Assessing the Ability of Agricultural Socialized Services to Promote the Protection of Cultivated Land among Farmers
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Analysis and Research Hypothesis
2.1. Impact of Agricultural Socialized Services on the Conservation of Farmland Quality
2.2. Inter-Group Differences in the Protection of Farmland Quality by Agricultural Socialized Services
3. Data Description and Model Construction
3.1. Data
3.2. Variables
3.2.1. Dependent Variable
3.2.2. Key Explanatory Variables
3.2.3. Control Variables
3.3. Model
3.3.1. Probit Model
3.3.2. Treatment of Endogeneity
4. Empirical Analysis Results
4.1. Baseline Regression
4.2. Treatment of Endogeneity
4.3. Robustness Test
4.4. Heterogeneity Analysis
4.4.1. Comparative Analysis of Different Generations of Farmers
4.4.2. Comparative Analysis of Contracted and Transferred Land
5. Conclusions and Recommendations
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Zhou, Y.; Li, X.; Liu, Y. Cultivated land protection and rational use in China. Land Use Policy 2021, 106, 105454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lai, Z.; Chen, M.; Liu, T. Changes in and prospects for cultivated land use since the reform and opening up in China. Land Use Policy 2020, 97, 104781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Lin, Y.; Glendinning, A.; Xu, Y. Land-use changes and land policies evolution in China’s urbanization processes. Land Use Policy 2018, 75, 375–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sheng, Y.; Song, L. Agricultural production and food consumption in China: A long-term projection. China Econ. Rev. 2019, 53, 15–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Donkor, E.; Onakuse, S.; Bogue, J.; De Los Rios-Carmenado, I. Fertiliser adoption and sustainable rural livelihood improvement in Nigeria Chock. Land Use Policy 2019, 88, 104193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, J.; Lin, Y. Driving factors of total-factor substitution efficiency of chemical fertilizer input and related environmental regulation policy: A case study of Zhejiang Province. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 263, 114541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, Y.; Shan, L.; Guo, Z.; Peng, Y. Cultivated land protection policies in China facing 2030: Dynamic balance system versus basic farmland zoning. Habitat Int. 2017, 69, 126–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, H.; Zhou, Y.; Qian, M.; Zeng, Z. Land Use Transition and Driving Forces in Chinese Loess Plateau: A Case Study from Pu County, Shanxi Province. Land 2021, 10, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qian, L.; Feng, Y.; Lu, H. Impact of Land Tenure Stability on Farmer’s Cultivated Land Quality Protection Behavior: Analysis Based on Adjustment Effect of the New Round Land Certification. J. Nanjing Agric. Univ. Soc. Sci. Ed. 2021, 21, 104–115. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, J.; Yu, Z.; Ouyang, J.; van Mensvoort, M. Factors affecting soil quality changes in the North China Plain: A case study of Quzhou County. Agric. Syst. 2006, 91, 171–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lv, J.; Liu, H.; Xue, Y.; Han, X. Study on Risk Aversion, Social Network and Farmers’ Overuse of Chemical Fertilizer—Based on Survey Data from Maize Farmers in Three Provinces of Northeast China. J. Agrotech. Econ. 2021, 7, 4–17. [Google Scholar]
- Adnan, N.; Nordin, S.; bin Abu Bakar, Z. Understanding and facilitating sustainable agricultural practice: A comprehensive analysis of adoption behaviour among Malaysian paddy farmers. Land Use Policy 2017, 68, 372–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ndiritu, S.; Kassie, M.; Shiferaw, B. Are there systematic gender differences in the adoption of sustainable agricultural intensification practices? Evidence from Kenya. Food Policy 2014, 49, 117–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ren, C.; Shen, L.; Grinsven, H.; Reis, S.; Gu, B. The impact of farm size on agricultural sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 220, 357–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yazdanpanah, M.; Feyzabad, M.; Forouzani, M.; Mohammadzadeh, S.; Burton, R. Predicting farmers’ water conservation goals and behavior in Iran: A test of social cognitive theory. Land Use Policy 2015, 47, 401–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, H.; Zhou, Y. Farmers’ Cognition and Behavioral Response towards Cultivated Land Quality Protection in Northeast China. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chu, C.; Feng, S.; Zhang, W. Empirical study on farm households’ behavior of adopting environmental-friendly farm technologies: A case study of organic fertilizer and formula fertilizer technologies. Chin. Rural Econ. 2012, 3, 68–77. [Google Scholar]
- Shang, H.; Yi, X.; Yin, C.; Chen, Y.; Zhang, Z. How Does the Stability of Land Management Right (SLMR) Affect Family Farms’ Cultivated Land Protection and Quality Improvement Behavior (CLPQIB) in China? Land 2021, 10, 1052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, Y.; Chen, M.; Zhang, J.; Li, X.; Liu, Y. Farmers’ Willingness and Behavior Response to Environmental Friendly Cultivated Land Protection Technology: The Empirical Evidence from Application of Soil Testing and Formula Fertilization Technology Based on 1092 Farmers in Jiangxi Province. China Land Sci. 2021, 35, 85–93. [Google Scholar]
