The Impact of Intergenerational Inheritance on the Scale of Farmland Management in the Context of Aging: Evidence from Eastern China
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review and Theoretical Analysis
2.1. Literature Review
2.2. Theoretical Analysis
2.2.1. Retirement Effect
2.2.2. Investment Recovery Guarantee Effect
2.2.3. Far-Sightedness Effect
3. Data, Variable Selection, and Model Setting
3.1. Data
3.2. Variable
3.2.1. Dependent Variables
3.2.2. Key Explanatory Variables
3.2.3. Control Variables
3.3. Model
4. Empirical Results
4.1. Baseline Regression Results
4.1.1. Impact of the Probability of Intergenerational Inheritance in Agriculture
4.1.2. Effect of Control Variables
4.2. Endogeneity Discussion
4.3. Robustness Tests
4.3.1. Replacement of Core Explanatory Variables
4.3.2. Dependent Variable Substitution
4.4. Heterogeneity Analysis
4.4.1. Regional Differences in Nonfarm Employment Levels
4.4.2. Age Difference
4.4.3. Scale Difference
5. Conclusions and Policy Implications
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Wang, Y.Q.; Shi, X.Y. The intergenerational transfer of Chinese agricultural family management: Basic logic and reality judgment. Economist 2020, 108–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, N.; Zhou, Q.Y.; Zou, L.Q. Will network sales of agricultural products affect the farmland scales of new agricultural business entities? J. Agrotech. Econ. 2021, 548–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mann, S.; Mittenzwei, K.; Hasselmann, F. The importance of succession on business growth: A case study of family farms in Switzerland and Norway. J. Socio-Econ. Agric. 2013, 6, 109–138. [Google Scholar]
- Wheeler, S.; Bjornlund, H.; Zuo, A.; Edwards, J. Handing down the farm? The increasing uncertainty of irrigated farm succession in Australia. J. Rural Stud. 2012, 28, 266–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Inwood, S.M.; Sharp, J.S. Farm persistence and adaptation at the rural–urban interface: Succession and farm adjustment. J. Rural Stud. 2012, 28, 107–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Potter, C.; Lobley, M. Ageing and succession on family farms: The impact on decision-making and land use. Sociol. Rural 1992, 32, 317–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zou, B.; Mishra, A.K.; Luo, B. Aging population, farm succession, and farmland usage: Evidence from rural China. Land Use Policy 2018, 77, 437–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Research Group of the Development Research Center of the State Council. Understand the basic laws of population evolution and promote the long-term balanced development of China’s population. Manag. World 2022, 38, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, J.L.; Wang, S.H.; Hu, J.L. Research on inherited barriers and supporting policies of family farms: Based on micro data and case analysis of family farms in Shandong province. Agric. Econ. Issues 2021, 121–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, L.P.; Weng, Z.L. Research on the effect of China’s new rural pension scheme on the intergenerational succession of agricultural management. J. Guangdong Univ. Financ. Econ. 2017, 32, 58–69. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, S.H.; Wang, X.L. Impact factors on farmers’ willingness and time point of intergenerational succession in agricultural management—Based on evidence of threshold regression model. Agric. Econ. Manag. 2018, 50, 48–58. [Google Scholar]
- Kong, D.S.; Hu, Z.T.; Jin, L.S. Analysis of herders’ willingness to transmit grassland animal husbandry business between generations and its influencing factors—A survey based on 34 gachas in Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region. China Rural Obs. 2016, 75–85+93. [Google Scholar]
- Graeub, B.E.; Chappell, M.J.; Wittman, H.; Ledermann, S.; Kerr, R.B.; Gemmill-Herren, B. The state of family farms in the world. World Dev. 2016, 87, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yu, F.B.; Zhang, Y.L. Family-based farming: Policy logic since the founding of the CPC and practice orientation in the new stage. Agric. Econ. Issues 2021, 100–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joosse, S.; Grubbström, A. Continuity in farming—Not just family business. J. Rural Stud. 2017, 50, 198–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bertolozzi-Caredio, D.; Bardaji, I.; Coopmans, I.; Soriano, B.; Garrido, A. Key steps and dynamics of family farm succession in marginal extensive livestock