Journal of Geographical Sciences ›› 2015, Vol. 25 ›› Issue (6): 701-722.doi: 10.1007/s11442-015-1197-4
• Orginal Article • Previous Articles Next Articles
Jing’an SHAO1,2(), Shichao ZHANG1,2, Xiubin LI3
Received:
2014-02-16
Accepted:
2014-05-30
Online:
2015-06-15
Published:
2015-06-15
About author:
Author: Shao Jing’an (1976-), Professor, specialized in regional environment evolution and climate responses. E-mail:
Supported by:
Jing’an SHAO, Shichao ZHANG, Xiubin LI. Farmland marginalization in the mountainous areas: Characteristics, influencing factors and policy implications[J].Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2015, 25(6): 701-722.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Reference Manager|ProCite|BibTeX|RefWorks
Table 1
The classification of elevation, slope, terrain position index and its correction coefficient, relative distribution radius from the villages, and degree of road connection"
Factors | Classification standard | Factors | Classification standard | Factors | Classification standard |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Elevation (m) | <450 | Terrain position index | <0.5 | Relative distribution radius of block away from the villages (m) | ≤150 |
450-750 | 0.5-1 | 150-300 | |||
750-1000 | 1-1.5 | 300-500 | |||
1000-1500 | 1.5-2 | 500-800 | |||
≥1500 | ≥2 | >800 | |||
Slope (°) | <2 | Correction coefficient of topographic position index | 1 | Degree of road connection | ≤0.45 |
2-6 | 1.05 | 0.45-0.5 | |||
6-15 | 1.1 | 0.5-0.55 | |||
15-25 | 1.15 | 0.55-0.6 | |||
≥25 | 1.2 | ≥0.6 |
Table 2
Impact factors of farmland marginalization and their meanings"
Factors | Indicators | Meanings | Relationship hypothesis |
---|---|---|---|
Terrain | Elevation X11 | The mean elevation where marginal farmland is located | + |
Slope X12 | The mean slope where marginal farmland is located | + | |
Location | Relative distribution radius of block away from the villages X21 | The mean actual distance of farmers’ blocks from their residence | + |
Road connection degree X22 | The mean degree of convenience for farmers accessing their farmland of each block | - |
Table 3
Driving factors of farmland marginalization and their meanings"
Factors | Indicators | Meanings | Relationship hypothesis |
---|---|---|---|
Farmland | Farmland area per labour X11 | Contracting farmland area divided by the sum of farm and concurrent labourers | + |
Rate of farmland transfer X12 | Farmland transfer area divided by the area of contracting farmland | - | |
Labour | Rate of off-farm labour X21 | Off-farm labourers divided by the sum of farm, concurrent and off-farm labourers | + |
Rate of concurrent labour X22 | Concurrent labourers divided by the sum of farm, concurrent and off-farm labourers | - | |
Average age of farm labour X23 | Total age of farm labourers divided by the number of farm labourers | + | |
Policy | Rate of transferring from agricultural to non-agricultural population X31 | Transferring from agricultural to non-agricultural population divided by total population | + |
Small agricultural machinery sets X32 | How many small agricultural machinery sets were bought by farmers | - | |
Market | Planting commercialization rate X41 | Income obtained by selling planting productions divided by planting output | - |
Pig-breeding commercialization rate X42 | Income obtained by selling pig productions divided by pig output | - | |
Income | Rate of planting income X51 | Planting income divided by family total income | - |
Rate of pig-breeding income X52 | Pig-breeding income divided by family total income | - | |
Rate of off-farm income X53 | Off-farm income divided by family total income | + |
Table 4
Area and its rate of farmland marginalization during 2002-2011, and implementation scale of returning farmland to forest during 2002-2006 and Chongqing forest project during 2008-2011 (ha and %)"
Land types | Farmland in 2002 | Actual farmland use in 2011 | Contracting farmland in 2011 | Farmland decrease during 2002-2011 | Returning farmland to forest during 2002-2006 | Chongqing forest project during 2008-2011 | Farmland marginalization during 2002-2011 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Area | Rate of area to actual farmland use in 2011 | |||||||
