Characteristics of nonpoint source pollution load from crop farming in the context of livelihood diversification

doi:10.1007/s11442-018-1484-y

Abstract

Abstract:

Based on objective data collected from interviews in typical villages of the Three Gorges Reservoir Area, the present study devised three livelihood scenarios related to rural transformation development: agriculturally dominant livelihood, multiple-type livelihood and non-agriculturally dominant livelihood. Moreover, the present study reports the trend characteristics of nonpoint source pollution load of crop farming in relation to the transformation of dominant livelihood types, and discussed the primary factors which affect livelihood type transformations. Results indicated the following: (1) The current farmland pattern shows a trend of diversification as self-cultivation, cropland transfer and fallow in the sample region. Dynamic characteristics of cultivated land present a special feature that is more “transfer-into” than “transfer-out”. Various scales of planting are represented among the various households, according to the following decreasing order: half-labor household > non-labor household > adequate labor household. (2) The highest pollution loading produced by crop farming occurs in half-labor households while the lowest occurs in non-labor households. With increasing labor, the pollution load per unit area tends to first increase and then decrease within families with enough labor. (3) As the type of livelihood transitions from agriculturally dominant to non-agriculturally dominant, the maximum reduction of total pollution loading produced by the agricultural industry can reach 72.01%. Compared to agriculturally dominant livelihoods, multiple-type livelihoods produce a pollution load reduction yield of 19.61%-29.85%, and non-agriculturally dominant livelihoods reduce the pollution load yield by 35.20%-72.01%. However, the rate of reduction of total nitrogen is not the same as total phosphorus. (4) The non-agricultural characteristics of labor allocation and income promote the transformation from dominant livelihood types to non-agricultural livelihoods, while potential revenue conversion follows a similar trend. In addition, different household types do not display identical conversion rates, according to the following decreasing order: enough labor household > half-labor household > non-labor household. (5) During rapid urbanization and the building of new industrial systems, the livelihood types of rural households have been further transformed to off-farm household types in the mountainous region; this process will lead to the further reduction of pollution load generated by planting and agriculture. Hence, significant decreases in the planting pollution load necessitate the development of control measures to enhance transformations from agricultural to off-farm livelihoods.

Key words: livelihood, crop farming, nonpoint source pollution, evolution, Three Gorges Reservoir Area

Jing’an SHAO, Zhilin HUANG, Hua DENG. Characteristics of nonpoint source pollution load from crop farming in the context of livelihood diversification[J].Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2018, 28(4): 459-476.

