| Literature DB >> 33027300 |
Qiangqiang Zhang1,2, Fanji Shi3, Nazir Muhammad Abdullahi1,2, Liqun Shao1,2, Xuexi Huo1,2.
Abstract
In the context of supply-side structural reform, revealing the characteristics of spatial-temporal dynamics and influencing factors of China's apple production layout is of great significance to ensure apple supply and demand balance and timely adjustment of industrial policies and regional layout strategies. Based on national and provincial apple production data from 1978 to 2016, this study used the apple production concentration index to analyse the evolution characteristics of regional apple production patterns in China. A theoretical analysis framework was established and a spatial econometric model was used to quantitatively explore the influencing factors of China's apple production layout. The results showed that, first, since the reform and opening-up policy, a general trend of fluctuating growth was found for apple production in China. The centre of apple production layout moved in the southwest direction, with the shift from the Bohai Bay region to the Loess Plateau region. Second, apple production had a significant spatial correlation, while the degree of spatial agglomeration gradually decreased. Third, these changes were significantly influenced by apple comparative income, infrastructure, policies, and climatic conditions. Therefore, it is necessary to continue optimizing and adjusting the apple spatial layout to enhance the technological progress and economic effect of the apple industry and to ensure the stability and balance of regional supply and demand.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33027300 PMCID: PMC7540895 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0240140
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Changes in apple planting area and yield in China, 1978–2016.
Note: The division of the apple production stage is based on the changes in apple planting area. Source: China Rural Statistical Yearbooks [2].
Fig 2Changes in total apple output and per capita output in China, 1978–2016.
Source: China Rural Statistical Yearbooks and China Statistical Yearbooks [2, 3].
Changes in apple production concentrations in provinces and regions, 1978–2016 (percent).
| Apple division | Province | Year | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1978 | 1980 | 1985 | 1990 | 1995 | 2000 | 2005 | 2010 | 2016 | ||
| Shandong | 37.45 | 38.86 | 40.23 | 33.15 | 35.87 | 31.70 | 27.97 | 24.02 | 22.29 | |
| Hebei | 7.57 | 7.53 | 12.95 | 10.84 | 8.97 | 8.84 | 9.17 | 8.19 | 8.33 | |
| Liaoning | 28.15 | 25.82 | 15.16 | 17.57 | 9.12 | 6.03 | 5.41 | 6.30 | 5.85 | |
| Tianjin | 0.29 | 0.35 | 0.64 | 0.72 | 0.45 | 0.39 | 0.28 | 0.17 | 0.12 | |
| Beijing | 2.11 | 1.93 | 1.41 | 1.71 | 0.95 | 0.77 | 0.58 | 0.31 | 0.17 | |
| Subtotal | 75.57 | 74.50 | 70.39 | 63.99 | 55.36 | 47.73 | 43.41 | 38.98 | 36.76 | |
| Shaanxi | 4.36 | 3.78 | 3.90 | 8.08 | 16.69 | 19.02 | 23.33 | 25.73 | 25.08 | |
| Gansu | 1.89 | 2.51 | 2.71 | 4.05 | 3.23 | 3.38 | 4.22 | 6.06 | 8.21 | |
| Shanxi | 3.86 | 3.66 | 4.79 | 3.38 | 4.96 | 7.98 | 6.87 | 7.72 | 9.77 | |
| Ningxia | 0.45 | 0.55 | 0.75 | 0.81 | 0.66 | 0.78 | 0.93 | 1.07 | 1.30 | |
| Qinghai | 0.08 | 0.18 | 0.33 | 0.32 | 0.12 | 0.07 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.01 | |
| Subtotal | 10.63 | 10.68 | 12.48 | 16.65 | 25.66 | 31.22 | 35.37 | 40.60 | 44.37 | |
| Henan | 6.91 | 6.55 | 7.69 | 8.29 | 11.09 | 11.69 | 12.52 | 12.29 | 9.99 | |
| Anhui | 0.49 | 0.76 | 0.72 | 1.34 | 1.21 | 1.48 | 1.16 | 1.22 | 0.85 | |
| Jiangsu | 1.16 | 2.05 | 1.83 | 2.45 | 2.30 | 3.40 | 2.30 | 1.70 | 1.29 | |
| Subtotal | 8.55 | 9.36 | 10.24 | 12.09 | 14.59 | 16.57 | 15.98 | 15.22 | 12.13 | |
| Sichuan | 1.62 | 1.80 | 1.33 | 1.46 | 0.90 | 1.02 | 1.04 | 1.31 | 1.44 | |
| Yunnan | 0.55 | 0.47 | 0.53 | 0.72 | 0.45 | 0.49 | 0.66 | 0.78 | 0.96 | |
| Guizhou | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.17 | 0.09 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.14 | |
| Tibet | 0.12 | 0.14 | 0.11 | 0.09 | 0.00 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.01 | |
| Subtotal | 2.35 | 2.46 | 2.13 | 2.36 | 1.39 | 1.58 | 1.77 | 2.14 | 2.55 | |
| Inner Mongolia | 0.23 | 0.40 | 0.55 | 0.53 | 0.26 | 0.23 | 0.26 | 0.23 | 0.40 | |
| Jilin | 0.63 | 0.62 | 0.17 | 0.25 | 0.28 | 0.49 | 1.05 | 0.46 | 0.31 | |
| Heilongjiang | 0.12 | 0.14 | 0.44 | 0.53 | 0.54 | 0.55 | 0.74 | 0.35 | 0.34 | |
| Hubei | 0.12 | 0.13 | 0.19 | 0.28 | 0.23 | 0.15 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 0.03 | |
| Xinjiang | 1.78 | 1.59 | 3.46 | 3.26 | 1.69 | 1.47 | 1.38 | 1.98 | 3.11 | |
| Subtotal | 2.88 | 2.88 | 4.81 | 4.86 | 3.00 | 2.88 | 3.48 | 3.06 | 4.19 | |
a The “subtotal” in the table is the concentration of apple production in each production area.
