Journal of Geographical Sciences ›› 2018, Vol. 28 ›› Issue (4): 459-476.doi: 10.1007/s11442-018-1484-y
• Research Articles • Previous Articles Next Articles
Jing’an SHAO1,2(), Zhilin HUANG3, Hua DENG4
Received:
2017-03-11
Accepted:
2017-05-05
Online:
2018-03-30
Published:
2018-03-30
About author:
Author: Shao Jing’an (1976-), Professor, specialized in regional environment evolution and climate responses.E-mail:
Supported by:
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.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Reference Manager|ProCite|BibTeX|RefWorks
Table 1
The situations of labor resource allocation among different ages (person)"
Age group (years old) | Labor resource allocation | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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 |
Table 2
The scenario classification of different farmer livelihood types"
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 |
Table 4
Farmland use of different household livelihood types and nonpoint source pollution load resulted by planting"
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 |
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 |
Figure 3
Pollution load per unit area among different main agricultural operating bodies^Note: The meanings of A, B, C, D, E and F are generally scattered households, big planting households, corporation, big breeding households, big planting and breeding households and cooperatives, respectively."
Table 6
The evolution characteristics of pollution load produced by planting in different farmer livelihood types, associating with the change of leading livelihood types"
Family type | Farmer livelihood type | Total load (t) | TN (t) | TP (t) |
---|---|---|---|---|
HH type 1 | LH type 1 | 14.46-13.63 | 9.73-9.98 | 4.73-3.64 |
LH type 2 | 11.09-10.29 | 8.04-7.45 | 3.05-2.84 | |
LH type 3 | 8.83-4.05 | 7.13-1.65 | 1.70-2.39 | |
HH type 2 | LH type 1 | 1.99-1.88 | 1.34-1.38 | 0.65-0.50 |
LH type 2 | 1.58-1.53 | 1.10-1.06 | 0.48-0.47 | |
LH type 3 | 1.22-0.56 | 0.98-0.23 | 0.23-0.33 | |
HH type 3 | LH type 1 | 0.76-0.71 | 0.51-0.52 | 0.25-0.19 |
LH type 2 | 0.56-0.46 | 0.44-0.37 | 0.11-0.09 | |
LH type 3 | 0.46-0.21 | 0.37-0.09 | 0.09-0.13 |
Table 7
Labor resource allocation among different family types (person/household)"
Family type | Household’s labor (person) | Average people of every household* | Migrant workers* | Non-working people* | Agricultural workers* | Main migrant with agricultural workers* | Main agricultural with migrant workers* |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
HH type 1 | 1 | 2.95 | 0.61 | 0.48 | 1.55 | 0.29 | 0.01 |
2 | 4.66 | 0.97 | 1.57 | 1.65 | 0.40 | 0.06 | |
3 | 4.65 | 1.10 | 1.47 | 1.56 | 0.48 | 0.04 | |
4 | 5.52 | 2.01 | 1.49 | 1.48 | 0.52 | 0.01 | |
5 | 6.35 | 2.06 | 2.00 | 1.76 | 0.53 | — | |
HH type 2 | 1 | 1.73 | 0.03 | 0.16 | 1.35 | 0.14 | 0.05 |
2 | 2.11 | 0.05 | 0.20 | 1.75 | 0.11 | — | |
HH type 3 | — | 1.76 | 0.02 | 0.12 | 1.61 | — | — |
Mean value | — | 4.07 | 0.92 | 1.16 | 1.59 | 0.36 | 0.04 |
Table 8
Income characteristics of different family types (yuan/person)"
Family type | Household’s labor (person) | Off-farm income* | Planting income* | Breeding income* | Subsidized income* | Total income* |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
HH type 1 | 1 | 6335.43 | 244.25 | 921.22 | 1248.00 | 8748.90 |
2 | 6565.66 | 579.68 | 700.35 | 681.03 | 8526.73 | |
3 | 7167.32 | 667.82 | 1246.90 | 438.14 | 9520.18 | |
4 | 8242.03 | 638.33 | 436.72 | 402.26 | 9719.34 | |
5 | 9952.04 | 669.19 | 655.09 | 255.39 | 11531.71 | |
HH type 2 | 1 | 1098.44 | 360.31 | 928.78 | 1501.07 | 3888.60 |
2 | 1347.46 | 348.56 | 1674.15 | 1547.25 | 4917.42 | |
HH type 3 | — | 523.60 | 305.22 | 759.58 | 1775.10 | 3363.50 |
Mean value | — | 6561.05 | 560.84 | 870.35 | 684.79 | 8677.01 |
