The Green Development in Saline–Alkali Lands: The Evolutionary Game Framework of Small Farmers, Family Farms, and Seed Industry Enterprises
<p>Phase Diagram of Game Dynamic System Evolution under Market Mechanism.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Phase diagram of the dynamic evolution of a game system under government guidance.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Sensitivity Analysis of Initial Participation Willingness.</p> "> Figure 4
<p>Sensitivity Analysis of Initial Supply Willingness for Salt-Alkaline Tolerant Crops.</p> "> Figure 5
<p>Sensitivity Analysis of Economic Value for Salt-Tolerant Crops.</p> "> Figure 6
<p>Sensitivity Analysis of Cost and Selling Price for Salt-Alkaline Tolerant Crops.</p> "> Figure 7
<p>Sensitivity Analysis of Government Subsidies.</p> ">
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Evolutionary Game Model of “Smallholder–Family Farm–Seed Enterprise” under Market
2.1.1. Basic Assumptions of the Model
2.1.2. Solution for Stable Strategies under Market Mechanism
2.2. The Tripartite Evolutionary Game Model of “Smallholder–Family Farm–Seed Enterprise” under Government Guidance
2.2.1. Basic Assumptions of the Model
2.2.2. Solution of Evolutionary Stable Strategies under Government Guidance
3. Results
3.1. Sensitivity Analysis of Initial Participation Willingness
3.2. Sensitivity Analysis of Economic Value
3.3. Sensitivity Analysis of R&D Costs and Selling Price of Salt-Tolerant Crops
3.4. Sensitivity Analysis of Government Subsidies
4. Conclusions
- (1)
- The Role of Government and Market Incentives. This study compares the evolution of the tripartite game system under market mechanisms with that involving government participation. It reveals that the green development model for saline–alkali land under market mechanisms faces a “market failure” phenomenon, where Pareto optimality cannot be achieved through market conditions alone. External incentives provided by the government play a crucial role in green development decisions for saline–alkali land [57]. Specifically, subsidy measures reduce the initial investment threshold for the three parties, mitigate unforeseen risks during development, and enhance the willingness of smallholders, family farms, and seed enterprises to participate.
- (2)
- Initial Willingness and Risk Perception. Sensitivity analysis on the willingness of the three parties to participate, with other parameters held constant, shows that the initial willingness significantly influences their final behavior strategies. The stronger the initial intent, the greater the likelihood of participation in the green development of saline–alkali land. Given their advantages in resource allocation, management, and scale, family farms and seed enterprises adapt and respond more quickly in decision-making. Smallholders disadvantaged in capital, technology, and information acquisition, coupled with their inherent risk aversion, require more time to observe the operational outcomes of pioneering agricultural producers and wait for more comprehensive policy support. Further analysis indicates that smallholders and family farms choose to participate in the green development of saline–alkali land only when seed enterprises are willing to provide salt-tolerant crops, and their willingness to cultivate such crops decreases with the seed enterprises’ reduced willingness to provide salt-tolerant seeds. The stable supply of salt-tolerant crop seeds by seed enterprises is crucial in driving the green development of saline–alkali land, as it not only increases the participation willingness of agricultural operators but also promotes sustainable use through enhanced crop yields and market values.
- (3)
- The Economic Value of Salt-Tolerant Crops. Sensitivity analysis on the economic value of salt-tolerant crops, with other parameters held constant, reveals that when the economic value of these crops is lower than that of traditional crops, their cultivation is not economically advantageous. In such cases, neither smallholders nor family farms would opt for salt-tolerant crops. However, as salt-tolerant crops begin to generate additional economic benefits, albeit not high enough, family farms might engage in green development due to their greater risk tolerance and profit-seeking motives, while smallholders may remain observant. As the economic value increases further, even smallholders are drawn into green development, with their decision-making time decreasing as the higher profit expectations from salt-tolerant crops lower their risk perception [58,59].
