IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v14y2025i10p2097-d1776314.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Land Use and Production Practices Shape Unequal Labour Demand in Agriculture and Forestry

Author

Listed:
  • Una Diana Veipane

    (Faculty of Economics and Social Development, Latvia University of Life Sciences and Technologies, Svetes Street 18, LV-3001 Jelgava, Latvia)

  • Irina Pilvere

    (Faculty of Economics and Social Development, Latvia University of Life Sciences and Technologies, Svetes Street 18, LV-3001 Jelgava, Latvia)

  • Jüri Lillemets

    (Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, F. R. Kreutzwaldi Street 5, 51006 Tartu, Estonia)

  • Kristine Bilande

    (Faculty of Economics and Social Development, Latvia University of Life Sciences and Technologies, Svetes Street 18, LV-3001 Jelgava, Latvia)

  • Aleksejs Nipers

    (Faculty of Economics and Social Development, Latvia University of Life Sciences and Technologies, Svetes Street 18, LV-3001 Jelgava, Latvia)

Abstract

Agriculture and forestry remain vital sources of rural employment; yet, both sectors face challenges of low labour productivity, demographic change, and structural inefficiencies. Modernisation improves productivity but often reduces labour demand, creating a policy dilemma between innovation and job preservation. Therefore, this study aims to quantify labour input across different land use types and farm sizes in agriculture and forestry. Latvia was used as a case region representing a sparsely populated territory suitable for both agricultural activities and forestry. This study develops a multi-stage framework to quantify labour inputs across agricultural and forestry land uses. The research findings suggest that labour use intensity decreases as farm size increases; however, it exhibits greater variation across agricultural production types. Perennial plantations, vegetable and potato cultivation, and dairy farming show the highest labour demands, whereas energy crops and grass-based systems require the least. In forestry, establishment and tending dominate labour needs, while mechanised harvesting reduces input requirements. These findings highlight the strategic role of labour-intensive, high-value activities in sustaining rural employment and the need for targeted rural development policies that recognise this pattern, supporting employment in rural areas without discouraging improvements in labour productivity.

