IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v111y2021ics0264837721004464.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring relationships among landownership, landscape diversity, and ecological productivity in Kentucky

Author

Listed:
  • Khadka, Saaruj
  • Gyawali, Buddhi R.
  • Shrestha, Tilak B.
  • Cristan, Richard
  • Banerjee, Swagata “Ban”
  • Antonious, George
  • Poudel, Hari P.

Abstract

Kentucky has varied landscapes favorable for different land use land cover and agroecosystem management. The changes in land use land cover concerning a change in landownership structure can potentially alter landscape diversity and ecological productivity. This research examined the relationship among land cover, ownership structure (small, medium, and large parcel), and ecological productivity in Scott, Morgan, and Graves counties of Kentucky. Landsat 4–5 TM and 8 OLI (30-meter) imagery were used for supervised classification, accuracy assessment, and change detection at the pixel level in the years 2001, 2011, and 2016 for major land cover classes. The correlations in landscape diversity were analyzed using parcel data and thematic maps. Ecological productivity was estimated using the MODIS-NDVI 250 m, 16-day mean composite data along with parcel data. The change in land cover was primarily noticed in the cultivated crops and water, cultivated crops, and forest and pasture in Scott, Morgan, and Graves Counties, respectively. There was a strong negative correlation among agriculture, forest, and developed lands. The parcel size was significant (p < 0.05) for most of the land cover classes, but the relationships were not consistent in all combinations of year and counties. The ecological productivity was significantly different (p < 0.05) between small, medium, and large parcels. Further research is needed on other driving factors so that appropriate policy and decisions can be set for sustainable agroecosystem management.

