Research on the Allocation Level of Land for Agricultural Facilities Based on Green and High-Quality Development: A Case Study of Zhejiang Province

Abstract

Facility agriculture is essential for diversifying food supply and advancing agricultural modernization. Guided by the concept of new quality productive forces, this study establishes a comprehensive framework to analyze the optimization of facility agricultural land allocation in Zhejiang Province. The findings indicate a relatively low overall allocation level, with higher intensity in the breeding industry compared to crop cultivation. Facility agricultural land is predominantly located in areas with lower elevations, gentler slopes, proximity to roads and rivers, and moderate distances from urban centers. Service areas vary significantly, with grain cultivation having the largest impact, followed by other crop cultivation, fruit and vegetable cultivation, aquaculture, other livestock breeding, and pig farming. As agriculture transitions from small-scale to large-scale and facility-based production, service areas exhibit an inverted U-shaped trend, initially increasing before declining. To optimize decision-making, this study proposes a classification system (shared, modern, safeguard), an entry list (encouraged, restricted, prohibited), and strategies for spatial layout, flexible control, and intensive land use. Guided by green and high-quality development goals, this research establishes a contemporary standard system and optimization strategies, offering scientific and practical guidance for sustainable facility agricultural land development and supporting land resource allocation and industry upgrading.

1. Introduction

Global population growth and enhanced living standards inevitably result in agricultural land expansion, which is crucial for addressing the increasing demands for food, biofuels, and other goods [1]. Moreover, rapid urbanization and industrialization result in increasing pressures on arable land and ecosystems [2]. Reconciling the conflicts related to farmland protection, ecological conservation, and economic development has emerged as a significant challenge in contemporary agricultural development [3]. Within this context, traditional small-scale family farming is no longer sufficient in the current agricultural landscape. Urgent transformation and upgrading of the agricultural sector are necessary, with a gradual shift toward large-scale production and facility-based agriculture [4,5]. Of these, facility agriculture, in which engineering, information, biotechnology, and environmental technologies are combined [6,7], exhibits high efficiency, quality, and profitability, which positions it as an increasingly significant sector in the global agricultural landscape [8,9]. As a national demonstration zone for common prosperity in China, Zhejiang Province has achieved significant economic development, with 21 districts, counties, and cities reaching per capita GDP levels comparable to those of developed countries in 2022. This robust economic foundation has provided a substantial impetus for agricultural industry transformation and upgrading. However, despite issuing the “Notice on Regulating the Management of Facility Agricultural Land and Promoting the Healthy Development of Facility Agriculture” and establishing land allocation standards based on regional agricultural production characteristics, the province faces challenges in aligning these standards with the emerging demands of new agricultural industries. The inadequate support of land resources has become a critical constraint on high-quality agricultural development. Consequently, it is imperative to integrate contemporary trends in modern agriculture, optimize land allocation standards and policy systems for agricultural facilities, ensure sustainable land resource provision for green and high-quality agricultural development, and promote balanced progress in agricultural modernization and ecological conservation.

Facility agriculture is referred to by various names across different countries and regions [10]. For example, it is commonly known as protected agriculture in Europe and Japan [11,12], whereas in the United States, it is referred to as controlled environmental agriculture or greenhouse agriculture [13,14]. As facility agriculture has emerged as a pivotal direction for agricultural transformation and upgrading [15,16], global research interest in this area has steadily increased, with a primary focus on cultivation techniques [17], variety breeding [18], and greenhouse construction [19]. However, research on facility agricultural land is relatively limited, and a unified academic framework has yet to be established. In practice, site selection for construction is often left to the discretion of farmers [20]. Since the introduction of facility agricultural land in China in 2007, academic interest in this land type has increased [21], with a focus on land evolution [22,23], production structure [24], supply and demand dynamics [25,26], policy challenges [27,28], and optimization pathways [29]. China’s fundamental national conditions [30] necessitate a critical examination of the prominent imbalance between the supply and demand of agricultural facilities. However, most existing studies adopt a single-dimensional perspective, lacking in-depth exploration of agricultural industry refinement. Notably, quantitative research on the demand for agricultural facilities, their functional configuration, and spatial differentiation across various agricultural sectors remains scarce. Furthermore, current research lags in developing comprehensive standard systems and optimization strategies for agricultural-facility land, often failing to incorporate emerging trends in modern agricultural development, such as intelligent, intensive, large-scale, and green high-quality practices. Within this context, addressing two pivotal questions becomes imperative to balance the protection of agricultural-facility land demand and its management: (1) To what extent does the current level of land allocation for agricultural facilities align with the objectives of green and high-quality agricultural development? (2) What factors influence the allocation of land for agricultural facilities across different agricultural industries, and how can these insights inform targeted recommendations for developing advanced agricultural productive forces?

Guided by the goal of achieving green and high-quality development in the agricultural industry, this study systematically analyzes the functional requirements and spatial distribution characteristics of facility agricultural land across different industries from a refined agricultural industry perspective. This approach addresses a significant gap in existing research by focusing on the subdivision of agricultural sectors. Furthermore, by integrating the latest trends in modern agricultural development, this study proposes a contemporary standard system and optimization strategies for facility agricultural land, offering a scientific foundation and practical guidance for its rational layout, efficient utilization, and sustainable development. In addition to expanding the theoretical depth of facility agricultural land research, this work provides innovative solutions to support the transformation and upgrading of the agricultural industry and the optimal allocation of land resources.

The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2 introduces the research framework, data sources, and methodology; Section 3 presents the main findings; Section 4 discusses the implications and offers policy recommendations; and Section 5 concludes the study.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Theoretical Framework

2.1.1. Concept Clarification

Facility agricultural land refers to facility land and ancillary facility land directly used for agricultural production, such as crop cultivation, planting, livestock, poultry breeding, and aquaculture, as well as auxiliary facility land directly employed for facility agricultural project production and supporting facility land used for large-scale grain production [31]. From a functional classification perspective, facility agricultural land is divided into two categories: production facility land and supporting facility land. Production facility land is directly used for planting, breeding, and aquaculture activities, with its scale flexibly adjusted according to production demands. Supporting facility land serves auxiliary agricultural production purposes, and its configuration level can be quantitatively measured based on agricultural production scale. This study focuses on analyzing the configuration level and service area of supporting facility land, excluding the production facility land component.

