ArticlePloS one2023
The impact of government subsidy and weather on environmentally sustainable investment decision for agricultural supply chain.
Article in PloS one, 2023. 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.
- Financing strategies for contract agricultural supply chain considering government subsidized interest.PloS one · 2026Article
- Optimal strategies for contract farming supply chain with government subsidies under e-commerce assistance to farmers.PloS one · 2024Article
- R&D mode and coordination of green products in sustainable supply chain considering power structures.PloS one · 2023Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper studies the environmentally sustainable investment of an agricultural supply chain composed of a farmer and a company, under three subsidy policies which are the non-subsidy policy, the fixed subsidy policy, and the Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) subsidy policy. Then, we analyse the impact of different subsidy policy and adverse weather on the costs of the government and profits of the farmer and the company. By comparing with the non-subsidy policy, we find that both the fixed subsidy policy and the ARC policy encourage the farmer to improve the environmentally sustainable investment level and increase the profit of the farmer and the company. We also find that both the fixed subsidy policy and the ARC subsidy policy lead to an increase in government spending. Our results show that the ARC subsidy policy has a significate advantage in encouraging the farmer's environmentally sustainable investment if the adverse weather is relatively serious, comparing with the fixed subsidy policy. In turn, our results also show that the ARC subsidy policy is more beneficial for both the farmer and the company than the fixed subsidy policy if the adverse weather is relatively serious, which then leads to a higher expenditure of the government. Therefore, our conclusion serves as a theoretical basis for governments to formulate agricultural subsidy policies and promote sustainable development of the agricultural environment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.