Land Use Policy 88 (2019) 104115

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Land Use Policy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol

A company-dominated pattern of land consolidation to solve land T

fragmentation problem and its effectiveness evaluation: A case study in a
hilly region of Guangxi Autonomous Region, Southwest China
Bangbang Zhanga,b, Wenhao Niua,b, Linyan Maa,b, Xuyang Zuoc, Xiangbin Kongd,
Haibin Chena,b, , Yifan Zhanga,b, , Wei Chena,b, Minjuan Zhaoa,b, Xianli Xiaa,b
⁎ ⁎

a
College of Economics and Management, Northwest A&F University, Yangling, 712100, China
b
Applied Economics Research Center, Northwest A&F University, Yangling, 712100, China
c
Department of Natural Resources of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Nanning, 530028, China
d
College of Land Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100193, China

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords:
Land fragmentation
Company-dominated land consolidation model
Merge small plots into large plots
Effectiveness evaluation
Agricultural sustainable development
Since late 1970s, the implementation of the household contracted responsibility system (HCRS) has raised
farmers’ enthusiasm for production and effectively enhanced China’s agricultural productivity. However, the
absolutely equal distribution of quantity and quality of farmland has also resulted in the problem of land
fragmentation, which has currently become a major obstacle to the realization of economy of scale and agri-
cultural modernization. Land consolidation has traditionally been taken as a necessary approach for solving this
problem. This study takes Long’an County of Guangxi Autonomous Region in Southwest China as a case study, to
examine the effectiveness of a newly introduced company-dominated model for land consolidation. Contrasted
to commonly-adopted government-dominated models, in this model a company would lease scattered farmlands
from farmers, and carry out a land consolidation project to merge small plots into large plots, then use con-
solidated land for scale operation. In this whole process, local governments only play an assistant role by sub-
sidizing the project and supervision. The evaluation results show that after land transfer and consolidation,
farmland fragmentation degree in Langwan project area is effectively reduced, with the total number of plots
decreasing from 1738 to 92 and the average plot size increasing from 0.11 to 2.00 ha, and plot shape tends to be
enlarged and regular, which is conducive to large-scale and mechanized operation. Besides, agricultural infra-
structure and soil quality are both improved, which facilitate the implementation and mechanization of field
work, such as transportation, irrigation, tillage, pesticides and fertilizers application. The improvement of land
productivity and government subsidy kindles entrepreneurial enthusiasm for investment and participation in
agriculture, which promoted crop structure transformation from sugarcane to high value-added dragon fruit
(pitaya), resulting in a great increase in profit from 5212.5 to 57,000 Yuan/ha/a. Meanwhile, local government
can free themselves from the cumbersome work of project design, implementation and supervising scattered
individuals. Farmers can also gain revenue from land leasing and employment opportunities on the field pro-
vided by the company. This new company-oriented model proves itself as a more efficient and effective approach
of incentive-based middle-out strategy to deliver multi-agents, multi-goals benefits, which is in line with recent
call for self-organized and collaborative resource governance, and can be extended to other regions and con-
tribute to rural revitalization in China and other countries.

1. Introduction Jürgenson, 2016; Du et al., 2018; Ntihinyurwa et al., 2019). Land

fragmentation is defined as a situation when a single landholding
Land fragmentation is a severe problem confronting many countries consists of numerous spatially separated small land parcels (Mcpherson,
around the world and has been under increasing pressure amid rapid 1982; Van Dijk, 2003). Undoubtedly, land fragmentation exerts both
socio-economic development (Tan et al., 2006; Latruffe and Piet, 2014; positive and negative effects on agricultural performance (Bentley,