2.1.2. Research Framework

The concept of new quality productive forces represents a significant theoretical innovation and practical achievement that integrates Marxist productivity theory with Chinese economic and social development practices for facilitating a new era, providing a theoretical foundation for green and high-quality development. Moreover, green development serves as the cornerstone of high-quality development. Facility agriculture is one of the development directions of new quality agricultural productive forces [32]. Currently, the scale of agriculture in China is large, but this sector is not robust, exhibiting low competitiveness and substantial potential for total factor productivity improvement. There is an urgent need to advance facility agriculture via technological breakthroughs and innovative allocation of production factors to stimulate new quality agricultural productive forces and promote green and high-quality agricultural development.

Land serves as the fundamental resource and spatial foundation for socioeconomic activities [33], with facility agricultural land functioning as a crucial carrier for new quality agricultural productive forces. New quality productive forces drive the green and efficient transformation of agricultural production through technological innovation and the optimized allocation of production factors, achieving outcomes such as increased crop yields and reduced pollution. Moreover, by leveraging carbon sink trading and circular agriculture, a sustainable development closed loop is established, fostering innovative economic growth models, promoting deep industrial transformation in rural areas, and advancing the high-quality development of the agricultural sector. These new quality productive forces, via the innovative allocation of production factors and breakthroughs in production technology, can foster new economic growth models, encourage in-depth transformations of rural industries, and drive green and high-quality agricultural development. In summary, the systematic development of facility agricultural land can significantly enhance green and high-quality agricultural growth, while the demand for such growth can, in turn, stimulate the innovative allocation of facility agricultural land, supported by relevant policies (Figure 1).

Based on the development needs of new quality productive forces in agriculture, this study analyzes the spatial distribution characteristics, configuration levels, influencing factors, and service areas of facility agricultural land for different types of agricultural production. By gaining an accurate understanding of the current development status of facility agricultural land, targeted policy recommendations are proposed to better promote the green and high-quality development of the modern facility agriculture industry.

2.2. Study Area

Zhejiang Province (27°02′ N–31°11′ N, 118°01′ E–123°10′ E) is located in the southern region of the Yangtze River Delta and comprises 11 prefecture-level cities. The province is located in the central subtropical zone and benefits from a monsoon-influenced humid climate, which provides ample sunlight, favorable temperatures, and abundant rainfall essential for agriculture. The topography of Zhejiang decreases in a step-like manner from southwest to northeast, with a diverse and complex landscape. The total land area is 105,500 km², of which 74.6% is mountainous, 20.3% is flat land, and 5.1% comprises water bodies. The northern part of the province features flat terrain and an extensive river network, rendering it the principal area for grain cultivation. The eastern region encompasses mainly hills and coastal plains, with a relatively advanced fishery sector. The central region is characterized by hilly basins, whereas the southwestern part comprises mainly mountainous and hilly landscapes, which imposes numerous constraints on agricultural production. As one of China’s economically advanced provinces, Zhejiang exhibits a high need for agricultural transformation and upgrading. Nonetheless, its distinctive topography, often described as cropland comprising seven hills and one water body, limits large-scale agricultural development, which identifies facility agriculture as a critical direction for agricultural transformation in this province (Figure 2).

2.3. Data Sources

The data used in this study comprise two parts: fundamental geographic data and open-source network data. Details of the data employed are provided in

Table 1. Research data and sources.

Data Type	Data Name	Sources	Format	Data Description
Basic geographic data	Administrative boundary data	Natural resources department	Vector data	Characterizes the administrative boundaries of the study area
	Facility agricultural land record data		Vector data	Provides information on the quantity, scale, and service area of registered facility agricultural land
	Land use/cover data		Vector data	Represents current land-use information
Open data from online sources	Road data	Open Street Map (OSM) https://www.openstreetmap.org/ (accessed on 8 October 2024)	Vector data	Represents road information of the study area
	Hydrological network data	Open Street Map (OSM) https://www.openstreetmap.org/ (accessed on 8 October 2024)	Vector data	Represents water-source information of the study area
	Digital elevation model data	Geospatial Data Cloud Platform https://www.gscloud.cn/ (accessed on 8 October 2024)	Raster data 30 m × 30 m	Represents elevation and slope information of the region

. All data processing and spatial analysis were conducted using ArcGIS version 10.7.

2.4. Research Content

2.4.1. Concepts and Classification of Facility Agricultural Land

Facility agricultural land refers to land that includes facilities and auxiliary structures directly involved in agricultural production activities, such as crop cultivation, planting, livestock farming, aquaculture, and other agricultural production activities, as well as auxiliary facilities necessary for facility agriculture projects and supporting infrastructure essential for large-scale grain production. Facility agricultural land can be categorized into two main types on the basis of their function: production facilities directly used for agricultural production and auxiliary supporting facilities. Land for production facilities is more akin in function to cultivated and garden land, with its allocation often adjusted according to the scale of cultivation and farming and, thus, does not involve the concepts of the allocation level and service radius. By contrast, land for auxiliary supporting facilities is intended to support agricultural production, with functions similar to those of hospitals, schools, and parks in urban settings. The allocation of these facilities is generally determined via the scale of agricultural production, incorporating the concepts of the allocation level and service area. Consequently, the allocation level and service radius of the facility agricultural land assessed in this study pertain only to land for auxiliary supporting facilities, thereby excluding land for production facilities.

