PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY

Transcription

1 PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY Vol.29, No.9 Sept., , 1, 1, 1, 2 (1., ; 2., ) :,,,,,, :,, ;, ;,,, ; ; ; ; ; 1,,,,,,Strijker [7] [1], Stampini [11],,, MacDonald [12] Yamada [13] [2],,,,,, [14],, /d, /d, 11.22,, 85% [3-4] [15],, [5-7],, : ; : ( ),Hatirli [8] Tan 鄄 rivermis [9] Herath [10] : : (1982-),,, / chyq82@163.com. : (1962-),,, / lixb@igsnrr.ac.cn

2 , 3 : 1,,, kg/hm 2, [16-17] [18] ( kg/hm 2 ) 2, : hm 2, (0.14, hm 2 ) (0.10 hm 2 ),,, :, 3,,, (1) ;,, 2.2,, , 2007,,,, 15 ()102, 336, E, ~ N, 924 km ,, ,, E~ hm 2, 0.07 hm 2, 1.00 hm 2, km 0 3km Fig.1 Land use map of the study area in 2005

3 9 : 1069, 0.12 hm 2,,,,, hm 2,, 48.72%38.84% 2.00% 3.16% 3.93% 1.41%1.94%, (1) (2) , /,,,, [19],, : OC=O W (1), :OC ;O, ;W, W Tab.1 Types of labor employment, off-farm 3.1 work time and wages, (484 ),, /(d/a) /( /d) ~ (94.92%) ~ (61.58%) , ~ (52.62%) ~ (27.83%) ,,, %& 94.92% 27.83%, ( ) 81.62%, 18.38%, 65.76%,, 34.88% 80.95% (81.62%) (34.24%) ! (34.88%) "# (65.16%) $# 62 46(74.19%) $# * 21 17(80.95%) , :,,16-22,, / Fig.2 Crop structure of the study area

4 (2) : O=l/L (2) :l ;, L,,,,,,328, 65, / 19.82% 26,,, 7.93%, 6.17 hm 2 20, 6.10%, 2, 328, 3.75 /, /, /(3), 4 2 Tab.2 Opportunity cost of different labor force types 3,,16~22 :, [20], ~ , ; 36~50 [21], ~ , /(/) 3 Fig.3 Average labor opportunity cost of the sample households

5 9 : Tab.3 Basic information of the households that have land transfers ( ( / / /( / ) / /hmá /hmá /hmá /( /!) "#$ %&/% % % 39, 11.89%, hm 2 Tab.4 Labor opportunity cost and land use pattern / of the sample households (3),,, /( / / ), !/%, "#$/( /hmá) , % "#$/( /hmá) , 0.26 hm 2 & ()*/( /hmá) , +,()*( /hmá) hm 2, 0.05 hm 2 ;, 0.31 hm 2, /hm 2, /hm 2, 0.22 hm 2, 0.53 hm /hm 2,,,,,, 11.94%, /hm 2, /hm 2,, 24.81% 45.42% 4.2, < , / 6, , 6.17% 6.49% : 43.83% 25% 13.64%4.87% / / / 8, / / /(5) 4.2.1,,,,,,, (5) (4),,,, %, 15.38%, /hm /hm 2, 100%, 2006 (67.18%) (26.44 /hm 2 ) (37.06 /hm 2 ) (65.58%), /hm 2, /hm 2,, /hm , (130.2 /hm 2 ), ( /hm 2 ),

6 /hm 2 (5),, 4.2.3, 6, 4.2.2,,,, ;,,, 3.13 /hm /hm 2, 20 /, 77.01%,, 22.99%, 40 /, 72.68%,, 27.32%(5),,,,,,, :,,,, 20 /,, :,,,, 5 Tab.5 Land use patterns under different labor opportunity cost levels /( /hmá) & /( / ) /( / ) /% /( /hmá)!"# $%!"# /(kg/hmá) < ~ ~ ~ ~ Tab.6 Main inputs of agricultural production under different labor opportunity cost levels / / / / / / / / / / / ( / ) ( /hmá) ( /hmá) ( /hmá) ( /hmá) ( /hmá) ( /hmá) ( /hmá) ( /hmá) ( /hmá) ( /hmá) < ~ ~ ~ ~

