ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2020
Discussing the regional-scale arable land use intensity and environmental risk triggered by the micro-scale rural households' differentiation based on step-by-step evaluation-a case study of Shandong Province, China.
Article in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Coupled analysis of arable land input intensity and output intensity based on sliding windows.MethodsX · 2024Article
- Rural human settlement environment, non-agricultural transfer of labour and arable land abandonment in China.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Dilemma and solution of land scarcity, agro-production, and environmental risk for typical grain-producing areas in rapid urbanizing process in China.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Under the rapid social-economic development process, the income structure and arable land size among rural households are facing with increasing differentiation in China. How the regional-scale arable land use intensity and environmental risk triggered by the rural households' differentiation would be is a question that has not been widely discussed. To fill this research gap, this study established three step-by-step indexes, rural households' ER index, arable land use intensity (LUI), and environmental risk index (RI), to measure rural households' differentiation, regional arable land use intensity, and environmental risk, respectively. By gathering data from questionnaire investigation of 950 rural households in Shandong Province, China, the result showed a wide range of ER index (0.006-0.056), LUI (2748.90-6361.54), and RI (0.0966-0.5032). ER index based on farm income, nonfarm income, and arable land size among rural households showed different distributions among cities. Though huge differences of arable land use existed in different rural households, including land area, crop species, use of production materials (agro-machinery, fertilizer, pesticide), and attitude towards land transferring, the farmers' sense of belonging to farmland and their dependence on agriculture did not disappear in the process of rural households' differentiation. Moreover, as aggregated effects of rural households' behavior, differentiation of regional arable land use intensity and environmental risk appeared later and lower than the level of rural households' differentiation in the same city. Among this process, Laiwu, Weihai, and Yantai became "hotspots" with higher level of rural households' differentiation, arable land use intensity, and agro-environmental risk, respectively. This study pointed out a possibility of policy designation that prior controlling environmental risk of arable land use could be realized by identifying the rural households' differentiation on arable land use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31900779What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.