IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i17p9085-d624135.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impact of Economic Development Level and Agricultural Water Use on Agricultural Production Scale in China

Author

Listed:
  • Jiaxing Pang

    (College of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
    Institute of County Economic Development, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China)

  • Ningfei Wang

    (College of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China)

  • Xue Li

    (College of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China)

  • Xiang Li

    (College of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China)

  • Huiyu Wang

    (College of Geology and Jewelry, Lanzhou Resources and Environment Voc-Tech College, Lanzhou 730000, China)

  • Xingpeng Chen

    (College of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
    Institute of County Economic Development, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China)

Abstract

The change of agricultural production scale is directly related to food security and the stable development of social economy. Particularly, the influence of economic development level and agricultural water use on agricultural production scale cannot be ignored. Therefore, this paper uses the fully modified ordinary least squares ( FMOLS ) and the Dumitrescu–Hurlin panel causality test models to discuss the effects of the level of economic development, agricultural water use, the level of urbanization, and the market price of agricultural products on the scale of agricultural production in China. The analysis results indicated that agricultural water use, the level of urbanization, and the market price of agricultural products promoted an increase of the scale of agricultural production at the total sample level; a 1% increase for these three variables will result in an increase of the scale of agricultural production of 0.634%, 0.377%, and 0.292%, respectively. The influence of economic development level on agricultural production scale accords with Kuznets curve. However, at the regional level, the influence of each variable on the eastern region is consistent with the trend of the total sample. In the central region, the impact of economic development on agricultural production scale shows a U-shaped curve, and the improvement of urbanization level inhibits the expansion of agricultural production scale. In the western region, all variables failed to pass the significance test. The results of the FMOLS model were validated by the fixed effects model. The results of causality tests showed that bidirectional causality existed between the scale of agricultural production and the level of economic development, the scale of agricultural production and agricultural water use, the level of economic development and the market price of agricultural products, and the level of urbanization and the market price of agricultural products. In different regions, there were differences in causality between variables. Therefore, based on the empirical results, we put forward some policy suggestions to maintain the scale of agricultural production.