⁎
Corresponding authors at: College of Economics and Management, Northwest A&F University, NO. 3 Taicheng Road, Yangling, Shaanxi, China.
E-mail addresses: hbchen@nwafu.edu.cn (H. Chen), zhangyf0505@163.com (Y. Zhang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104115
Received 26 February 2019; Received in revised form 17 July 2019; Accepted 24 July 2019
0264-8377/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
B. Zhang, et al.
1987; Gajendre and Gopal, 2005; Latruffe and Piet, 2014; Ciaiana et al.,
2018; Lu et al., 2018). On the one hand, land fragmentation may offer
benefits or sometimes be desirable or even necessary, e.g., risk man-
agement, crop scheduling, and preserving ecological diversity (Nguyen
et al., 1996; Ntihinyurwa et al., 2019). On the other hand, the short-
comings of land fragmentation are also rather clear, including small
sizes and irregular shapes of the land parcels, redundancy of ridges,
field roads and canals, lack of road access and potential long distances
between parcels and the owner’s farmsteads (Najafi, 2003; Thomas,
2006; Thapa, 2007; Lu et al., 2018). Besides, agricultural performance
affected by land fragmentation changes with socio-economic develop-
ment. Generally, the negative effects are relatively low at under-
developed stage, whereas high at developed stage (Zhang, 2017). For
instance, Sklenicka (2016) found that although land fragmentation did
reduce the risk of rice production, product value was far below in-
creasing cost in Japan. Hence, under the context of rapid economic
growth, land fragmentation has become one major obstacle to modern
agricultural development as it increases transportation costs, causes
land waste, and hinders mechanization and economy of scale, conse-
quently decreases agricultural productivity and income of farmers (Tan
et al., 2008; Kawasaki, 2010; Sklenicka et al., 2014; Lu et al., 2018;
Gomes et al., 2019).
As the most populous country and having the largest rural popula-
tion, China is among the most severely afflicted countries by land
fragmentation. The implementation of HCRS since late 1970s is gen-
erally considered as the main cause to this problem (Lv et al., 2011; Lu
et al., 2018). Although HCRS effectively raised farmers’ enthusiasm for
production, promoted agricultural productivity and increased farmers’
income, equal distribution on quantity and quality of farmlands has
exacerbated the problem of land fragmentation (Wang and Feng, 2016).
Based on a field survey on 1000 rural households across China in 2014,
Zhang and Kong (2018) reported that per household arable land area
was 0.58 ha, and per household parcel number was 5.34. Extremely
severe land fragmentation in China not only wastes 5–10% of total
arable land area in terms of redundant ridges, field roads and canals,
but also impedes the development of large-scale and mechanized
agriculture and consequently decreases agricultural productivity (Tan
et al., 2006; Zhang, 2017; Xie and Lu, 2017). To make things worse, the
ongoing outflow of rural population into cities in the process of urba-
nization results in other collateral harms, such as inefficient use and
even abandonment of farmlands (Long et al., 2010, 2011; Liu et al.,
2014; Li et al., 2018; Liu, 2018). As China is entering into a “New
Normal” era of social-economic transformation (Liu et al., 2018a) and
the rural revitalization strategy is aggressively pursued across the
country (Liu and Li, 2017), exploring and carrying out effective policies
and approaches to solve the problem of land fragmentation is urgently
called for (Zhang, 2017; Li et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2018a).
Land consolidation (LC) is widely regarded as the most effective
solution to the problem of land fragmentation (van Lier, 2000; FAO,
2004; Vitikainen, 2004; Sklenicka, 2006; van Dijk, 2006; Hartvigsen,
2015; Luo and Timothy, 2017), in order to improve productivity and
promote sustainable use of land (Paˇsakarnis and Maliene, 2010; Jiang
et al., 2017; Liu et al., 2018b; Qu et al., 2019) and promote poverty
alleviation (Zhou et al., 2019). Since the establishment of Ministry of
Land and Resources of China in 1998, land consolidation has gradually
gained momentum and been carried out across the whole country,
which can be divided into three phases (Yun and Yu, 2011; Jiang et al.,
2015; Yun et al., 2015; Jin et al., 2016; Liu and Li, 2017; Li et al.,
2019a). The first phase (1998–2003) targeted to enhance farmland
quality and productivity through the improvement of farmland infra-
structure, such as land leveling, construction of field roads and irriga-
tion facilities. At the second phase (2004–2010), a comprehensive mode
of consolidation on farmland, water, road, forest and village was pro-
moted, in order to facilitate systematic rural development. At the third
stage (2011–present), the concepts of “ecological farmland” and “land
consolidation+” were proposed in the 12th and 13th Five-Year Plan of
2
Land Use Policy 88 (2019) 104115
Land Consolidation in China (2011–2015 and 2016–2020, respec-
tively), and were widely implemented. The “ecological farmland” im-
plies carrying out land consolidation in ecological-friendly ways, while
the “land consolidation+” implies achieving multiple goals through
land consolidation, such as solving fragmentation problem, promote
economic development and alleviating poverty simultaneously by im-
provement of regional land use structure (Liu and Li, 2014; Zhang et al.,
2018; Li et al., 2019b; Zhou et al., 2019). A large amount of investments
were initiated, and annual investment from central government
amounted to 30 billion Yuan RMB (Jiang et al., 2017; Du et al., 2018; Li
et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2018a). The social and economic effects were
enormous, such as ensuring food security, stabilizing farmland quan-
tity, improving farmland quality, and increasing farmers’ income.
However, although great achievements have been obtained in the
past two decades, land consolidation of China nevertheless presented
problems. The first and foremost one exists in the government-domi-
nated top-down pattern prevailingly-adopted by all level governments.
Under this pattern, stakeholders except governments (farmers, en-
terprises, cooperatives, etc.) were essentially excluded from the pro-
cedures of planning, design, construction and supervision.
Consequently, finished projects often cannot meet the actual needs of
land managers, e.g., layout and quality of finished field roads, canals
and ditches frequently cannot satisfy operation requirements (Liu and
Li, 2017; Li et al., 2018). Besides, due to lack of community sharing of
power and responsibility, government bears too much financial burden
and risk of uncertainty and becomes less responsive and flexible in face
of complex problems (Ostrom, 2010). For instance, tenure adjustment
cannot be effectively implemented due to the reluctance and conflicts of
farmers (Liu and Li, 2017). According to a survey on 12,744 LC projects
in 28 provinces from 1998 to 2008 by Ministry of Land Resource, only
50.89% of LC projects have carried out tenure adjustment, and only
0.65 million ha have readjusted land contracted rights, accounting for
14.9% of the total project area (Gao, 2010). Furthermore, government
dominance crowds out the enthusiasm of private investment, effectively
suppressing the ability of collectives self-organizing to solve common
dilemma.
In view of all these problems associated with the government-
dominated pattern, China’s central government turns to encourage the
investment from private sectors. The No. 1 document of the CPC central
committee in 2016 provides that “local governments should progres-
sively guide farmers to assemble and merge scattered and fragmented
contracted farmland by voluntarily exchange or transfer, so as to solve
the problem of land fragmentation”. The No. 1 document in 2018
proposes the strategy of rural revitalization, which also encourages
rural households to combine small plots into big plots and joint op-
eration, in order to promote mechanized agricultural production. Under
these guidelines, various context-based approaches have been experi-
mented and practiced across the country. For instance, “one household
one plot” pattern was explored by Xuwei Township of Anhui Province
(Wang, 2015), “swap and merger plots” pattern was spontaneously
adopted by farmers in Sanchaping Village of Xinjiang Autonomous
Region (Zhang and Wang, 2013), and “joint operation” pattern was
experimented in Hubei Province (He, 2016). All above patterns were
spontaneously experimented by villagers and could effectively deal
with land fragmentation problem. However, due to the difficulty in
cooperation and coordination of individual households, farmer self-
organization to solve land fragmentation problem is generally rare
(Zhang et al., 2018). Besides, due to lack of funding, it is common in
practice that only plots rearrangement and land tenure reallocation are
carried out, while engineering measures, e.g., agrarian spatial re-
structuring, land leveling, and infrastructure construction are fre-
quently neglected.
The traditional government-dominated land consolidation projects
always share the common problems of top-down patterns in resource
governance, such as, excessive concentration of authority and respon-
sibility, opportunity for rent seeking, difficulty in supervision (Ostrom,
B. Zhang, et al.
2010), lack of responsiveness and flexibility (Tengö et al., 2014), and
risk of moral hazards (Dietz et al., 2004). On the other hand, the
emergent bottom-up pattern dominated by villagers also faces the
problems of shortage of funds, difficulties in cooperation and colla-
boration. Contrarily, an alternative middle-out pattern which is domi-