- (4)
- Seed Pricing and Research and Development Costs. A sensitivity analysis of the sales price and R&D costs of salt-tolerant crop seeds, with other parameters held constant, indicates that when the price and costs are within a reasonable range compared to those of traditional crops, it is beneficial for smallholders, family farms, and seed enterprises to make proactive green development decisions for saline–alkali land. However, as the seed price coefficient (S) increases, smallholders, facing higher planting costs, extend their decision-making time and may eventually abandon saline–alkali land development due to high costs. If the R&D cost coefficient (W) continues to rise, the R&D costs for salt-tolerant crops will become prohibitively high, leading seed enterprises to discontinue R&D and the provision of seeds to smallholders and family farms, resulting in their withdrawal from green development due to the unavailability of seeds. Hence, the economic feasibility of salt-tolerant crop seeds is the core element of green development for saline–alkali land.
- (5)
- Economic Incentives and Policy Design. Government subsidies have a significant impact on farmers’ adoption behavior of agricultural practices [60,61,62]. Sensitivity analysis on government subsidies provided for salt-tolerant crops, with other parameters constant, shows that smallholders, due to their lower scale of operation and risk-bearing capacity, often require more government subsidies to cover the early costs of participation. When subsidies for research and development provided to seed enterprises are low, family farms may eventually provide salt-tolerant crops due to demand, but the lack of sufficient initial R&D, promotion, and after-sales service reduces smallholders’ expectations and leads them to abandon development. Family farms are the least sensitive to government subsidies because their operational models are more flexible than those of seed enterprises, and their financial situations are better than those of smallholders, so they are willing to engage in green development even with low subsidies, making up for any funding shortfalls through financial measures.
- (1)
- Enhancing Stakeholder Engagement in Green Development: To bolster the involvement of smallholders and family farms in growing salt-tolerant crops, governments need to improve the dissemination of information and technical training. Establishing demonstration areas for the cultivation of these crops and creating specialized service centers are essential measures to strengthen farmers’ confidence in adopting new agricultural practices. Additionally, offering incentives such as cash rewards and recognition for successful cultivation can significantly enhance their motivation. For seed enterprises, the development of platforms for sharing information and a robust risk-sharing framework are vital. These initiatives will ensure effective communication about market needs and technological advancements and facilitate the growth of salt-tolerant crops through collaboration between industry and academia.
- (2)
- Maximizing the Economic Value of Salt-Tolerant Crops: Governments should focus on standardizing the production systems of salt-tolerant crops to enhance quality control and recognition in the market. Supporting the development of geographic indication products and establishing distinct agricultural brands can elevate the economic value and market appeal of these crops. The creation of a uniform platform for agricultural product information, offering insights into pricing and market trends, will assist producers in making well-informed decisions, thus attracting more participants to the sustainable development of saline–alkali land.
- (3)
- Reducing Costs and Risks for Seed Enterprises: Acknowledging the paramount importance of developing salt-tolerant crops, the government should provide financial support and subsidies for talent and set up special research and development funds to spur investment from seed companies. It is critical to enhance the protection of intellectual property rights to protect the interests of these entities, ensuring fair returns on their investments. Moreover, promoting collaboration between the government and enterprises to create innovation hubs and support the development of processing and sales networks for salt-tolerant crops will contribute to forming an integrated industry chain, speeding up the adoption of these crops.
- (4)
- Refining Economic Incentive Policies: In tailoring subsidies for the cultivation of salt-tolerant crops, it is essential to account for the diverse profit models and risk tolerances of various operators, necessitating differentiated subsidy approaches. Direct financial subsidies should be precisely targeted and quickly disbursed to lessen the initial economic challenges faced by smallholders, encouraging their participation in the eco-friendly development of saline–alkali lands. For larger family-operated farms, the emphasis should be on enhancing their capabilities for self-development and market management, including providing management training. Seed companies might be motivated through incentives like loan interest subsidies and tax advantages, fostering long-term commitments to product development. Furthermore, establishing a comprehensive risk-sharing strategy and incorporating agricultural insurance are crucial for addressing the unpredictable risks associated with green development projects.
- (1)
- Expanding on the conclusions and policy suggestions previously outlined, this paper identifies several promising directions for future research. Integrating empirical investigations into the current theoretical framework could greatly deepen our understanding of the mechanisms involved in transforming saline–alkali lands through the cultivation of salt-tolerant crops. Empirical research would serve to confirm the assumptions of our model, evaluate the real-world effectiveness of the suggested policy measures, and lay the solid groundwork for fine-tuning these recommendations.