2.4.2. Allocation Level of Facility Agricultural Land

The allocation level of facility agricultural land refers to the proportion of auxiliary supporting facility land allocated for agricultural production. It represents the area of auxiliary supporting facilities per unit area of production, planting, or farming land. The allocation level not only reflects the demand for auxiliary facilities in different agricultural industries but also indicates the level of increase in facility agricultural land. This metric helps to analyze the current allocation state of auxiliary supporting facilities and the degree of coordination with policy constraints. A higher configuration intensity, indicated by a higher proportion of facility land to service area, suggests that agricultural production per unit area requires greater facility support, indirectly reflecting the intensity of agricultural demand for facilities. Conversely, a lower configuration intensity indicates that the same production area requires less facility land, reflecting a higher level of land-use efficiency and intensification. The allocation level can be calculated as follows:

$$\mathrm{A}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{y}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{A}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{A}\mathrm{u}\mathrm{x}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{y}\mathrm{S}\mathrm{u}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{F}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{s}}{\mathrm{A}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{S}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{v}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{P}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{g},\mathrm{B}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{P}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{u}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{F}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{y}\mathrm{L}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{d}}}\times 100\%$$

(1)

2.4.3. Service Area of Facility Agricultural Land

The service area of facility agricultural land is the inverse of the allocation level and indicates the service capacity of facility agricultural land per unit area. While the service radius is commonly employed to describe the service capability and coverage of public facilities, facility agricultural land is designed primarily to support agricultural production rather than public needs. Given the competitive and exclusive nature of agricultural production, not all agricultural activities within the service radius may benefit from facility services. Consequently, in this study, the service area was used to characterize the service capacity of facility agricultural land, which is defined as the area of production or planting and livestock land served per unit area of auxiliary supporting facilities. The larger the service area, the greater the agricultural production scale supported per unit of facility land, indicating higher land-use efficiency. This value directly reflects the technological level and management capacity of facility agriculture. The service area can be obtained as follows:

$$\mathrm{S}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{v}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{A}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{a}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{A}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{S}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{v}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{P}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{g},\mathrm{B}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{P}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{u}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{F}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{y}\mathrm{L}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{A}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{A}\mathrm{u}\mathrm{x}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{y}\mathrm{S}\mathrm{u}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{F}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{s}}}\times 100\%$$

(2)

Both research and practice have revealed that the service area of facility agricultural land is typically positively correlated with its scale. With the increasing scale of facility agricultural land, the increase rate of the service area accordingly increases. However, agricultural production, as an economic activity, inevitably encounters diminishing marginal returns. The increase in the service area for facility agricultural land is often accompanied by increased transportation distances and higher transportation costs. Agricultural producers frequently respond to this phenomenon by establishing additional agricultural facilities once a certain scale is reached. As a result, the increase rate of the service area begins to decline, while facility locations are dispersed to balance the service area and transportation costs (Figure 3).

2.4.4. Factors Influencing the Service Area of Facility Agricultural Land

The service area of facility agricultural land is closely associated with the land scale, and changes in the scale of facility agricultural land often result in shifts in land-use patterns. Consequently, the factors influencing the service area of facility agricultural land are similar to those driving land-use changes. Extensive research has highlighted four primary categories of land-use determinants: topography, proximity factors (such as distances to roads, rivers, and town centers), socioeconomic factors (such as market conditions, output value, and policies), and neighborhood relations (such as nearby land-use patterns). In this study, the impacts of geographic factors, such as slope and elevation, and location factors, such as distances to roads, urban centers, and water sources, on the service area of facility agricultural land were investigated (

Table 2. Factors influencing the service area of facility agricultural land.

First-Level Indicators	Second-Level Indicators	Indicator Classification	Expectations	Data Types
Geographic Factors	Elevation (m)	≤200, (200, 500], >500	+	Multiclassification
	Slope (°)	$\le 5°,\left(5°\right.,\left.15°\right],\left(15°\right.,\left.25°\right],\left(25°\right.,\left.35°\right],>35°$	+	Multiclassification
Location Factors	Distance from the road (km)	≤1, (1, 2], (2, 3], (3, 4], (4, 5], >5	−	Continuous type
	Distance from the river (km)	≤1, (1, 2], (2, 3], (3, 4], (4, 5], >5	−	Continuous type
	Distance from the town center (km)	≤10, (10, 20], (20, 30], (30, 40], (40, 50], >50	−	Continuous type

). Additionally, the usage characteristics of facility agricultural land play a significant role in determining its service area. For example, different agricultural industries exhibit varying service ranges for supporting facilities, and the level of mechanization of the same facility can affect its service range. However, owing to limitations in the available data, agricultural sectors were categorized, and the allocation level, service area, and influencing factors were analyzed for different types of facility agricultural land.

2.4.5. Classification of Industries Related to Facility Agricultural Land

Facility agricultural land, which serves agricultural production, is closely related to the type of agricultural industry. The primary sector can be divided into agriculture, forestry, animal husbandry, and fishery [34]. The demand for supporting facilities varies greatly across the different agricultural industries. In the current land-management system of China, forestry production facilities are supported by forestry land policies, while facility agricultural land mainly caters to the needs of crop cultivation, animal husbandry, and aquaculture. For example, large-scale grain cultivation, which can extend over hundreds to thousands of hectares, requires large-scale facility agricultural land for seedling centers, drying facilities, and straw processing centers. Vegetable and fruit cultivation, a major agricultural sector in Zhejiang Province, demands planting, sorting, packaging, and preservation facilities. The tea industry, a key sector in Zhejiang, requires land for tea processing and storage. Pig farming, which exhibits strict biosecurity requirements, and other animal husbandry sectors generally demand similar facilities for quarantine, disease control, and transport. Aquaculture focuses on facilities for water quality monitoring and wastewater treatment. The varied functions of facility agricultural land, driven by the different agricultural sectors, result in significant differences in the spatial distribution and service level. As a result, agricultural industries were classified into seven categories: grain cultivation, vegetable cultivation, fruit cultivation, tea cultivation, pig farming, other animal husbandry, and aquaculture (

Table 3. Types of facilities in the agricultural industry.

