IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v13y2023i2p350-d1052703.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Improved Management of Grassland to Promote Sustainable Use Based on Farm Size

Author

Listed:
  • Xin He

    (Institute of Resources and Energy Research, Baotou Teachers’ College, Inner Mongolia University of Science and Technology, 3 Science Road, Baotou 014030, China
    School of Economics and Management, Baotou Teachers’ College, Inner Mongolia University of Science and Technology, 3 Science Road, Baotou 014030, China)

  • Jingru Wei

    (School of Economics and Management, Baotou Teachers’ College, Inner Mongolia University of Science and Technology, 3 Science Road, Baotou 014030, China)

  • Suhua Gu

    (School of Economics and Management, Baotou Teachers’ College, Inner Mongolia University of Science and Technology, 3 Science Road, Baotou 014030, China)

  • Luping Wang

    (Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1630 Linden Dr., Madison, WI 53706, USA)

  • Zechen Tian

    (Faculty of Art and Science, University of Toronto-St. George Campus, 27 King’s College Cir, Toronto, ON M5S 1A1, Canada)

  • Danqiong Chen

    (School of Economics and Management, Northeast Forestry University, 26 Hexing Road, Harbin 150006, China)

  • Jiazhi Yuan

    (School of Economics and Management, Baotou Teachers’ College, Inner Mongolia University of Science and Technology, 3 Science Road, Baotou 014030, China)

Abstract

Grassland farms form the basis of grassland resource management in China. Farm sizes in China are generally small, which obviously increases the risk of grassland ecosystems. It is necessary to analyze the impact of farm size on grasslands from the perspective of livestock production in order to improve grassland management. This study combines field investigations and statistical analysis from 2004 to 2020, using a total of 126 farms from the Xilinguole League of Inner Mongolia in China as samples. These sample farms are divided into large farms and small farms. Different production scale and management behaviors are explored, along with their different impacts on grassland resources use. The results show that the expansion of farm size is constrained by the government management policies. Different behaviors are adopted by large and small farms in terms of finance, grassland circulation, and overgrazing management. The differentiation mechanisms of different farm size and the utilization of grassland resources are clarified in this study. This work suggests that managers promote sustainable use based on farm size and build appropriate policies to avoid future risks. The results of this study can provide a framework for solving similar problems.

Suggested Citation

  • Xin He & Jingru Wei & Suhua Gu & Luping Wang & Zechen Tian & Danqiong Chen & Jiazhi Yuan, 2023. "Improved Management of Grassland to Promote Sustainable Use Based on Farm Size," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-13, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:13:y:2023:i:2:p:350-:d:1052703
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/13/2/350/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/13/2/350/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hamilton, Clive, 1999. "The genuine progress indicator methodological developments and results from Australia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 13-28, July.
    2. Tom Smith, 2018. "From the Editor," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 58(1), pages 5-10, March.
    3. Zhang, Ruxin & Tan, Shuhao & Hannaway, David & Dai, Weizhu, 2020. "Multi-household grassland management pattern promotes ecological efficiency of livestock production," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 171(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. O'Mahony, Tadhg & Escardó-Serra, Paula & Dufour, Javier, 2018. "Revisiting ISEW Valuation Approaches: The Case of Spain Including the Costs of Energy Depletion and of Climate Change," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 292-303.
    2. Beça, Pedro & Santos, Rui, 2010. "Measuring sustainable welfare: A new approach to the ISEW," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(4), pages 810-819, February.
    3. Giorgio Calcagnini & Francesco Perugini, 2019. "A Well-Being Indicator for the Italian Provinces," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 142(1), pages 149-177, February.
    4. Kubiszewski, Ida & Costanza, Robert & Franco, Carol & Lawn, Philip & Talberth, John & Jackson, Tim & Aylmer, Camille, 2013. "Beyond GDP: Measuring and achieving global genuine progress," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 57-68.
    5. D.P. Doessel & Ruth F.G. Williams, 2012. "The New Welfare Measures," Working Papers 2012.07, School of Economics, La Trobe University.
    6. Long, Xianling & Ji, Xi, 2019. "Economic Growth Quality, Environmental Sustainability, and Social Welfare in China - Provincial Assessment Based on Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI)," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 157-176.
    7. Kubiszewski, Ida & Costanza, Robert & Gorko, Nicole E. & Weisdorf, Michael A. & Carnes, Austin W. & Collins, Cathrine E. & Franco, Carol & Gehres, Lillian R. & Knobloch, Jenna M. & Matson, Gayle E. & , 2015. "Estimates of the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) for Oregon from 1960–2010 and recommendations for a comprehensive shareholder's report," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 1-7.
    8. Francesco Burchi & Chiara Gnesi, 2016. "A Review of the Literature on Well-Being in Italy: A Human Development Perspective," Forum for Social Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(2-3), pages 170-192, August.
    9. Eric Neumayer, 2004. "Sustainability and Well-being Indicators," WIDER Working Paper Series RP2004-23, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    10. Hezri, Adnan A. & Dovers, Stephen R., 2006. "Sustainability indicators, policy and governance: Issues for ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 86-99, November.
    11. Yang Li & Zhuang Li & Yanping Wang & Guangda Xie & Yun Lin & Wenjie Shen & Wen Jiang, 2023. "Improving the Performance of RODNet for MMW Radar Target Detection in Dense Pedestrian Scene," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-24, January.
    12. Pulselli, Federico M. & Bravi, Mirko & Tiezzi, Enzo, 2012. "Application and use of the ISEW for assessing the sustainability of a regional system: A case study in Italy," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 81(3), pages 766-778.
    13. Mirko Armiento, 2016. "The Sustainable Welfare Index for Italy, 1960-2013," Working Papers 1601, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Department of Economics, Society & Politics - Scientific Committee - L. Stefanini & G. Travaglini, revised 2016.
    14. Wen, Zongguo & Zhang, Kunmin & Du, Bin & Li, Yadong & Li, Wei, 2007. "Case study on the use of genuine progress indicator to measure urban economic welfare in China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 463-475, August.
    15. Patterson, Murray G., 2006. "Development of ecological economics in Australia and New Zealand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 312-331, March.
    16. Cathy Farnworth, 2009. "Well-Being is a Process of Becoming: Respondent-Led Research With Organic Farmers in Madagascar," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 90(1), pages 89-106, January.
    17. Wen, Zongguo & Chen, Jining, 2008. "A cost-benefit analysis for the economic growth in China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 356-366, April.
    18. Bohringer, Christoph & Jochem, Patrick E.P., 2007. "Measuring the immeasurable -- A survey of sustainability indices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 1-8, June.
    19. Zhipeng Huang & Yan Zhang & Yi Huang & Gang Xu & Shengping Shang, 2022. "Sales Scale, Non-Pastoral Employment and Herders’ Technology Adoption: Evidence from Pastoral China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-13, July.
    20. Talberth, John & Bohara, Alok K., 2006. "Economic openness and green GDP," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(4), pages 743-758, July.

    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:jagris:v:13:y:2023:i:2:p:350-:d:1052703. 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.