Suggested Citation

  • Una Diana Veipane & Irina Pilvere & Jüri Lillemets & Kristine Bilande & Aleksejs Nipers, 2025. "Land Use and Production Practices Shape Unequal Labour Demand in Agriculture and Forestry," Land, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-26, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:14:y:2025:i:10:p:2097-:d:1776314
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/14/10/2097/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/14/10/2097/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lillemets, Jüri & Fertő, Imre & Viira, Ants-Hannes, 2022. "The socioeconomic impacts of the CAP: Systematic literature review," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    2. Bina Agarwal & Bruno Dorin, 2019. "Group farming in France: Why do some regions have more cooperative ventures than others?," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 51(3), pages 781-804, May.
    3. Markus LIPS & Dierk SCHMID & Pierrick JAN, 2013. "Labour-use pattern on Swiss dairy farms," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 59(4), pages 149-159.
    4. Christoph Kubitza & Vijesh V. Krishna & Stephan Klasen & Thomas Kopp & Nunung Nuryartono & Matin Qaim, 2024. "Labor Displacement in Agriculture: Evidence from Oil Palm Expansion in Indonesia," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 100(3), pages 547-567.
    5. Ajayi, Olu Clifford & Akinnifesi, Festus K. & Sileshi, G. & Kanjipite, W., . "Labour inputs and financial profitability of conventional and agroforestry-based soil fertility management practices in Zambia," Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 48(3), pages 1-17.
    6. Babulo, Bedru & Muys, Bart & Nega, Fredu & Tollens, Eric & Nyssen, Jan & Deckers, Jozef & Mathijs, Erik, 2009. "The economic contribution of forest resource use to rural livelihoods in Tigray, Northern Ethiopia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 123-131, March.
    7. Wlodzimierz Kolodziejczak, 2025. "Labour Productivity and Employment in Agriculture in the European Union," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(1), pages 991-1009.
    8. Blanco, Cesar & Raurich, Xavier, 2022. "Agricultural composition and labor productivity," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    9. Tongwei, Qiu & Luo, Biliang & Boris Choy, S.T. & Li, Yifei & He, Qinying, 2020. "Do land renting-in and its marketization increase labor input in agriculture? Evidence from rural China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    10. Irina Pilvere & Aleksejs Nipers & Agnese Krievina & Ilze Upite & Daniels Kotovs, 2022. "LASAM Model: An Important Tool in the Decision Support System for Policymakers and Farmers," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-26, May.
    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. Baiyegunhi, L.J.S. & Oppong, B.B., 2016. "Commercialisation of mopane worm (Imbrasia belina) in rural households in Limpopo Province, South Africa," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 141-148.
    2. Li, Linfei & Khan, Sufyan Ullah & Guo, Chenhao & Huang, Yanfen & Xia, Xianli, 2022. "Non-agricultural labor transfer, factor allocation and farmland yield: Evidence from the part-time peasants in Loess Plateau region of Northwest China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    3. Pouliot, Mariève & Treue, Thorsten, 2013. "Rural People’s Reliance on Forests and the Non-Forest Environment in West Africa: Evidence from Ghana and Burkina Faso," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 180-193.
    4. Mugido, Worship & Shackleton, Charlie M., 2019. "The contribution of NTFPS to rural livelihoods in different agro-ecological zones of South Africa," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    5. Gil, J.M. & Diaz-Montenegro, J. & Varela, E., 2018. "A Bias-Adjusted Three-Step approach for analysing the livelihood strategies and the asset mix of cacao producers in Ecuador," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277215, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Mosquera-Losada, María Rosa & Rodríguez-Rigueiro, Francico Javier & Santiago-Freijanes, José Javier & Rigueiro-Rodríguez, Antonio & Silva-Losada, Pablo & Pantera, Anastasia & Fernández-Lorenzo, Juan L, 2022. "European agroforestry policy promotion in arable Mediterranean areas," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    7. Edward B. Barbier & Angela Cindy Emefa Mensah & Michelan Wilson, 2023. "Valuing the Environment as Input, Ecosystem Services and Developing Countries," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 84(3), pages 677-694, March.
    8. Huiguang Chen & Wojciech J. Florkowski & Zhongyuan Liu, 2025. "Rural Migrant Workers in Urban China: Does Rural Land Still Matter?," Land, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-22, April.
    9. Nguyen, Trung Thanh & Nghiem, Nhung, 2016. "Optimal forest rotation for carbon sequestration and biodiversity conservation by farm income levels," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 185-194.
    10. Yang Qi & Mingyue Gao & Haoyu Wang & Huijie Ding & Jianxu Liu & Songsak Sriboonchitta, 2023. "Does Marketization Promote High-Quality Agricultural Development in China?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-28, June.
    11. Xiaoyu Sun & Weijing Zhu & Aili Chen & Gangqiao Yang, 2022. "Land Certificated Program and Farmland “Stickiness” of Rural Labor: Based on the Perspective of Land Production Function," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-24, September.
    12. López-Feldman, Alejandro, 2014. "Shocks, Income and Wealth: Do They Affect the Extraction of Natural Resources by Rural Households?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 64(S1), pages 91-100.
    13. Rayamajhi, Santosh & Smith-Hall, Carsten & Helles, Finn, 2012. "Empirical evidence of the economic importance of Central Himalayan forests to rural households," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 25-35.
    14. Martin Martínez-Salvador & Ricardo Mata-Gonzalez & Alfredo Pinedo-Alvarez & Carlos R. Morales-Nieto & Jesús A. Prieto-Amparán & Griselda Vázquez-Quintero & Federico Villarreal-Guerrero, 2019. "A Spatial Forestry Productivity Potential Model for Pinus arizonica Engelm, a Key Timber Species from Northwest Mexico," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-15, February.
    15. Pawłowska, Aleksandra & Grochowska, Renata, . "Ile dzieli nas od parytetu dochodowego w rolnictwie? Perspektywa historyczna Polski (2004–2019)," Gospodarka Narodowa-The Polish Journal of Economics, Szkoła Główna Handlowa w Warszawie / SGH Warsaw School of Economics, vol. 2025(2).
    16. Das, Nimai, 2010. "Incidence of forest income on reduction of inequality: Evidence from forest dependent households in milieu of joint forest management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1617-1625, June.
    17. Alexandros Gkatsikos & Dimitrios Natos & Christos Staboulis & Konstadinos Mattas & Michail Tsagris & Apostolos Polymeros, 2022. "An Impact Assessment of the Young Farmers Scheme Policy on Regional Growth in Greece," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-12, March.
    18. Kisaka, Lily & Obi, Ajuruchukwu, . "Farmers’ Preferences for Management Options as Payment for Environmental Services Scheme," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 18(3), pages 1-22.
    19. Muhammad Zada & Syed Jamal Shah & Cao Yukun & Tariq Rauf & Naveed Khan & Syed Asad Ali Shah, 2019. "Impact of Small-to-Medium Size Forest Enterprises on Rural Livelihood: Evidence from Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-17, May.
    20. Zhu, Sha & Tian, Chengzhi & Hu, Yuanrui, 2025. "Chinese migrant workers’ integration into cities and land transfer amid urban–rural population mobility," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:jlands:v:14:y:2025:i:10:p:2097-:d:1776314. 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.