Typology	Industry Category	Description
Plantation	Grain planting industry	Crops such as rice, rapeseed, corn, and sorghum
	Vegetable planting industry	Vegetable crops such as tomatoes, asparagus, bottle gourd, and ginger
	Fruit planting industry	Fruiting crops such as citrus, bayberry, grapes, peaches, and pears
	Tea planting industry	Tea crops such as Longjing tea, scented tea, early tea, and white tea
Cultivation	Pig farming industry	-
	Other livestock and poultry farming industry	Includes cattle, sheep, chickens, ducks, and geese
	Aquaculture	Encompasses aquatic products such as fish, shrimp, crabs, and frogs

).

2.5. Research Methods

2.5.1. Spatial Autocorrelation Analysis

(1)

Global Moran’s index

Moran’s index (Moran’s I) is a statistical measure used to assess spatial autocorrelation and can be adopted to evaluate the degree of spatial clustering or dispersion of facility agricultural land. Moran’s I can be calculated as follows:

$$\mathrm{I}={\displaystyle \frac{{\sum }_{\mathrm{i}=1}^{\mathrm{n}}{\sum }_{\mathrm{j}=1}^{\mathrm{n}}{\mathrm{w}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j}}\left({\mathrm{x}}_{\mathrm{i}}-\overline{\mathrm{x}}\right)\left({\mathrm{x}}_{\mathrm{j}}-\overline{\mathrm{x}}\right)}{{\sum }_{\mathrm{i}=1}^{\mathrm{n}}{\left({\mathrm{x}}_{\mathrm{i}}-\overline{\mathrm{x}}\right)}^2}}$$

(3)

where I denotes Moran’s I, n is the sample size, w denotes the geographical adjacency weight, ${\mathrm{x}}_{\mathrm{i}}$ is the value of sample i, ${\mathrm{x}}_{\mathrm{j}}$ is the value of sample j, and $\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ is the mean value of all samples.

(2)

Local Moran’s index

Local Moran’s index (local Moran’s I) is a statistical indicator for measuring spatial autocorrelation, which helps to identify the spatial clustering patterns of facility agricultural land. Local Moran’s I can be calculated as follows:

$${\mathrm{I}}_{\mathrm{i}}=\left({\mathrm{Z}}_{\mathrm{i}}\sum _{\mathrm{j}=1}^{\mathrm{n}}{\mathrm{W}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j}}{\mathrm{Z}}_{\mathrm{j}}\right){\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{n}}}\sum _{\mathrm{i}=1}^{\mathrm{n}}{\mathrm{z}}_{\mathrm{i}}^2\right)}^{-1}$$

(4)

for $z_i$ > 0, $\sum _{\mathrm{j}=1}^{\mathrm{n}}{\mathrm{W}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j}}{\mathrm{Z}}_{\mathrm{j}}$ > 0 indicates a high–high (HH) clustering pattern, and $\sum _{\mathrm{j}=1}^{\mathrm{n}}{\mathrm{W}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j}}{\mathrm{Z}}_{\mathrm{j}}$ < 0 indicates a high–low (HL) clustering pattern. For ${\mathrm{z}}_{\mathrm{i}}$ < 0, $\sum _{\mathrm{j}=1}^{\mathrm{n}}{\mathrm{W}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j}}{\mathrm{Z}}_{\mathrm{j}}$ > 0 indicates a low–high (LH) clustering pattern, and $\sum _{\mathrm{j}=1}^{\mathrm{n}}{\mathrm{W}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j}}{\mathrm{Z}}_{\mathrm{j}}$ < 0 indicates a low–low (LL) clustering pattern.

2.5.2. Geographical Detector

The geographical detector is a set of statistical methods proposed by Wang Jinfeng and others for detecting spatial differentiation and elucidating the underlying driving forces [35]. The geographical detector is based on spatial differentiation theory. It involves the use of various discrete classification methods for factors and aims to normalize different types of variables at the same spatial scale to identify interactions among multiple factors. In this study, the geographical detector was adopted to investigate the determinants of the service area of facility agricultural land and to analyze the influence of different factors on the service area of various agricultural-facility types. Notably, q can be calculated as follows:

$$\mathrm{q}=1-{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{n}{\sigma }^2}}\sum _{\mathrm{i}=1}^{\mathrm{m}}{\mathrm{n}}_{\mathrm{i}}{\sigma }_{\mathrm{i}}^2$$

(5)

where q represents the explanatory power of the influencing factor (independent variable) on the spatial differentiation phenomenon (dependent variable), n denotes the total sample size, σ² represents the total variance, m is the number of strata, n_i indicates the sample size of the ith stratum, and σ²_i is the variance of the ith stratum.

3. Results

3.1. Characteristics and Allocation Intensity of Facility Agricultural Land in Zhejiang Province

3.1.1. Layout Characteristics of Facility Agricultural Land in Different Industries

The results revealed significant spatial disparities in facility agricultural land distribution across Zhejiang Province, with denser concentrations in the north and sparser areas in the south (Figure 4). Grain planting was primarily located in the Hangjiahu Plain, Ning-Shao Plain, Wenzhou coastal plain, and central Zhejiang Basin. Fruit and vegetable planting were clustered in coastal areas of Hangzhou, Jiaxing, Ningbo, Taizhou, and Wenzhou. Other crop planting exhibited a strip-like distribution in Hangzhou, Huzhou, Jiaxing, and Quzhou. Pig farming was concentrated in hilly and mountainous regions of Quzhou, Jinhua, Lishui, and southwestern Hangzhou. Other livestock and poultry farming was widespread, with agglomeration areas in most cities except Ningbo, Zhoushan, and Taizhou. Aquaculture was concentrated in coastal areas such as Ningbo, Taizhou, Zhoushan, and Wenzhou, as well as in Quzhou and Huzhou.

3.1.2. Allocation Intensity of Facility Agricultural Land in the Different Industries

The results indicated that the allocation level of facility agricultural land in Zhejiang Province was generally low, far below the upper limit of the policy (

Table 4. Overall allocation levels of facility agricultural land in the different industries.