nated by enterprises is now explored and experimented in a hilly region
of Guangxi Autonomous Region, Southwest China, and hopes to solve
the problems presented in the other two patterns. Yet, how is the per-
formance of this model? Though its effects on farmers’ satisfaction, land
quality, agricultural productivity have been reported by previous stu-
dies (Coelho et al., 2001; Crecente et al., 2002; Miranda et al., 2006; Yu
et al., 2010; Jiang et al., 2017), there is lack of studies to evaluate its
effectiveness from the perspective of whole process of farmland op-
eration such as, plowing, planting, irrigation, fertilization and trans-
porting.
This article takes a company-dominated land consolidation project
implemented in Long’an County of Guangxi Autonomous Region as a
case study, in-depth elaborates and characterizes the implementation
process and roles played by all parties involved, and evaluates the ef-
fectiveness of the project in terms of plot spatial characteristics,
Fig. 1. The location of study area.
3
Land Use Policy 88 (2019) 104115
ecological, economic and social benefits. It is hoped that, with the
empirical data and case analysis, this study will improve our knowledge
of this emergent middle-out land consolidation pattern and provide
new insights into the design and implementation of resource govern-
ance policies, and ultimately, to achieve better resource conditions and
rural vitalization.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Study area
Long’an County is located in the hilly region of Guangxi
Autonomous Region (107˚19′–108˚6′E, 22˚51′–23˚21′N), at the lower
reach of Youjiang River, and administratively affiliated with Nanning
City, the capital of Guangxi (Fig. 1). The western part of the county is
mainly middle and low mountains. The middle part is hilly interspersed
by plains by alluviation and sedimentation. The east is dominated by
alluvial plains characterized of low mountains and small rivers. Annual
average temperature is 21.7 °C, and annual average rainfall is 1301 mm.
Its climate is categorized as a subtropical monsoon, with long summers
B. Zhang, et al.
usually from April to October. Autumn and spring follow in succession
and basically no winter exist. All seasons are suitable for farming, but
due to the influence of monsoon, the climate varies greatly in different
years. Agriculture is the basic sector of Longan’s economy. The total
land area of Long’an County is 2.31 × 105 ha, in which 6.23 × 104 ha is
arable land accounting for 27% of the total land area. The main grain
crops planted in plain regions are rice and corn, while maize dominates
hilly regions, intercropping with beans and potato. Main cash crops
include cassava, peanut, sesame, sugar cane, etc. The gross domestic
product is 6.62 billion Yuan in 2016, and urban and rural per capita net
incomes are 23,970 and 9799 Yuan, respectively. Long’an is also de-
signated as a state-level poverty-stricken county, with 39,662 people
living below the poverty line, accounting for 11.88% of the county’s
total population.
The Langwan project area is located in Langwan village, Long’an
County. There are 353 rural households living in the village, divided
into 7 production teams. And the total land area of the village is
188.24 ha, including 184.43 ha of arable land. In 2012, the whole
arable land of this village was rented to Guangxi Jinsui Agricultural
Group Co. Ltd. (hereafter Jinsui Company) by 15,000 Yuan
ha−1 year−1, and the lease duration is 12 years. Before transfer, the
arable land was mainly used for growing sugar cane, and after transfer,
the company grew dragon fruit and banana instead.
Jinsui Company was founded in 1996, it is now developing into a
diversified agricultural industrial group with business covering crop
planting, bio-organic fertilizer manufacturing, alcohol production,
agricultural products processing, warehouse logistics, landscaping,
agricultural recreation and tourism. It is a national key leading en-
terprise of agricultural industrialization and has 10 subsidiary cor-
porations distributed across Guangxi Autonomous Region, Yunnan
province, Laos, and other places. Since established, Jinsui Company has
always focused on building up an industrial chain for banana, and has
gradually formed a well-functioning pattern of “planting, processing,
logistics and recreational tourism”. Jinsui Company now is equipped
with the state of the art of technical regulations for standardized ba-
nana planting, and is recognized as a leading banana planting company
having the largest scale, the highest industrial level, and the most ad-
vanced equipment. In 2017, the company had a total asset of nearly 1
billion Yuan, and had transferred in 3.73 × 103 ha land domestically
and 2.13 × 103 ha in Laos, most of which was used for planting cash
crops such as banana, dragon fruit, orange and sugarcane.
2.2. Methodology
This study calculated and compared relevant metrics before and
after LC, thus evaluated the effects of the LC, in terms of the degree of
fragmentation, land use conditions and benefits. When measuring the
degree of fragmentation, the size, shape and spatial characteristics of
farmland plots (Zhang and Zhao, 2013; Zhang et al., 2014), individual
indicators and comprehensive index were simultaneously used. Con-
trarily, land use conditions and benefits were measured mainly based
on data collected from survey.
2.2.1. Measurement on land fragmentation
2.2.1.1. Plot size. The average plot size and the proportion in different
plot size is calculated as
M=S/N (1)
Pi=Ni /N×100% (2)
1
N
(x i M )2
V=
M (3)
where M is the average plot size; S and N is the total farmland area and
the total number of plots in the provided land consolidation project,
respectively. Pi is the proportion of plots with size within a certain size
4
Land Use Policy 88 (2019) 104115
range, and Ni is the number of the plots within that range. The ranges
are set according to the actual situation. The coefficient of variation (V)
represents the distribution and dispersion characteristic of plot size. xi
is the size of plot i.
2.2.1.2. Plot shape. In the process of LC, the original arable land plots
would be merged or divided, hence the original shape will be changed.
In this study, plot shape is represented by the shape index and fractal
dimension.
The shape index is calculated as
H=L 2 S (4)
where H is the shape index. L is the sum of perimeter of all plots, km; S
is the same with the above definition. Mathematically, this index
measures the complexity of the plot shape by calculating the deviation
of the perimeter of the plots to the circumference of the circle with the
same area. The larger the index is, the greater the deviation is, and the
more irregular the plot shape is.
The Fractal dimension of land plots represents the regularity and
complexity of land shape, which is calculated as
F=2K (5)
ln (L 4) = KlnS + C (6)
where F is the fractal dimension. K and C are the slope and intercept of
regression function (6), respectively. The value of F ranges between 1
and 2. The smaller the value is, the higher the self-similarity of land
plots is, and the more regular the land shape is. The smaller value of F
also means that the geometry of land plots is more simpler, indicating
the land is under more intensive human interference.
2.2.1.3. The spatial characters of land plots. Two indicators are used to
represent the spatial characteristics of land plots, including the plot
density, and the degree of separation of land plots (A), which are
calculated as
R=N/S (7)
A = E N S (2S ) (8)
where R is the plot density; E is the total land area of the LC project, ha.
R refers to the number of plots per unit area; A reflects the degree of
concentration or continuity of plots, and the smaller A is, the higher the
degree of concentration is.
2.2.1.4. The degree of fragmentation. The main goal of land
consolidation is to reduce the degree of land fragmentation, which is
usually measured by individual indicators or comprehensive index. For
the former, this paper selects the number of plots and the average plot
size as reprehensive indicators. For the latter, this paper selects
Simpson index (SI) to measure the degree of fragmentation, which is
calculated as
n
a2
i=1 i
SI = 1 n
( a 2
i=1 i ) (9)
where n is the number of rural households; ai is area of each plot. The SI
index ranges from 0 to 1, where SI = 0 means that averagely a
household have only one plot of land, and SI = 1 means that
averagely a household have many plots of land, by which the land
are severely fragmented. In other words, the larger the S value is, the
higher the degree of fragmentation is.
2.2.2. Measurement on infrastructure
The road density and ridge density are used as indicators to calcu-
late and evaluate the status of infrastructure before and after the pro-
ject. These two indicators are both calculated as
D=L’/S (10)
B. Zhang, et al.
Fig. 2. The conceptual framework of company-dominated land consolidation pattern.
where D is the density of road or ridge. L’ is the length of road or ridge.
S is total farmland area as above.
2.2.3. Measurement on production efficiency
After land consolidation, production efficiency would be changed.
This paper selects the efficiency of plowing, spraying insecticides, ir-
rigation, applying fertilizers and transportation to represent the pro-
duction efficiency of arable land before and after the LC. These five
indicators are all calculated as
Eff = Ps T (11)
where Eff is the production efficiency, which was defined as the ef-
fective operation area per unit time; Ps and T are the operation area and
the working hours, respectively.
Meanwhile, the area and proportion of land use types before and
after LC were used to evaluate the change of land use structure. Land
quality was measured by two indicators, average slope and effective soil