- Knowler, D.; Bradshaw, B. Farmers’ adoption of conservation agriculture: A review and synthesis of recent research. Food Policy 2007, 32, 25–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, H.; Chen, Y.; Hu, H.; Gen, X. Can agricultural socialized services promote farmers to adopt pro-environment agricultural technologies? J. Agrotech. Econ. 2021, 3, 36–49. [Google Scholar]
- Luo, B. Service scale management: Vertical division of labour, horizontal division of labour and specialization of connected farmland. Chin. Rural Econ. 2017, 11, 2–16. [Google Scholar]
- Ma, W.; Abdulai, A.; Goetz, R. Agricultural Cooperatives and Investment in Organic Soil Amendments and Chemical Fertilizer in China. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2018, 100, 502–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, T.; Rizwan, M.; Abbas, A. Exploring the Role of Agricultural Services in Production Efficiency in Chinese Agriculture: A Case of the Socialized Agricultural Service System. Land 2022, 11, 347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cai, B.; Shi, F.; Huang, Y.; Abatechanie, M. The Impact of Agricultural Socialized Services to Promote the Farmland Scale Management Behavior of Smallholder Farmers: Empirical Evidence from the Rice-Growing Region of Southern China. Sustainability 2021, 14, 316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, X.; Yang, J.; Thomas, R. Mechanization outsourcing clusters and division of labour in Chinese agriculture. China Econ. Rev. 2017, 43, 184–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Q.; Yan, B.; Huo, X. What Are the Effects of Participation in Production Outsourcing? Evidence from Chinese Apple Farmers. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deng, X.; Xu, D.; Zeng, M.; Qi, Y. Does outsourcing affect agricultural productivity of farmer households? Evidence from China. China Agric. Econ. Rev. 2020, 12, 673–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mi, Q.; Li, X.; Gao, J. How to improve the welfare of smallholders through agricultural production outsourcing: Evidence from cotton farmers in Xinjiang, Northwest China. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 256, 120636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qu, X.; Kojima, D.; Nishihara, Y.; Wu, L.; Ando, M. Can harvest outsourcing services reduce field harvest losses of rice in China? J. Integr. Agric. 2021, 20, 1396–1406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, A.; Luo, A.; Luo, X.; Huang, Y. Influence of socialized services on farmers’ pesticide reduction behavior. J. Arid. Land. Res. Environ. 2021, 35, 91–97. [Google Scholar]
- Liang, Z.; Zhang, L.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, J. Is the agricultural division of labor conducive to the reduction of fertilizer input? Empirical evidence from rice production households in the Jianghan Plain. China Popul. Resour. Environ. 2020, 30, 150–159. [Google Scholar]
- Sun, X.; Liu, Y. Can land trusteeship promote farmers’ green production? Chin. Rural Econ. 2019, 10, 60–80. [Google Scholar]
- Marenya, P.; Barrett, C. Soil quality and fertilizer use rates among smallholder farmers in western Kenya. Agric. Econ.-Blackwell 2010, 40, 561–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, C.; Hu, R.; Shi, G.; Jin, Y.; Robson, M.; Huang, X. Overuse or underuse? An observation of pesticide use in China. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 538, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zheng, J.; Zhang, R. Can Outsourcing Reduce Pesticide Overuse?—Analysis Based on the Moderating Effect of Farmland Scale. J. Agrotech. Econ. 2022, 2, 16–27. [Google Scholar]
- Lu, H.; Xie, H.; Lv, T.; Yao, G. Determinants of cultivated land recuperation in ecologically damaged areas in China. Land Use Policy 2019, 81, 160–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, B.; Wang, R.; Lu, Q. Land Tenure and Cotton Farmers’ Land Improvement: Evidence from State-Owned Farms in Xinjiang, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, M.; Chen, Z.; Weng, Z.; Zhang, Y. Research on the Influence of Agricultural Socialized Services on the Reduction of Fertilizer Application—Based on the Regulation Effect of Element Configuration. J. Agrotech. Econ. 2022. Available online: https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/11.1883.S.20220310.1309.002.html (accessed on 11 March 2022). [CrossRef]
- Arriagada, R.; Sills, E.; Pattanayak, S.; Cubbage, F.; Gonzalez, E. Modeling fertilizer externalities around Palo Verde National Park, Costa Rica. Agric. Econ.-Blackwell 2010, 41, 567–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marcysiak, T.; Prus, P. Life strategies of rural inhabitants of unfixed economic function. Agrarian Perspectives XXVI. Competitiveness of European Agriculture and Food Sectors. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference, Prague, Czech Republic, 13–15 September 2017; Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Faculty of Economics and Management: Prague, Czech Republic, 2017; pp. 212–218. Available online: https://ap.pef.czu.cz/en/r-12193-conference-proceedings (accessed on 10 August 2022).