The Global Moral’s I index of apple area, 1978–2016.
| Year | Year | Year | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.2079 | 2.3847 | 1991 | 0.2238 | 2.4599 | 2004 | 0.2128 | 2.2665 | |
| 0.2050 | 2.3528 | 1992 | 0.1992 | 2.3689 | 2005 | 0.2060 | 2.2128 | |
| 0.2112 | 2.3864 | 1993 | 0.2290 | 2.5370 | 2006 | 0.1903 | 2.1071 | |
| 0.2130 | 2.3836 | 1994 | 0.2659 | 2.7755 | 2007 | 0.1853 | 2.0631 | |
| 0.2143 | 2.4002 | 1995 | 0.2679 | 2.7796 | 2008 | 0.1766 | 2.0624 | |
| 0.2158 | 2.4306 | 1996 | 0.2646 | 2.7438 | 2009 | 0.1653 | 1.9952 | |
| 0.2131 | 2.4180 | 1997 | 0.2588 | 2.6857 | 2010 | 0.1550 | 1.9171 | |
| 0.2343 | 2.6751 | 1998 | 0.2549 | 2.6325 | 2011 | 0.1521 | 1.9160 | |
| 0.2558 | 2.8847 | 1999 | 0.2593 | 2.6485 | 2012 | 0.1449 | 1.8581 | |
| 0.2608 | 2.9024 | 2000 | 0.2522 | 2.5794 | 2013 | 0.1397 | 1.8015 | |
| 0.2697 | 2.9517 | 2001 | 0.2442 | 2.5070 | 2014 | 0.1340 | 1.7552 | |
| 0.2661 | 2.8881 | 2002 | 0.2337 | 2.4206 | 2015 | 0.1299 | 1.7308 | |
| 0.2287 | 2.5408 | 2003 | 0.2178 | 2.3025 | 2016 | 0.1194 | 1.6416 |
***, **, and * represent significance level at 1%, 5%, and 10%, respectively.
Variable settings and meaning.
| Variables | Variable meaning | Mean values | S.D | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The concentration index of apple area (percent) | The proportion of apple area in each province to the total area of apple production in the nationwide | 0.0454 | 0.0648 | |
| Apple disaster areas (103ha) | Crop disaster area * (apple area / total crop production area) | 26.8401 | 44.9563 | |
| Per capita arable land (103ha/ 104 persons) | Cultivated land area / rural labor | 5.7842 | 4.4804 | |
| Non-agricultural employment opportunities (percent) | (Rural labor—agriculture, forestry, animal husbandry and fishery practitioners) / rural labor | 0.2712 | 0.1778 | |
| apple comparative income (percent) | Apple area / total crop production area | 0.0174 | 0.0239 | |
| Apple effective irrigation area (103ha) | Crop effective irrigated area * (apple area / total crop area) | 30.8026 | 47.7399 | |
| Transportation density (km/104 km2) | (Railway + highway) / administrative area | 3949.3961 | 4008.0512 | |
| Apple yield (kg/ha) | Apple output / apple area | 6935.8932 | 6301.6315 | |
| The proportion of population (percent) | Provincial population / national population | 0.0329 | 0.0240 | |
| PGRS | 1995–1997 are 1 and the remaining years are 0 | 0.0769 | 0.2666 | |
| AARP | 2003–2015 are 1 and the remaining years are 0 | 0.3333 | 0.4717 | |
The estimation results of the space Dubin Model.
| Explanatory variable | Adjacency matrix | Geographic distance matrix | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coefficient | Robust standard error | Coefficient | Robust standard error | |
| 0.0343 | 0.0129 | 0.0319 | 0.0135 | |
| 0.0771 | 0.0682 | 0.0350 | 0.0653 | |
| -0.0293 | 0.0376 | -0.0551 | 0.0373 | |
| 0.5225 | 0.1270 | 0.4835 | 0.1186 | |
| 0.3983 | 0.1249 | 0.4371 | 0.1139 | |
| 0.2016 | 0.0696 | 0.1962 | 0.0774 | |
| 0.0170 | 0.0210 | 0.0174 | 0.0171 | |
| 0.3318 | 0.3015 | 0.2506 | 0.2603 | |
| -0.0408 | 0.0391 | -0.1170 | 0.0120 | |
| 0.0848 | 0.0480 | 0.0677 | 0.0094 | |
| -2.0149 | 1.4936 | -1.9687 | 1.6976 | |
| 858 | 858 | |||
| 0.8913 | 0.9273 | |||
***, **, and * represent significance level at 1%, 5%, and 10%, respectively.