Typology		Facility Agricultural Land Average Size (ha)	Allocation Intensity (%)	Policy Requirement (%)
Plantation	Grain planting industry	0.13	0.35%	≤0.6%
	Fruit and vegetable planting industry	0.11	0.65%	≤1.5%
	Other crop planting industry	0.07	0.49%	≤1.5%
Cultivation	Pig farming industry	0.11	6.89%	≤15%
	Other livestock and poultry farming industry	0.05	5.03%	≤10%
	Aquaculture	0.06	3.06%	≤8%

). There were significant differences in the allocation level of facility agricultural land among the different industries, with a higher allocation level in the cultivation industry than that in the crop planting industry. Among the crop planting industries, the facility agricultural land for grain planting exhibited the largest average area, reaching 0.13 ha, but it demonstrated the lowest allocation level, at only 0.22%, indicating the insufficient allocation of facility agricultural land for large-scale grain production. The average area of facility agricultural land in the fruit and vegetable planting industry and the other crop planting industry was slightly smaller than that in the grain planting industry, with allocation levels of 0.65% and 0.49%, respectively. However, these values were still far below the upper limit of the policy [36]. In the livestock industry, the facility agricultural land for pig farming exhibited the largest average area and the highest allocation level, whereas the allocation levels in the other livestock and poultry farming industry and aquaculture were relatively low.

3.2. Scale and Service Area of Facility Agricultural Land Under Different Location Conditions

3.2.1. Differentiation Characteristics of the Scale of Facility Agricultural Land in the Different Industries

The results of the geographical detector revealed significant variations in the dominant factors influencing the scale of facility agricultural land across different industries, as well as their explanatory power. For the planting industry, the primary affecting factors of facility agricultural land for food cultivation, ranked in descending order of influence, were distance from the river, distance from the town center, and slope. By contrast, the scale of vegetable cultivation showed no significant relationship with topography or location conditions, while fruit cultivation was primarily influenced by distance from the town center. For tea plantations, the key determinants were distance from the town center, distance from the road, and elevation. In the aquaculture sector, the facility agricultural land for pig farming was jointly influenced by both topographic and location factors, whereas other livestock and poultry farming facilities were primarily affected by location factors alone. Additionally, the scale of aquaculture facilities was mainly shaped by slope, distance from the river, and distance from the town center.

The results indicated that the scale of facility agricultural land was significantly influenced by elevation, slope, distance from the road, distance from the river, and distance from the town center (

Table 5. Scale differentiation characteristics of facility agricultural land in the different industries under different location conditions.

Location Factors		Grain Planting Industry	Fruit and Vegetable Planting Industry	Other Crop Planting Industry	Pig Farming Industry	Other Livestock and Poultry	Aquaculture
Elevation (m)	≤200	78.96%	74.35%	81.18%	83.60%	80.55%	78.26%
	(200, 500]	15.46%	19.03%	14.72%	13.05%	17.86%	15.39%
	>500	5.58%	6.62%	4.09%	3.34%	1.57%	6.33%
Slope (°)	$\le 5°$	51.67%	43.38%	44.95%	53.45%	42.89%	37.41%
	$\left(5°\right.,\left.15°\right]$	39.08%	46.93%	45.62%	38.41%	46.58%	53.62%
	$\left(15°\right.,\left.25°\right]$	8.12%	9.11%	8.25%	6.72%	6.77%	6.73%
	$>25°$	1.13%	0.57%	1.18%	1.42%	3.74%	2.22%
Distance from the road (km)	≤3	73.06%	79.41%	74.45%	70.79%	62.57%	79.56%
	(3, 6]	20.51%	16.38%	17.61%	20.47%	22.79%	13.14%
	(6, 9]	5.32%	3.57%	5.46%	2.55%	8.23%	5.85%
	>9	1.10%	0.64%	2.48%	6.19%	6.43%	1.43%
Distance from the river (km)	≤2	57.61%	65.99%	54.60%	56.90%	53.88%	55.38%
	(2, 4]	24.51%	14.76%	27.41%	23.83%	29.64%	16.24%
	(4, 6]	9.62%	11.10%	12.45%	11.92%	9.04%	11.32%
	>6	8.25%	8.14%	5.55%	7.34%	7.44%	17.04%
Distance from the town center (km)	≤10	23.41%	15.22%	24.18%	11.88%	18.79%	29.01%
	(10, 20]	60.48%	52.51%	51.59%	56.86%	62.58%	48.08%
	(20, 30]	14.21%	28.12%	18.66%	28.53%	17.66%	20.46%
	>30	1.90%	4.15%	5.56%	2.72%	0.96%	2.43%

). The scale of facility agricultural land in the different industries generally exhibited similar differentiation patterns under various location conditions. In terms of location conditions, as elevation, distance from the road, and distance to water sources increased, the scale of facility agricultural land exhibited a decreasing trend. Conversely, as the distance from the town center increased, the scale of facility agricultural land exhibited an inverted U-shaped trend, peaking at a distance of 1020 km from the town center. From an industry perspective, a small proportion of industries exhibited different land-scale patterns than those in the other industries. For example, the pig farming industry requires strict epidemic-prevention measures, leading to the location of some pig farms in remote areas more than 9 km away from roads. By contrast, high-level pond aquaculture, which is less dependent on rivers, exhibits similar facility agricultural land scales when the distance from the river exceeds 2 km.

3.2.2. Differentiation Characteristics of the Service Area of Facility Agricultural Land in the Different Industries

The results indicated that the service area of facility agricultural land varied significantly among the different industries, with a much larger service area in the planting industries than that in the cultivation industries (

Table 6. Differentiation characteristics of the service areas of facility agricultural land in the different industries under different location conditions.

