| Literature DB >> 31557866 |
Xin Deng1, Miao Zeng2, Dingde Xu3, Feng Wei4, Yanbin Qi5.
Abstract
Prior studies have fully explored the impacts of rural labor migration on land use forms. In contrast to prior studies, this study focuses on the health status of rural households and its quantitative impacts on cropland abandonment (CA). More specifically, under the guidance of the theoretical mechanism of "household health affects CA by labor supply", this study employs survey data from 8031 households collected in 27 Chinese provinces in 2014 to explore the quantitative impacts of household health on CA. The results are as follows. (1) The higher the level of household health is, the less CA there is. (2) Compared with males, the impact of female health status on CA is more obvious. Thus, the relationship between household health and CA matters, not only because it may help to theoretically enhance the understanding of the importance of health in peasant households, but also because it may help to practically provide references for effective policies of CA from the perspective of rural medical services.Entities:
Keywords: China; cropland abandonment; household health; rural medical services
Year: 2019 PMID: 31557866 PMCID: PMC6801875 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16193588
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1The relationship between health and medical conditions by rural and urban areas.
Definition and descriptive statistics for the variables a.
| Variables | Definition | Mean | SD |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Cropland abandonment | The share of cropland abandonment in total cropland (%) | 7.06 | 22.74 |
|
| |||
| Household health | The share of healthy members in household (%) | 86.34 | 23.51 |
| Female health | The share of healthy female members in household (%) | 68.75 | 29.68 |
| Male health | The share of healthy male members in household (%) | 73.87 | 26.95 |
|
| |||
| Scale | Per capita of cropland area (mu a /person) | 1.67 | 1.97 |
| Quality | 1 if abandoned cropland is poor; 0 otherwise | 0.03 | 0.16 |
| Registration | 1 if cropland is officially registered; 0 otherwise | 0.41 | 0.49 |
| Transfer | 1 if household rents out cropland; 0 otherwise | 0.71 | 0.45 |
|
| |||
| Education | 1 if householder has a high school education or above; 0 otherwise | 0.12 | 0.32 |
| Age | Age of householder (years) | 53.81 | 13.24 |
|
| |||
| Size | Number of total household members | 4.61 | 2.21 |
| Off-farm employment | The share of off-farm labors in total labors (%) | 40.01 | 38.54 |
| Successor | 1 if the next generation of householder is engaged in agriculture; 0 otherwise | 0.08 | 0.27 |
| Agricultural assets | Per capita of current market value of all the agricultural assets that a household possesses (104 RMB a/person) | 0.08 | 0.53 |
| Fixed assets | Per capita of current market value of all the fixed assets that a household possesses (104 RMB a/person) | 4.32 | 16.75 |
|
| |||
| Distance | Distance from households to the nearest business center (Km) | 7.12 | 9.18 |
| Density | Village population density (number/Km2) | 140.68 | 134.30 |
| Urbanization | The share of urban households in total households with same county in sample (%) | 11.63 | 20.69 |
| Plain | 1 if village is located in plain; 0 otherwise | 0.40 | 0.49 |
| Hill | 1 if village is located in hill; 0 otherwise | 0.35 | 0.48 |
| Mountain | 1 if village is located in mountain; 0 otherwise | 0.25 | 0.43 |
a Note: During the study period, 1 USD was equal to 6.12 RMB; 1 mu ≈ 666.67 m2; the gender of some members is a missing value.
Figure 2The heatmap for the matrix of Pearson’s correlation coefficients.
The IV-Tobit estimated results for the impacts of household health on cropland abandonment a.