Dryland | 52800.44 | 31865.34 | 41587.56 | 20935.10 | 10618.37 | 594.51 | 9722.22 | 23.38 |
Paddy | 30029.56 | 28090.74 | 29944.39 | 1938.82 | - | 85.17 | 1853.65 | 6.19 |
Total | 82830.00 | 59956.08 | 71531.95 | 22873.92 | 10618.37 | 679.68 | 11575.87 | 16.18 |
Table 5
Area and its rate of farmland marginalization during 2002-2011, and implementation scale of the returning farmland to forest project during 2002-2006 and Chongqing forest project during 2008-2011 in different regions (ha and %)"
Subregion | Land types | Actual farmland use in 2011 | Contracting farmland in 2011 | Returning farmland to forest during 2002-2006 | Chongqing forest project during 2008-2011 | Farmland marginalization during 2002-2011 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Area | Rate of its area to contracting farmland in 2011 | ||||||
A* | Dry farmland | 4497.87 | 5177.74 | 2406.82 | 127.14 | 679.87 | 13.13 |
Paddy | 3603.62 | 3801.06 | - | 30.07 | 197.44 | 5.19 | |
Subtotal | 8101.49 | 8978.80 | 2406.82 | 157.21 | 877.31 | 9.77 | |
B | Dry farmland | 2130.72 | 2742.20 | 497.59 | 21.01 | 611.48 | 22.30 |
Paddy | 1222.45 | 1295.48 | - | 1.29 | 73.03 | 5.64 | |
Subtotal | 3353.17 | 4037.68 | 497.59 | 22.30 | 684.51 | 16.95 | |
C | Dry farmland | 13020.34 | 15618.05 | 5083.39 | 106.03 | 2597.71 | 16.63 |
Paddy | 15753.56 | 16885.02 | - | 39.35 | 1131.46 | 6.70 | |
Subtotal | 28773.90 | 32503.07 | 5083.39 | 145.38 | 3729.17 | 11.47 | |
D | Dry farmland | 2215.62 | 4894.33 | 159.86 | 8.33 | 2678.71 | 54.73 |
Paddy | 1560.44 | 1676.17 | - | - | 115.73 | 6.90 | |
Subtotal | 3776.06 | 6570.50 | 159.86 | 8.33 | 2794.44 | 42.53 | |
E | Dry farmland | 10000.79 | 13155.24 | 2470.71 | 332.00 | 3154.45 | 23.98 |
Paddy | 5950.67 | 6286.66 | - | 14.46 | 335.99 | 5.34 | |
Subtotal | 15951.46 | 19441.90 | 2470.71 | 346.46 | 3490.44 | 17.95 |
Table 6
Area and its rate of farmland marginalization during 2002-2011, and the actual farmland use and contracting farmland in 2011 under different site conditions (ha and %)"
Site conditions | Index classification | Actual farmland use in 2011 | Contracting farmland in 2011 | Farmland marginalization during 2002-2011 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Area | Rate of its area to contracting farmland in 2011 | ||||
Elevation (m) | <450 | 7232.07 | 7969.27 | 737.20 | 9.25 |
450-750 | 11931.37 | 13449.52 | 1518.15 | 11.29 | |
750-1000 | 16188.83 | 18462.42 | 2273.59 | 12.31 | |
1000-1500 | 22374.32 | 27411.36 | 5037.04 | 18.38 | |
≥1500 | 2229.49 | 4239.38 | 2009.89 | 47.41 | |
Slope (°) | <2 | 18243.78 | 21508.12 | 3264.34 | 15.18 |
2-6 | 9277.01 | 11052.81 | 1775.80 | 16.07 | |
6-15 | 18782.45 | 22071.69 | 3289.24 | 14.90 | |
15-25 | 10314.96 | 12590.94 | 2275.98 | 18.08 | |
≥25 | 3337.88 | 4308.39 | 970.51 | 22.53 | |
Block distribution radius (m) | ≤150 | 3166.94 | 3511.39 | 344.45 | 9.81 |
150-300 | 10256.62 | 11464.69 | 1208.07 | 10.54 | |
300-500 | 13286.95 | 14941.28 | 1654.33 | 11.07 | |
500-800 | 15682.78 | 18305.96 | 2623.18 | 14.33 | |
≥800 | 17562.79 | 23308.63 | 5745.84 | 24.65 | |
Road connection degree | ≤0.45 | 31491.93 | 39423.52 | 7931.59 | 20.12 |
0.45-0.5 | 17133.62 | 19447.36 | 2313.74 | 11.90 | |
0.5-0.55 | 8828.45 | 9932.00 | 1103.55 | 11.11 | |
0.55-0.6 | 2097.27 | 2297.78 | 200.51 | 8.73 | |
≥0.6 | 404.81 | 431.29 | 26.48 | 6.14 |
Table 7
Logistic regression between farmland marginalization and its impact factors"
Variables | B | S.E, | Wals | df | Sig. | Exp (B) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
X12 | 0.052 | 0.011 | 23.564 | 1 | 0.000 | 1.054 |
X21 | 0.117 | 0.013 | 82.853 | 1 | 0.000 | 1.124 |
X11 | 0.095 | 0.012 | 60.906 | 1 | 0.000 | 0.910 |
X22 | -0.597 | 0.013 | 2047.090 | 1 | 0.000 | 0.550 |
Constants | 0.797 | 0.013 | 3512.485 | 1 | 0.000 | 2.219 |
Cox & Snell R Square | 0.359 | |||||
Nagelkerke R Square | 0.380 | |||||
-2 Log likelihood | 51751.333 | |||||
Prediction accuracy | 72.9% |
Table 8
Stepwise regression between farmland marginalization and its driving factors"
Variables | Not standardized coefficient | Standard coefficient | t | Sig. | R2 | F | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | Standard error | ||||||
(Constant) | -3.745 | 0.700 | - | -5.353 | 0.000 | 0.891 | 361.12 |