- (2)
- Future studies should also consider the long-term effects of such policy measures on the sustainability of farming practices in saline–alkali areas, encompassing environmental, economic, and social facets. This entails examining the resilience of salt-tolerant crop systems to various climatic conditions, their adaptability to different types of saline–alkali soils, and their acceptance within local farming communities.
- (3)
- Moreover, delving into how technological advancements can enhance the feasibility and appeal of salt-tolerant crops is another area ripe for exploration. This could include breakthroughs in genetic modification, irrigation methods, and soil treatment techniques, all of which have the potential to lower production costs, boost crop yields, and elevate the quality of salt-tolerant crops.
- (4)
- A thorough examination of market dynamics, such as supply chains, market entry strategies, and pricing models for salt-tolerant crops, is also crucial. A deep understanding of these aspects is vital for crafting effective market-driven policies, ensuring the economic viability of salt-tolerant crop cultivation, and facilitating the integration of small-scale farmers and family-owned farms into larger agricultural markets.
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Du, Y.; Liu, X.; Zhang, L.; Zhou, W. Drip irrigation in agricultural saline-alkali land controls soil salinity and improves crop yield: Evidence from a global meta-analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 880, 163226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sultan, M.T.; Mahmud, U.; Khan, M.Z. Addressing soil salinity for sustainable agriculture and food security: Innovations and challenges in coastal regions of Bangladesh. Future Foods 2023, 8, 100260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, P.; Sharma, P.K. Soil salinity and food security in India. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2020, 4, 533781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Li, Z.; Yang, B.; Li, B.; Tang, X.; Lai, Y. Comprehensive study on saline-alkali soil amelioration with sediment of irrigation area in northeast China. Arab. J. Chem. 2023, 16, 104608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heng, T.; He, X.L.; Yang, L.L.; Xu, X.; Feng, Y. Mechanism of Saline–Alkali land improvement using subsurface pipe and vertical well drainage measures and its response to agricultural soil ecosystem. Environ. Pollut. 2022, 293, 118583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Xu, X.; Guo, L.; Wang, S.; Wang, X.; Ren, M.; Zhao, P.; Huang, Z.; Jia, H.; Wang, J.; Lin, A. Effective strategies for reclamation of saline-alkali soil and response mechanisms of the soil-plant system. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 905, 167179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shrivastava, P.; Kumar, R. Soil salinity: A serious environmental issue and plant growth promoting bacteria as one of the tools for its alleviation. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2015, 22, 123–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Liu, L.; Wang, B. Protection of halophytes and their uses for cultivation of saline-alkali soil in China. Biology 2021, 10, 353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, J.; Feng, W.; Zhang, H.; Sun, J.; Zhao, Q. Experimental study on the effect of deep pine technology on water and salt transport in soda saline land. Arab. J. Geosci. 2021, 14, 571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Y.; Li, G. Mechanisms of straw biochar’s improvement of phosphorus bioavailability in soda saline-alkali soil. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 47867–47872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, L.; Mao, L.; Yan, X.; Liu, C.; Song, X.; Sun, X. Long-term cotton stubble return and subsoiling increases cotton yield through improving root growth and properties of coastal saline soil. Ind. Crops Prod. 2022, 177, 114472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dagar, J.C.; Gupta, S.R.; Gaur, A. Tree-based farming systems for improving productivity and ecosystem services in saline environments of dry regions: An overview. Farming Syst. 2023, 1, 100003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, L.; Zhang, K.; Zhu, X.; Lu, T.; Wang, X. Effects of amendments on carbon and nitrogen fractions in agricultural soils of Yellow River Delta. Geosci. Lett. 2023, 10, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suresh, T.; Selvamurugan, M.; Baskar, M.; Santhy, P.; Balasubramaniam, P. Affected of Ameliorated Alkaline Water and Soil Amendments on Exchangeable Cation, Macro and Micronutrients in Sodic Soil under Drip Irrigation. Int. J. Plant Soil Sci. 2023, 35, 203–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, G.; Feng, Z.; Xu, Y.; Jin, Y.; Zhang, G.; Yu, T.; Wang, M.; Liu, M.; Yang, H.; Li, W.; et al. Impact of Phosphogypsum Application on Fungal Community Structure and Soil Health in Saline–Alkali-Affected Paddy Fields. Agronomy 2023, 13, 2726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Z.D.; Song, Y.Y.; Ma, X.Y.; Yuan, J.B.; Lou, Y.J.; Yang, C.; Tang, H.-R.; Song, C.C. Deep soil microbial carbon metabolic function is important but often neglected: A study on the Songnen Plain reed wetland, Northeast China. Fundam. Res. 2023, 3, 833–843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, Z.; Liu, L.; Sun, Y.; Xie, L.; Liu, S.; Li, M.; Yu, Q. Combined microbe-plant remediation of cadmium in saline-alkali soil assisted by fungal mycelium-derived biochar. Environ. Res. 2024, 240, 117424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chen, G.; Wei, Z.; Liu, H. Study on Soil Desalination Process of Saline-Alkaline Grassland along the Yellow River in Western Inner Mongolia under Subsurface Drainage. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feng, D.; Ning, S.; Sun, X.; Zhang, J.; Zhu, H.; Tang, J.; Xu, Y. Agricultural use of deserted saline land through an optimized drip irrigation system with mild salinized water. Agric. Water Manag. 2023, 281, 108261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fang, X.; Liu, Z.; Li, J.; Lai, J.; Gong, H.; Sun, Z.; Ouyang, Z.; Dou, W.; Fa, K. Non-Synergistic Changes in Migration Processes between Soil Salt and Water in the Salt Patch of the Coastal Saline Soil. Agronomy 2023, 13, 2403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shannon, M.C. Development of salt stress tolerance-screening and selection systems for genetic improvement. In Workshop on Adaptation of Plants to Soil Stresses; Maranville, J.W., Baligar, B.V., Duncan, R.R., Yohe, J.M., Eds.; INTSORMIL: Lincoln, OR, USA, 1993; pp. 117–132. [Google Scholar]
- Raoufi, A.; Salehi, H.; Rahemi, M.; Shekafandeh, A.; Khalili, S. In vitro screening: The best method for salt tolerance selection among pistachio rootstocks. J. Saudi Soc. Agric. Sci. 2021, 20, 146–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, Y.; Song, H.; Zhang, L. New insight into plant saline-alkali tolerance mechanisms and application to breeding. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 16048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Upadhay, A.K.; Kumar, V. Screening of Rice Genotypes against Sodicity in Relation to Physiological and Biological Traits. Int. J. Plant Soil Sci. 2022, 34, 375–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, H.; Gao, J.; Yu, X.; Ma, D.; Hu, S.; Shen, T. Effect of Deep Straw Return under Saline Conditions on Soil Nutrient and Maize Growth in Saline–Alkali Land. Agronomy 2023, 13, 707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, K.; Liu, X. The successive infiltration of various saline waters accelerates the infiltration processes and enhances the salt leaching in a coastal saline soil. Land Degrad. Dev. 2023, 34, 