Table 9
Farmers income accounting of different leading livelihood types (yuan/year)"
Farmer livelihood type | Type 1 | Type 2 | Type 3 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Per household | Per capita | Per household | Per capita | Per household | Per capita | |
LH type 1 | 9650.16 | 2099.66 | 7565.44 | 3865.86 | 4623.30 | 2632.71 |
LH type 2 | 55,906.36 | 12,164.00 | 7565.44 | 3865.86 | 4669.72 | 2659.14 |
LH type 3 | 58,935.70 | 12,823.12 | 13,930.70 | 7118.44 | 4669.72 | 2659.14 |
[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 |
[1] | 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. |
[2] | WANG Yun, LIU Yi. Central Asian geo-relation networks: Evolution and driving forces [J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2020, 30(11): 1739-1760. |
[3] | KANG Lei, LIU Yi. Characteristics of industrial structure evolution and isomorphism in Central Asia [J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2020, 30(11): 1781-1801. |
[4] | HE Ze, CHONG Zhaohui, YANG Yu, ZHOU Yannan, LIU Yi. Evolutionary investment network and the emerging energy power in Central Asia: From the perspective of cross-border mergers and acquisitions [J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2020, 30(11): 1849-1870. |
[5] | CHAI Yuanfang, YANG Yunping, DENG Jinyun, SUN Zhaohua, LI Yitian, ZHU Lingling. Evolution characteristics and drivers of the water level at an identical discharge in the Jingjiang reaches of the Yangtze River [J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2020, 30(10): 1633-1648. |
[6] | ZHU Boyuan, LI Yitian, YUE Yao, YANG Yunping, LIANG Enhang, ZHANG Chuncai, BORTHWICK Alistair G. L.. Alternate erosion and deposition in the Yangtze Estuary and the future change [J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2020, 30(1): 145-163. |
[7] | WANG Qiang, XU Linglin, LI Na, DU Xue, WU Shidai, TIAN Lanlan, WU Chenlu. The evolution of the spatial-temporal patterns of global energy security since the 1990s [J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2019, 29(8): 1245-1260. |
[8] | TAN Xuelan, OUYANG Qiaoling, AN Yue, MI Shengyuan, JIANG Lingxiao, ZHOU Guohua. Evolution and driving forces of rural functions in urban agglomeration: A case study of the Chang-Zhu-Tan region [J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2019, 29(8): 1381-1395. |
[9] | 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. |
[10] | Yuying YUAN. Cultural evolution and spatial-temporal distribution of archaeological sites from 9.5-2.3 ka BP in the Yan-Liao region, China [J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2019, 29(3): 449-464. |
[11] | Liang ZHOU, Chenghu ZHOU, Fan YANG, Lei CHE, Bo WANG, Dongqi SUN. Spatio-temporal evolution and the influencing factors of PM2.5 in China between 2000 and 2015 [J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2019, 29(2): 253-270. |
[12] | CHEN Qiong, LIU Fenggui, CHEN Ruijie, ZHAO Zhilong, ZHANG Yili, CUI Peng, ZHENG Du. Trends and risk evolution of drought disasters in Tibet Region, China [J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2019, 29(11): 1859-1875. |
[13] | HUANG Xiaoli, TANG Guoan, ZHU Tongxin, DING Hu, NA Jiaming. Space-for-time substitution in geomorphology: A critical review and conceptual framework [J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2019, 29(10): 1670-1680. |
[14] |
JIN Fengjun, CHEN Zhuo.
Evolution of transportation in China since reform and opening up: Patterns and principles [J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2019, 29(10): 1731-1757. |
[15] | Haimeng LIU, Chuanglin FANG, Yi MIAO, Haitao MA, Qiang ZHANG, Qiang ZHOU. Spatio-temporal evolution of population and urbanization in the countries along the Belt and Road 1950-2050 [J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2018, 28(7): 919-936. |
|