- Zhou, L.; Feng, J.; Cao, G. Research on farmers’ adoption behavior of green agricultural technology—A case study of farmers in Hunan, Jiangxi and Jiangsu. Rural Econ. 2020, 3, 93–101. [Google Scholar]
- Hayami, Y.; Ruttan, V.W. Agricultural Development: An International Perspective; The Johns Hopkins Press: Baltimore, MD, USA; London, UK, 1971; Volume 33. [Google Scholar]
- Qiu, T.; Luo, B. Do small farms prefer agricultural mechanization services? Evidence from wheat production in China. Appl. Econ. 2021, 53, 2962–2973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Picazo-Tadeo, A.; Reig-Martínez, E. Outsourcing and efficiency: The case of Spanish citrus farming. Agric. Econ.-Blackwell 2010, 35, 213–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paudel, G.; Kc, D.; Rahut, D.; Khanal, N.; Mcdonald, A. Smallholder farmers’ willingness to pay for scale-appropriate farm mechanization: Evidence from the mid-hills of Nepal. Technol. Soc. 2019, 59, 101196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, H.; Ma, W.; Guo, Y.; Zhou, X. Interactive relationship between non-farm employment and mechanization service expenditure in rural China. China Agric. Econ. Rev. 2021, 14, 84–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qu, M.; Zhao, K.; Zhang, R.; Gao, Y.; Wang, J. Divergence between Willingness and Behavior of Farmers to Purchase Socialized Agricultural Services: From a Heterogeneity Perspective of Land Scale. Land 2022, 11, 1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zeng, F.; Shi, F. How does agricultural socialized service promote the organic connection between small Farmers and Modern agriculture: A Theoretical Analysis Framework. J. Jishou Univ. Soc. Sci. 2021, 42, 92–100. [Google Scholar]
- Mu, S.; Qian, L.; Song, L. Agricultural Subsidies and Rural Household Non—Agricultural Entrepreneurship: Empirical Analysis Based on Data of China Household Finance Survey (CHFS). Iss. Agric. Econ. 2021, 3, 62–74. [Google Scholar]
- Abdulai, A.; Owusu, V.; Goetz, R. Land tenure differences and investment in land improvement measures: Theoretical and empirical analyses. J. Dev. Econ. 2011, 96, 66–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, L.; Huang, J.; Rozelle, S. Rental markets for cultivated land and agricultural investments in China. Agric. Econ.-Blackwell 2012, 43, 391–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bungau, S.; Behl, T.; Aleya, L.; Bourgeade, P.; Aloui-Sosse, B.; Purza, A.; Abid, A.; Samuel, A. Expatiating the impact of anthropogenic aspects and climatic factors on long-term soil monitoring and management. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 30528–30550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Leonhardt, H.; Penker, M.; Salhofer, K. Do farmers care about rented land? A multi-method study on land tenure and soil conservation. Land Use Policy 2019, 82, 228–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pan, Y.; Smith, S.; Sulaiman, M. Agricultural Extension and Technology Adoption for Food Security: Evidence from Uganda. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2018, 100, 1012–1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mao, H.; Zhou, L.; Ying, R.; Pan, D. Time Preferences and green agricultural technology adoption: Field evidence from rice farmers in China. Land Use Policy 2021, 109, 105627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roodman, D. Fitting Fully Observed Recursive Mixed-Process Models with CMP. Stata J. 2011, 11, 159–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, M.; Qiu, H. Agricultural machinery socialization service adoption, endowment difference and alleviation of rural economic relative poverty. South China J. Econ. 2021, 2, 34–51. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, G.; Zhang, L. Impact of agricultural productive services on farmland quality protection behaviors of farmers: Evidence from the main rice-producing areas in Jianghan Plain. J. Nat. Resour. 