5083–5095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, C.; Liu, Y.; Zhao, W.; Wang, N. Colonization characteristics and diversity of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in the rhizosphere of Iris lactea in Songnen Saline-alkaline Grassland. Phyton 2021, 90, 719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moon, H.; Kim, Y.A.; Shin, R.; Park, C.J. Nucleus-encoded thylakoid protein, OsY3IP1, confers enhanced tolerance to saline and alkaline stresses in rice. Rice Sci. 2022, 29, 225–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, X.; Chen, Z.; Li, P.; Xu, H.; Liu, K.; Li, S.; Chen, J.; Yang, G.; Huang, J.; You, A.; et al. Development of novel rice germplasm for salt-tolerance at seedling stage using CRISPR-Cas9. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dunlop, T.; Khojasteh, D.; Cohen-Shacham, E.; Glamore, W.; Haghani, M.; van den Bosch, M.; Rizzi, D.; Greve, P.; Felder, S. The evolution and future of research on Nature-based Solutions to address societal challenges. Commun. Earth Environ. 2024, 5, 132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simelton, E.; Carew-Reid, J.; Coulier, M.; Damen, B.; Howell, J.; Pottinger-Glass, C.; Tran, H.V.; Van Der Meiren, M. NBS framework for agricultural landscapes. Front. Environ. Sci. 2021, 9, 678367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peter, B.G.; Mungai, L.M.; Messina, J.P.; Snapp, S.S. Nature-based agricultural solutions: Scaling perennial grains across Africa. Environ. Res. 2017, 159, 283–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rega, C.; Thompson, B.; Niedermayr, A.; Desjeux, Y.; Kantelhardt, J.; D’alberto, R.; Gouta, P.; Konstantidelli, V.; Schaller, L.; Latruffe, L.; et al. Uptake of ecological farming practices by EU farms: A pan-European typology. EuroChoices 2022, 21, 64–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, W.J.; Song, J. Innovative strategy for enhancing nature-based solutions during climate technology transfer process. Int. J. Eng. Bus. Manag. 2024, 16, 18479790241229822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Castelo, S.; Amado, M.; Ferreira, F. Challenges and Opportunities in the Use of Nature-Based Solutions for Urban Adaptation. Sustainability 2023, 15, 7243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lowder, S.K.; Skoet, J.; Raney, T. The number, size, and distribution of farms, smallholder farms, and family farms worldwide. World Dev. 2016, 87, 16–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hua, J.; Wang, H.; Kang, M.; Wang, X.; Guo, S.; Chang, F.; Wang, F.Y. The design and implementation of a distributed agricultural service system for smallholder farmers in China. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2023, 21, 2221108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, T.; Hou, Y.; Meng, T.; Ma, Y.; Tan, M.; Zhang, F.; Oenema, O. Replacing synthetic fertilizer by manure requires adjusted technology and incentives: A farm survey across China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 168, 105301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cui, S.; Li, Y.; Jiao, X.; Zhang, D. Hierarchical Linkage between the Basic Characteristics of Smallholders and Technology Awareness Determines Small-Holders’ Willingness to Adopt Green Production Technology. Agriculture 2022, 12, 1275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zou, Q.; Zhang, Z.; Yi, X.; Yin, C. The direction of promoting smallholders’ adoption of agricultural green production technologies in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 137734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Creppy, P.; Bicknell, K.; Renwick, A. Understanding smallholder preferences for joint ventures in Ghana’s rice sector: Improving market access through inclusive business models. Econ. Anal. Policy 2024, 81, 470–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, C. Individual farmers and scale farming: Reviews of the theoretics of the family farm. Econ. Res. J. 2017, 7, 184–199. [Google Scholar]