farming. J. Rural Stud. 2020, 76, 131–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leonard, B.; Farrell, M.; Mahon, M.; Kinsella, A.; O’Donoghue, C. Risky (farm) business: Perceptions of economic risk in farm succession and inheritance. J. Rural Stud. 2020, 75, 57–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grubbström, A.; Stenbacka, S.; Joosse, S. Balancing family traditions and business: Gendered strategies for achieving future resilience among agricultural students. J. Rural Stud. 2014, 35, 152–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suess-Reyes, J.; Fuetsch, E. The future of family farming: A literature review on innovative, sustainable and succession-oriented strategies. J. Rural Stud. 2016, 47, 117–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burton, R.J.F.; Walford, N. Multiple succession and land division on family farms in the South East of England: A counterbalance to agricultural concentration? J. Rural Stud. 2005, 21, 335–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rogers, S.C.; Salamon, S. Inheritance and social organization among family farmers. Am. Ethnol. 1983, 10, 529–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Viaggi, D.; Raggi, M.; Paloma, S.G.Y. Understanding the determinants of investment reactions to decoupling of the common agricultural policy. Land Use Policy 2011, 28, 495–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sottomayor, M.; Tranter, R.; Costa, L. Likelihood of succession and farmers’ attitudes towards their future behaviour: Evidence from a survey in Germany, the United Kingdom and Portugal. Int. J. Sociol. Agric. Food 2011, 18, 121–133. [Google Scholar]
- Stiglbauer, A.M.; Weiss, C.R. Family and non-family succession in the Upper-Austrian farm sector. Cah. Econ. Sociol. Rural 2000, 54, 5–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kimhi, A.; Nachlieli, N. Intergenerational succession on Israeli family farms. J. Agric. Econ. 2001, 52, 42–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Calus, M.; Van Huylenbroeck, G.; Van Lierde, D. The relationship between farm succession and farm assets on Belgian farms. Sociol. Rural 2008, 48, 38–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, H.; Wang, H. Problems of family farms in China and countermeasures. Asian Agric. Res. 2014, 6, 1–4. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, Y.; Li, X.; Song, W. Determinants of cropland abandonment at the parcel, household and village levels in mountain areas of China: A multi-level analysis. Land Use Policy 2014, 41, 186–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Min, S.; Waibel, H.; Huang, J. Smallholder participation in the land rental market in a mountainous region of Southern China: Impact of population aging, land tenure security and ethnicity. Land Use Policy 2017, 68, 625–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.H.; Li, X.B.; Xin, L.J. The impact of agricultural labor force age on land transfer according to CHIP2013. Resour. Sci. 2017, 39, 1457–1468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yang, J.; Chen, Z.G. The impact of rising labor prices and aging on rural land leasing. China Rural Econ. 2016, 71–83. [Google Scholar]
- Su, M.; Feng, S.Y.; Zhu, P.X. Impact of household life cycle and risk preference on rural households’ willingness to engage in land scale operation: Based on the survey data from two counties of Jiangsu Province. China Land Sci. 2020, 34, 88–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, K.; Qi, Z.H.; Huang, W.H.; Yang, Y. Influence analysis of family life cycle on farmers’ scale operation: Empirical analysis based on rice farmer in the middle area of Yangtze River. J. China Agric. Univ. 2019, 24, 187–197. [Google Scholar]
- Lin, S.L.; Ye, W.; Liang, L. Analysis of family life cycle on the willingness of farm land transfer: Based on 1570 questionnaire data of Fujian Province. China Land Sci. 2018, 32, 68–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, P.X.; Yang, Z.; Rao, F.P. The effect of family life cycle on land-scale management. China Popul. Sci. 2017, 43–53, 126–127. [Google Scholar]
