| Literature DB >> 35648790 |
Yu Sun1, Ye Deng1, Yonghua Lu1, Mingyue Li2.
Abstract
Agriculture faces a contradiction between sustainable resource utilization and maintaining market competitiveness. As a major agricultural product, the sustainability and competitiveness of the apple industry have become important topics. This study analyzes the competitiveness of China's apple industry and the factors affecting it. Using 2004 and 2018 data for eight Chinese provinces, principal component analysis and spatial autocorrelation are used to examine competitiveness in terms of five aspects: market, production, technology, organization, and environment. The results indicate that Shandong, Shaanxi, and Gansu were the most competitive during the study period while Hebei, Henan, and Ningxia lagged behind. Regional differences are obvious, with Shandong in particular showing a clear competitive advantage. Although no spatial agglomeration is observed in China's apple industry, with ongoing industrial development, local spatial correlations in the five aspects of competitiveness in the eight provinces have been increasing and gradually stabilizing. This study's findings suggest that improved scientific production, reasonable capital investment, and an established industrial chain are needed to promote local agriculture, economic development, and the central role of the apple industry.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35648790 PMCID: PMC9159607 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268476
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.752
Evaluation index system for apple industry competitiveness.
| Target | Guidelines | Indicators | Indicators show |
|---|---|---|---|
| Factors of production | Yield | Yield per unit area (kg/ha). | |
| Area | Planted area (ha). | ||
| Planting scale index | Comparison of the proportion of apple acreage in all fruit acreage in the region and the national average level of this proportion (%). | ||
| Output efficiency index | Relative level of the yield rate of apple orchards with the yield rate of all fruits in this region and the comparative relationship with the average level of the yield rate in China (%). | ||
| Composite production index | Geometric mean of the product of planting size index and output efficiency index (%). | ||
| Technical level | Degree of organization of production | Histology degree of fruit growers (low to high, 1–5). | |
| Technological innovation capability | Technical innovation ability (low to high, 1gh, | ||
| Apple variety level | Apple variety level (low to high, 1o hi | ||
| Agricultural innovation | Apple marketing | Apple marketing methods (less to more, 1–5). | |
| Quality evaluation | Apple commodity evaluation (low to high, 1).gh | ||
| Branding | Number | Number of well-known brands (individual). | |
| Market conditions | Market share | Annual output/total output in China (%). | |
| Yield cost coefficient | Regional apple production cost per unit. Output/national apple production cost per unit output (%). | ||
| Output cost coefficient | Production cost per unit value of regional apple/production cost per unit value of national apple (%). | ||
| Regional economic level | GDP by region/national GDP. | ||
| Profit related | Profit per 50 kg apple by region/national average. Profit per 50 kg apple. | ||
| Policy support | Policy support | Support strength for apple and other fruit industries (low to high, 1pple | |
| Publicity | Promotion intensity of apple and other fruit industries (low to high, 1–5). |
Data source: China Statistical Yearbook, compilation of income data for national agricultural products.
Overall competitiveness rankings.
| Provinces | Market competitiveness F1 | Production competitiveness F2 | Technical competitiveness F3 | Organizational competitiveness F4 | Competitiveness of external environment F5 | Comprehensive competitiveness F | Average F | Average F | Ranking | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2004 | 2018 | 2004 | 2018 | 2004 | 2018 | 2004 | 2018 | 2004 | 2018 | 2004 | 2018 | 2004 | 2018 | |||
| Hebei | 0.009 | 0.112 | −1.295 | −1.016 | −0.018 | −0.112 | −0.385 | 0.236 | −0.577 | −1.127 | −0.288 | −0.391 | −0.426 | −0.383 | −0.4045 | 6 |
| Shanxi | −0.598 | −0.771 | 1.214 | 0.353 | −0.297 | −0.963 | −0.364 | −0.236 | −0.577 | −0.440 | −0.32 | −0.461 | −0.157 | −0.420 | −0.2885 | 4 |
| Liaoning | −0.086 | −0.480 | −0.599 | −0.222 | −0.277 | −0.269 | −0.385 | −0.707 | −0.577 | 0.147 | −0.377 | −0.374 | −0.383 | −0.318 | −0.3505 | 5 |
| Shandong | 2.080 | 1.684 | 0.195 | 0.203 | 2.040 | 2.072 | 1.552 | 1.650 | 1.465 | 1.420 | 1.818 | 1.59 | 1.525 | 1.436 | 1.4805 | 1 |
| Henan | −0.395 | −0.397 | −0.544 | −0.837 | −0.127 | 0.197 | −0.375 | −0.236 | −0.577 | −1.127 | −0.336 | −0.499 | −0.392 | −0.483 | −0.4375 | 7 |
| Shaanxi | 0.710 | 1.030 | 1.615 | 1.438 | 0.623 | −0.144 | 1.552 | 0.943 | 1.465 | 1.420 | 1.196 | 1.143 | 1.194 | 0.971 | 1.0825 | 2 |
| Gansu | −0.570 | 0.251 | 0.141 | 1.262 | −0.537 | 0.426 | −0.385 | 0 | 0.457 | 0.147 | −0.404 | 0.472 | −0.216 | 0.426 | 0.1050 | 3 |
| Ningxia | −1.150 | −1.430 | −0.728 | −1.180 | −1.407 | −1.206 | −1.210 | −1.650 | −1.081 | −0.440 | −1.288 | −1.479 | −1.144 | −1.231 | −1.1875 | 8 |
Changes in apple industry competitiveness rankings.
