| Literature DB >> 32434432 |
Xinyou Yu1, Yunqing Liu1, Yiwen Wang1, Xiaoli Feng1, Mingzhong Tu2, Jiangsheng Chen1.
Abstract
Farmland transfer is one of the essential approaches for achieving large-scale farming and its management affects productive efficiency, environment pollution and food sustainable security supply. Present study was carried out investigation based representative agricultural development area Guanzhong Plain of Shaanxi, aimed at explore the role of biotechnology and laborers in integration of farmland toward to improve sustainable agriculture in rural China by employed the profit and Tobit models evaluation. The conclusion demonstrated that labor's and agricultural management model as main stay, intensive farming has positive effect-based economic and environmental benefits than fragmentation management, female laborers have weaker effect on farmland renting-out behavior among smallholders while male laborers were superior promoters in increasing the area of rented-in farmland and farm scale. Finally, bioengineering development and agricultural intensification management as a rational choice that has great potential value for large-scale cultivation that contributing a promising future for achieving cleaner production, environment and human health further providing huge economic and social and environmental benefits in sustainability agriculture. Additionally, government policies require intensive intervention to accelerate large-scale management and biotechnology implementation.Abbreviation: Aaflf: Average age of female labor force; Incom(log): Log of annual household income; Noflf: Number of women in the labor force; Nooaf: Number of old adults in family; NTFs: non-transfer families; OLS: ordinary least square; Palff: Proportion of agricultural laborers in the female labor force; Palmf: Proportion of agricultural laborers in the male labor force; RIFs: rented-in families; ROFs: rented-out families; Whhf: Whether the household head is female.Entities:
Keywords: Labor; biotechnology; farmland resource; large-scale farming; sustainable agriculture
Year: 2020 PMID: 32434432 PMCID: PMC7250186 DOI: 10.1080/21655979.2020.1765523
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Bioengineered ISSN: 2165-5979 Impact factor: 3.269
Figure 1.Location of study area.
Figure 2.Farmland transfer evolution mechanism.
General descriptive statistics of some variables for the whole sample.
| Variable | Description | Mean | SD |
|---|---|---|---|
| Women’s variables | |||
| Number of women in the labor force | 1.532 | 0.670 | |
| Proportion of agricultural laborers in the female labor force | 0.611 | 0.381 | |
| Average years educated of female labor force | 8.083 | 3.566 | |
| Average age of female labor force | 44.379 | 12.564 | |
| Whether the household head is female (female = 1; male = 0) | 0.047 | 0.212 | |
| Proportion of agricultural laborers in the male labor force | 0.543 | 0.351 | |
| Household characteristics | |||
| Number of laborers | 3.358 | 1.107 | |
| Number of children (age<18) | 0.782 | 0.856 | |
| Number of old adults in family (age≥60) | 0.956 | 0.913 | |
| Age of household head | 55.242 | 9.904 | |
| Years educated of household head | 8.465 | 3.092 | |
| Whether one of the family members is a rural official (yes = 1; no = 0) | 0.063 | 0.242 | |
| Proportion of agricultural income | 0.251 | 0.260 | |
| Annual household income (thousand USD) a | 18.636 | 42.216 | |
| Average annual income per laborer (thousand USD) a | 5.871 | 16.918 | |
| Livelihood satisfaction, which has five options: extremely dissatisfied, dissatisfied, general, satisfied and very satisfied, respectively ranked from 1 to 5. | 2.481 | 0.929 | |
| Land characteristics | |||
| Area of planting (ha)b | 0.568 | 2.155 | |
| Area of assigned land (ha)b | 0.316 | 0.137 | |
| Annual input of fertilizers and pesticides per hectare (thousand USD per hectare) | 1.985 | 2.371 | |
| Whether adopted recycling of agricultural waste (yes = 1; no = 0) | 0.277 | 0.448 | |
| Dependent variables | |||
| Whether family rented out its farmland (yes = 1; no = 0) | 0.228 | 0.420 | |
| Proportion of rented-out land in assigned land | 0.177 | 0.352 | |
| Proportion of agricultural income in total income | 0.251 | 0.260 | |
| Whether family chose to rent in farmland (yes = 1; no = 0) | 0.159 | 0.366 | |
| Area of rented-in land (ha) | 0.305 | 2.139 | |
| Observations | 592 | ||
a100 USD = 661.74 CNY (Annual data of exchange rate from National Bureau of Statistics of China in 2018 (available at http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/ndsj/2019/indexeh.htm)).
b1 ha = 15mu.