- Liang, L.; Lin, S.; Zhang, Z. Effect of the family life cycle on the family farm scale in Southern China. Agric. Econ. Issues 2015, 61, 429–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, Z.D.; Li, X.C.; Zhao, Y. Co-governance and innovation decision: Paternalism and foresight effect in the intergenerational succession of Chinese family firm. Manag. World 2021, 37, 191–206, 232, 207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qiu, T.W.; Luo, B.L.; He, Q.Y. Land tenure stability and transition of land rental market: Evidence from China household finance survey. J. Zhongnan Univ. Econ. Law 2020, 239, 134–146, 161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, J.B.; Zhang, S.F.; Liu, S.Y.; Chang, J. Land entitlement, land investment, and farmer land scale management from an incomplete contract perspective. Resour. Sci. 2018, 40, 117–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cheng, L.G.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, Z.B. Has agricultural land titling promoted the transfer of rural land in China? Manag. World. 2016, 88–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fischer, H.; Burton, R.J.F. Understanding farm succession as socially constructed endogenous cycles. Sociol. Rural 2014, 54, 417–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, S.; Cao, Z.L.; Liu, H. Impact of socialized agricultural services on moderate scale land management and comparative study empirical evidence based on CHIP micro data. Agric. Technol. Econ. 2016, 4–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arends-Kuenning, M.; Kamei, A.; Garcias, M.; Romani, G.E.; Assis, S.P.F. Gender, education, and farm succession in Western Paraná State, Brazil. Land Use Policy 2021, 107, 105453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Foguesatto, C.R.; Mores, G.D.V.; Dalmutt, K.S.; Costa, C. Will I have a potential successor? Factors influencing family farming succession in Brazil. Land Use Policy 2020, 97, 104643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cavicchioli, D.; Bertoni, D.; Pretolani, R. Farm succession at a crossroads: The interaction among farm characteristics, labour market conditions, and gender and birth order effects. J. Rural Stud. 2018, 61, 73–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bertoni, D.; Cavicchioli, D. Farm succession, occupational choice and farm adaptation at the rural-urban interface: The case of Italian horticultural farms. Land Use Policy 2016, 57, 739–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, Q.N.; Zhang, C.S.; Qiu, H.G. The impact of aging agricultural labor force and part-time non-farm labor on outsourcing of agricultural production chain. Agric. Econ. Issues 2017, 38, 27–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, N.; Zhou, Q.Y.; Wang, X.S. A study on the role transformation of new agricultural business entities: Taking the impact of agricultural machinery services on farmland scale as a starting point. China Rural Econ. 2020, 40–58. [Google Scholar]
- Guo, X.B.; Feng, L.L. Analysis of determinants of family farm size: Theory and empirical evidence. China Rural Econ. 2015, 82–95. [Google Scholar]
- Han, J.B.; Liu, S.Y.; Zhang, S.F.; Liu, Y. The impact of aging agricultural labor force on land scale operation. Resour. Sci. 2019, 41, 2284–2295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variable | Variable Definition | Mean | S.D. |
---|---|---|---|
Current scale of farmland operated by the family | Area of farmland operated by households in 2018, hm2 (taken as logarithm) | 0.714 | 0.886 |
Willingness to expand the existing scale of farmland | Whether the farmer wants to expand the existing scale of farmland operated by the family: 1 = Yes; 0 = No | 0.244 | 0.430 |
Probability of intergenerational inheritance in agriculture | Number of male offspring involved in family agricultural activities, persons | 0.086 | 0.296 |
Age | Age of head of household, years | 60.116 | 9.277 |
Health | The health status of the head of household: 1 = very bad; 2 = somewhat bad; 3 = fair; 4 = better; 5 = very good | 3.659 | 1.172 |
Training participation | Whether the household head has participated in training or technical education about agriculture: 1 = Yes; 0 = No | 0.331 | 0.471 |
Party members | Whether any member of the family is a member of the Communist Party: 1 = Yes; 0 = No | 0.231 | 0.422 |
Village cadres | Whether any member of the family is a village cadre: 1 = Yes; 0 = No | 0.100 | 0.300 |
Agricultural machinery value | Total value of family agricultural machinery at the end of 2017, yuan CNY (taken as logarithm) | 3.805 | 4.676 |
Value of other fixed assets | Total value of family assets other than agricultural machinery at the end of 2017, yuan CNY (taken as logarithm) | 11.877 | 1.690 |
Deposits | Amount of savings held by the household at the end of 2017, yuan CNY (taken as logarithm) | 4.776 | 5.281 |