| Rising | Stable | Falling | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Shanxi (+3) | Gansu (+1) | Shandong | Ningxia | Liaoning (−1) | Hebei (−2) |
| Shanxi | Henan (−1) | |||||
Data source: China Statistical Yearbook, compilation of income data of national agricultural products.
Moran4ed as shown in Table 4.4.ensive index, Morhina.
| Name | F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 | F5 | F | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2004 | 2018 | 2004 | 2018 | 2004 | 2018 | 2004 | 2018 | 2004 | 2018 | 2004 | 2018 | |
| Moranehen | −0.119 | −0.183 | −0.243 | −0.210 | −0.094 | −0.148 | −0.174 | −0.145 | −0.202 | −0.206 | −0.158 | −0.208 |
| E(I) | −0.143 | −0.143 | −0.143 | −0.143 | −0.143 | −0.143 | −0.143 | −0.143 | −0.143 | −0.143 | −0.143 | −0.143 |
| SD(I) | 0.069 | 0.079 | 0.080 | 0.083 | 0.068 | 0.068 | 0.079 | 0.076 | 0.082 | 0.081 | 0.076 | 0.079 |
| z | 0.345 | −0.517 | −1.244 | −0.807 | 0.720 | −0.077 | −0.399 | −0.031 | −0.723 | −0.772 | −0.197 | −0.815 |
| p-value | 0.730 | 0.605 | 0.214 | 0.420 | 0.471 | 0.938 | 0.690 | 0.975 | 0.470 | 0.440 | 0.844 | 0.415 |
Note: * indicates significance at the 10% level
** indicates significance at the 5% level
*** indicates significance at the 1% level.
Fig 1Scatterplots of core variables of competitiveness in 2004 and 2018.
Spatial correlation of competitiveness types in Chinal spatial dependence and no global spatial correlat8.
| Competitive type | First quadrant (h-h) | Second quadrant | Third quadrant (l-l) | Fourth quadrant (h-l) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2004 | 2018 | 2004 | 2018 | 2004 | 2018 | 2004 | 2018 | |
| F1 Market competitiveness | Hebei | Hebei | Ningxia, Henan, Liaoning, Shanxi | Ningxia, Henan, Liaoning, Shanxi | Gansu | - | Shandong, Shaanxi | Shandong, Shaanxi, Gansu |
| F2 Production competitiveness | Gansu | - | Hebei, Ningxia, Henan, Liaoning | Hebei, Ningxia, Henan, Liaoning | - | - | Shandong, Shaanxi, Shanxi | Shandong, Shaanxi, Shanxi, Gansu |
| F3 Technological competitiveness | - | Henan | Hebei, Ningxia, Henan, Liaoning, Shanxi | Hebei, Ningxia, Liaoning, Shanxi | Gansu | Shaanxi | Shandong, Shaanxi | Shandong, Gansu |
| F4 Organizational competitiveness | - | Hebei | Hebei, Ningxia, Henan, Liaoning, Shanxi | Ningxia, Henan, Liaoning, Shanxi | Gansu | - | Shandong, Shaanxi | Shandong, Shaanxi, Gansu |
| F5 External environment competitiveness | - | Gansu, Liaoning | Hebei, Ningxia, Henan, Liaoning, Shanxi | Hebei, Ningxia, Henan | - | Shanxi | Shandong, Shaanxi, Gansu | Shandong, Shaanxi |
| F Comprehensive competitiveness | - | - | Hebei, Ningxia, Henan, Liaoning, Shanxi | Hebei, Ningxia, Henan, Liaoning, Shanxi | Gansu | - | Shandong, Shaanxi | Shandong, Shaanxi, Gansu |