Suggested Citation

  • Khadka, Saaruj & Gyawali, Buddhi R. & Shrestha, Tilak B. & Cristan, Richard & Banerjee, Swagata “Ban” & Antonious, George & Poudel, Hari P., 2021. "Exploring relationships among landownership, landscape diversity, and ecological productivity in Kentucky," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:111:y:2021:i:c:s0264837721004464
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105723
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837721004464
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105723?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Barrett, Christopher B. & Bellemare, Marc F. & Hou, Janet Y., 2010. "Reconsidering Conventional Explanations of the Inverse Productivity-Size Relationship," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 88-97, January.
    2. Assunção, Juliano & Braido, Luis H.B., 2007. "AJAE Appendix: Testing Household-Specific Explanations for the Inverse Productivity Relationship," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(4), pages 1-8, November.
    3. Reilly, J. & Paltsev, S. & Felzer, B. & Wang, X. & Kicklighter, D. & Melillo, J. & Prinn, R. & Sarofim, M. & Sokolov, A. & Wang, C., 2007. "Global economic effects of changes in crops, pasture, and forests due to changing climate, carbon dioxide, and ozone," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(11), pages 5370-5383, November.
    4. E. Yaslioglu & S. T. Akkaya Aslan & M. Kirmikil & K. S. Gundogdu & I. Arici, 2009. "Changes in Farm Management and Agricultural Activities and Their Effect on Farmers' Satisfaction from Land Consolidation: The Case of Bursa--Karacabey, Turkey," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(2), pages 327-340, February.
    5. Alan D. Lopez & Colin D. Mathers & Majid Ezzati & Dean T. Jamison & Christopher J. L. Murray, 2006. "Global Burden of Disease and Risk Factors," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 7039, December.
    6. Nicholas Gill & Peter Klepeis & Laurie Chisholm, 2010. "Stewardship among lifestyle oriented rural landowners," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 53(3), pages 317-334.
    7. Daniel Ayalew Ali & Klaus Deininger, 2015. "Is There a Farm Size–Productivity Relationship in African Agriculture? Evidence from Rwanda," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 91(2), pages 317-343.
    8. Desiere, Sam & Jolliffe, Dean, 2018. "Land productivity and plot size: Is measurement error driving the inverse relationship?," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 84-98.
    9. Juliano J. Assunção & Luis H. B. Braido, 2007. "Testing Household-Specific Explanations for the Inverse Productivity Relationship," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(4), pages 980-990.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mengyuan Li & Xiaobing Li & Siyu Liu & Xin Lyu & Dongliang Dang & Huashun Dou & Kai Wang, 2022. "Analysis of the Spatiotemporal Variation of Landscape Patterns and Their Driving Factors in Inner Mongolia from 2000 to 2015," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-16, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Aragón, Fernando M. & Restuccia, Diego & Rud, Juan Pablo, 2022. "Are small farms really more productive than large farms?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    2. Fang Xia & Lingling Hou & Songqing Jin & Dongqing Li, 2020. "Land size and productivity in the livestock sector: evidence from pastoral areas in China," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 64(3), pages 867-888, July.
    3. Omotilewa, Oluwatoba J. & Jayne, T.S. & Muyanga, Milu & Aromolaran, Adebayo B. & Liverpool-Tasie, Lenis Saweda O. & Awokuse, Titus, 2021. "A revisit of farm size and productivity: Empirical evidence from a wide range of farm sizes in Nigeria," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    4. Desiere, Sam & Jolliffe, Dean, 2018. "Land productivity and plot size: Is measurement error driving the inverse relationship?," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 84-98.
    5. Gourlay, Sydney & Kilic, Talip & Lobell, David B., 2019. "A new spin on an old debate: Errors in farmer-reported production and their implications for inverse scale - Productivity relationship in Uganda," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    6. C. S. C. Sekhar & Namrata Thapa, 2023. "Rural market imperfections in India: Revisiting old debates with new evidence," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 41(5), September.
    7. Lowder, Sarah K. & Sánchez, Marco V. & Bertini, Raffaele, 2021. "Which farms feed the world and has farmland become more concentrated?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 142(C).
    8. Luo, Yufeng & Chen, Feifei & Qiu, Huanguang, 2018. "Plot size and maize production efficiency in China: agricultural involution and mechanization," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274364, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Ayala Wineman & Thomas S. Jayne, 2021. "Factor Market Activity and the Inverse Farm Size-Productivity Relationship in Tanzania," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 57(3), pages 443-464, March.
    10. Mensah, Edouard R. & Kostandini, Genti, 2020. "The inverse farm size-productivity relationship under land size mis-measurement and in the presence of weather and price risks: Panel data evidence from Uganda," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304477, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    11. Helfand, Steven M. & Taylor, Matthew P.H., 2021. "The inverse relationship between farm size and productivity: Refocusing the debate," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    12. Hailemariam Ayalew & Jordan Chamberlin & Carol Newman & Kibrom A. Abay & Frederic Kosmowski & Tesfaye Sida, 2024. "Revisiting the size–productivity relationship with imperfect measures of production and plot size," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 106(2), pages 595-619, March.
    13. Larson,Donald F. & Muraoka,Rie & Otsuka,Keijiro, 2016. "On the central role of small farms in African rural development strategies," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7710, The World Bank.
    14. Julien, Jacques C. & Bravo-Ureta, Boris E. & Rada, Nicholas E., 2019. "Assessing farm performance by size in Malawi, Tanzania, and Uganda," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 153-164.
    15. Bevis, Leah EM. & Barrett, Christopher B., 2020. "Close to the edge: High productivity at plot peripheries and the inverse size-productivity relationship," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    16. Abay, Kibrom A. & Abate, Gashaw T. & Barrett, Christopher B. & Bernard, Tanguy, 2019. "Correlated non-classical measurement errors, ‘Second best’ policy inference, and the inverse size-productivity relationship in agriculture," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 171-184.
    17. Ateka, Josiah & Onono-Okelo, Perez Ayieko & Etyang, Martin, 2021. "Does the inverse farm size productivity hypothesis hold for perennial monocrop systems in developing countries? Evidence from Kenya," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 16(3), September.
    18. Xingguang Li & Xuexi Huo, 2022. "Agricultural labor markets and the inverse plot size–productivity relationship: Evidence from China's apple growers," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(4), pages 2163-2183, November.
    19. Steven Helfand & Matthew Taylor, 2018. "The Inverse Relationship between Farm Size and Productivity: Refocusing the Debate," Working Papers 201811, University of California at Riverside, Department of Economics.
    20. Klasen, Stephan & Reimers, Malte, 2017. "Looking at Pro-Poor Growth from an Agricultural Perspective," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 147-168.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:111:y:2021:i:c:s0264837721004464. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.