2022, 37, 1848–1864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mu, Y. The path selection and efficiency increase mechanism of farmers’ adoption of environmentally friendly technology: An empirical analysis. China Rural Surv. 2019, 2, 34–48. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, S.; Shen, X.; Zhu, Y. Research on farmers’ green production behavior under the evolution of agricultural industrialization management organization system. Rural Econ. 2020, 11, 37–44. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, Y.; Fu, X.; Liu, Y. Effect of Farmland Scale on Farmers’ Application Behavior with Organic Fertilizer. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 4967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ying, R.; Zhu, Y. The impact of agricultural technical training on farmers’ agrochemical use behavior: Evidence from experimental economics. China Rural Surv. 2015, 1, 50–58. [Google Scholar]
Variables | Definition | Mean | S.D. |
---|---|---|---|
Soil testing | Whether to apply soil-measured fertilizer: 0 = Not adopted; 1 = Adopted | 0.112 | 0.315 |
Straw returning | Whether to return straw to the field: 0 = No; 1 = Yes | 0.749 | 0.434 |
Degree of soil testing | Percentage of area fertilized with soil testing | 0.099 | 0.294 |
Extent of straw returning | Proportion of rice straw returned to the field | 0.763 | 0.412 |
Agricultural socialized services | Degree of rice farming chain outsourcing | 0.312 | 0.227 |
Age | Age of household head (years) | 57.137 | 10.316 |
Education | Education level of household head (years) | 10.538 | 4.925 |
Physical quality | Physical quality of household: 0 = incapacity to work; 1 = poor; 2 = medium; 3 = good; 4 = excellent | 2.955 | 1.047 |
Membership | Cooperative membership: 0 = No; 1 = Yes | 0.183 | 0.387 |
Demonstration household | Demonstration household: 0 = No; 1 = Yes | 0.184 | 0.388 |
Labor | Number of household labor (people) | 2.810 | 1.576 |
Annual household income | Total household income for the year (104-yuan CNY) | 9.380 | 12.023 |
Scale of rice cultivation | Logarithm of rice cultivation area | 2.523 | 1.580 |
Soil testing train | Whether participated in training on soil testing: 0 = No; 1 = Yes | 0.120 | 0.326 |
Straw returning train | Whether participated in training on straw return: 0 = No; 1 = Yes | 0.169 | 0.375 |
Cognition of soil testing | Impact on soil quality: 1 = very poor impact; 2 = comparatively poor impact; 3 = no impact; 4 = comparatively good impact; 5 = exceptionally good impact | 3.473 | 0.665 |
Cognition of straw returning | As above | 3.762 | 0.730 |
Punishment for straw burning | Whether the local government is fined or detained for burning straw: 0 = No; 1 = Yes | 0.125 | 0.331 |
Variable | Soil Testing | Straw Returning | BiProbit Model | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Probit (1) | CMP (2) | Probit (3) | CMP (4) | Soil Testing (5) | Straw Returning (6) | |
Agricultural socialized services | 0.588 ** (0.283) | 1.456 *** (0.534) | 1.489 *** (0.308) | 3.277 *** (0.460) | 0.563 ** (0.283) | 1.534 *** (0.307) |
Age | 0.010 (0.008) | 0.011 (0.008) | −0.010 (0.006) | −0.009 * (0.005) | 0.011 (0.008) | −0.010 (0.006) |
Education | −0.003 (0.016) | −0.001 (0.016) | −0.034 *** (0.011) | −0.030 *** (0.010) | −0.003 (0.016) | −0.035 *** (0.011) |
Physical quality | 0.158 * (0.084) | 0.132 (0.084) | 0.173 *** (0.056) | 0.129 ** (0.052) | 0.163 * (0.084) | 0.176 *** (0.056) |
Membership | 0.131 (0.180) | 0.100 (0.177) | 0.298 (0.201) | 0.189 (0.182) | 0.146 (0.179) | 0.336 (0.205) |
Demonstration household | 0.372 ** (0.185) | 0.348 * (0.181) | −0.185 (0.197) | −0.173 (0.178) | 0.365 ** (0.183) | −0.188 (0.196) |
Labor | −0.050 (0.050) | −0.042 (0.049) | −0.048 (0.036) | −0.034 (0.032) | −0.045 (0.049) | −0.053 (0.036) |
Annual household income | −0.004 (0.006) | −0.004 (0.006) | 0.010 (0.007) | 0.008 (0.006) | −0.003 (0.006) | 0.010 (0.007) |