Figures/Tables 18

Figure 1

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Figure 2

Figure 3

Table 5

Table 6

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

Table 7

Table 8

Figure 7

Figure 8

Table 9

Figure 9

References 26

[1]	Beven K, Kirkby M J, 1979. A physically based, variable contributing area model of basin hydrology.Hydrological Science Bulletin, 24(1): 43-69. doi: 10.1080/02626667909491834
[2]	Chen Yucheng, Yang Zhimin, Chen Qinghuaet al., 2008. Source apportionment of agricultural non-point source pollution in Chongqing based on pressure-response system.Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 41(8): 2362-2369. (in Chinese) doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1011.2008.00145
[3]	Feng Xiaojie, Wei Chaofu, Xie Detiet al., 2005. Effects of farm households’ management behavior upon non-point pollution of agriculture and model analysis.Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 21(12): 354-358. (in Chinese)
[4]	Ganesh C B, John F N, David C R, 2012. Energy savings by adopting precision agriculture in rural USA.Energy, Sustainability and Society, 22(2): 1-5. doi: 10.1186/2192-0567-2-22
[5]	Gong Qianwen, Zhang Junbiao, Li Jin, 2008. Impact factor of fertilizer inputs decision based on analysis of the survey data in Hubei Province.Agricultural Economic Question, (10): 65-70. (in Chinese)
[6]	Hou Jundong, Lv Jun, Yin Weifeng, 2012. Effects of farmer households’ production and operation behaviors on rural eco-environment.China Population Resources and Environment, 22(3): 30-35. (in Chinese)
[7]	Li Bin, Ma Jiujie, 2014. The study on impact of labor force transfer on innovation in agricultural production and operation organization innovation and impact of this innovation on change of urban-rural income gap.China Soft Science Magazine, (7): 60-76. (in Chinese) doi: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2014.08.001
[8]	Li Xiufen, Zhu Jinzhao, Gu Xiaojunet al., 2010. Current situation and control of agricultural non-point source pollution.China Population Resources and Environment, 20(4): 81-84. (in Chinese) doi: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.1984.tb04790.x
[9]	Liang Liutao, Qu Futian, Feng Shuyi, 2010. Study on eco-environmental problems and management system innovation in the process of rural development.Soft Science, 24(8): 53-57. (in Chinese)
[10]	Liu Yansui, 2007. Rural transformation development and new countryside construction in eastern coastal area of China.Acta Geographica Sinica, 62(6): 563-570. (in Chinese) doi: 10.1117/12.713541
[11]	Long Dongping, Li Tongsheng, Miao Yuanyuanet al., 2014. Spatio-temporal characteristics and impacting factors of non-agriculturalization of China’s rural population.Progress in Geography, 33(4): 517-530. (in Chinese) doi: 10.11820/dlkxjz.2014.04.009
[12]	Long Tianyu, Cao Huailiang, An Qianget al., 2013. Spatial distribution of transfer pollution absorbed phosphorus load in slope farmland of purple soil in Three Gorges Reservoir Region.Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering (Transactions of the CSAE), 29(4): 157-164. (in Chinese) doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-6819.2013.04.020
[13]	Luo Xiaojuan, Feng Shuyi, Reidsma Pytriket al., 2013. Simulation of agricultural and environmental policy response based on the farmer’s bio-economic model: A case study of Taihu River Basin.Chinese Rural Economy, (11): 74-87. (in Chinese)
[14]	Ouyang Jinliang, Song Chunmei, Yu Zhenronget al., 2004. The farm household’s choice of land use type and its effectiveness on land quality and environment in Huang-Huai-Hai Plain.Journal of Natural Resources, 19(1): 1-11. (in Chinese) doi: 10.11849/zrzyxb.2004.01.001
[15]	Rozelle S, Boisvert R N, 1995. Control in a dynamic village economy: The reforms and unbalanced development in China’s rural economy.Journal of Development Economics, 46(2): 233-252. doi: 10.1016/0304-3878(94)00060-P
[16]	Sharma D K, Ghosh D, Alade J A, 2006. A fuzzy goal programming approach for regional rural development planning.Applied Mathematics and Computation, 176(1): 141-149. doi: 10.1016/j.amc.2005.09.080
[17]	Shui Shangnan, 2013. Options for agricultural business model: Capital farm or co-operative.Issues in Agricultural Economy, (8): 32-36. (in Chinese)
[18]	Walford N, 2005. Multifunctional agriculture a new paradigm for European agriculture and rural development.Land Use Policy, 22(4): 387. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2004.05.003
[19]	Xu Ping, Zhang Zhengbin, Wang Jianzhonget al., 2004. Development directions of Chinese agriculture in future.World Sci-tech R & D, 26(6): 65-68. (in Chinese)
[20]	Yang Linzhang, Shi Weiming, Xue Lihonget al., 2013. Reduce-retain-reuse-restore technology for the controlling the agricultural non-point source pollution in countryside in China: General Countermeasures and Technologies.Journal of Agro-Environment Science, 32(1): 1-8. (in Chinese)
[21]	Zhang Wuwei, Zhang Fuming, Yang Xuecheng, 2009. The relationship between the transfer of surplus rural labor force and its land disposal: An analysis based on the survey data of 2421 agricultural transfer labor force in Shandong Province.Chinese Rural Economy, (3): 85-90. (in Chinese)
[22]	Zhang Yan, Gao Xiang, Zhang Hong, 2012. Association study between water quality of Chaohu lake and resources input in agriculture of basin.Environmental Sciences, 33(9): 3009-3013. (in Chinese) pmid: 23243852
[23]	Zhao Chunyu, Su Qin, Fang Jueshu, 2013. The research system and methods of the rural labor’s environment cognition in the employment transference’s process.Geographical Research, 32(5): 891-901. (in Chinese) doi: 10.1016/j.eist.2013.03.001
[24]	Zhao Xueyan, 2012. Environmental perception of farmers of different livelihood strategies: A case of Gannan Plateau.Acta Ecologica Sinica, 32(21): 6776-6787. (in Chinese) doi: 10.5846/stxb201109211386
[25]	Zhong Jianbing, Shao Jing’an, Xie Detiet al., 2014. Evaluation and changing characteristics of fertilizer input in different agricultural systems in the Three Gorges Reservoir Area.Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 22(11): 1372-1378. (in Chinese)
[26]	Zhong Jianbing, Shao Jing’an, Yang Yuzhu, 2015. Spatial distribution characteristics of pollution load of crop farming in the Three Gorges Reservoir Area (Chongqing).Acta Scientiae Circumstantiae, 35(7): 2150-2159. (in Chinese) doi: 10.13671/j.hjkxxb.2015.0103

