Institute of Mountain Hazards and Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Chengdu, 610299, China.
College of Architecture and Urban-Rural Planning, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, 611830, China.
Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2024 Mar;31(14):21341-21355. doi: 10.1007/s11356-024-32245-w. Epub 2024 Feb 22.
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.
关于应该鼓励哪种类型或规模的农业,一直存在争议。本研究探讨了新型农业经营主体(NABEs)和传统小农户之间生计水平和结果的差异。我们应用可持续生计框架的分析工具和多元线性回归模型,描述了中国四川盆地周边两个典型地区的 105 个 NABEs 和 119 个传统小农户的生计结果决定因素。结果表明,NABEs 的整体生计水平是传统小农户的 1.40 倍。采用种植和养殖混合生计策略的 NABEs 具有最高的生计水平,其次是种植 NABEs 和养殖 NABEs。大约有 3.13%的农业实体有陷入贫困的风险;风险水平较高的是补贴农户(30.00%)、纯农户(12.50%)和兼业农户(1.69%)。研究区的 NABEs 被验证比传统小农户使用 2.06 倍更多的农药和除草剂投入。教育水平、技术培训、金融可及性以及与专业合作社的联系是影响两组农业实体生计水平的共同因素。NABE 领导人的年龄、人均种植面积和农业保险也显著影响 NABEs 的生计水平。基于这些结果,本研究提出了最适合提高 NABEs 和小农户生计水平的政策干预措施。尽管混合型 NABEs 和非农户被认为是更好的扶贫农业实体类型,但我们建议在培育 NABEs 和维持传统小农户之间取得平衡;还迫切需要为 NABEs 提供绿色农业生产指导。