| Model (1) | Model (2) | Model (3) | Model (4) | Model (5) | Model (6) | Model (7) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Household health | −3.8768 *** | −3.7719 *** | −3.3716 *** | −3.5376 *** | −2.9961 *** | −2.1950 *** | −0.0015 *** |
| (0.4706) | (0.7612) | (0.6852) | (0.8048) | (0.7681) | (0.8059) | (0.0005) | |
| Land size | 5.6424 | 5.4644 | 6.5960 | 4.9781 | 0.0034 | ||
| (7.1495) | (6.9465) | (6.9483) | (6.5851) | (0.0061) | |||
| Land quality | 212.5419 *** | 211.9371 *** | 208.7084 *** | 205.8077 *** | 0.1388 *** | ||
| (10.6958) | (10.7877) | (10.6689) | (10.3069) | (0.0094) | |||
| Land registration | 9.8939 | 10.7815 * | 9.1641 | 9.4428 | 0.0064 | ||
| (6.3402) | (6.4307) | (6.2380) | (6.3351) | (0.0041) | |||
| Land transfer | −86.0644 *** | −86.3041 *** | −98.0307 *** | −95.5968 *** | −0.0644 *** | ||
| (7.6719) | (7.7422) | (7.7928) | (7.6508) | (0.0053) | |||
| Householder education | 12.8480 | 5.3303 | 5.0150 | 0.0034 | |||
| (9.2065) | (8.8146) | (8.8114) | (0.0059) | ||||
| Householder age | −2.8156 ** | −3.5955 *** | −3.5315 *** | −0.0024 *** | |||
| (1.2364) | (1.1916) | (1.1949) | (0.0008) | ||||
| Householder age2 | 0.0218 * | 0.0308 *** | 0.0332 *** | 0.0000 *** | |||
| (0.0121) | (0.0111) | (0.0112) | (0.0000) | ||||
| Household size | 6.1363 *** | 4.5353 *** | 0.0031 *** | ||||
| (1.6149) | (1.6397) | (0.0010) | |||||
| Off-farm employment | 0.6996 *** | 0.6649 *** | 0.0004 *** | ||||
| (0.1003) | (0.1018) | (0.0001) | |||||
| Farm successor | −11.7624 | −12.6754 | −0.0085 | ||||
| (11.0098) | (10.8160) | (0.0074) | |||||
| Ln(Agricultural assets) | −61.3466 *** | −70.2677 *** | −0.0474 *** | ||||
| (21.9725) | (22.0746) | (0.0168) | |||||
| Ln(Fixed assets) | −5.0069 | −6.4852 * | −0.0044 * | ||||
| (3.5757) | (3.5607) | (0.0025) | |||||
| Distance | 0.1254 | 0.0001 | |||||
| (0.2690) | (0.0002) | ||||||
| Population density | −0.1450 *** | −0.0001 *** | |||||
| (0.0239) | (0.0000) | ||||||
| Urbanization | −0.3144 ** | −0.0002 ** | |||||
| (0.1538) | (0.0001) | ||||||
| Hill | 12.7579 | 0.0086 | |||||
| (8.0849) | (0.0056) | ||||||
| Mountain | 17.6559 * | 0.0119 * | |||||
| (9.2314) | (0.0065) | ||||||
| Province dummies | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Wald test of exogeneity | 48.8958 *** | 17.4689 *** | 16.3676 *** | 14.8112 *** | 9.7939 *** | 3.9856 ** | - |
| Observation | 8031 | 8031 | 8031 | 8031 | 8031 | 8031 | 8031 |
a Note: Standard errors in parentheses; * p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01; in order to display the estimation results more accurately, this study reserve 4 digits after the decimal point (the same below).
The estimated results of robustness test for the impacts of household health on cropland abandonment a.
| Model (1) | Model (2) | Model (3) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Household health | −0.1554 ** | −0.0211 ** | −0.0162 *** |
| (0.0727) | (0.0095) | (0.0057) | |
| Land variables | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Householder variables | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Household variables | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Location variables | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Province dummies | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Observation | 8031 | 8031 | 8031 |
a Note: Standard errors in parentheses; * p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01.
The estimated results for the impacts of household health on cropland abandonment by gender composition.
| Model (1) | Model (2) | Model (3) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Female health | −0.0011 *** | −0.0015 *** | −0.0033 *** |
| (0.0002) | (0.0003) | (0.0005) | |
| Male health | −0.0013 *** | −0.0004 | −0.0020 |
| (0.0002) | (0.0003) | (0.0014) | |
| Land variables | No | No | Yes |
| Householder variables | No | No | Yes |
| Household variables | No | No | Yes |
| Location variables | No | No | Yes |
| Province dummies | No | Yes | Yes |
| Wald test of exogeneity | 337.8985 *** | 101.1544 *** | 41.5459 *** |
| Observation | 7581 | 7581 | 7581 |
a Note: The coefficients is marginal effect based on the IV-Tobit estimated result. Standard errors in parentheses; * p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01.