Location Factors		Grain Planting Industry	Fruit and Vegetable Planting Industry	Other Crop Planting Industry	Pig Farming Industry	Other Livestock and Poultry	Aquaculture
/		288.99	155.2	203.25	15.29	19.9	36.9
Elevation (m)	≤200	288.14	148.99	201.92	14.62	20.49	34.09
	(200, 500]	294.03	170.15	200.92	14.45	17.34	27.12
	>500	287.08	182.11	237.99	12.15	18.81	28.78
Slope (°)	$\le 5°$	291.45	144.86	193.28	13.60	19.45	31.69
	$\left(5°\right.,\left.15°\right]$	288.76	160.16	210.29	15.99	20.48	33.95
	$\left(15°\right.,\left.25°\right]$	282.57	178.30	217.52	14.58	19.55	29.38
	$>25°$	230.17	103.85	211.36	8.59	18.47	28.46
Distance from the road (km)	≤3	293.70	142.99	200.50	15.11	20.94	34.61
	(3, 6]	273.09	203.27	205.44	12.14	18.97	25.31
	(6, 9]	289.88	200.24	219.29	14.70	18.85	24.94
	>9	268.22	157.97	235.00	15.42	14.39	24.46
Distance from the river (km)	≤2	294.63	134.50	203.13	13.88	20.46	26.76
	(2, 4]	286.57	186.27	216.40	15.04	18.63	26.35
	(4, 6]	270.27	186.80	195.98	14.26	20.16	43.02
	>6	278.55	221.17	155.76	18.15	20.57	51.08
Distance from the town center (km)	≤10	289.80	150.87	190.41	15.98	22.11	27.79
	(10, 20]	287.18	151.72	203.10	14.63	19.18	31.94
	(20, 30]	292.80	172.18	219.81	13.79	20.03	38.10
	>30	308.17	95.26	204.89	13.22	21.16	59.91

). The ranking of the service areas of facility agricultural land from highest to lowest is as follows: grain planting (288.99) > other crop planting (203.25) > fruit and vegetable planting (155.2) > aquaculture (36.9) > other livestock and poultry farming (19.9) > pig farming (15.29). Within the same industry, the service areas under the different location conditions were generally similar. However, there were instances where the service area of facility agricultural land in certain industries exhibited abrupt changes under specific location conditions. For example, the service area of facility agricultural land in the grain planting industry showed a notable decline when the slope exceeded 25°. In the fruit and vegetable planting industry, the service area was relatively small when the slope exceeded 25°, the distance from the river was less than 2 km, and the distance from the town center exceeded 30 km, whereas it was relatively large when the distance from the road was between 3 and 9 km. The service area of facility agricultural land in the other crop planting industry was relatively large when the elevation surpassed 200 m, but it declined significantly when the distance from the river exceeded 6 km. The service area of facility agricultural land in the pig farming industry decreased sharply when the slope exceeded 25°. With respect to aquaculture, the service area of facility agricultural land significantly increased when the distance from the river exceeded 4 km.

4. Discussion

4.1. The Development and Site Selection of Facility Agricultural Land Are Constrained by Factors Such as Land-Use Standards and the Agricultural Development Level

The current policy on facility agricultural land in Zhejiang Province was introduced in 2020. Its primary aim was to meet agricultural production needs while promoting the intensive, economical, and sustainable use of land. However, in recent years, the rapid modernization of agriculture has occurred in China, revealing that these standards no longer suffice for emerging agricultural practices [37]. However, this study found that the overall intensity of facility agricultural land allocation in Zhejiang Province is relatively low, which can be attributed to three main factors. First, constrained by the geographical pattern of “70% mountains, 10% water, and 20% farmland” and the late start of agricultural transformation, small-scale farming remains dominant in the province [38]. The lagging development of agriculture directly limits the growth of facility land allocation. Second, the tightening of farmland-use control policies (prohibiting the occupation of permanent basic farmland and strictly regulating the use of general farmland) and the combined effects of comprehensive land-consolidation projects [39] have led to practical challenges such as difficulties in site selection and fragmented layouts for facility agricultural land. Finally, there are significant differences in industrial demand—traditional planting industries, constrained by site limitations and weak demand, are forced to adopt measures such as facility shutdowns, sharing, or substitution with construction land, resulting in persistently low allocation levels. By contrast, the livestock industry, owing to its production characteristics, has a lower dependence on farmland and a stronger rigid demand for facilities, leading to relatively reasonable land allocation [40].

Currently, numerous studies have employed methods such as remote sensing interpretation, machine learning, and artificial intelligence to detect and identify the coverage of facility agricultural land in different regions, revealing the distribution characteristics of facility agricultural land, primarily greenhouse structures, across various areas [15,41]. One comparison found that the scale of facility agricultural land allocation in Zhejiang Province is lower than that in the Huanghuaihai plain, which may be due to the special geographic conditions of Zhejiang Province and the favorable climatic and policy conditions in the Huanghuaihai region; large-scale clusters of facility agricultural land are mainly concentrated in the peri-urban areas to support urban food security, whereas small-scale clusters are mostly distributed in the rural mountainous areas, which are restricted by families’ financial resources and arable land resources, which is in line with this paper’s findings.

In the future, with the increased focus on food security, agricultural transformation, and sustainable development, new agricultural practices, such as greenhouse planting and factory farming, which are multi-output, highly efficient, and sustainable practices, will gradually replace traditional farming models [42]. Concurrently, ongoing efforts to explore new standards and development pathways for facility agricultural land that balance ecology and development will likely yield significant improvements in the allocation level of facility agricultural land in Zhejiang Province.

4.2. The Service Area of Facility Agricultural Land Exhibits Differentiated Patterns Across the Various Industries

After analyzing the service area of facility agricultural land, this paper finds that there is a significant difference in the service area of facility agricultural land in different agricultural industries, and the service area of facility agricultural land in the planting industry is much higher than that in the farming industry. This may be due to the fact that the functions of the planting industry’s facility agricultural land are based on the storage of agricultural tools, the drying and sun-drying of agricultural products, sorting and packaging, preservation and storage, and waste treatment, which is suitable for a variety of crops to share in common use, which further strengthens its service capacity and area [43]. However, the agricultural land for farming facilities is mainly used for quarantine and inspection, animal disease control, breeding isolation, decontamination and transfer, etc., which has strict disease-control requirements and is not suitable for shared use [44], resulting in a restricted service area.

