Production Efficiency and Its Influence Factors of Crop Planting Patterns in Chengdu Plain—A Case Study of Pidu District

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb18100079

Abstract

Abstract:

To study the farmland production efficiency of different planting patterns in Chengdu Plain, based on the survey data of 92 households in 13 towns of Pidu District, Chengdu City in 2017, the DEA-Tobit model was used to analyze the farmland production efficiency and the influence factors of the paddy-upland rotation and dry farming patterns in Pidu District. The results showed that the average farmland production efficiency of different planting patterns was 0.793. The order of the farmland production efficiency of different patterns was vegetable succession cropping or crop rotation (0.957), rice-garlic crop rotation (0.847), rice-rape crop rotation (0.782), succession cropping of leeks (0.759), rice-vegetable crop rotation (0.722) and rice-round root radish crop rotation (0.689). The reason why farmland production efficiency did not reach valid value 1 was mainly owing to lower scale efficiency. At the same time, the redundancies of capital and labor input were existed in all the patterns, and the output of rice-vegetable crop rotation and rice-rape crop rotation patterns were insufficient. The factors affecting the farmland production efficiency were different, and the policy factor had a relatively large effect on the efficiency. In order to further improve the farmland production efficiency in Pidu District, it is recommended to appropriately promote the large-scale operation of farmland, strengthen the transfer of surplus rural labor and improve various agricultural policy measures.

Key words: Chengdu Plain, DEA-Tobit model, farmland, production efficiency, influence factors

CLC Number:

F323.1

Wang Bin, Huang Shengyi, Min Qingwen, Yang Wanquan, Li Heyao, Zhang Bitian. Production Efficiency and Its Influence Factors of Crop Planting Patterns in Chengdu Plain—A Case Study of Pidu District[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2020, 36(6): 140-148.

Figures/Tables 6

References 20

[1]	谭术魁, 彭补拙 . 粮食安全的耕地保障检讨及近期耕地调控思路[J]. 经济地理, 2003,23(03):371-374,378.
[2]	傅泽强, 蔡运龙, 杨友孝 , 等. 中国粮食安全与耕地资源变化的相关分析[J]. 自然资源学报, 2001,16(04):313-319.
[3]	梁流涛, 曲福田, 王春华 . 基于DEA方法的耕地利用效率分析[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2008,17(02):242-246.
[4]	叶浩, 濮励杰, 张健 . 中国粮食主产区耕地产出效率研究[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2008,17(04):584-587.
[5]	杨朔 . 陕西省耕地生产效率研究[D]. 西安:西北农林科技大学, 2011: 11-13.
[6]	梁栋 . 湖南省粮食生产效率及影响因素分析[D]. 长沙:湖南农业大学, 2015: 1-10.
[7]	潘倩红, 任大廷 . 四川省耕地生产效率及影响因素分析——基于DEA方法和Tobit模型的运用[J]. 国土资源科技管理, 2010,27(04):95-101.
[8]	李在军, 管卫华, 臧磊 . 山东省耕地生产效率及影响因素分析[J]. 世界地理研究, 2013,22(02):167-175.
[9]	杨键 . 萝卜生产成本收益及全要素生产率分析[D]. 武汉:华中农业大学: 2010, 8-9.
[10]	肖阳, 朱立志 . 基于DEA-Tobit模型的马铃薯生产效率分析——以甘肃省定西市为例[J]. 中国农业资源与区划, 2016,37(06):37-43.
[11]	唐江云, 胡亮, 万志玲 , 等. 基于DEA模型的四川烤烟生产效率及其影响因素研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2018,34(12):69-75.
[12]	肖娟 . 四川农户水稻种植规模效率及其影响因素研究[D]. 成都:四川农业大学: 2012, 13-14.
[13]	陈潜, 彭婵娟, 刘伟平 , 等. 福建省农户毛竹生产效率及影响因素研究——基于DEA-Tobit模型[J]. 福建论坛:人文社会科学版, 2015(01):132-136.
[14]	石晶, 李林 . 基于DEA-Tobit模型的中国棉花生产技术效率分析[J]. 技术经济, 2013,32(06):79-84.
[15]	杨利蓉, 陈文宽, 母培松 . 基于数据包络分析(DEA)的射洪县农业经济效率研究[J]. 四川农业大学学报, 2009,27(02):243-247.
[16]	李然 . 中国油菜生产的经济效率分析[D]. 武汉:华中农业大学, 2010: 65-77.
[17]	郭斯华, 季凯文 . 江西水稻生产效率测算及其影响因素分析[J]. 江西财经大学学报, 2018(02):90-99.
[18]	王欢, 穆月英 . 基于农户视角的中国蔬菜生产资源配置评价——兼对三阶段DEA模型的修正[J]. 中国农业大学学报, 2014,19(06):221-231.
[19]	郭斌, 尹梦雅 . 关中地区不同农业经营主体耕地生产效率比较——基于Meta-Frontier模型[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2018,46(07):294-299.
[20]	Wang K Y . The Research on Impact Factors and Characteristic of Cultivated Land Resources Use Efficiency——take Henan Province,China as a Case Study[A]. Information Engineering Research Institute, USA.Proceedings of 2013 International Conference on Agricultural and Natural Resources Engineering(ICANRE 2013 V5)[C]. Information Engineering Research Institute, USA: 智能信息技术应用学会, 2013.