thickness. The indicators of input, output, gross income and profit, as
well as fertilizer application rate were used to evaluate the change in
economic performance, while abandoned land area, pollution control
area and soil erosion control area were used to evaluate the ecological
benefits. For social benefits, it was evaluated based on farmers’ sa-
tisfaction towards the project and poverty alleviation effects in the
project area.
2.3. Data source
The qualitative and quantitative data on the implementation pro-
cedures, the whole process, effects and farmers’ satisfaction on “merge
small plots into large plots” of company-dominated pattern of land
consolidation to solve land fragmentation, was obtained using a semi-
structured interview method to interview the directors of the project,
and the leaders of Langwan village. Meanwhile, in order to obtain more
detail quantitative data on the land consolidation project, a sampling
survey method was used to randomly surveyed villagers.
5
Land Use Policy 88 (2019) 104115
During the semi-structured interview, the systematic data sets on
the contents of land consolidation, and its implementation pattern and
effects are surveyed and obtained. In specific, the data sets included the
change in land plot size and shape, land use structure, land use effi-
ciency, income, cost, and other benefits. As a supplement, telephone
survey was sometimes also carried out to interview key agents in order
to gain more in-depth information on the project. All the data sets on
the effectiveness of this LC project were processed using SPSS statistical
software.
Meanwhile, a series maps and documents on the LC projects were
also obtained from the Bureau of Land Resources of Long’an County,
such as, the planning map on land leveling, roads, canals and ditches,
the land use map, and the spatial distribution map of plots before and
after LC, which were processed by AutoCAD and ArcGIS software
(Fig. 1).
3. Company-dominated land consolidation model (CDLC model)
Followed are the summaries of the conceptual framework of the
CDLC model, its implementation procedures in which company play a
dominant role, as well as supporting policies from government and
roles played by farmers.
3.1. The conceptual framework of the company-dominated land
consolidation
Overall, under the company-dominated pattern, land consolidation
was designed, implemented and dominated by a company, supported
and supervised by the government, cooperated with farmers, and
partnered with other companies of survey, planning and design, con-
struction and others. In the whole process of project, the company was
the “first party/owner” and took the leading position, while the survey
company, planning and design company, construction company and
other business partners should conform to the requirements of “first
party"” by continuous communication and feedback (Fig. 2).
B. Zhang, et al.
3.2. Implementation procedures of the company-dominated land
consolidation
Through the semi-structured interview on project managers and the
leaders of Langwan village and Jinsui Company, the implementation
procedures of the CDLC model were summarized as followed.
Step 1: Considering the extreme farmland fragmentation situation in
Long’an County, a hilly county, the first step was to carry out land te-
nure adjustment of “merge small plots into large plots” by villagers
under the guidance of local governments.
Step 2: Before carrying out consolidation engineering, lands would
be transfered from farmers to the company by signing lease contracts, in
order to obtain legitimate and long-term land use rights.
Step 3: The company applied to the county government for approval
on the LC project, expounding on the land transfer and consolidation
plan, and waited for approval.
Step 4: After securing the approval of the county government, the
company entrusted a survey company to conduct land survey on the
project area, and draw a topographic and land use status map which
depicted the slope, spatial distribution of filed plots, infrastructures,
and other auxiliary facilities.
Step 5: The company entrusted a planning and design company to
draw a planning map, which would reconfigure the fields, roads, pipes,
irrigation facilities and other infrastructures in detail, in accordance
with the needs of agricultural industrial operation. And then the plan-
ning map should be submitted for check and approval by township
government.
Step 6: After the planning map was approved, the company en-
trusted a construction company to carry out the consolidation en-
gineering work according to the planning. The engineering work in-
cluded land leveling, reconfiguring field plots, renovating existing
roads or building new roads, installing other field facilities.
Step 7: The company entrusted the planning and design company to
draw the as-built map of the project.
Step 8: The company submited an application for awards and sub-
sidy for the project, and the county government shall organize relevant
personnels to review and evaluate the project.
Step 9: Under the supervision of provincial government, the county-
level government allocated awards and subsidy to the company after
the project passed the review.
3.3. Supporting policies from government
In order to overcome the serious problem of land fragmentation,
promote agricultural modernization, and supplement the traditional
top-down LC model, the government of Guangxi Autonomous Region
took the lead across the country in carrying out an innovative “middle
out” model of LC, which encouraged the active participation and in-
vestment of agricultural business. In 2014, three departments of
Finance, Land Resources and Agriculture of Guangxi jointly issued a
decree of the Interim measures for the management of special funds to
substitute subsidies with rewards for cultivated land consolidation of merging
small plots into large plots in the whole region (hereafter the Interim
Measures). Under this Interim Measures, the provincial government
would reward agricultural business entities who consolidate land and
construct supporting infrastructure, in accordance with local
Table 1
Comparison of spatial characteristics of land plots before and after land consolidation (LC).
Comparison Plot size
Average size M (ha) Coefficient of variation V (%)
before LC 0.11 96.75%
after LC 2.00 23.12%
changes 1.89 −73.63%
Land Use Policy 88 (2019) 104115
governments’ land consolidation planning and fully respecting the will
of farmers. To obtain awards, the agricultural business should con-
solidate a continuous project area of more than 13.33 ha. After land
contracted rights and land management rights are transferred and re-
gistered, and land leveling is completed, the agricultural business en-
tities can apply for a first award, then after supporting facilities is
constructed, they can apply for a second award.
According to the Interim Measures, a 4500 Yuan/ha award would
be granted if the slope of consolidated land is less than 6°; a 6000 Yuan/
ha award would be granted if sloping lands are converted into terrace
lands; newly constructed field road with soil pavement would be also
awarded by 4500 Yuan/ha; the total awards for road construction to an
individual village shall not exceed 200,000 Yuan; the total awards to an
individual agricultural business entity shall not exceed 22,500 Yuan/
ha. The award funds should be liquidated once a year, and the unused
funds should be returned to the Department of Finance of Guangxi for
re-budgeting.
3.4. Roles played by farmers
As the owners of land contracted rights and land management
rights, farmers played an indispensable role in the CDLC model. The
premise of implementation was that agricultural businesses obtained
land management rights from farmer households, and the newly for-
mulated policy of “the separation of three rights (ownership right,
contracted right, and management right)” facilitated this process. After
signing a lease contract and transferring their land to enterprises,
farmers couldn’t interfere with agricultural production and business
activities of the enterprise, but usually be recruited to participate in the
consolidation engineering work, and employed by the enterprise for
production later. In this way, farmers could earn double income from
land rent and wages, which would help them out of poverty. Thus, a
win-win situation can be achieved under this circumstance.
4. Effectiveness evaluation of company-dominated land
consolidation
4.1. Evaluation on land fragmentation before and after land consolidation
4.1.1. Spatial characteristics of land plots before and after land
consolidation
After LC, the average plot size of Langwan project area was ex-
panded from the original 0.11 ha to 2.00 ha, increasing by approxi-
mately 19 folds (Table 1; Fig. 3). The coefficient of variation of plot size
decreased from 96.75% to 23.12%. As for plot shape, the land shape
index decreased from 9.50 before LC to 1.87 after LC, and the fractal
dimension decreased from 1.68 to 1.06 (Table 1), both of which illu-
strated that the plot shape of Langwan project area tended to be regular
and its complexity was reduced. Plot density decreased from 9.45 to
0.45 plot/ha, which was consistent with the enlargement of plots. The
degree of plot separation decreased from 0.40 to 0.09 (Table 1), which
indicated LC made the land plots tend to be contiguous and con-
centrated. All above changes suggested that after LC, the spatial char-
acteristics of land plots was improved and could help to facilitate me-
chanized operation and large-scale industrial production.
Plot shape Spatial characteristics of plots
Shape index H Fractal dimension F Plot density R (plot/ha) Degree of plot separation A
9.50 1.68 9.45 0.40
1.87 1.06 0.45 0.09
−7.63 −0.62 −9.00 −0.31
6
B. Zhang, et al. Land Use Policy 88 (2019) 104115