7 9 : 1073,,,,,, 5 5.1, (1) :, ;,,,,,, (3),,,,, :23-35,,,,,,,,,,, 3.75 /, /, /, (2),, (2),, [1],,,.., 2008, 24(1): : [2] Angelsen A. Agricultural expansion and deforestation:, Modeling the impact of population, market forces and, property rights. Journal of Development Economics, 1999, ;, 58(1): , [3] Reardon T, Crawford E, Kelly V. Links between nonfarm ;, income and farm investment in African households:, Adding the capital market perspective. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1994, 76(5): ; [4] Kilic T, Carletto C, Miluka J, et al. Rural nonfarm income, and its impact on agriculture: Evidence from Albania. A 鄄 gricultural Economics, 2009, 40(2): , [5] Gibon A. Agricultural abandonment in mountain areas of Europe: Environmental consequences and policy response. Journal of Environmental Management, 2000, 59(1): [6] Gellrich M, Zimmermann N E. Investigating the regionalscale pattern of agricultural land abandonment in the (1) Swiss mountains: A spatial statistical modeling approach., Landscape and Urban Planning, 2007, 79(1):

8 [7] Strijker D. Marginal lands in Europe -causes of decline. Basic and Applied Ecology, 2005, 6(2): [8] Hatirli S A, Ozkanb B, Fert C. An econometric analysis of energy input -output in Turkish agriculture. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2005, 9(6): [9] Tanrivermis H. Agricultural land use change and sustain 鄄 able use of land resources in the Mediterranean Region of Turkey. Journal of Arid Environments, 2003, 54 (3): [10] Herath P H, Takeya H. Factors determining intercropping by rubber smallholders in Sri Lanka: A logit analysis. A 鄄 gricultural Economics, 2003, 29(2): [11] Stampini M, Davis B. Does non -agricultural labor relax farmers credit constraints? Evidence from longitudinal data for Vietnam. Agricultural Economics, 2009, 40 (2): [12] MacDonald D, Crabtree J R, Wiesinger G. Agricultural a 鄄 bandonment in mountain areas of Europe: Environmental consequences and policy response. Journal of Environ 鄄 mental Management, 2000, 59(1): [13] Yamada S, Okubo S, Kitagawa Y, et al. Restoration of weed communities in abandoned rice paddy fields in the Tama Hills, central Japan. Agriculture, Ecosystems & En 鄄 vironment, 2007, 119(1-2): [14] Van den Berg M M. The impact of increasing farm size and mechanization on rural income and rice production in Zhejiang Province, China. Agricultural Systems, 2007, (94): [15] Rozelle S, Huang J, Zhang L. Emerging markets, evolving institutions, and the new opportunities for growth in Chi 鄄 na s rural economy. China Economic Review, 2002, 13(4): [16],.., 2003, 24(2): [17]. [D]. :, [18],,,.., 2009, 24 (3): [19].,... :, [20],,,.., 2008, 27(6): [21], , 2009, 64(4): Agricultural Land Use Responses to Increasing Labor Opportunity Cost in Suixian County of Henan Province CHEN Yuqi 1, LI Xiubin 1, ZHU Huiyi 1, ZHANG Wen 1,2 (1. Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, CAS, Beijing , China; 2. Gradate University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing , China) Abstract: Increasing labor opportunity cost has become one of the most important influencing factors for agricultural land use changes. Based on 328 household survey data in Suixian County, Henan Province, this paper analyzed the types of labor employment and non-agricultural work time and wages, and then calculated the labor opportunity cost by using different labor types chances of getting non -agricultural job as the correction factor to amend wages. It was found that labor opportunity cost significantly affected land use practices of rural households. Households with higher labor opportunity cost always have higher nonfarm income. They are less dependent on agricultural production and more likely to lease their cultivated land to other farmers. These farmers are also inclined to grow food crops which need less labor inputs but have higher labor productivity. This results in homogenization of regional land use structure in terms of crop types. As to land use intensity, along with the increase of labor opportunity cost, labor intensity and yield -increasing inputs in agriculture decrease rapidly, while labor -saving inputs show an increasing trend. The households with larger labor opportunity cost are willing to increase machinery inputs as a substitute for labor inputs. Because of the reduction of yield-increasing inputs, the households with larger labor opportunity cost have lower grain yield per unit area. Key words: labor opportunity cost; crop structure; labor intensity; capital intensity; Suixian County :,,,. :., 2010, 29 (9):