Contracted land area | Family contracted land area, hm2 (taken as logarithm) | 0.419 | 0.219 |
Number of laborers | Number of laborers 16 years old and above in the family, persons | 3.364 | 1.354 |
Share of nonfarm labor force | The proportion of family laborers who have worked in nonagricultural areas for more than 6 months in a year, % | 0.230 | 0.261 |
New pension insurance participation | Number of family members who have participated in the new pension insurance, persons | 1.914 | 1.460 |
Land transfer policy understanding | Whether farmers know the policies related to farmland transfer: 1 = Yes; 0 = No | 0.436 | 0.496 |
Land titling | Whether the family contracted land has been registered during the new round of rural land property rights registration in China: 1 = Yes; 0 = No | 0.780 | 0.414 |
Land adjustment experience | Whether the family contracted land has been readjusted from the beginning of the second round of land contracting to 2018: 1 = Yes; 0 = No | 0.243 | 0.429 |
Risk appetite | Based on farmers’ agreement with the designed risk appetite questions, a total risk appetite score is assigned and summed | 11.928 | 3.931 |
Village arable land area | Total arable land area in the village, hm2 (taken as logarithm) | 5.440 | 0.688 |
Soil | Main soil texture of village land: 1 = sand; 2 = sandy loam; 3 = light loam; 4 = medium loam; 5 = clay loam | 4.021 | 1.476 |
Traffic | Type of main road from the village to the nearest village fair: 1 = tar road; 2 = concrete road; 3 = dirt and gravel road | 1.532 | 0.517 |
Bank branches | Number of village bank outlets, pcs | 0.350 | 0.706 |
Land transfer information | Does the village provide land transfer information to farmers: 1 = Yes; 0 = No | 0.738 | 0.440 |
Scale operation subsidies | Subsidies are provided to farmers engaged in large-scale land management: 1 = Yes; 0 = No | 0.295 | 0.456 |
Performance assessment | Was the scale of farmland management included in the government performance evaluation system in 2017: 1 = Yes; 0 = No | 0.267 | 0.443 |
Liaoning | 1 = Yes; 0 = No | 0.341 | 0.474 |
Jiangsu | 1 = Yes; 0 = No | 0.339 | 0.474 |
Variable | Current Farmland Scale | Willingness to Expand Farmland Scale | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Coefficient | T Value | Coefficient | Z Value | |
Probability of intergenerational inheritance in agriculture | 0.724 *** | 5.775 | 0.359 *** | 2.945 |
Household Characteristics | ||||
Age | −0.025 *** | −4.242 | −0.039 *** | −7.446 |
Health | 0.145 *** | 3.513 | 0.093 ** | 2.156 |
Training participation | 0.363 *** | 3.922 | 0.290 *** | 3.428 |
Party members | −0.264 ** | −2.233 | −0.221 ** | −2.034 |
Village cadres | −0.236 | −1.372 | −0.208 | −1.380 |
Agricultural machinery value | 0.201 *** | 15.784 | 0.066 *** | 6.666 |
Value of other fixed assets | 0.045 | 1.472 | 0.035 | 1.067 |
Deposits | −0.016 * | −1.941 | −0.015 ** | −2.063 |
Contracted land area | 0.481 *** | 5.643 | −0.101 | −1.180 |
Number of laborers | 0.130 *** | 3.507 | 0.067 * | 1.687 |
Share of nonfarm labor force | −1.069 *** | −5.668 | −0.313 * | −1.683 |
New pension insurance participation | 0.045 | 1.307 | 0.032 | 0.908 |
Land transfer policy understanding | 0.175 ** | 2.062 | −0.001 | −0.010 |
Land titling | 0.117 | 1.157 | 0.151 | 1.424 |
Land adjustment experience | 0.210 ** | 2.026 | 0.029 | 0.261 |
Risk appetite | 0.015 | 1.361 | 0.059 *** | 4.960 |
Village Characteristics | ||||
Village arable land area | −0.169 ** | −2.041 | −0.117 | −1.312 |
Soil | −0.027 | −0.842 | 0.013 | 0.416 |
Traffic | 0.319 ** | 2.201 | 0.091 | 0.640 |
Bank branches | 0.075 | 1.137 | −0.104 | −1.317 |
Land transfer information | 0.129 | 1.329 | 0.114 | 0.129 |
Scale operation subsidies | −0.005 | −0.052 | −0.147 | −1.125 |
Performance assessment | −0.221 ** | −2.056 | −0.233 ** | −1.982 |
Province | ||||
Liaoning | 0.767 *** | 4.300 | 0.269 | 1.410 |
Jiangsu | −0.249 | −1.617 | 0.337 * | 1.881 |
Constant term | 0.740 | 0.811 | 0.283 | 0.326 |
Sigma_cons | 1.466 *** | 28.838 | — | |
F value | 39.42 | — | ||
Chi-square test values (Wald chi-square values) | — | 340.86 | ||
Significance (Prob > F or Prob > Chi2) | 0.000 | 0.000 | ||
Pseudo R2 | 0.153 | 0.198 | ||
Sample size | 1347 | 1347 |
Variable | Current Farmland Scale | Willingness to Expand Farmland Scale | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Number of male offspring | 0.424 *** (4.104) | — | 0.196 ** (2.014) | — |
Number of male offspring living at home | — | 0.242 *** (3.072) | — | 0.225 *** (2.668) |