Fig. 3. Spatial layout of plots in Langwan project area before and after land consolidation. Note: It was the hilltop in the middle part of the project area with the slope
of more than 25°, hence cropping was forbidden and it must be kept for fallow after land consolidation.

4.1.2. The degree of land fragmentation before and after land consolidation
After LC, the number of the plots in Langwan project area decreased
from 1783 to 92, many originally separated plots were merged (Fig. 3;
Fig. 4). Before the LC, the numbers of plots with a size in the ranges of
0–0.05, 0.05–1, 0.1–0.2 and 0.2–0.5 ha were 576, 592, 433 and 173,
respectively. Around 65.51% of the plots in this LC project had a size
lower than 0.1 ha, and only 0.04% was in the range of 2–3 ha. Thus, the
fragmentation was extremely severe in Longwan farm before LC. After
LC, the numbers of plots in the range of 0.5–1, 1–2 and 2–3 ha were 2,
24 and 66, respectively. And 97.83% distributed in the range of 1–3 ha,
indicating the plot size significantly enlarged and the fragmentation
greatly lessened.
As can be seen from Fig. 5a, before LC, the average number of plots
owned by a household was 5.05, with a range of 2–13. 69.12% of
households had 4–6 plots, 15.3% had more than 6 plots, and only
15.58% had less than 4 plots. Contrarily, after LC, there were only 92
plots left for Jinsui Company to operate and management.
As showed in Fig. 5b, before LC, 92.63% of households had a SI
index greater than 0.6, which means that their lands were highly
fragmented. Contrarily, after LC, the SI dropped to 0, which indicated
that the degree of fragmentation was significantly reduced, and the
main goal of land consolidation was achieved.
4.2. Evaluation on land use conditions before and after land consolidation
4.2.1. Changes in land use structure and cultivated land quality
After LC, both of the land use structure and cultivated land quality
in Langwan project area have been significantly improved. In terms of
land use structure, the cultivated land area was 183.88 ha after LC, a
slight net decrease of 0.75 ha, down from 98.08% of the total land area

Fig. 4. Plot size distribution in selected plot range before and after land consolidation (LC).

7
B. Zhang, et al. Land Use Policy 88 (2019) 104115

Fig. 5. The number and percentage of rural households in certain Simpson index (SI) range before land consolidation.

Table 2
Changes in land use structure and cultivated land quality before and after land consolidation (LC).
Comparison LC project area Land use structure Cultivated land quality
(ha)
Cultivated land Field ridge Road Average slope of cultivated Effective soil thickness
land (degree) (cm)
Area (ha) Proportion (%) Area (ha) Proportion (%) Area (ha) Proportion (%)

before LC 188.24 184.63 98.08% 3.26 1.73% 0.35 0.19% 13.01 25

after LC 188.24 183.88 97.68% 0 0.00% 4.36 2.32% 5.21 75
Changes 0 −0.75 −0.40% −3.26 −1.73% 4.01 2.13% −7.80 50

to 97.68% (Table 2). The area of field ridges was also significantly re-
duced, from 3.26 ha to 0. The ridges removed and cultivated land re-
duced were both used to build field roads, ditches, and other infra-
structures. After LC, the land area covered by roads increased from 0.35
to 4.36 ha (Table 2). Furthermore, the quality of cultivated land has
also been effectively improved. The average slope of all cultivated lands
decreased from 13.01° to 5.21° by land leveling. And the effective soil
thickness tripled from 25 cm to 75 cm.