lnX11 | 0.557 | 0.069 | 0.445 | 8.058 | 0.000 | ||
lnX23 | 1.459 | 0.391 | 0.177 | 3.732 | 0.000 | ||
lnX12 | -0.172 | 0.058 | -0.147 | -2.967 | 0.003 | ||
lnX32 | -0.129 | 0.042 | -0.152 | -3.098 | 0.002 | ||
lnX21 | 0.150 | 0.055 | 0.091 | 2.728 | 0.007 |
Table 9
Area of farmland marginalization types and their distributions in different regions"
Subregion | Terrain-dominated marginalization | Location-dominated marginalization | Comparative-disadvantage-dominated marginalization | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Area (ha) | Rate (%) | Area (ha) | Rate (%) | Area (ha) | Rate (%) | |
A* | 13.39 | 1.06** | 67.55 | 1.73 | 796.37 | 12.44 |
B | 58.55 | 4.65 | 259.29 | 6.63 | 366.67 | 5.73 |
C | 185.79 | 14.75 | 290.37 | 7.42 | 3253.01 | 50.80 |
D | 299.28 | 23.76 | 1690.46 | 43.21 | 804.7 | 12.57 |
E | 702.74 | 55.78 | 1604.61 | 41.01 | 1183.09 | 18.47 |
1 | Aubry C, Ramamonjisoa J, Dabat M Het al., 2012. Urban agriculture and land use in cities: An approach with the multi-functionality and sustainability concepts in the case of Antananarivo (Madagascar).Land Use Policy, 29(2): 429-439. |
2 | Baumann M, Kuemmerle T, Elbakidze Met al., 2011. Patterns and drivers of post-socialist farmland abandonment in Western Ukraine.Land Use Policy, 28(3): 552-562. |
3 | Ding Guangping, Liu Chengwu, Huang Limin, 2009. A theoretical analysis and empirical research of marginalization of agricultural land in hilly-mountainous area under farmer-benefiting policy: A case study of Tongcheng County in Hubei Province.Geographical Research, 28(1): 109-117. (in Chinese) |
4 | Giles J, 2006. Is life more risky in the open? Household risk-coping and the opening of China’s labor markets.Journal of Development Economics, 81: 25-60. |
5 | Groom B, Grosjean P, Kontoleon Aet al., 2010. Relaxing rural constraints: A ‘win-win’ policy for poverty and environment in China?Oxford Economic Papers, 62: 132-156. |
6 | Kang S, Post W, Wang Det al., 2013. Hierarchical marginal land assessment for land use planning.Land Use Policy, 30(1): 106-113. |
7 | Li Xiubin, Zhao Yuluan, 2011. Forest transition, agricultural land marginalization and ecological restoration.China Population, Resources and Environment, 21(10): 91-95. (in Chinese) |
8 | Liu Chengwu, Li Xiubin, 2005. The character and diagnostic criterion for marginalization of the arable land.Progress in Geography, 24(2): 106-113. (in Chinese) |
9 | Long Hualou, Zou Jian, Liu Yansui, 2009. Differentiation of rural development driven by industrialization and urbanization in eastern coastal China.Habitat International, 33(4): 454-462. |
10 | López-i-Gelats F, José Milán M, Bartolomé J, 2011. Is farming enough in mountain areas? Farm diversification in the Pyrenees.Land Use Policy, 28(4): 783-791. |
11 | Mendola M, 2008. Migration and technological change in rural households: Complements or substitutes?Journal of Development Economics, 85: 150-175. |
12 | Renwick A, Jansson T, Verburg P Het al., 2013. Policy reform and agricultural land abandonment in the EU.Land Use Policy, 30(1): 446-457. |
13 | Robles A B, Allegretti L I, Passera C B, 2002. Coronilla juncea is both a nutritive fodder shrub and useful in the rehabilitation of abandoned Mediterranean marginal farmland.Journal of Arid Environments, 50(3): 381-392. |
14 | Silber R, Wytrzens H K, 2006. Modelling the probability of land abandonment at parcel level.Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Gesellschaft für Agrarökonomie, 15: 55-63. |
15 | Su Yongzhong, Wang Fang, Zhang Zhihuiet al., 2007. Soil properties and characteristics of soil aggregate in marginal farmlands of oasis in the middle of Hexi Corridor Region, Northwest China.Agricultural Sciences in China, 6(6): 706-714. |
16 | Wang Hui, Tao Ran, Wang Lanlanet al., 2010. Farmland preservation and land development rights trading in Zhejiang, China.Habitat International, 34(4): 454-463. |
17 | Woodhouse S P, Good J E G, Lovett A Aet al., 2005. Effects of land-use and agricultural management on birds of marginal farmland: A case study in the Llŷn peninsula, Wales.Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 107(4): 331-340. |