- Wan, J.Y.; Zeng, L.J. Cooperative Types, Governance Mechanisms and Operating Performance. Chin. Rural. Econ. 2020, 2, 30–45. [Google Scholar]
- de Souza, S.R.G.; Vale, D.; do Nascimento, H.I.F.; Nagy, J.C.; da Silva Junior, A.H.M.; Rolim, P.M.; Seabra, L.M.A.J. Food Purchase from Family Farming in Public Institutions in the Northeast of Brazil: A Tool to Reach Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability 2023, 15, 2220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, Y.; Xi, X.; Tang, X.; Luo, D.; Gu, B.; Lam, S.K.; Vitousek, P.M.; Chen, D. Policy distortions, farm size, and the overuse of agricultural chemicals in China. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, 7010–7015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gong, T.C.; Battese, G.E.; Villano, R.A. Family farms plus cooperatives in China: Technical efficiency in crop production. J. Asian Econ. 2019, 64, 101129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ren, C.; Liu, S.; Van Grinsven, H.; Reis, S.; Jin, S.; Liu, H.; Gu, B. The impact of farm size on agricultural sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 220, 357–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, L.; Zhao, D.; Gao, Y.; Yang, H.; Xu, W.; Zhao, K. Spatial dependence of family farms’ adoption behavior of green control techniques in China. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 45, 767–789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Donovan, J.; Rutsaert, P.; Domínguez, C.; Peña, M. Capacities of local maize seed enterprises in Mexico: Implications for seed systems development. Food Secur. 2022, 14, 509–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, X.; Paudel, K.P.; Li, D.; Xiong, X.; Gong, Y. Sustainable collaborative innovation between research institutions and seed enterprises in China. Sustainability 2020, 12, 624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Win, M.T.; Maredia, M.K.; Boughton, D. Farmer demand for certified legume seeds and the viability of farmer seed enterprises: Evidence from Myanmar. Food Secur. 2023, 15, 555–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amanor, K.S. Contradictions between commercializing seeds, empowering smallholders farmers, and promoting biodiversity in Ghana: Seed policy within a historical framework. Elem. Sci. Anthr. 2024, 12, 00004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Almekinders, C.J.; Beumer, K.; Hauser, M.; Misiko, M.; Gatto, M.; Nkurumwa, A.O.; Erenstein, O. Understanding the relations between farmers’ seed demand and research methods: The challenge to do better. Outlook Agric. 2019, 48, 16–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coomes, O.T.; McGuire, S.J.; Garine, E.; Caillon, S.; McKey, D.; Jarvis, D.; Aistara, G.; Barnaud, A.; Clouvel, P.; Emperaire, L.; et al. Farmer seed networks make a limited contribution to agriculture? Four common misconceptions. Food Policy 2015, 56, 41–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lyapunov, A.M. The general problem of the stability of motion. Int. J. Control 1992, 55, 531–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Friedman, D. Evolutionary games in economics. Econom. J. Econom. Soc. 1991, 59, 637–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hazell, P.B. The appropriate role of agricultural insurance in developing countries. J. Int. Dev. 1992, 4, 567–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olum, S.; Gellynck, X.; Juvinal, J.; Ongeng, D.; De Steur, H. Farmers’ adoption of agricultural innovations: A systematic review on willingness to pay studies. Outlook Agric. 2020, 49, 187–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Munns, R.; Gilliham, M. Salinity tolerance of crops–what is the cost? New Phytol. 