8
B. Zhang, et al. Land Use Policy 88 (2019) 104115

4.2.2. Changes in farmland infrastructures

Drainage area
Land consolidation had also improved the infrastructure quantity
and quality in Langwan project area. As shown in Table 3, after LC, the

183.88
153.88
(ha) number of roads nearly tripled, the total length increased from 2329 to

30
12,462 m, and the density increased from 12 to 66 m/ha. Moreover, the
average width of roads increased from 1.5 to 3.5 m and the pavement
material used was now gravels rather than packed soil previously. The
drainage ditch

improvement of road quantity and quality facilitate human and large

Length of

machine transportation. By contrast, field ridges were totally removed,

3000
2600
with the total length decreased from 163,204 to 0 m. Before LC, field
400
(m)

ridges usually serve for transportation purpose, which was now totally
Drip-irrigation

replaced by gravel-paved roads. Furthermore, irrigation facilities have

been also significantly improved. Before LC, there were few irrigation
Irrigation

irrigation
Flooding
method

facilities in Langwan project area, so the croplands were essentially

rain-fed and drought occurred frequently. And the drainage facilities
—

were far from meeting demands, which resulted in frequent occurrence

Irrigated area

of floods during rainy season. After LC, four motor-pumped wells and
two reservoirs as well as corresponding pipelines had been constructed.
183.88
168.88

Croplands were now fully irrigated, and the irrigated area increased
(ha)

15

from 15 to 183.88 ha. Beisdes, before LC, the irrigation water was
The water sources

hauled by manual or small tractors from nearby river. Whereas, after

LC, it was drip-irrigated with water source from wells and rivers by
of irrigation

electric pumps. The drainage ditch also lengthened from 400 to 3000 m,
river, well

and the effective drainage area increased from 30 to 183.88 ha

river

(Table 3). The drainage capacity has been remarkably improved.

—

4.2.3. Changes in mechanization level and operation efficiency

Water conservancy facilities

Number of

The operation efficiency has also been significantly improved

reservoirs

through the LC. Before LC, the main crop planted was sugarcane by
individual households. Sugar cane planting was cumbersome and labor-
0

2
2

intensive. Main production means were primarily by manual or animals

or small machineries and the efficiency was low. However, after LC, the
Number of

company turned to plant banana and dragon fruit, and used large au-
wells

tomatic equipment, hence the production efficiency had been sig-

0

4
4

nificantly increased. As can be seen in Table 4, plowing was now car-

Density (m/

ried out by large tractors and the efficiency increased by 40 folds, from
0.33 to 13.33 ha/h. Insecticide spraying had been also upgraded from
867

867

manual to medium tractor, and the efficiency increased from 0.12 to

ha)

6.67 ha/h. So were irrigation and applying fertilizers, each efficiency

Field ridges

Length (m)

also increased from 0.10 to 20 ha/h, and from 0.05 to 20 ha/h, re-
163,204

163,204

spectively. The irrigation and fertilizer application simultaneously by

pipeline driping had not only improved efficiency, but also significantly
Comparison of farmland infrastructures before and after land consolidation (LC).

saved water and fertilizers. Furthermore, with the widening, hardening,

Material of

and lengthening of field roads, large trucks were now used for trans-
portation in place of small tractors and manual labor, hence the
gravels
roads

soils

transportation efficiency has increased by almost 48 folds, from the

—

0.07 to 3.34 ha/h (Table 4). Hence, the improvement of roads, irriga-
width (m)

tion facilities and land leveling after LC, significantly promoted the
application of the modern technology of large tractors, drip irrigations
Mean

1.5

3.5

and large trucks in the Langwan project area, which in turn notably
2

enhanced the production efficiency and even greatly saved production

Density (m/

cost.
ha)

12

66
54

4.3. Benefit analysis before and after land consolidation

Length (m)

4.3.1. Economic benefit before and after land consolidation

12,462
10133
2329

Before LC in 2012, the crop grown by Langwan project area was

mainly sugar cane. Due to land fragmentation and lack of infrastructure
and mechanization, the output was 67.5 ton/ha/a, the input cost was
Number of

25,500 Yuan/ha/a, and the profit was 5212.5 Yuan/ha/a. With the
roads

improvement of infrastructure after LC, the Jinsui Company turned to

Road

10

32
22

plant more lucrative cash crops and adopted modern agricultural pro-
duction, operation and management patterns, such as combined use of
Comparison

before LC

online and offline sale channels, and emphasizing on marketing to en-

Changes
after LC
Table 3

hance brand awareness, altogether significantly increased the profit-

ability. From 2012–2016, the company planted bananas, and the output

9
B. Zhang, et al. Land Use Policy 88 (2019) 104115

Table 4
Comparison of mechanization level and operation efficiency before and after land consolidation (LC).
Key production procedures Instruments used Power used (horsepower) Operation efficiency (ha/h)

before LC after LC before LC after LC before LC after LC

Plowing Small tractor/ manual/ animals power Large tractor 30 188 0.33 13.33
Spraying insecticide Manual Medium tractor — 50 0.12 6.67
Irrigation Manual + small tractor Automatic drip irrigation — Electricity 0.10 20
Applying fertilizer Manual Automatic drip irrigation — Electricity 0.05 20
Transportation Small tractor/ manual large truck 20 350 0.07 3.34

Table 5
Comparison of economic benefits before and after land consolidation (LC).
Comparison Time year Crop types Output Price Input Gross income Profit
— ton/ha/a Yuan/ton Yuan/ha/a Yuan/ha/a Yuan/ha/a

before LC before 2012 sugar cane 67.5 455 25,500 30712.5 5212.5
after LC 2012–2016 banana 52.5 2400 69000 126,000 57,000
2016–today dragon fruit 40.5 8000 247500 324,000 76,500

Note: The output is the mean annual yield at corresponding study periods, and the sale prices and input prices were the CPI-adjusted prices using 2018 as a base.

was 52.5 ton/ha/a, and the profit was 57,000 Yuan/ha/a, which was
10.94 times higher than before. Since 2016, the company changed to
grow more profitable dragon fruit, and the output was 40.5 ton/ha/a,
with profit of 76,500 Yuan/ha/a, which was 14.68 times higher than
that before LC (Table 5).
From the perspective of farmers, before LC, the net income of
growing sugar cane by farmers themselves was only 5212.5 Yuan/ha/a.
After LC, farmers could not only collect land rent of averagely 15,000
Yuan/ha/a, but also could earn wages from employment by the com-
pany, the total income was now much higher than that of sugarcane
planting. Both the company and farmers benefit from this CDLC pat-
tern, which was a win-win result.
4.3.2. Ecological benefits before and after land consolidation
Before LC, Langwan project area mainly planted sugarcane and
applied 3375 kg/ha/a of chemical fertilizers on average (Table 6). After
LC, the company planted bananas and dragon fruit instead, used com-
pound fertilizers and reduced the application rate to 3150 kg/ha/a on
average, decreasing by 6.67%. However, pesticide application for ba-
nana and dragon fruit now greatly increased, and the cost was 3000
Yuan/ha/a, comparing to 900 Yuan/ha/a before LC, increasing by 2.33
folds. As for land abandonment, because many farmers went to cities to
seek jobs, the abandoned land area in the project area was as high as
30 ha before LC. After the consolidation, all cultivated land was trans-
ferred to the company for unified management, so the abandoned land
was completely re-used. Furthermore, before LC, due to lack of
awareness and funds, local villagers had no interest in pollution control
and soil retention; but after LC, the company invested in the manage-
ment and protection of the land, the area of pollution control increased
to 183.88 ha and the area of soil erosion control increased to 13.33 ha.
Correspondingly, the ability of soil to resist wind and rain erosion and
the ability of crop to resist to frost damage increase significantly
(Table 6).
4.3.3. Social benefit analysis before and after land consolidation
The survey showed that local farmers were generally satisfied with
the project and were willing to participate in the similar projects if
possible, which suggested that the effects of this company-dominated
LC project had been acknowledged by local farmers. As for poverty
reduction, after the completion of the project, Jinsui Company had
taken measures to support local poors with the assistance of the gov-
ernment. Specifically, the company prioritized to employ local poors as
workers in the project area, and assured that they could earn 80–100
Yuan/day, in addition to the land rent of 15,000 Yuan/ha/a. This
double income sources greatly increased the total income of the poor by
30%, and 20% of local poor households who lived under poverty line
had now been lifted out of poverty thanks to the project. Nevertheless,
mechanized production generated a number of surplus labor force, who
had to go out to seek alternative livelihoods, and the number of migrant
farmers had increased by 10% compared with before.
To sum up, after the implementation of the CDLC project in
Langwan, the degree of land fragmentation has decreased, the pro-
duction conditions in terms of land use structure and quality and in-
frastructures have all been improved. And due to mechanized operation
and industrial production, Jingshui company gained remarkable eco-
nomic benefits, which also increased the tax revenue for local govern-
ment. Moreover, the modern corporatization operation model can
contribute to the sustainable development of agriculture. The ecological
conditions were generally improved in terms of protecting soil fertility
and reducing soil erosion. Local farmers also benefited from earning
double incomes of land rents and working for Jinsui and other com-
panies. When the surplus labors migrated to cities for livelihoods, ur-
banization would also be promoted. So this CDLC pattern demonstrated
a multiple-win outcome for enterprises, farmers, and local govern-
ments, and can be of great value to be extended to other regions.