18 | Xin Liangjie, Li Xiubin, Tan Minghonget al., 2011. The rise of ordinary labor wage and its effect on agricultural land use in present China.Geographical Research, 30(8): 1391-1400. (in Chinese) |
19 | Yu Hong, Zeng Hui, Jiang Ziying, 2001. Study on distribution characteristics of landscape elements along the terrain gradient.Scientia Geographica Sinica, 21(1): 64-69. (in Chinese) |
20 | Zaragozí B, Rabasa A, Rodríguez-Sala J Jet al., 2012. Modelling farmland abandonment: A study combining GIS and data mining techniques. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 155(15): 124-132. |
21 | Zhao Yuluan, Li Xiubin, Xin Liangjieet al., 2012. Driving forces of “poplar expansion and cropland shrinkage” in the North China Plain: A case study of Wen’an County, Hebei Province.Geographical Research, 31(2): 323-333. (in Chinese) |
[1] | WANG Xueqin, LIU Shenghe, QI Wei. Mega-towns in China: Their spatial distribution features and growth mechanisms [J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2020, 30(7): 1060-1082. |
[2] | CAI Jianming, MA Enpu, LIN Jing, LIAO Liuwen, HAN Yan. Exploring global food security pattern from the perspective of spatio-temporal evolution [J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2020, 30(2): 179-196. |
[3] | LIANG Xinyuan, LI Yangbing, SHAO Jing’an, RAN Caihong. Traditional agroecosystem transition in mountainous area of Three Gorges Reservoir Area [J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2020, 30(2): 281-296. |
[4] | Shengfa LI, Xiubin LI. The mechanism of farmland marginalization in Chinese mountainous areas: Evidence from cost and return changes [J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2019, 29(4): 531-548. |
[5] | Xinyuan LIANG, Yangbing LI. Spatiotemporal features of farmland scaling and the mechanisms that underlie these changes within the Three Gorges Reservoir Area [J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2019, 29(4): 563-580. |
[6] | Jingjing ZHANG, Wenbo ZHU, Lianqi ZHU, Yaoping CUI, Shasha HE, Han REN. Topographical relief characteristics and its impact on population and economy: A case study of the mountainous area in western Henan, China [J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2019, 29(4): 598-612. |
[7] | Huan WANG, Jiangbo GAO, Wenjuan HOU. Quantitative attribution analysis of soil erosion in different geomorphological types in karst areas: Based on the geodetector method [J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2019, 29(2): 271-286. |
[8] | JIANG Min, LI Xiubin, XIN Liangjie, TAN Minghong. Paddy rice multiple cropping index changes in Southern China: Impacts on national grain production capacity and policy implications [J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2019, 29(11): 1773-1787. |
[9] | ZHANG Bailin, SUN Piling, JIANG Guanghui, ZHANG Ruijuan, GAO Jiangbo. Rural land use transition of mountainous areas and policy implications for land consolidation in China [J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2019, 29(10): 1713-1730. |
[10] | Shaojian WANG, Jieyu WANG, Yang WANG. Effect of land prices on the spatial differentiation of housing prices: Evidence from cross-county analyses in China [J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2018, 28(6): 725-740. |
[11] | Xueyan ZHAO, Weijun WANG, Wenyu WAN. Regional differences in the health status of Chinese residents: 2003-2013 [J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2018, 28(6): 741-758. |
[12] | Jiawen FANG. An analysis of the differentiation rules and influencing factors of venture capital in Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei urban agglomeration [J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2018, 28(4): 514-528. |
[13] | Ying WANG, Qigen LIN, Peijun SHI. Spatial pattern and influencing factors of landslide casualty events [J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2018, 28(3): 259-374. |
[14] | Xiangli WU, Shan MAN. Air transportation in China: Temporal and spatial evolution and development forecasts [J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2018, 28(10): 1485-1499. |
[15] | Shengfa LI, Xiubin LI. Global understanding of farmland abandonment: A review and prospects [J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2017, 27(9): 1123-1150. |
|