2015, 208, 668–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, T.; Jin, H.; Fan, Y.; Obembe, O.; Li, D. Farmers’ adoption and perceived benefits of diversified crop rotations in the margins of US Corn Belt. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 293, 112903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lencucha, R.; Pal, N.E.; Appau, A.; Thow, A.M.; Drope, J. Government policy and agricultural production: A scoping review to inform research and policy on healthy agricultural commodities. Glob. Health 2020, 16, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Piñeiro, V.; Arias, J.; Dürr, J.; Elverdin, P.; Ibáñez, A.M.; Opazo, C.M.; Owoo, N.; Page, J.R.; Prager, S.D.; Torero, M. A scoping review on incentives for adoption of sustainable agricultural practices and their outcomes. Nat. Sustain. 2020, 3, 809–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variables | Meaning of the Variables | Notes |
---|---|---|
X | Willingness of smallholders to participate. | 0 ≤ X ≤ 1 |
Y | Willingness of family farm to participate. | 0 ≤ Y ≤ 1 |
Z | Willingness of enterprises to participate. | 0 ≤ Z ≤ 1 |
P1 | smallholders’ selling prices for agricultural products. | 0 < P1 < P2 |
P2 | Selling prices of agricultural products for family farms. | 0 < P1 < P2 |
Q1 | smallholders’ cultivated area. | 0 < C2/Q2 < C1/Q1 |
Q2 | Cultivated area of family farm. | 0 < C2/Q2 < C1/Q1 |
C1 | Normal operating costs of smallholder for cultivation. | 0 < C2/Q2 < C1/Q1 |
C2 | Normal operating costs of family farms for cultivation. | 0 < C2/Q2 < C1/Q1 |
L1 | Additional costs for smallholder cultivating salt-tolerant rice. | 0 < L2/Q2 < L1/Q1 |
L2 | Additional costs for family farm cultivating salt-tolerant rice. | 0 < L2/Q2 < L1/Q1 |
C3 | Cost of producing conventional seeds for enterprises. | 0 < C3 < L1 + L2 |
S | Sales price coefficient of salt-tolerant rice seeds. | 1 < W < S |
W | Production cost coefficient of salt-tolerant rice seeds. | 1 < W < S |
a | Economic value | 0 < a |
b | Proportion of agricultural products sold by smallholders. | 0 ≤ b ≤ 1 |
Family Farm | |||
---|---|---|---|
Participate | Not Participate | ||
Enterprise Not Producing Salt-tolerant Crop Seeds | Smallholder Participate | abP1Q1 − C1 − SL1 aP2Q2 − C2 − SL2 S(L1 + L2) − WC3 | abP1Q1 − C1 − SL1 0 SL1 − WC3 |
Smallholder Not Participate | 0 | 0 | |
aP2Q2 − C2 − SL2 | 0 | ||
SL2 − WC3 | −WC3 | ||
Enterprise Not Producing Salt-tolerant Crop Seeds | Smallholder Participate | bP1Q1 − C1 − L1 | bP1Q1 − C1 − L1 |
P2Q2 − C2 − L2 | 0 | ||
L1 + L2 − C3 | L1 − C3 | ||
Smallholder Not Participate | 0 | 0 | |
P2Q2 − C2 − L2 | 0 | ||
L2 − C3 | −C3 |
Parameter | X | Y | Z | P1 | P2 | Q1 | Q2 | C1 | C2 | L1 | L2 | C3 | S | W | a | b |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 5 | 6 | 1 | 10 | 5 | 60 | 4 | 20 | 20 | 1.6 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 0.8 |
Variables | Meaning of the Variables | Notes |
---|---|---|
X | Willingness of smallholders to participate. | 0 ≤ X ≤ 1 |
Y | Willingness of family farm to participate. | 0 ≤ Y ≤ 1 |
Z | Willingness of enterprises to participate. | 0 ≤ Z ≤ 1 |
P1 | Smallholders’ selling prices for agricultural products. | 0 < P1 < P2 |
P2 | Selling prices of agricultural products for family farms. | 0 < P1 < P2 |
Q1 | Smallholders’ cultivated area. | 0 < Q1 < Q2 |
Q2 | Cultivated area of family farm. | 0 < Q1 < Q2 |
C1 | Normal operating costs of smallholder for cultivation. | 0 < C2/Q2 < C1/Q1 |
C2 | Normal operating costs of family farms for cultivation. | 0 < C2/Q2 < C1/Q1 |
L1 | Additional costs for smallholder cultivating salt-tolerant rice. | 0 < L2/Q2 < L1/Q1 |
L2 | Additional costs for family farm cultivating salt-tolerant rice. | 0 < L2/Q2 < L1/Q1 |
C3 | Cost of producing conventional seeds for enterprises. | 0 < C3 < (L1 + L2) |
S | Sales price coefficient of salt-tolerant rice seeds. | 1 < W < S |
W | Production cost coefficient of salt-tolerant rice seeds. | 1 < W < S |