Scale of rice cultivation | 0.113 ** (0.053) | 0.107 ** (0.052) | 0.062 (0.050) | 0.031 (0.045) | 0.117 ** (0.053) | 0.056 (0.050) |
Cognition of Soil Testing | 0.038 (0.107) | 0.032 (0.105) | 0.057 (0.107) | |||
Cognition of straw returning | 0.120 (0.079) | 0.129 * (0.070) | 0.116 (0.078) | |||
Soil testing train | 0.943 *** (0.182) | 0.936 *** (0.178) | 0.939 *** (0.180) | |||
Straw returning train | 0.278 (0.202) | 0.096 (0.187) | 0.215 (0.199) | |||
Punishment for straw burning | 1.072 *** (0.282) | 0.877 *** (0.257) | 1.016 *** (0.274) | |||
Constant | −3.055 *** (0.774) | −3.267 *** (0.764) | 0.008 (0.564) | −0.464 (0.514) | −3.225 *** (0.781) | 0.065 (0.562) |
Observation | 706 | 706 | 706 | 706 | 706 | 706 |
Atanhrho_12 | — | −0.223 *** (0.124) | — | −0.524 *** (0.135) | — | — |
LR chi2 | 98.61 *** | 318.57 *** | 127.45 *** | 335.38 *** | ||
Wald chi2 | 176.43 *** | |||||
Wald Test | 8.428 *** |
Variable | Soil Testing | Straw Returning | Degree of Soil Testing | Extent of Straw Returning | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Probit | CMP | Probit | CMP | Tobit | CMP | Tobit | CMP | |
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) | |
Agricultural socialized services | 0.515 * (0.305) | 1.740 *** (0.540) | 1.513 *** (0.330) | 2.609 *** (0.613) | 0.789 ** (0.363) | 2.047 *** (0.755) | 0.379 *** (0.083) | 0.845 *** (0.174) |
Tool variable | 0.899 *** (0.059) | 0.899 *** (0.059) | 0.863 *** (0.053) | 0.863 *** (0.053) | ||||
Atanhrho_12 | −0.257 ** (0.130) | −0.308 ** (0.156) | −0.233 ** (0.117) | −0.249 *** (0.080) | ||||
Control variable | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
LR chi2 | 94.94 *** | 266.52 *** | 114.24 *** | 282.29 *** | 95.09 *** | 314.63 *** | 114.82 *** | 321.93 *** |
Observation | 600 | 600 | 600 | 600 | 706 | 706 | 706 | 706 |
Variable | Soil Testing | Straw Returning | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Senior Generation | Junior Generation | Senior Generation | Junior Generation | |
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | |
Agricultural socialized services | 0.221 *** (0.067) | 0.014 (0.058) | 0.726 *** (0.127) | 0.204 ** (0.091) |
Control variable | YES | YES | YES | YES |
LR chi2 | 84.54 *** | 35.56 *** | 63.27 *** | 39.58 *** |
R2 | 0.372 | 0.133 | 0.152 | 0.119 |
Observation | 330 | 376 | 330 | 376 |
Variable | Soil Testing | Straw Returning | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Contracted Land | Transferred Land | Contracted Land | Transferred Land | |
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | |
Agricultural socialized services | 0.108 ** (0.044) | 0.029 (0.085) | 0.436 *** (0.083) | 0.093 (0.096) |
Control variable | YES | YES | YES | YES |
LR chi2 | 90.15 *** | 29.87 *** | 121.43 *** | 40.76 *** |
R2 | 0.197 | 0.114 | 0.158 | 0.161 |
Observation | 677 | 270 | 677 | 270 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Cheng, C.; Gao, Q.; Qiu, Y. Assessing the Ability of Agricultural Socialized Services to Promote the Protection of Cultivated Land among Farmers. Land 2022, 11, 1338. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11081338
Cheng C, Gao Q, Qiu Y. Assessing the Ability of Agricultural Socialized Services to Promote the Protection of Cultivated Land among Farmers. Land. 2022; 11(8):1338. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11081338
Chicago/Turabian StyleCheng, Changming, Qiang Gao, and Yuqing Qiu. 2022. "Assessing the Ability of Agricultural Socialized Services to Promote the Protection of Cultivated Land among Farmers" Land 11, no. 8: 1338. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11081338
APA StyleCheng, C., Gao, Q., & Qiu, Y. (2022). Assessing the Ability of Agricultural Socialized Services to Promote the Protection of Cultivated Land among Farmers. Land, 11(8), 1338. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11081338