The impact of the female labor force on farmland rental decisions.
| Variable | Renou | Renin | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coef. | SE | Coef. | SE | |
| Intercept | 1.799*** | 0.660 | −6.285*** | 1.151 |
| −0.530*** | 0.135 | 0.052 | 0.187 | |
| −1.646*** | 0.249 | 1.100*** | 0.403 | |
| 0.018 | 0.025 | 0.015 | 0.031 | |
| 0.015** | 0.007 | 0.024 | 0.015 | |
| 0.564* | 0.326 | 0.147 | 0.458 | |
| −1.374*** | 0.265 | 1.142*** | 0.311 | |
| 0.068 | 0.089 | 0.069 | 0.098 | |
| 0.006 | 0.093 | −0.261** | 0.106 | |
| −0.011 | 0.009 | −0.016 | 0.011 | |
| 0.010 | 0.026 | 0.038 | 0.030 | |
| 0.050 | 0.322 | 0.098 | 0.330 | |
| −0.338** | 0.141 | 1.442*** | 0.201 | |
| 1.105* | 0.579 | −1.717*** | 0.637 | |
| AIC | 429.143 | 358.527 | ||
| Log Likelihood | −200.571 | −165.263 | ||
| Observation | 498 | 457 | ||
The symbols*,**, *** indicate statistical significance at the 10, 5, and 1% levels, respectively.
The impact of the female labor force on farmland rental quantity.
| Variable | Prold | Arild | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coef. | SE | Coef. | SE | |
| Intercept | 3.981*** | 0.904 | −25.126*** | 4.217 |
| −0.602*** | 0.179 | 0.374 | 0.674 | |
| −2.452*** | 0.389 | 2.922** | 1.360 | |
| 0.018 | 0.031 | 0.072 | 0.120 | |
| 0.019** | 0.009 | 0.103* | 0.056 | |
| 0.481 | 0.406 | −0.621 | 1.699 | |
| −2.382*** | 0.414 | 4.426*** | 1.097 | |
| 0.026 | 0.114 | −0.061 | 0.373 | |
| 0.002 | 0.120 | −0.907** | 0.397 | |
| −0.025** | 0.011 | −0.040 | 0.042 | |
| 0.017 | 0.032 | 0.089 | 0.111 | |
| 0.046 | 0.406 | −0.167 | 1.128 | |
| −0.639*** | 0.190 | 4.992*** | 0.456 | |
| 1.281* | 0.769 | −2.769 | 2.245 | |
| AIC | 547.239 | 721.014 | ||
| Log Likelihood | −258.619 | −345.507 | ||
| Observation | 498 | 457 | ||
The symbols *, **, *** indicate statistical significance at the 0.1, 0.05, and 0.01 levels, respectively. AIC: Akaike information criterion.
Differences of livelihood status and pro-environmental behaviors among three classes of agricultural families.
| Variable | NTFs | Partial ROFs | RIFs | F Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.693 (0.316) | 0.570 (0.404) ** | 0.764 (0.312) | 8.080(0.000) ** | |
| 0.618 (0.308) | 0.531(0.287) | 0.660 (0.313) | 0.530(0.589) | |
| 0.253 (0.215) | 0.081 (0.102) ** | 0.539 (0.293) ** | 19.370(0.000) ** | |
| 13.129 (7.837) | 13.236 (7.176) | 47.469 (100.021) ** | 8.850(0.000) ** | |
| 3.784 (1.746) | 3.847 (2.077) | 16.236 (40.817) ** | 5.740(0.003) ** | |
| 2.515 (0.935) | 2.710 (0.857) | 2.213 (0.949) ** | 0.750(0.473) | |
| 0.322 (0.140) | 0.175 (0.111) | 2.220 (5.105) ** | 8.590(0.000) ** | |
| 2.179(1.929) | 1.734(1.867) | 2.945(3.837) ** | 3.040(0.048) ** | |
| 0.281(0.450) | 0.435(0.500) ** | 0.362(0.483) | 2.270(0.105) | |
| Observation | 363 | 62 | 94 |
The symbol ** indicates statistical significance at the 0.05 level. When performing multiple comparisons, some variables passed Levene’s homogeneity of variance test at the 0.05 level except some variables. Those test-passed variables were tested by Dunnett’s two-tailed t-test, in which NTFs was the control group. For those variables that failed in Levene’s homogeneity of variance tests, the Games-Howell method was employed to compare, but only the comparison with NTFs was reported to be consistent with past variables.
Figure 3.Farm land status and trend in rural China.
Figure 4.Benefit of organic agriculture.
Figure 5.Farmland potential in sustainable agriculture.