In addition, this paper found that part of the industry facilities’ agricultural land service area in a certain location exists under the conditions of mutation, which is mainly due to the type of planting and agricultural production methods, with the level of agricultural mechanization decided [45]. The cultivation industry has gradually experienced a change from small farmers to large-scale cultivation and a development stage from traditional soil cultivation to soilless cultivation. Large-scale cultivation has brought a rise in the service area of facility agricultural land and in the soilless cultivation derived from plant factories to achieve a substantial increase in mu average yield at the same time. The auxiliary ancillary land demand has become more diversified and large-scale, resulting in a rise in the scale of facility agricultural land and a decline in the service area. The farming industry has also gradually experienced a development stage from free-range farming to large-scale farming and from field farming to building farming. Large-scale farming has achieved a rise in the service area of facility agricultural land, while the building facilities required for farming have also increased the need for auxiliary supporting facilities. For example, for pig farming, there is a clear demand for disinfection and isolation places, and the high demand for places for high-tank facilities and aquaculture wastewater treatment facilities indicates diversified needs, leading to a rise in the area of facility agricultural land and the service area. Diversified demand has led to a rise in the area of land used for facility agriculture and a decline in the service area. To sum up, the service area of agricultural land for facilities in different industries shows a similar trend with the transformation and upgrading of production methods, and this finding provides an important theoretical basis and practical guidance for optimizing the layout of agricultural land for facilities, improving the efficiency of land use, and promoting the modernization of agriculture.

4.3. Initiatives for Optimizing the Decision-Making Process for Facility Agricultural Land

In the implementation of the existing policy on facility agricultural land use, provinces have demonstrated notable innovation in terms of access, scale, and use control: Jiangsu Province has refined the classification of facility agricultural land use and clarified the types of crops and farming species to be accessed; Beijing Municipality has issued a classified list to prohibit the use of facility agricultural land by non-agricultural farming animals; Hebei Province has implemented stepped-scale standards; Liaoning Province has relaxed the scale restriction of caretaker houses and set the standard for internal roads; Hunan Province has formulated rules for the management of ecological protection zones, and Hainan Province has simplified the approval procedures for occupying forest land. These innovations provide important references for the management of land used for facility agriculture. However, Zhejiang Province, as an economically developed region with imminent agricultural transformation and upgrading that is facing multiple pressures on land and arable land protection, must regulate the management and use of agricultural land for facilities and promote the intensive and economical use of agricultural land for facilities while guaranteeing the demand for agricultural land for agricultural facilities.

(1)

The first initiative is the establishment of three major classification systems (the shared, modern, and guaranteed types) and the formulation of differentiated scale standards. Although the overall agricultural development in Zhejiang Province occurs in the stage of transformation and upgrading development, the agricultural foundation and resource advantages differ across regions, and the demand for agricultural land for facilities is diversified. On the basis of the diversified demand for agricultural facilities in Zhejiang Province, we established three major classification systems, namely, the shared type, modern type, and the safeguard type, and formulated differentiated allocation-scale standards.

① Shared type: Shared facility agricultural land mainly includes regional shared agricultural service centers and straw burning facilities. Owing to the regional demand for agricultural services, straw burning, and other public services, the relevant shared facility land occurs within the scope of facility agricultural land, and because of its nonprofit and shared characteristics, shared facility agricultural land includes only ancillary facilities (no production facilities), and, according to the scope of facility services, appropriate scale standards should be developed.

② Modern type: Modern-type facility agricultural land aims to meet modern agricultural needs such as large-scale modern facility agriculture production. To optimize the integration of land use, promote the application of modern agricultural technology, reduce agricultural production costs, and increase agricultural production efficiency, a modern-type facility-based agricultural classification was established, and land for both production and ancillary facilities should be reasonably allocated to large-scale facility-based agricultural production enterprises that meet the scale and technology requirements.

③ Safeguard type: Safeguard-type facility agricultural land mainly serves the currently prevailing traditional agricultural practices, thereby meeting the demand for land and ancillary facilities for traditional agricultural production and facilitating the production of small-scale facility agricultural land.

(2)

The second initiative regards the establishment of a three-category access list of encouragement, restriction, and prohibition to increase the scope of protection. In view of the diverse types of agricultural production activities in Zhejiang Province, a three-category access list was established for encouragement, restriction, and prohibition, and various types of agricultural facilities were grouped into three major categories to systematically meet the needs of regional facilities. In addition, the needs of the entire process of agricultural production, such as planting, livestock, poultry, and aquaculture, should be comprehensively accounted for, and the scope of protection should be increased to include modern production facilities; the preliminary processing of agricultural products, marine aquaculture, and fishing; and building management.

(3)

The third initiative pertains to the optimization of the spatial layout of agricultural land for facilities and the promotion of the intensive and economical use of agricultural land for facilities (

Table 7. Optimisation of the spatial distribution of land for agricultural facilities.

Typology		Recommended Layout Patterns
		Centralized	Distributed	Combination
Plantation	Grain planting industry			●
	Vegetable planting industry		●
	Fruit planting industry		●
	Tea planting industry			●
Cultivation	Pig farming industry	●
	Other livestock and poultry farming industry	●
	Aquaculture			●

Note: “●”represents that this is the distribution pattern recommended by the study.

). The systematic layout of agricultural-facility land accounts for the exclusivity of agricultural production and business activities and the sharing of agricultural-facility services. For the grain cultivation and pig farming industries, it is recommended that villages or townships should be employed as units to focus on the construction of corresponding facilities for agricultural land, identify common needs, allocate supporting facilities, and reduce the supply of individual land. For the fruit and vegetable cultivation, other crop cultivation, other livestock and poultry breeding, and aquaculture industries, it is recommended to combine centralized and decentralized layouts, and centralized allocation is encouraged in agglomeration areas, whereas fragmented allocation can be conducted according to actual needs in sporadic production areas. In sporadic production areas, centralized allocation is encouraged, whereas sporadic allocation can be conducted according to the actual demand.