a | Economic value | 0 < a |
b | Proportion of agricultural products sold by smallholders. | 0 ≤ b ≤ 1 |
Mx1 | Subsidies for smallholders when cultivating conventional crops. | 0 < Mx1 < Mx2 |
Mx2 | Subsidies for smallholders when cultivating salt-tolerant rice. | 0 < Mx2 < Mx2 |
My1 | Subsidies for family farms when cultivating conventional crops. | 0 < My1 < My2 |
My2 | Subsidies for family farms when cultivating salt-tolerant rice. | 0 < My2 < My2 |
M3 | Subsidies for salt-tolerant rice seed production by seed companies. | 0 < M3 |
Family Farm | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Participate | Not Participate | ||||
Enterprise Not Producing Salt-tolerant Crop Seeds | Smallholder Participate | abP1Q1 + Mx2C1 − SL1 aP2Q2 + My2 − C2 − SL2 S(L1 + L2) + M3 − WC3 | abP1Q1 + Mx2 − C1 − SL1 0 SL1 + M3 − WC3 | ||
Smallholder Not Participate | 0 | 0 | |||
aP2Q2 + My2 − C2 − SL2 | 0 | ||||
SL2 + M3 − WC3 | M3 − WC3 | ||||
Enterprise Not Producing Salt-tolerant Crop Seeds | Smallholder Participate | bP1Q1 + Mx1 − C1 − L1 | bP1Q1 + Mx1 − C1 − L1 | ||
P2Q2 + My1 − C2 − L2 | 0 | ||||
L1 + L2 − C3 | L1 − C3 | ||||
Smallholder Not Participate | 0 | 0 | |||
P2Q2 + My1 − C2 − L2 | 0 | ||||
L2 − C3 | −C3 |
Equilibrium Point | λ1 | λ2 | λ3 |
---|---|---|---|
E1(0,0,0) | bP1Q1 + Mx1 − C1 − L1 | P2Q2 + My1 − C2 − L2 | M3 + (1 − W)C3 |
E2(1,0,0) | −(bP1Q1 + Mx1 − C1 − L1) | P2Q2 + My1 − C2 − L2 | M3 + (1 − W)C3 + (S − 1)L1 |
E3(0,1,0) | bP1Q1 + Mx1 − C1 − L1 | −(P2Q2 + My1 − C2 − L2) | M3 + (1 − W)C3 + (S − 1)L2 |
E4(0,0,1) | abP1Q1 + Mx2 − C1 − SL1 | aP2Q2 + My2 − C2 − SL2 | −(M3 + (1 − W)C3) |
E5(1,1,0) | −(bP1Q1 + Mx1 − C1 − L1) | −(P2Q2 + My1 − C2 − L2) | M3 + (1 − W)C3 + (S-1)(L1 + L2) |
E6(1,0,1) | −(abP1Q1 + Mx2 − C1 − SL1) | aP2Q2 + My2 − C2 − SL2 | −(M3 + (1 − W)C3 + (S − 1)L1) |
E7(0,1,1) | abP1Q1 + Mx2 − C1 − SL1 | −(aP2Q2 + My2 − C2 − SL2) | −(M3 + (1 − W)C3 + (S − 1)L2) |
E8(1,1,1) | −(abP1Q1 + Mx2 − C1 − SL1) | −(aP2Q2 + My2 − C2 − SL2) | −(M3 + (1 − W)C3 + (S − 1)(L1 + L2)) |
Equilibrium Point | Eigenvalues Translation | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
λ1 | λ2 | λ3 | Stability | |
E1(0,0,0) | +,− | +,− | +,− | NESS |
E2(1,0,0) | +,− | +,− | +,− | NESS |
E3(0,1,0) | +,− | +,− | +,− | NESS |
E4(0,0,1) | + | + | −,+ | NESS |
E5(1,1,0) | − | − | + | NESS |
E6(1,0,1) | − | + | −,+ | NESS |
E7(0,1,1) | + | − | −,+ | NESS |
E8(1,1,1) | − | − | − | ESS |
Parameter | X | Y | Z | P1 | P2 | Q1 | Q2 | C1 | C2 | L1 | L2 | C3 | S | W | a |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 5 | 6 | 1 | 10 | 5 | 60 | 4 | 20 | 20 | 1.6 | 1.4 | 1.5 | |
b | Mx1 | Mx2 | My1 | My2 | M3 | ||||||||||
0.8 | 2 | 6 | 12 | 24 | 5 |
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. |
© 2024 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
Chen, Y.; Sun, Z.; Wang, Y.; Ma, Y.; Zhou, Y. The Green Development in Saline–Alkali Lands: The Evolutionary Game Framework of Small Farmers, Family Farms, and Seed Industry Enterprises. Land 2024, 13, 436. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13040436
Chen Y, Sun Z, Wang Y, Ma Y, Zhou Y. The Green Development in Saline–Alkali Lands: The Evolutionary Game Framework of Small Farmers, Family Farms, and Seed Industry Enterprises. Land. 2024; 13(4):436. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13040436
Chicago/Turabian StyleChen, Yusheng, Zhaofa Sun, Yanmei Wang, Ye Ma, and Yongwei Zhou. 2024. "The Green Development in Saline–Alkali Lands: The Evolutionary Game Framework of Small Farmers, Family Farms, and Seed Industry Enterprises" Land 13, no. 4: 436. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13040436
APA StyleChen, Y., Sun, Z., Wang, Y., Ma, Y., & Zhou, Y. (2024). The Green Development in Saline–Alkali Lands: The Evolutionary Game Framework of Small Farmers, Family Farms, and Seed Industry Enterprises. Land, 13(4), 436. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13040436