4.3 Article

The Impact of Aging Agricultural Labor Population on Farmland Output: From the Perspective of Farmer Preferences

期刊

MATHEMATICAL PROBLEMS IN ENGINEERING
卷 2015, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1155/2015/730618

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71233004, 71003052]
  2. Project Guide Research Fund of Philosophy and Social Science in Colleges and Universities in Jiangsu [2014SJD076]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of Nanjing Agricultural University [SK2013005, SKPT2014046]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chinese agriculture is facing an aging workforce which could negatively impact the industry. In this context, research is needed on how work preferences and age of farmers affect agricultural output. This paper attempts to investigate these factors to more fully understand the impact of an aging agricultural labor population on agricultural production. The results show that, in this context of aging, changes in the working-age households have a significant impact on agricultural output. Despite the fact that the impacts of intention to abandon land management were not significant, we can ignore this preference in the workforce. The combination of changes in the composition of the working-age households indicates that 58.53 percent of the agricultural producers will likely quit. This is a potential threat for the future of agricultural development. We also found that elderly farmers who do not intend to abandon farming had higher agricultural output compared to other farmers. This indicates that the adverse effects of changes in the agricultural population age result more from the agricultural output of older farmers who intend to give up farming. This intention adversely affected other elements and reduced investment. Therefore, various forms of training should increase efforts to cultivate modern professional farmers and policies should be simultaneously developed to increase agricultural production levels.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据