模式	样本量	产值/[万元/(hm²·a)]	劳动力投入/[工/(hm²·a)]	肥料投入/[工/(hm²·a)]	其他资金投入/[工/(hm²·a)]
A1	16	11.99±5.08	331.17	6518.44	12940.09
A2	4	3.63±2.26	460.61	4927.50	6584.58
A3	27	7.41±3.51	709.87	4928.33	11409.23
A4	31	2.99±0.65	513.03	4262.90	7140.27
B1	7	17.15±9.18	668.65	5355.00	30855.34
B2	7	12.77±8.77	917.45	4870.71	16183.76
合计/平均	92	9.32	600.13	5143.81	14185.55

模式	样本量	产值/[万元/(hm²·a)]	劳动力投入/[工/(hm²·a)]	肥料投入/[工/(hm²·a)]	其他资金投入/[工/(hm²·a)]
A1	16	11.99±5.08	331.17	6518.44	12940.09
A2	4	3.63±2.26	460.61	4927.50	6584.58
A3	27	7.41±3.51	709.87	4928.33	11409.23
A4	31	2.99±0.65	513.03	4262.90	7140.27
B1	7	17.15±9.18	668.65	5355.00	30855.34
B2	7	12.77±8.77	917.45	4870.71	16183.76
合计/平均	92	9.32	600.13	5143.81	14185.55

模式编号		指标
模式编号		Y/[元/(户·a)]	X₁/[hm²/(户·a)]	X₂/[工/(户·a)]	X₃/[元/(户·a)]	X₄/[元/(户·a)]
A1	均值	33062.50	0.26	107.31	1694.13	3812.12
A1	标准差	19150.17	0.09	77.45	661.19	3387.54
A2	均值	9487.50	0.23	94.75	1110.68	1914.33
A2	标准差	8394.68	0.12	50.67	568.59	2513.56
A3	均值	45931.85	0.60	331.22	3009.71	17522.59
A3	标准差	114777.82	1.52	790.16	7707.70	69134.86
A4	均值	7047.10	0.24	111.23	1040.88	1581.39
A4	标准差	3371.48	0.13	117.07	577.09	1165.08
B1	均值	150285.71	0.67	319.57	3815.40	35356.03
B1	标准差	181021.84	0.65	173.43	4006.00	68040.74
B2	均值	39666.67	0.28	218.67	1413.32	5264.46
B2	标准差	44325.50	0.19	136.44	1130.70	8154.69

模式编号		指标
模式编号		Y/[元/(户·a)]	X₁/[hm²/(户·a)]	X₂/[工/(户·a)]	X₃/[元/(户·a)]	X₄/[元/(户·a)]
A1	均值	33062.50	0.26	107.31	1694.13	3812.12
A1	标准差	19150.17	0.09	77.45	661.19	3387.54
A2	均值	9487.50	0.23	94.75	1110.68	1914.33
A2	标准差	8394.68	0.12	50.67	568.59	2513.56
A3	均值	45931.85	0.60	331.22	3009.71	17522.59
A3	标准差	114777.82	1.52	790.16	7707.70	69134.86
A4	均值	7047.10	0.24	111.23	1040.88	1581.39
A4	标准差	3371.48	0.13	117.07	577.09	1165.08
B1	均值	150285.71	0.67	319.57	3815.40	35356.03
B1	标准差	181021.84	0.65	173.43	4006.00	68040.74
B2	均值	39666.67	0.28	218.67	1413.32	5264.46
B2	标准差	44325.50	0.19	136.44	1130.70	8154.69

类别	变量	变量说明	变量统计特征	作用方向
人力因素	Z₁	农户年龄	mean=56.92;std=9.12	-
	Z₂	0=文盲;1=小学;2=初中;3=高中或中专	P(0)=1.09%;P(1)=35.87%;P(2)=58.70%;P(3)=4.35%	+
	Z₃	0=女;1=男	P(0)=15.22%;P(1)=84.78%;	+
	Z₄	农户经营农田年限	mean=35.26;std=11.36	+
管理因素	Z₅	农户一个轮作周期内的施肥次数	mean=1.84;std=0.84	+
管理因素	Z₆	经营农田所投入劳动力	mean=157.00;std=172.89	+
资金因素	Z₇	农户对农业收入的依赖程度	mean=22.30;std=24.63	+
资金因素	Z₈	兼职情况,0=无;1=有	P(0)=51.09%;P(1)=48.91%;	-
制度因素	Z₉	农田经营相关技术支持,0=无;1=有	P(0)=52.17%;P(1)=47.83%;	+
	Z₁₀	农田经营相关补贴,0=无;1=有	P(0)=11.96%;P(1)=88.04%;	+
	Z₁₁	农田经营相关政策限制,0=无;1=有	P(0)=77.17%;P(1)=22.83%;	-