Suggested Citation

  • Jiaxing Pang & Ningfei Wang & Xue Li & Xiang Li & Huiyu Wang & Xingpeng Chen, 2021. "Impact of Economic Development Level and Agricultural Water Use on Agricultural Production Scale in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(17), pages 1-12, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:17:p:9085-:d:624135
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/17/9085/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/17/9085/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jiuliang Xu & Zhihua Zhang & Xian Zhang & Muhammad Ishfaq & Jiahui Zhong & Wei Li & Fusuo Zhang & Xuexian Li, 2020. "Green Food Development in China: Experiences and Challenges," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-15, December.
    2. Peter C. B. Phillips & Bruce E. Hansen, 1990. "Statistical Inference in Instrumental Variables Regression with I(1) Processes," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 57(1), pages 99-125.
    3. Kuang, Bing & Lu, Xinhai & Zhou, Min & Chen, Danling, 2020. "Provincial cultivated land use efficiency in China: Empirical analysis based on the SBM-DEA model with carbon emissions considered," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    4. Dumitrescu, Elena-Ivona & Hurlin, Christophe, 2012. "Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 1450-1460.
    5. Dionysis Latinopoulos, 2009. "Multicriteria decision-making for efficient water and land resources allocation in irrigated agriculture," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 329-343, April.
    6. Xu, Dingde & Deng, Xin & Huang, Kai & Liu, Yi & Yong, Zhuolin & Liu, Shaoquan, 2019. "Relationships between labor migration and cropland abandonment in rural China from the perspective of village types," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    7. Im, Kyung So & Pesaran, M. Hashem & Shin, Yongcheol, 2003. "Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 53-74, July.
    8. Luciano Lopez & Sylvain Weber, 2017. "Testing for Granger causality in panel data," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 17(4), pages 972-984, December.
    9. Flückiger, Matthias & Ludwig, Markus, 2018. "Geography, human capital and urbanization: A regional analysis," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 10-14.
    10. Xinhai Lu & Yanwei Zhang & Handong Tang, 2021. "Modeling and Simulation of Dissemination of Cultivated Land Protection Policies in China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-21, February.
    11. Lu, Hua & Xie, Hualin & Lv, Tiangui & Yao, Guanrong, 2019. "Determinants of cultivated land recuperation in ecologically damaged areas in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 160-166.
    12. Shilong Piao & Philippe Ciais & Yao Huang & Zehao Shen & Shushi Peng & Junsheng Li & Liping Zhou & Hongyan Liu & Yuecun Ma & Yihui Ding & Pierre Friedlingstein & Chunzhen Liu & Kun Tan & Yongqiang Yu , 2010. "The impacts of climate change on water resources and agriculture in China," Nature, Nature, vol. 467(7311), pages 43-51, September.
    13. Peter Pedroni, 2001. "Purchasing Power Parity Tests In Cointegrated Panels," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 83(4), pages 727-731, November.
    14. Levin, Andrew & Lin, Chien-Fu & James Chu, Chia-Shang, 2002. "Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic and finite-sample properties," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 1-24, May.
    15. Xu, Weiyi & Jin, Xiaobin & Liu, Jing & Zhou, Yinkang, 2021. "Analysis of influencing factors of cultivated land fragmentation based on hierarchical linear model: A case study of Jiangsu Province, China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Doğan, Buhari & Ghosh, Sudeshna & Hoang, Dung Phuong & Chu, Lan Khanh, 2022. "Are economic complexity and eco-innovation mutually exclusive to control energy demand and environmental quality in E7 and G7 countries?," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    2. Hyunsoo Kang, 2021. "CO 2 Emissions Embodied in International Trade and Economic Growth: Empirical Evidence for OECD and Non-OECD Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-20, November.
    3. Balsalobre-Lorente, Daniel & Driha, Oana M. & Shahbaz, Muhammad & Sinha, Avik, 2020. "The effects of tourism and globalization over environmental degradation in developed countries," MPRA Paper 100092, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Nuno Carlos Leitão, 2021. "The Effects of Corruption, Renewable Energy, Trade and CO 2 Emissions," Economies, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-19, April.
    5. repec:zbw:bofitp:urn:nbn:fi:bof-201505061169 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Olimpia Neagu, 2019. "The Link between Economic Complexity and Carbon Emissions in the European Union Countries: A Model Based on the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-27, August.
    7. Wilman-Santiago Ochoa-Moreno & Byron Alejandro Quito & Carlos Andrés Moreno-Hurtado, 2021. "Foreign Direct Investment and Environmental Quality: Revisiting the EKC in Latin American Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-18, November.
    8. Hussein Moghaddam & Robert M. Kunst, 2023. "The Role of Natural Gas in Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis for Major Gas-Producing Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-20, February.
    9. Karmaker, Shamal Chandra & Hosan, Shahadat & Chapman, Andrew J. & Saha, Bidyut Baran, 2021. "The role of environmental taxes on technological innovation," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 232(C).
    10. Christian Dreger & Dierk Herzer, 2013. "A further examination of the export-led growth hypothesis," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 39-60, August.
    11. Farhani, Sahbi & Mrizak, Sana & Chaibi, Anissa & Rault, Christophe, 2014. "The environmental Kuznets curve and sustainability: A panel data analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 189-198.
    12. Destek, Mehmet Akif, 2016. "Natural gas consumption and economic growth: Panel evidence from OECD countries," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 1007-1015.
    13. Chakraborty, Saptorshee Kanto & Mazzanti, Massimiliano, 2021. "Renewable electricity and economic growth relationship in the long run: Panel data econometric evidence from the OECD," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 330-341.
    14. Sallahuddin Hassan & Zalila Othman & Mohd Zaini Abd Karim, 2011. "Private and Public Investment in Malaysia: A Panel Time-Series Analysis," International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, Econjournals, vol. 1(4), pages 199-210.
    15. Melike E Bildirici, 2021. "Terrorism, environmental pollution, foreign direct investment (FDI), energy consumption, and economic growth: Evidences from China, India, Israel, and Turkey," Energy & Environment, , vol. 32(1), pages 75-95, February.
    16. Xiaoxia Shi & Haiyun Liu & Joshua Sunday Riti, 2019. "The role of energy mix and financial development in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions’ reduction: evidence from ten leading CO2 emitting countries," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 36(3), pages 695-729, October.
    17. Kirikkaleli, Dervis & Sokri, Abderrahmane & Candemir, Mehmet & Ertugrul, Hasan Murat, 2017. "Panel cointegration: Long-run relationship between internet, electricity consumption and economic growth. Evidence from OECD countries," MPRA Paper 114709, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Robertson, Raymond & Kumar, Anil & Dutkowsky, Donald H., 2014. "Weak-form and strong-form purchasing power parity between the US and Mexico: A panel cointegration investigation," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 241-262.
    19. Ghulam MOHEY-UD-DIN* & Muhammad Wasif SIDDIQI**, 2017. "GDP FLUCTUATIONS AND LONG-RUN ECONOMIC GROWTH: A Study of Selected South Asian Countries," Pakistan Journal of Applied Economics, Applied Economics Research Centre, vol. 27(1), pages 41-66.
    20. Ijaz Uddin & Muhammad Azam Khan, 2024. "Global Evidence on the Impact of Globalization, Governance, and Financial Development on Economic Growth," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 15(3), pages 14546-14577, September.
    21. Zuzanna Kłos-Adamkiewicz & Elżbieta Szaruga & Agnieszka Gozdek & Magdalena Kogut-Jaworska, 2023. "Links between the Energy Intensity of Public Urban Transport, Regional Economic Growth and Urbanisation: The Case of Poland," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(9), pages 1-25, April.

    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:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:17:p:9085-:d:624135. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.