Table 6
Changes in ecological benefits before and after land consolidation (LC).
Comparison Fertilizer type Fertilizer application rate pesticide cost land abandoned area pollution control area soil erosion control area
(kg/ha/a) (Yuan/ha/a) (ha) (ha) (ha)

before LC chemical fertilizer 3375 900 30 0 0

after LC compound fertilizer 3150 3000 0 183.88 13.33
Changes — −225 2100 −30 183.88 13.33

10
B. Zhang, et al.
Fig. 6. The logic of traditional government-dominated (a) and company-dominated land consolidation pattern (b).
5. Comparisons of traditional government-dominated with
company-dominated land consolidation patterns
As shown in Fig. 6a, traditional government-dominated land con-
solidation pattern was implemented by administrative orders based on
bureaucratic hierarchy. And in this pattern, government served as not
only the investor and organizer of land consolidation projects, but also
11
Land Use Policy 88 (2019) 104115
the supervisor of projects. The general implementation procedure was
as follows. First, local departments of land resources, agriculture, water
conservancy and others formed a project committee and organized
professionals to investigate the project areas and prepare survey re-
ports. Second, local department of land resources invited and organized
bids for the feasibility study and planning and design, and then the bid-
winning company should carry out corresponding works. Third and
B. Zhang, et al.
similarly, local department of land resources invited and organized bids
for supervision and construction separately, and the construction bid-
winning company should carry out the construction in accordance with
the design, and supervision bid-winning company should be responsible
for supervising the engineering. Finally, provincial department of land
resources would organize relevant experts to review and evaluate the
project, and if passed, the consolidated land use rights would be re-
turned to the farmers and the farmers may operate themselves or
transfer the lands to agricultural enterprises (Fig. 6a). Under this pat-
tern, the goals of LC projects were directly determined by governments
in a top-down way, while as the beneficiaries, local farmers only played
a limited and passive role in the whole process. Due to time constraint
and conflicts of interest, adjustment on land contracted right was rarely
conducted and the severe fragmentation problem couldn’t be truly
solved. Moreover, projects were totally under control of the govern-
ments and were difficult to meet the production requirements of
farmers or enterprises, resulting in low suitability.
Contrarily, in the CDLC pattern, farmers were required to adjust
land tenures in advance by merging small plots into large plots under
the guidance of enterprises and governments, before transferring lands
to enterprises for consolidation. The specific procedure was shown in
Fig. 6b. Importantly, in this pattern, enterprises could reconfigure the
lands according to their own agricultural production needs. Enterprises
were not only the beneficiaries of LC projects, but also the organizers
and implementers of the projects, while government was only re-
sponsible for policy support and supervision.
Specifically, in comparison with the government-dominated pat-
tern, the company-dominant pattern had the following advantages. (1)
In addition to solving the problem of farmland fragmentation, the
company-dominated pattern could reconfigure farmland plots ac-
cording to its own agricultural development needs hence realize op-
timal layout, which could enhance production efficiency. (2) The
quantity and quality of roads, ditches and other facilities constructed
under the company-dominated model was usually higher. Moreover,
due to long-term production needs, the company usually appointed
special personnels to protect and maintain the facilities, so the long-
term feasibility and robustness of the facilities was guaranteed. (3) The
government-dominated pattern was carried out top-down, and the
general public couldn’t participate in the planning and design process,
resulting in repeated construction of some projects and waste of re-
sources and time. However, in the company-dominated pattern, as a
profit-seeking entity, the dominant company must well control the cost
and ensure the profitability of the project. (4) In government-domi-
nated pattern, the government usually could not undertake all the in-
vestment of multiple projects independently. For example, an invest-
ment ceiling of 37,500 Yuan/ha was set by Guangxi government, so
local governments may require farmers to bear part of the investment,
which increased financial burden on farmers. Considering the extreme
small farm characteristics in China, it was often the case that the con-
solidation funds were insufficient or some facilities may not be supplied
because the reluctance of farmers to invest. Contrarily, under the
company-dominated pattern, enterprises became the main investors
and the governments only contributed part funds by awards. This cost-
sharing pattern reduced the investment burden of governments, and
encouraged and leveraged enterprises’ funds to invest in LC projects. (5)
Under the traditional pattern, land consolidation went before land te-
nure adjustment and land transfer, occasionally certain farmers may not
agree with the reconfiguration design and intervene in the project im-
plementation, which may cause conflicts. For example, some farmers
may not agree to let infrastructure facilities occupy their own farm-
lands, and may sabotage the facilities. By contrast, under the company-
dominated pattern, land tenure adjustment was carried out in advance.
After that, companies had the right to decide and pursue their favorite
designs, which could reduce disputes and facilitate the completion of
projects. (6) As indicated above, the company-dominated pattern frees
farmers from investment. Furthermore, farmers can also gain more
12
Land Use Policy 88 (2019) 104115
economic benefits from land rent and employment opportunities of-
fered by the company. This new pattern was also conducive to the
transfer of surplus labor forces to secondary and tertiary industries and
promotes urbanization.
6. Conclusions and policy implications
As the core goal of land consolidation, the problem of land frag-
mentation was unambiguously solved in Langwan project area, as de-
monstrated by the enlargement of average plot size, the regularization
of plot shape, and the decrease in fragmentation index. As a collateral
benefit and necessary condition for development of modern agriculture,
the LC project had also generally improved the land use structure and
quality, supplied more infrastructures and high-tech facilities for agri-
cultural production, therefore facilitated mechanized operation and
large-scale production and greatly enhanced the agricultural produc-
tion efficiency. Furthermore, due to the improvement of production
condition and mechanized operation, the project company could gain
much higher economic return by increasing outputs and reducing costs,
the farmers can also benefit from double incomes of land rent and more
employment opportunities in the project area. Moreover, the CDLC
model in the provided project also helped to promote the sustainable
development of agriculture by supplying more ecological benefit and
social benefit.
The governance pattern adopted in this case study was obviously
different from traditional government-dominated top-down consolida-
tion pattern, and was also different from the “bottom-up” pattern which
was self-organized by farmers. Under this pattern, companies under-
took the dominant roles as main investors, organizers and im-
plementers, while government only took part as supporter and super-
visor, and local farmers were enrolled as participants. Hence, this
company-dominated pattern could be characterized as a middle-out
pattern. Comparing with traditional government-dominated pattern,
this pattern encouraged the inputs from private sectors and shared part
of investment burden of government, helped to free the government
from cumbersome work of organization and implementation, hence
avoided the risk of official corruptions. Furthermore, the implementa-
tion efficiency can be enhanced, and the design and final layout of LC
project were more responsive and flexible, which could meet actual
production requirements of land manager, the enterprises themselves.
Comparing with farmer self-organization pattern, this pattern can mo-
bilize the participation of all stakeholders, and helped to overcome the
difficulty of coordination and cooperation inherent in community-
based self-organization solutions.
As a newly emerging approach, the CDLC pattern presents an in-
novative multiple-win solution to solve the collective dilemma of land
fragmentation problem, and can be an effective complement to cur-
rently prevailing government-dominated approach as well as farmer
self-organization pattern. Two policy lessons and suggestions are pre-
sented as follows. (1) Central and provincial governments should adopt
flexible policies to encourage innovations and experiments on novel
approaches to solve land fragmentation problems. Besides current
government-dominated pattern, novel approaches such as farmer-,
company-, or cooperative-dominated patterns should be encouraged
and experimented. (2) Considering the complexity and uncertainty of
local context, the initiative of stakeholders besides government should
be fully mobilized and brought into play, in order to ensure the effec-
tiveness and efficiency of land consolidation.
Viewing throughout the world, European countries such as
Germany and Netherlands has developed a comprehensive land con-
solidation system comprised of reducing land fragmentation, adjusting
land tenures and ecological conservation (Lovell and Johnston, 2009;
Musacchio, 2009, 2011; Landis, 2017). By contrast, land consolidation
in China is still in the preliminary stage, a majority of the projects are
only oriented toward productivity and economic objectives, land tenure
adjustment is always poorly executed or willfully neglected due to
B. Zhang, et al.
potential conflicts of interest, and ecological conservation is usually
downplayed or even totally disregarded. The CDLC pattern presented in
this study could supplement traditional patterns by offering multiple
benefits simultaneously. Nevertheless, this pattern still fall short of the
goal of ecological conservation, in fact ecological conservation was not
taken into account in the whole planning and implementation process.
Yun and Yu (2011) argued that in the early stage, the main objectives
and tasks of China’s land consolidation were to reconfigure land plots,
increase available land area, improve farm infrastructure and increase
agricultural productivity, however ignoring ecological conservation
would do serious harm to the biology, ecology and feature landscapes
that breed local cultural identity. From a long-term perspective, it is
urgent to integrate ecological conservation into land consolidation,
maintain and restore the ecological processes and biological chains at
different scales, and improve the ecosystem resilience and ecological
service functions, by following the laws of natural ecology (Musacchio,
2009; Li et al., 2019a, 2019b). In particular, the multi-goals of land
consolidation, such as food and energy security, biodiversity con-
servation and soil and water retention, should be simultaneously pur-
sued during overall planning process of the LC projects. While during
the process of engineering design, a comprehensive design of rural
landscape comprising forest, road, ditch and other elements should be
strengthened and oriented towards sustainability (Kozová and Mi,
2008; Jellema et al., 2009; Yun and Yu, 2011; Li et al., 2019a).
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of
China (Grant No. 41801210, 71873098 and 41771561), China
Postdoctoral Science Foundation (Grant No. 2018M631214 and
2019T120959), Shannxi Postdoctoral Science Foundation (Grant No.
2018BSHEDZZ82), Innovation Capacity Support Program of Shaanxi
(Grant No. 2018KRM003), Social Science Foundation of Shanxi (Grant
No. 2018S14), Major Research Project in 2018 of Department of
Natural Resources of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region (Grant No.
GXZC2018-G3-17920-JGYZ-G), and Research Start-up Funds of