Age group (years old)	Labor resource allocation
Age group (years old)	Migrant workers	Non-working people	Agricultural workers	Main migrant workers	Main agricultural workers	Total
<16	3	536	7	—	—	546
16-50	607	168	414	198	15	1402
50-65	25	23	427	45	9	529
>65	1	77	253	4	2	337
Total	636	804	1101	247	26	2814

Farmer livelihood scenario types	Major livelihood assets	Leading livelihood strategy	Land dependence degree	Land transfer intensity	Main farm household income
LH type 1	Natural assets	Agriculture	High	Low	Agricultural products
LH type 2	Natural assets and human capital	Agriculture and sidelines	Relatively high	Relatively strong	Non-farm income and agricultural products
LH type 3	Human capital and social assets	No-agriculture	Low	Strong	Non-farm income

Sampling site	TN value range	TN mean value	TP value range	TP mean value
Wushan	0.0675-0.3902	0.1221	0.0401-0.2321	0.0726
Wulong	0.0485-0.4906	0.1006	0.0289-0.2919	0.0598

Household type	Labors per household (person)	Farmland area under actual cultivation*	Family- contracted farmland area*	Transferring into farmland area*	Transferring out farmland area *	Returning farmland area*	Abandoned farmland area*	TN**	TP**	Total load **
HH type 1	1	9.02	17.93	1.11	2.16	6.69	1.17	35.70	18.02	53.72
	2	6.44	9.77	1.18	0.73	3.05	0.72	34.15	19.30	53.45
	3	7.00	9.22	1.67	0.96	2.22	0.70	38.45	20.19	58.64
	4	4.72	7.96	1.18	0.85	3.00	0.55	35.69	21.70	57.39
	5	4.79	8.38	0.38	0.13	3.00	0.84	28.77	19.09	47.86
HH type 2	1	10.43	25.16	1.52	4.16	9.72	2.36	33.02	23.06	56.08
HH type 2	2	11.34	22.55	1.81	1.57	9.82	1.64	37.53	23.40	60.92
HH type 3	-	8.66	24.89	1.82	3.10	11.74	3.21	30.35	16.85	47.20
Mean value	-	6.81	11.21	1.31	1.06	3.79	0.87	35.59	19.98	55.57

Farmer livelihood types	Total load (t)	TN (t)	TP (t)
LH type 1	17.22-16.22	11.59-11.88	5.63-4.33
LH type 2	13.04-12.08	9.45-8.76	3.58-3.33
LH type 3	10.51-4.82	8.49-1.97	2.02-2.85