Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38388970›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2024

Do large-scale agricultural entities achieve higher livelihood levels and better environmental outcomes than small households? Evidence from rural China.

Ming Li, Xuechun Feng, Congshan Tian, Yaqi Li, Weizhao Zhao, Baoyue Guo, Yuqi Yao

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
8.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ming LiInstitute of Mountain Hazards and Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Chengdu, 610299, China.
Xuechun FengCollege of Architecture and Urban-Rural Planning, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, 611830, China.
Congshan TianCollege of Architecture and Urban-Rural Planning, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, 611830, China. 41487@sicau.edu.cn.
Yaqi LiCollege of Architecture and Urban-Rural Planning, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, 611830, China.
Weizhao ZhaoCollege of Architecture and Urban-Rural Planning, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, 611830, China.
Baoyue GuoCollege of Architecture and Urban-Rural Planning, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, 611830, China.
Yuqi YaoCollege of Architecture and Urban-Rural Planning, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, 611830, China.
Sichuan Agricultural University · CNInstitute of Mountain Hazards and Environment · CN

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 42001244Shanghai Institute of Technical Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences XDA23090501Sichuan Science and Technology Program Support Program 2022JDR0209
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is an ongoing debate about the type or scale of agriculture that should be most encouraged. This study explores the differences in livelihood levels and outcomes between new agricultural business entities (NABEs) and traditional small households. We applied the analytical tools of a sustainable livelihood framework and a multiple linear regression model to describe the determinants of livelihood outcomes of 105 NABEs and 119 traditional small households in two typical areas around the Sichuan Basin in China. The results show that the overall livelihood level of NABEs is 1.40 times higher than traditional small households. NABEs with a mixed livelihood strategy of both planting and breeding have the highest livelihood level, followed by planting NABEs and breeding NABEs. About 3.13% of all agricultural entities are at risk of falling into poverty; the greater risk levels are associated with the subsidized households (30.00%), pure farmers (12.50%), and part-time farming households (1.69%). NABEs in the study area are verified to use 2.06 times more pesticide and herbicide inputs compared to traditional small households. Education level, technical training, financial accessibility, and the connection with professional cooperatives are common factors influencing the livelihood levels of the two groups of agricultural entities. Livelihood levels of NABEs are also significantly influenced by the age of NABE leaders, planting area per capita, and agricultural insurance. Based on these results, the study proposes policy interventions that are most appropriate for achieving higher livelihood levels among both NABEs and small households. Although the mixed type of NABEs and non-farming households are recognized as being better agricultural entity types for poverty alleviation, we recommend a balance between fostering NABEs and maintaining traditional small households; guidance related to green agriculture production for NABEs is also urgently needed.

Indexed as

AgriculturePesticidesChinaCommerceFarmsPesticidesEnvironmental protectionLivelihood strategyNew agricultural business entitiesRural livelihoodSustainable agriculture

Identifiers

PMID38388970
OpenAlexW4392058866

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.