, K. Reliability in content analysis. Hum. Commun. Res. 2004, 30, 411–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Rai, R.; Zhang, Y.L.; Paudel, B.; Khanal, N.R. Status of farmland abandonment and its determinants in the transboundary gandaki river basin. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Guo, B.; Fang, Y.; Zhou, Y. The influencing factors and spatial differentiation of farmland abandonment at the farmer scale. Resour. Sci. 2020, 42, 696–709. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  34. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Selected Indicators of Food and Agriculture Development in the Asia Pacific Region: 1996–2006; China Agricultural Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2009; pp. 89–90. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  35. Chen, X.; Zheng, G. Research progress on abandoned farmland at home and abroad. Popul. Resour. Environ. China 2018, S2, 37–41. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  36. Shi, T.; Li, X. Research on abandoned farmland in Europe and its implications for China. Geogr. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 2013, 29, 101–103. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  37. Simona, R.G.; Cristian, I.I.; Gabriel, O.V.; Diana, A.O. Multi-dimensionality of land transformations: From definition to perspectives on land abandonment. Carpathian J. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 15, 167–177. [Google Scholar]
  38. Shi, T. Research progress on the process and influencing factors of abandoned farmland at home and abroad. Hubei Agric. Sci. 2020, 59, 11–16. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  39. 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]
  40. Shi, T.C.; Li, X.B.; Xin, L.J.; Xu, X.H. 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]
  41. 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]
  42. Nguyen, H.; Holzel, N.; Volker, A.; Kamp, J. Patterns and determinants of post-soviet cropland abandonment in the western siberian grain belt. Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 1973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Zhang, Y.; Li, X.B.; 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]
  44. Prishchepov, A.V.; Mueller, D.; Dubinin, M.; Baumann, M.; Radeloff, V.C. Determinants of agricultural land abandonmention Post-soviet European Russia. Land Use Policy 2013, 30, 873–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Li, S.; Li, X. Progress and prospect on farmland abandonment. Acta Geogr. Sin. 2016, 71, 370–389. [Google Scholar]
  46. Zeng, R.B.; Huang, J.J.; Wei, Y.J.; Wang, D.; Cai, C.F. The impact of abandoned farmland on soil structure and organic carbon. Chin. Sci. Soil Water Conserv. 2020, 5, 26–34. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  47. Xu, H.; Shen, H.P.; Zhang, W.J.; Wang, X.L.; Cai, Z.J.; Wang, B.R. Characteristics of carbon and nitrogen storage changes in red soil profiles under long-term different management measures. China Soil Fertil. 2016, 4, 24–31. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  48. Zhang, M.M.; Xu, X.Y.; Zhang, Z.Y.; Xiong, Y.S.; Yuan, J.F. The effect of abandoned land on soil aggregates and organic carbon stability in cold soaked rice fields. Chin. J. Eco-Agric. 2015, 23, 563–570. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  49. Luo, Y. Does farmland abandonment necessarily jeopardize national food security? Mod. Econ. Res. 2012, 10, 65–69. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  50. Hou, J.; Fu, B.J.; Liu, Y.; Lu, N.; Gao, G.Y.; Zhou, J. Ecological and hydrological response of farmlands abandoned for different lengths of time: Evidence from the Loess Hill Slope of China. Glob. Planet Change 2014, 113, 59–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Gong, M.; Li, Q.; Chen, A. Long term abandonment of farmland to reduce phosphorus storage in red soil paddy fields. J. Plant Nutr. Fertil. 2022, 28, 1398–1408. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  52. Liu, M.; Han, G.L.; Zhang, Q. Effects of agricultural abandonment on soil aggregation, soil organic carbon storage and stabilization: Results from observation in a small karst catchment, Southwest China. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2020, 288, 106719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Li, Z.H.; Yan, J.Z.; Hua, X.B.; Xin, L.J.; Li, X.B. Abandoned land and its influencing factors among different types of farmers Research: Taking 12 typical villages in Chongqing as an example. Geogr. Res. 2014, 33, 721–734. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  54. Zhou, W.; Zhang, Y.L.; Xu, M.G.; Li, W.J.; Wu, H.H.; Wen, S.L. Effects of Long-term Abandonment on Organic Carbon Composition of Black Soil. Chin. Soil Fertil. 2021, 4, 10–18. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  55. Zhang, M.L.; Li, G.Y.; He, T.T.; Zhai, G.; Guo, A.D.; Chen, H.; Wu, C.F. Reveal the severe spatial and temporal patterns of abandoned cropland in China over the past 30 years. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 857, 159591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Land 13 01790 g001
Figure 1. Flow chart of the systematic review process.
Figure 1. Flow chart of the systematic review process.
Land 13 01790 g001
Land 13 01790 g002
Figure 2. Duration of abandonment of farmland in China.
Figure 2. Duration of abandonment of farmland in China.
Land 13 01790 g002
Land 13 01790 g003
Figure 3. Number of publications on Chinese farmland abandonment.
Figure 3. Number of publications on Chinese farmland abandonment.
Land 13 01790 g003
Land 13 01790 g004
Figure 4. Year of abandoning farmland research in China.
Figure 4. Year of abandoning farmland research in China.
Land 13 01790 g004
Land 13 01790 g005
Figure 5. Geographical distribution of the literature in China.
Figure 5. Geographical distribution of the literature in China.
Land 13 01790 g005
Land 13 01790 g006
Figure 6. Research approaches of the literature.
Figure 6. Research approaches of the literature.
Land 13 01790 g006
Land 13 01790 g007
Figure 7. Drivers of farmland abandonment in China.
Figure 7. Drivers of farmland abandonment in China.
Land 13 01790 g007
Land 13 01790 g008
Figure 8. Attitude on the consequences of farmland abandonment in China.
Figure 8. Attitude on the consequences of farmland abandonment in China.
Land 13 01790 g008
Land 13 01790 g009
Figure 9. Countermeasures of farmland abandonment in China.
Figure 9. Countermeasures of farmland abandonment in China.
Land 13 01790 g009
Table 1. Criteria of inclusion and exclusion.
Table 1. Criteria of inclusion and exclusion.
Inclusion CriteriaExclusion Criteria
Discuss farmland abandonment in ChinaDuplicate contributions from multiple databases
Scholarly publications from Chinese core collection or international scientific journalsNot lined up with study objectives and research questions
Lined up with study objectives and research questionsGeneral review articles
Rigorous reporting styleOnly have descriptive statistics
Inferential statistics Without full text
Table 2. Filtering results of the literature.
Table 2. Filtering results of the literature.
Data SourceOriginalAfter DuplicateAbstract ReadingFull-Text Reading
CAB Abstracts1608 articles1608 articles185 articles44 articles
CNKI994 articles694 articles366 articles142 articles
Scopus1689 articles1047 articles108 articles28 articles
Web of Science1093 articles1047 articles173 articles64 articles
Total5384 articles4396 articles832 articles181 articles
Table 3. Basic information of experts.
Table 3. Basic information of experts.
CodeCountryRelated Working Experience (Year)
E1Spain14
E2Pakistan15
E3Rwanda3
E4Britain40
E5New Zealand34
E6China34
E7Australia3
E8Uganda12
E9Japan60
E10Nigeria2
E11Angola13
E12China26
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lin, Q.; Sammonds, P.; Xu, M.; Zhu, Z.; Cao, Y. The Current Scenario of Farmland Abandonment in China: A Systematic Review. Land 2024, 13, 1790. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13111790

AMA Style

Lin Q, Sammonds P, Xu M, Zhu Z, Cao Y. The Current Scenario of Farmland Abandonment in China: A Systematic Review. Land. 2024; 13(11):1790. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13111790

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lin, Qiaowen, Peter Sammonds, Mengxin Xu, Zhe Zhu, and Yu Cao. 2024. "The Current Scenario of Farmland Abandonment in China: A Systematic Review" Land 13, no. 11: 1790. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13111790

APA Style

Lin, Q., Sammonds, P., Xu, M., Zhu, Z., & Cao, Y. (2024). The Current Scenario of Farmland Abandonment in China: A Systematic Review. Land, 13(11), 1790. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13111790

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop