| Literature DB >> 35564485 |
Yumeng Wang1, Jiaxu Li1, Xiangzhi Kong1.
Abstract
Food security remains a major issue for developing countries. Reducing arable land abandonment (ALA) is crucial to ensuring food security. In China, the 'decline in both quantity and quality' of arable land resources, especially in major grain-producing areas, has become increasingly serious. This study uses fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) to explore the core conditions and combinations of paths leading to explicit and implicit abandonment using 30 typical cases in the main grain-producing areas of Hubei Province. The results show that (1) three combined pathways lead to explicit ALA (EALA) and that two pathways lead to implicit ALA (IALA); (2) laborer health (LH) is the core condition leading to EALA; and (3) LH, agricultural laborer (AL), per capita income (PCI) and social relationships (SRs) are the core conditions leading to IALA. To effectively alleviate ALA, the government should improve production conditions, pay attention to laborer health issues, improve agricultural returns and strengthen food security publicity and guidance, thereby promoting the rational use of arable land in these areas. The findings in this study link the changes in arable land use and provide a reference for other developing countries in ensuring food security.Entities:
Keywords: explicit arable land abandonment (EALA); fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA); implicit arable land abandonment (IALA); pathway analysis
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35564485 PMCID: PMC9104771 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19095090
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Location of Xiantao city in Hubei province.
Figure 2Location of the study area in Xiantao city.
Fuzzy membership calibrations.
| Variable | Fuzzy Membership Score | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full | Crossover | Full | ||
| Conditional variables | ALT | 0, 0.33, 0.67, 1 | ||
| ICs | 0, 0.33, 0.67, 1 | |||
| LH | 0, 0.33, 0.67, 1 | |||
| SRs | 0, 1 | |||
| ALD | 59.45 | 367.5 | 914 | |
| ALs | 0 | 1.2 | 2 | |
| PCI | 878.5 | 2732.2 | 5776 | |
| Outcome variable | ALA | 0, 0.33, 0.67, 1 | ||
Notes: ALT stands for arable land terrain. ICs stands for irrigation conditions. LH is laborer health, and SRs is social relationships. ALD is arable land distance. ALs is an agricultural laborer. PCI is household per capita income. According to the exchange rate during our investigation, we changed the statistical unit of PCI from RMB to USD. ALA is arable land abandonment.
Truth table of factors influencing ALA.
| Case | ALD | ALT | ICs | ALs | LH | PCI | SRs | ALA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Case 1 | 0.73 | 0.33 | 0.33 | 0.38 | 1 | 0.01 | 0 | 1 |
| Case 2 | 0.2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.67 |
| Case 3 | 0.52 | 0.33 | 0.67 | 0.95 | 0 | 0.04 | 1 | 0 |
| Case 4 | 0.8 | 0.33 | 0.33 | 0.95 | 0 | 0.24 | 0 | 0.67 |
| Case 5 | 0.06 | 0.33 | 0 | 0.95 | 0.33 | 0.14 | 0 | 0.33 |
| Case 6 | 0.75 | 0 | 0.33 | 0.15 | 0 | 0.52 | 1 | 0.67 |
| Case 7 | 0.88 | 0.33 | 0.33 | 0.75 | 0 | 0.1 | 0 | 0 |
| Case 8 | 0.18 | 0 | 0.33 | 0.95 | 0.33 | 0.92 | 1 | 0.67 |
| Case 9 | 0.09 | 0.33 | 0.33 | 0.95 | 1 | 0.55 | 1 | 0 |
| Case 10 | 0.57 | 0 | 0.67 | 0.95 | 0.33 | 0.43 | 0 | 0.67 |
| Case 11 | 0.94 | 1 | 1 | 0.95 | 0.67 | 0.18 | 0 | 1 |
| Case 12 | 0.11 | 0.67 | 0 | 0.95 | 0 | 0.07 | 1 | 0 |
| Case 13 | 0.09 | 0.67 | 1 | 0.95 | 0 | 0.9 | 1 | 0.67 |
| Case 14 | 0.47 | 0.33 | 0 | 0.95 | 0.33 | 0.57 | 0 | 0 |
| Case 15 | 0.77 | 0 | 0.33 | 0.15 | 0 | 0.51 | 0 | 0.67 |
| Case 16 | 0.05 | 0.67 | 0.33 | 0.95 | 0.33 | 0.46 | 0 | 0.33 |
| Case 17 | 0.05 | 0 | 0.33 | 0.38 | 0.33 | 0.33 | 0 | 0 |
| Case 18 | 0.18 | 0.33 | 0.33 | 0.95 | 0.33 | 0.86 | 1 | 0.67 |
| Case 19 | 0.15 | 0 | 0.33 | 0.38 | 0 | 0.59 | 0 | 0.67 |
| Case 20 | 0.07 | 0.67 | 0.67 | 0.5 | 0 | 0.15 | 0 | 0 |
| Case 21 | 0.97 | 0.33 | 0.67 | 0.38 | 0 | 0.16 | 0 | 1 |
| Case 22 | 0.96 | 0 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.33 | 0.06 | 0 | 1 |
| Case 23 | 0.45 | 0 | 0.67 | 0.38 | 0 | 0.49 | 0 | 0 |
| Case 24 | 0.05 | 0.33 | 0 | 0.38 | 0 | 0.54 | 0 | 0.67 |
| Case 25 | 0.05 | 1 | 1 | 0.05 | 0.67 | 0.96 | 1 | 1 |
| Case 26 | 0.92 | 0 | 0.33 | 0.05 | 0 | 0.84 | 0 | 1 |
| Case 27 | 0.09 | 1 | 1 | 0.08 | 0 | 0.81 | 1 | 0 |
| Case 28 | 0.85 | 0.33 | 0.33 | 0.05 | 0.33 | 0.72 | 0 | 0.33 |
| Case 29 | 0.78 | 0.33 | 0.33 | 0.05 | 0.67 | 0.46 | 0 | 1 |
| Case 30 | 0.05 | 0.67 | 0.33 | 0.05 | 0 | 0.94 | 1 | 0.33 |
Necessity of conditions.
| Condition | Consistency | Coverage |
|---|---|---|
| ALD | 0.617 | 0.723 |
| ~ALD | 0.527 | 0.461 |
| ALT | 0.397 | 0.579 |
| ~ALT | 0.778 | 0.594 |
| ICs | 0.597 | 0.674 |
| ~ICs | 0.623 | 0.560 |
| ALs | 0.546 | 0.481 |
| ~ALs | 0.548 | 0.636 |
| LH | 0.354 | 0.762 |
| ~LH | 0.778 | 0.507 |
| PCI | 0.620 | 0.640 |
| ~PCI | 0.581 | 0.565 |
| SRs | 0.312 | 0.425 |
| ~SRs | 0.688 | 0.544 |
Notes: ‘~’represents the absence of conditions.
EALA and IALA pathways.
| Conditional Variable | EALA Pathways | IALA Pathways | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | H2 | H3 | H4 | H5 | |
| ALD | ● | ○ | ● | ○ | ○ |
| ALT | ● | ● | ○ | ○ | • |
| ICs | ● | ● | ○ | ○ | • |
| ALs | • |
|
| ● | ● |
| LH | ● | ● | ● |
|
|
| PCI |
| • |
| ● | ● |
| SRs |
| • |
| ● | ● |
| Consistency | 1 | 0.935 | 0.941 | 0.902 | 0.902 |
| Raw coverage | 0.077 | 0.048 | 0.106 | 0.147 | 0.073 |
| Unique coverage | 0.045 | 0.041 | 0.074 | 0.122 | 0.045 |
| Overall solution | 0.925 | ||||
| Overall solution | 0.387 | ||||
Notes: ‘●’ represents the presence of the core causal condition, ‘’ represents the absence of the core condition, ‘•’ represents the presence of the auxiliary condition, ‘○’ represents the absence of the auxiliary condition, and ‘blank’ means that the condition can either appear or not appear in the configuration.
Figure 3Explanation case of pathway 1 and pathway 2.
Figure 4Explanation case of pathway 3.
Figure 5Explanation case of pathway 4 and pathway 5.