Northwest A&F University (Grant No. 2452017199).
References
Bentley, J.W., 1987. Economic and ecological approaches to land fragmentation: in de-
fense of a much-maligned phenomenon. Ann. Rev. Anthropol. 16 (1), 31–67.
Ciaiana, P., Gurib, F., Rajcaniova, M., Drabik, D., Paloma, S.G., 2018. Land fragmentation
and production diversification: a case study from rural Albania. Land Use Policy 76,
589–599.
Coelho, J.C., Pinto, A.P., Silva, M.L., 2001. A systems approach for the estimation of the
effects of land consolidation projects (LCPs): a model and its application. Agric. Syst.
68 (3), 179–195.
Crecente, R., Alvarez, C., Frau, U., 2002. Economic, social and environmental impact of
land consolidation in Galicia. Land Use Policy 19 (2), 135–147.
Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., Stern, P.C., 2004. The struggle to govern the commons. Science 302,
1907–1912.
Du, X., Zhang, X., Jin, X., 2018. Assessing the effectiveness of land consolidation for
improving agricultural productivity in China. Land Use Policy 70, 360–367.
FAO, 2004. Operations Manual for Land Consolidation Pilot Projects in Central and
Eastern Europe Organization. FAO, Rome Retrieved from ftp://ftp.fao.org/ docrep/
fao/010/ai142e/ai142e00.pdf.
Gajendre, S.N., Gopal, B.T., 2005. Impacts and causes of land fragmentation, and lessons
learned from land consolidation in South Asia. Land Use Policy 22, 358–372.
Gao, S.C., 2010. Investigation and reflection on the adjustment of the ownership of rural
land remediation. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Chinese Land Society.
(in Chinese).
Gomes, E., Banos, A., Abrantes, Patrícia, Rocha, J., Kristensen, S.B.P., Busck, A., 2019.
Agricultural land fragmentation analysis in a peri-urban context: from the past into
the future. Ecol. Indic. 97, 380–387.
Hartvigsen, M., 2015. Experiences With Land Consolidation and Land Banking in Central
and Eastern Europe after 1989. Land Tenure Working Paper 26. FAO.
He, X.F., 2016. Shayang’s “continuous farming mode by households”. Rural Work Bull.
15, 16–18.
Jellema, A., Stobbelaar, D.J., Groot, J.C.J., Rossing, W.A.H., 2009. Landscape character
assessment using region growing techniques in geographical information systems. J.
Environ. Manage. 90 (5), 161–174.
Jiang, G., Zhang, R., Ma, W., Zhou, D., Wang, X., He, X., 2017. Cultivated land
13
Land Use Policy 88 (2019) 104115
productivity potential improvement in land consolidation schemes in Shenyang,
China: assessment and policy implications. Land Use Policy 68, 80–88.
Jiang, G.H., Wang, X., Yun, W., Zhang, R., 2015. A new system will lead to an optimal
path of land consolidation spatial management in China. Land Use Policy 42, 27–37.
Jin, X., Xu, X., Xiang, X., Bai, Q., Zhou, Y., 2016. System-dynamic analysis on socio-
economic impacts of land consolidation in china. Habitat Int. 56, 166–175.
Jürgenson, E., 2016. Land reform, land fragmentation and perspectives for future land
consolidation in Estonia. Land Use Policy 57, 34–43.
Kawasaki, K., 2010. The costs and benefits of land fragmentation of rice farms in Japan.
Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 54, 509–526.
Kozová, M., Mi, íková P., 2008. Landscape planning as a strong forward-looking tool for
integrated spatial management. Seventh Meeting of the Council of the Europe of the
Workshops for the Implementation of the European Landscape Convention. pp.
24–25.
Landis, D.A., 2017. Designing agricultural landscapes for biodiversity-based ecosystem
services. Basic Appl. Ecol. 18, 1–12.
Latruffe, L., Piet, L., 2014. Does land fragmentation affect farm performance? A case study
from brittany. France. Agric. Syst. 129, 68–80.
Li, Y., Wu, W., Liu, Y., 2018. Land consolidation for rural sustainability in china: practical
reflections and policy implications. Land Use Policy 74, 137–141.
Li, P., Chen, Y., Hu, W., Li, X., Yu, Z., Liu, Y., 2019a. Possibilities and requirements for
introducing agri-environment measures in land consolidation projects in China,
evidence from ecosystem services and farmers’ farmers’ attitudes. Sci. Total Environ.
650, 3145–3155.
Li, Y.R., Li, Y., Fan, P.C., Sun, J., Liu, Y.S., 2019b. Land use and landscape change driven
by gully land consolidation project: a case study of a typical watershed in the loess
plateau. J. Geogr. Sci. 29 (5), 719–729.
Liu, Y., 2018. Introduction to land use and rural sustainability in China. Land Use Policy
74, 1–4.
Liu, Y., Fang, F., Li, Y., 2014. Key issues of land use in china and implications for policy
making. Land Use Policy 40, 6–12.
Liu, Y., Li, J., Yang, Y., 2018a. Strategic adjustment of land use policy under the economic
transformation. Land Use Policy 74, 5–14.
Liu, Y., Li, Y., 2017. Revitalize the world’s countryside. Nature 548, 275–277.
Liu, Y.S., Li, Y.H., 2014. China’s land creation project stands firm. Nature 511 (7510),
410.
Liu, Y.S., Zheng, X.Y., Wang, Y.S., Cao, Z., Li, Y.H., Wu, W.H., Liu, Z.J., Liu, H.H., Li, R.,
2018b. Land consolidation engineering and modern agriculture: a case study from
soil particles to agricultural systems. J. Geogr. Sci. 28 (12), 1896–1906.
Long, H.L., Liu, Y.S., Li, X.B., Chen, Y.F., 2010. Building new countryside in China:
ageographical perspective. Land Use Policy 27, 457–470.
Long, H.L., Zou, J., Pykett, J., Li, Y.R., 2011. Analysis of rural transformation develop-
ment in China since the turn of the newmillennium. Appl. Geogr. 31, 1094–1105.
Lovell, S.T., Johnston, D.M., 2009. Designing landscapes for performance based on
emerging principles in landscape ecology. Ecol. Soc. 14 (1), 44–67.
Lu, H., Xie, H., He, Y., Wu, Z., Zhang, X., 2018. Assessing the impacts of land fragmen-
tation and plot size on yields and costs: a translog production model and cost function
approach. Agr. Syst. 161, 81–88.
Luo, W., Timothy, D.J., 2017. An assessment of farmers’ satisfaction with land con-
solidation performance in China. Land Use Policy 61, 501–510.
Lv, X., Huang, X.J., Zhong, T.Y., 2011. Advances in the study of land fragmentation in
China. J. Nat. Resour. 26 (3), 530–540 (in Chinese).
Mcpherson, M.F., 1982. Land fragmentation: a selected literature review. Development
Discussion Papers. 141. Harvard University, pp. 85.
Miranda, D., Crecente, R., Flor Alvarez, M., 2006. Land consolidation in inland rural
Galicia, N.W. Spain, since 1950: an example of the formulation and use of ques-tions,
criteria and indicators for evaluation of rural development policies. Land Use Policy
23 (4), 511–520.
Musacchio, L.R., 2009. The scientific basis for the design of landscape sustainability: a
conceptual framework for translational landscape research and practice of design
landscapes and the six Es of landscape sustainability. Landscape Ecol. 24, 993–1013.
Musacchio, L.R., 2011. The grand challenge to operationalize landscape sustainability
and the design-in-science paradigm. Landscape Ecol. 26, 1–5.
Najafi, A., 2003. Land consolidation: an important step in increasing of productivity (a
case study and implementation). In Impact of Land Utilization Systems on
Agricultural Productivity. Asian Productivity Organization, Tokyo, pp. 76–93.
Nguyen, T., Cheng, E., Findlay, C., 1996. Land fragmentation and farm productivity in
China in the 1990. China Econ. Rev. 7 (2), 169–180.
Ntihinyurwa, P.D., de Vries, W.T., Chigbu, U.E., Dukwiyimpuhwe, P.A., 2019. The po-
sitive impacts of farm land fragmentation in Rwanda. Land Use Policy 81 585-581.
Ostrom, E., 2010. Beyond markets and States: polycentric governance of complex eco-
nomic systems. Am. Econ. Rev. 100, 641–672.
Paˇsakarnis, G., Maliene, V., 2010. Towards sustainable rural development in Central and
Eastern Europe: applying land consolidation. Land Use Policy 27, 545–549.
Qu, Y., Jiang, G., Li, Z., Tian, Y., Wei, S., 2019. Understanding rural land use transition
and regional consolidation implications in China. Land Use Policy 82, 742–753.
Sklenicka, P., 2006. Applying evaluation criteria for the land consolidation effect to three
contrasting study areas in Czech Republic. Land Use Policy 23 (4), 502–510.
Sklenicka, P., 2016. Classification of farmland ownership fragmentation as a cause of land
degradation: a review on typology, consequences, and remedies. Land Use Policy 57,
694–701.
Sklenicka, P., Janovska, V., Salek, M., Vlasak, J., Molnarova, K., 2014. The farmland
rental paradox: extreme land ownership fragmentation as a new form of land de-
gradation. Land Use Policy 38, 587–593.
Tan, S., Heerink, N., Kruseman, G., Qu, F., 2008. Do fragmented landholdings have higher
production costs? Evidence from rice farmers in Northeastern Jiangxi province, P.R.
B. Zhang, et al.
China. China Econ. Rev 19, 347–358.
Tan, S.H., Heerink, N., Qu, F.T., 2006. Land fragmentation and its driving forces in China.
Land Use Policy 23 (3), 272–285.
Tengö, M., Brondizio, E.S., Elmqvist, T., Malmer, P., Spierenburg, M., 2014. Connecting
diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: the multiple evi-
dence base approach. Ambio 43, 579–591.
Thapa, S., 2007. The Relationship between Farm Size and Productivity: Empirical
Evidence from the Nepalese Mid-Hills. CIFREM, Faculty of Economics. University of
Trento 18 p.
Thomas, J., 2006. What’s on regarding land consolidation in Europe? thechange, Shaping
(Ed.), Proceedings of the XXIII International FIG Congress. 8-13 October 16 p.
Van Dijk, T., 2006. Complications for traditional land consolidation in Central Europe.
Geoforum 38 (3), 505–511.
Van Dijk, T., 2003. Scenarios of Central European land fragmentation. Land Use Policy
20, 149–158.
Van Lier, H.N., 2000. Land use planning and land consolidation in the future in Europe.
Zeitschrift Für Kulturtechnik Und Landentwicklung 41 (3), 138–143.
Vitikainen, A., 2004. An overview of land consolidation in europe. Nordic J. Surveing
Real Estate Res 1, 25–44.
Wang, H., 2015. Innovation of farmland fragmentation governance model and farmland
system reform – a case study of “one plot of farmland” reform in mengcheng county,
anhui province. J. Xinyu U. 6, 31–33 (in Chinese).
Wang, S., Feng, G., 2016. The management logic and realistic path of farmland frag-
mentation in China – an investigation on the pattern of combined tillage and seed
cultivation in Sheyang county, Jiangsu province. Gansu Soc. Sci. 2, 232–236 (in
Chinese).
Xie, H., Lu, H., 2017. Impact of Land fragmentation and Non-agricultural labor supply on
circulation of agricultural land management rights. Land Use Policy 2017 (68),
355–364.
Yu, G.M., Feng, J., Che, Y., Lin, X.W., Hu, L.M., Yang, S., 2010. The identification and
14
Land Use Policy 88 (2019) 104115
assessment of ecological risks for land consolidation based on the anticipation of
ecosystem stabilization: a case study in Hubei Province, China. Land Use Policy 27
(2), 293–303.
Yun, W.J., Tang, H.Z., Liang, M.Y., 2015. “13th five-year" land improvement plan: give
prominent position to the construction of ecological good farmland. Rural Work
Newslett. 7, 32–34 (in Chinese).
Yun, W.J., Yu, Z.R., 2011. Land remediation strengthens ecological landscape construc-
tion theory, method and technical application countermeasures. China Land Sci. 25
(06), 4–9 19. (in Chinese).
Zhang, X., Ye, Y., Wang, M., Yu, Z., Luo, J., 2018. The micro administrative mechanism of
land reallocation in land consolidation: a perspective from collective action. Land Use
Policy 70, 547–558.
Zhang, B., 2017. Theory, Model and Route on Spatial Recombination of Arable Land Use
System Based on Land Fragmentation Perspective. China Agricultural University. (in
Chinese), Beijing.
Zhang, B., Kong, X., 2018. Land use system change and coupling coordination degree in
China in recent 30 years based on fragmentation. J. Beijing Normal Univ. 54 (03),
327–333 (in Chinese).
Zhang, B., Wang, S., 2013. Research on the model of mass autonomous land consolidation
and its effect-a case study in San Chaping village, Ma Nasi county. Xinjiang.
Economic Geograph 33 (5), 131–136 (in Chinese).
Zhang, Z., Zhao, W., 2013. A parametric approach to assess the sustainability of land
consolidation: a case study in Shandong Province, north China. Agroecol. Sust. Food.
37 (4), 444–464.
Zhang, Z., Zhao, W., Gu, X., 2014. Changes resulting from a land consolidation project
(LCP) and its resource–environment effects: a case study in Tianmen City of Hubei
Province, China. Land Use Policy 40, 74–82.
Zhou, Y., Guo, L.Y., Liu, Y.S., 2019. Land consolidation boosting poverty alleviation in
China: theory and practice. Land Use Policy 82, 339–348.