(4)

The fourth initiative regards the establishment of a dual management model that combines rigidity and flexibility for facility agricultural land (Figure 5). The difference between the supply and demand for facility agricultural land is a major factor limiting the development of facility agriculture. On the one hand, it is essential to leverage idle residential and other nonagricultural lands and to develop mechanisms to reactivate and utilize existing idle facility agricultural land to increase its availability. On the other hand, it is necessary to manage the conflicts related to farmland preservation, ecological protection, and facility agricultural land expansion. Facility agricultural land typically exhibits a scattered, point-like distribution with specific effective service radii. In crop cultivation, particularly large-scale grain production, sites often occur close to farmland, leading to potential encroachment on permanent basic farmland. Additionally, when new facility agricultural land is sited away from farmland, it is generally located in ecologically fragile areas such as grasslands, forests, or wetlands, which is at odds with the goal of green and high-quality development. Planning strategies are crucial for addressing these conflicts. Nonetheless, conflicts between facility agricultural land planning and the location preferences of land users are inevitable. To address this problem, a model of flexible management and control of facility agricultural land based on national land spatial planning and land-use control requirements was investigated, adopting industrial areas as units and implementing a dual management method of quantitative positioning and quantitative non-positioning.

① Quantitative location management: Based on the needs of village collectives and agricultural operators for fallow land, a portion of facility agricultural land should be reserved. For facility agriculture projects with clear locations, quantitative location management should be applied. For projects of which the exact location cannot be determined, feasible spatial ranges should be proposed to guide site selection. Within these designated industrial zones and spatial ranges, flexible site selection should be permitted, provided that relevant policy requirements are met.

② Quantitative non-specific location management: A flexible quota of facility agricultural land should be reserved, thereby employing a zoned admission + quota-control management approach. This strategy, which adheres to clustering and systematic allocation principles, aims to guide and enhance the relative concentration and shared use of facility agricultural land.

5. Conclusions

Food security and ecological protection remain pivotal concerns in the agricultural industry. Facility agricultural land, as a cornerstone of modern agriculture, necessitates systematic planning and management to adapt to agricultural modernization and scaling trends. It is crucial to manage land use efficiently while addressing food security and ecological protection, thereby supporting the objectives of green and high-quality development.

This study provides a quantitative analysis of the spatial layout, allocation level, and service area of facility agricultural land in Zhejiang Province. By examining the current allocation status and the differentiated service-area patterns across various agricultural industries, optimization strategies are proposed to enhance green, high-quality development in facility agriculture.

The spatial distribution of facility agricultural land in Zhejiang Province generally exhibits a dense distribution in the north and a sparse distribution in the south, with facility agricultural land for various industries concentrated in distinct regions. With respect to the allocation level, the prevailing conditions of a large population and limited land resources, combined with the overall lag in agricultural development, result in a low overall intensity of facility agricultural land allocation, with a greater allocation level of facility agricultural land in the livestock industry than that in the crop planting industry. In terms of the land scale, the scale of facility agricultural land is significantly influenced by location factors such as elevation, slope, distance from the road, distance from the river, and distance from the town center. In regard to the service area, the service area of facility agricultural land is associated with the type of agricultural industry and production methods, with a larger service area in the crop planting industry than that in the livestock industry. The service area of facility agricultural land exhibits an inverted U-shaped change trend, initially increasing and then decreasing as agricultural production methods evolve across three stages: smallholder production, large-scale agriculture, and facility agriculture. To address conflicts between food security, ecological sustainability, and facility agricultural land requirements, we recommend establishing a classification system encompassing shared, modern, and safeguard types; formulating an entry list of encouraged, restricted, and prohibited categories; optimizing the spatial layout; implementing flexible control; and promoting the intensive and efficient use of land for facility-based agriculture to meet diverse needs and facilitate agricultural transformation and upgrading.

This study holds dual practical value for the management of facility agricultural land: For policymakers, within the current legal framework, it provides a comprehensive policy toolbox encompassing “classification system-access list-flexible control,” which can enhance specialized agricultural-facility planning within territorial spatial planning. For agricultural practitioners, the research findings can guide production and operational decisions, such as selecting appropriate facility scales and layout pathways, optimizing site selection through location factor models, and improving land-use efficiency via reasonable allocation patterns. For small-scale farmers, as the service level of facility agricultural land continues to improve, with increases in allocation intensity and service area, they can access more convenient facility agricultural services at a lower economic cost, thereby enhancing intensive production levels and efficiency.

The methodological framework proposed in this study provides systematic theoretical guidance for the allocation of facility agricultural land. However, several issues should be addressed in future research. First, agricultural industries were categorized solely on the basis of planting and breeding types. In future research, agricultural industries can be subdivided according to agricultural production methods. Second, regression analysis, geographical-detector models, and other models should be employed to quantitatively identify factors that may influence the allocation level and service capacity of facility agricultural land, thereby elucidating the mechanisms and degree of influence of various factors. Thirdly, the functions and scale demands of facility agricultural land across the different agricultural industries should be explored to establish specific allocation standards for facility agricultural land in different sectors, thereby providing a land management basis for policymakers. Finally, due to differences in facility agricultural land policies and data completeness across regions, single-region research models are difficult to generalize. Therefore, to better promote the development of research on agricultural-facility land use, subsequent studies need to strengthen cooperation and data transparency. Future research directions should focus on dynamic mechanism analysis and cross-scale comparative studies. By constructing panel-data models to trace the evolution of facility land use, particular attention should be paid to the interaction effects between socioeconomic factors (e.g., land transfer policies, agricultural price fluctuations) and natural geographic factors. Additionally, comparative studies across regions with different economic gradients, such as the Yangtze River Delta and Pearl River Delta, are recommended to reveal how regional development models regulate facility land allocation patterns. Furthermore, given the continuous expansion of agricultural-facility land and the availability of higher-quality data, it is recommended to conduct periodic analyses at the provincial scale approximately every five years. This will enhance the understanding of decision-makers and stakeholders, thereby enabling better policy analysis, guidance, and improvements in agricultural productivity.