Control variable | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Constant term | 0.630 (0.693) | 0.226 (0.248) | 0.238 (0.279) | 0.027 (0.031) |
Sigma_cons | 1.472 *** (28.068) | 1.501 *** (29.057) | — | — |
F value | 37.08 | 36.00 | — | — |
Chi-square test values (Wald chi-square values) | — | — | 337.16 | 334.34 |
Prob > F or Prob > Chi2 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Pseudo R2 | 0.152 | 0.142 | 0.197 | 0.196 |
Sample size | 1347 | 1347 | 1347 | 1347 |
Variable | Whether to Transfer In | Transfer Scale | Whether to Transfer In | Transfer Scale | Whether to Transfer In | Transfer Scale |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Number of male offspring involved in agriculture | 0.541 *** (3.489) | 1.553 *** (5.357) | — | — | — | — |
Number of male offspring living at home | — | — | 0.223 *** (2.886) | 0.582 *** (3.166) | — | — |
Number of male offspring | — | — | — | — | 0.342 *** (3.403) | 0.791 *** (3.189) |
Control variable | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Constant term | 1.523 ** (1.962) | 0.096 (0.053) | 1.143 (1.504) | −1.213 (−0.654) | 1.457 * (1.859) | −0.396 (−0.214) |
Sigma_cons | — | 2.865 *** (33.768) | — | 2.936 *** (32.780) | — | 2.885 *** (32.333) |
F value | — | 32.20 | — | 30.22 | — | 32.40 |
Chi-square test values (Wald chi-square values) | 372.17 | — | 350.77 | — | 367.65 | — |
Prob > F or Prob > Chi2 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Pseudo R2 | 0.230 | 0.149 | 0.218 | 0.139 | 0.229 | 0.146 |
Sample size | 1347 | 1347 | 1347 | 1347 | 1347 | 1347 |
Variable | Current Farmland Scale | Willingness to Expand Farmland Scale |
---|---|---|
Nonfarm employment level × number of male offspring involved in agriculture | 0.602 * (1.765) | −0.306 (−0.954) |
Number of male offspring involved in agriculture | 0.376 * (1.803) | 0.520 ** (2.405) |
Nonfarm employment level | −0.027 (−0.326) | −0.102 (−1.306) |
Control variable | YES | YES |
Constant term | 0.794 (0.884) | 0.421 (0.481) |
Sigma_cons | 1.465 *** (28.711) | — |
F value | 37.56 | — |
Chi-square test values (Wald chi-square values) | — | 353.15 |
Prob > F or Prob > Chi2 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Pseudo R2 | 0.154 | 0.200 |
Sample size | 1347 | 1347 |
Variable | Current Farmland Scale | Willingness to Expand Farmland Scale | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
40 ≤ Age of Head of Household ≤ 59 | Age of Head of Household ≥ 60 | 40 ≤ Age of Head of Household ≤ 59 | Age of Head of Household ≥ 60 | |
Number of male offspring involved in agriculture | 0.556 *** (2.764) | 0.950 *** (5.579) | 0.525 ** (2.459) | 0.211 (1.424) |
Control variable | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Constant term | −2.127 (−1.475) | 3.683 *** (2.938) | 0.660 (0.522) | −1.930 (−1.167) |
Sigma_cons | 1.471 *** (23.780) | 1.381 *** (22.012) | — | — |
F value | 40.78 | 21.04 | — | — |
Chi-square test values (Wald chi-square values) | — | — | 118.02 | 91.71 |
Prob > F or Prob > Chi2 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Pseudo R2 | 0.177 | 0.135 | 0.147 | 0.162 |
Sample size | 644 | 703 | 644 | 703 |
Variable | 10% Quantile | 50% Quantile | 90% Quantile |
---|---|---|---|
Number of male offspring involved in agriculture | 0.852 *** (0.097) | 0.630 *** (0.130) | 0.381 * (0.222) |
Constant term | −0.000 (0.535) | 1.611 ** (0.716) | 0.426 (1.224) |
Sample size | 1347 | 1347 | 1347 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 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
Ji, D.; Shi, X.; Luo, X.; Ma, X. The Impact of Intergenerational Inheritance on the Scale of Farmland Management in the Context of Aging: Evidence from Eastern China. Land 2023, 12, 1496. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12081496
Ji D, Shi X, Luo X, Ma X. The Impact of Intergenerational Inheritance on the Scale of Farmland Management in the Context of Aging: Evidence from Eastern China. Land. 2023; 12(8):1496. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12081496
Chicago/Turabian StyleJi, Dengyan, Xiaoping Shi, Xiaojuan Luo, and Xianlei Ma. 2023. "The Impact of Intergenerational Inheritance on the Scale of Farmland Management in the Context of Aging: Evidence from Eastern China" Land 12, no. 8: 1496. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12081496
APA StyleJi, D., Shi, X., Luo, X., & Ma, X. (2023). The Impact of Intergenerational Inheritance on the Scale of Farmland Management in the Context of Aging: Evidence from Eastern China. Land, 12(8), 1496. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12081496