An Evaluation of the Agricultural Scale Management Program in Fujian

Home , Fuding, Zhangping

2018 2nd International Conference on Education, Management and Applied Social Science (EMASS 2018) ISBN: 978-1-60595-543-8

An Evaluation of the Agricultural Scale Management Program in Fujian Province, China Na LEI1,2, Chuan-fang ZHENG1,* and Jiang-qiao TANG3 1College of Economics, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou Fujian 350002, China 2College of Marxism, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou Fujian 350002, China 3College of Public Administration, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou Fujian 350002, China *Corresponding author

Keywords: Agricultural scale management, Evaluation, Index system, Exploratory factor analysis, County.

Abstract. An evaluation index system of county’s agricultural scale management program was constructed. Based on the index system the level of county’s agricultural scale management in Fujian Province was evaluated with Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) method. According to the evaluation results, four common factors were extracted and analyzed. Fifty-eight counties in Fujian province were divided into five categories in descending order of the agricultural scale management evaluation scores. The classification results show that class 4 makes up the largest proportion in all of the five classes, and class 3 makes up the second proportion. It means that agricultural scale management of Fujian Province is still in the middle minus levels and developing of agricultural scale management is far from complete.

Introduction According to the New Type Urbanization Plan from 2014 to 2020 in Fujian Province released in May 2014 by provincial government, various forms of scale management should be developed by encouraging land use rights to transfer to professional investors, family farms, farmers cooperatives, and agricultural enterprises. To develop agricultural scale management, we need to understand the current level of development of different regions so then make scientific progress in accordance with local conditions. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the level of agricultural scale management in the 58 counties in Fujian province, and to analyze the evaluation results. The objective of this paper is as follows: first, to find and determine the evaluation index of the agricultural scale management on a county scale; second, to choose the measuring method for the agricultural scale management; and third, to collect data to evaluate the levels of agricultural scale management in Fujian province and analyze the evaluation results.

Construction of Evaluation Index System Selection of Evaluation Index System The research papers on the subject of "scale operation of agriculture", "scale operation of farmland", "scale of agricultural operation" and "scale of agricultural land operation" are abundant [1]. The existing research papers adopted to a single-index method to measure agricultural scale management. Yang (1985) discussed indexes commonly in single-index methods used to measure the scale of agricultural management [2]. He pointed out that the quantity of labor force and the quantity of the main production materials and the quantity of agricultural output were used frequently as measurement indices of the scale of agricultural management. He thought that the labor force index is an important index for measuring agricultural scale in the situations of low levels of agricultural productivity but the index is unable to correctly reflect the scale under the condition of

66 technological intensive production because of the increasing importance of production tools. He also thought that the quantity of the main production materials must be combined with productivity in order to measure agricultural scale effectively and the quantity of agricultural output was the best index. Using single-index method for measuring agricultural scale management level is a good choice for the micro-objects such as farmers, which is simple, intuitive and representative. On the county level or more macro level comprehensive index method is better than single-index method. There are three reasons. First, it will cause great deviation if a single-index method continues to be used to measure the scale of agricultural operation in a certain geographical area, because there must be a large number of farmers with different scale sizes. Second, agricultural scale refers to not only the scale of input factors, but also production chain and agricultural output. Input factors include labor force, capital, technology and management. Production chain refers to the effective combination of agricultural before, during and post-production [3]. And third, county agricultural scale management level is a comprehensive concept, which covers farming, forestry, animal husbandry and fishery. They have different production characteristics and efficiency. Therefore, this paper adopts the comprehensive index method to measure the scale of county agriculture in order to include all production procedures and all kinds of agricultural industries in the evaluation system. This paper proposes a comprehensive index method to measure the scale of agricultural management on the county’s scale from three dimensions (labor force, material for production and output quantity). Every dimension includes several specific indicators (Table 1). An important rule of indicators selection lies in the feasibility of empirical research, which means the availability of data. Description of Evaluation Indicators and Data Sources (1) Employed persons of agriculture, forestry, animal husbandry and fishery. This indicator refers to those who are engaged in agriculture, forestry, animal husbandry and fishery (not including their services). From 2014, the original China County (City) Social and Economic Statistics Yearbook is divided into two volumes: China County Statistical Yearbook (Village Volume) and China County Statistical Yearbook (County Volume) which don’t contain this indicator. Therefore, this paper uses data from 2012 about this indicator. The data is derived from “China County (City) Social Economic Statistics Yearbook 2013”. Table 1. Evaluation index system of agricultural scale management on county-scale. Dimensions Indicators 1.1 employed persons of agriculture, forestry, animal 1. total agricultural labor force management on county-scale county-scale on management husbandry and fishery Level of agricultural scale scale agricultural of Level 2.1 grain crops sown area per capita 2.2 non- grain crops sown area per capita 2. input for agricultural 2.3 agricultural machinery power per capita production 2.4 expenditure for agriculture, forestry and water conservancy per capita 3.1 value-added of primary industry per capita 3.2 output of grain per capita 3. agricultural output 3.3 output of non-grain crops per capita 3.4 output of meat per capita 3.5 aquatic products per capita (2) The concept of "per capita" should be strictly used for the employed persons who are actually engaged in a specific agricultural industry. Unfortunately, we cannot find such statistical data. On the county scale, we use “employed persons of agriculture, forestry, animal husbandry and fishery” as an approximation for the denominator of the indicators including “per capita”. It means that the value of all the indicators including “per capita” are obtained by dividing total amount of the corresponding index by the indicator of “Employed persons of agriculture, forestry, animal husbandry and fishery”.

67 (3) Non-grain crops include oil crops, sugarcane, tea and garden fruit. (4) The data of "agricultural machinery power" and "value-added of primary industry" are derived from China County Statistical Yearbook (County Volume) 2015, and the data of the other types of input and output indicators are from Fujian Statistical Yearbook-2015.

Evaluation Method In recent years, the entropy method has been applied more in comprehensive evaluation [4, 5]. According to the ideas of the entropy method if an indicator value fluctuates wildly it will be allocated heavy weight. Otherwise it will be allocated light weight. Obviously this method is suitable for the risk control but it is not good to measure the agricultural scale management level because there is no correlation between the indices volatility and the scale of agricultural management. So this paper will use factor analysis to measure the level of agricultural scale management on county level rather than the entropy method. Factor analysis began with the study of student test scores by Charles Spearman in 1904. After a burgeoning of work on the theories and mathematical principles, the method is used in many research fields such as behavioral and social sciences, medicine, economics and geography with the help of computer technologies [6]. The two main factor analysis techniques are Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) [6]. In the paper we only use EFA. EFA tries to uncover complex patterns by exploring the dataset and testing predictions [7]. The basic idea of EFA is to group the original variables according to the correlation so that the correlation between variables intra-group is strong, and the correlation between variables inter-group is weak. Each set of variables represents a basic structure and is represented by an unobserved synthetic variable which is called a common factor. For the study of a specific problem, the original variables can be decomposed into two parts. One part is linear function that is composed of a few unobservable common factors; the other is special factors that have nothing to do with the common factors. The purpose of factor analysis is to find a few main common factors from intricate economic phenomena. Every common factor represents a kind of economic relevance among economic variables. Capturing these common factors can help us analyze and explain complex economic problems [8]. Further details about factor analysis method are described in Child (2006) and He (2007) [7, 8]. The steps for using EFA to measure agricultural scale operation are: (1) to evaluate the eigenvalues and the contribution rate; (2) to establish the factor loading matrix; (3) to calculate the factor scores; and (4) to analyze results. In this paper, the statistical software SPSS 19.0 is used to process the data and the factor analysis.

Evaluation of Agricultural Scale Management on the County Level in Fujian Province: Based on EFA Following the steps of EFA, the scale of agricultural management on county level in Fujian province will be measured based on the data from 2014. To Evaluate the Eigenvalues and the Contribution Rate First, the original data is standardized to eliminate the influence of the dimension and the order of magnitude of plus or minus. The standardization calculation formula of positive index data is written as:

,,…, x = (1) ,,…,,,…, The one of negative index data is written as:

68 ,,…, x = (2) ,,…,,,…, All of the evaluation indices are positive except Employed Persons of Agriculture, Forestry, Animal Husbandry and Fishery which is negative. The value of Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure (KMO) is 0.616, and the Bartlett’s test of sphericity is 484.283 (p<0.001). The results of tests indicate that we do have patterned relationships amongst the variables and can acquire distinct and reliable common factors [6]. The correlation coefficient matrix is established and its eigenvalues, contribution rate and cumulative contribution rate are obtained (Table 2). Table 2. Total variance explained.

Extraction Sums of Squared Rotation Sums of Squared Initial Eigenvalues Loadings Loadings % of Cumulative % of Cumulative % of Cumulative Factor Total Variance % Total Variance % Total Variance % 1 3.563 35.635 35.635 3.563 35.635 35.635 3.143 31.433 31.433 2 2.751 27.513 63.148 2.751 27.513 63.148 2.900 29.001 60.434 3 1.186 11.860 75.008 1.186 11.860 75.008 1.407 14.071 74.505 4 1.051 10.512 85.520 1.051 10.512 85.520 1.101 11.015 85.520 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Construct the Factor Loading Matrix Four factors are extracted according to the rule of eigenvalue greater than 1. The cumulative contribution rate is 85.520%. Then the factor loading matrix is constructed based on the four factors. In order to better explain the significance of each of the extracted common factors, the initial factor loading matrix is rotated. Using orthogonal rotation method, the new factor loading coefficient is either as close to zero as possible or as far away from zero as possible (Table 3). In Table 3, Factor 1 (F1) is named as “crop planting area and grain yield factor” because its weight on “grain crops sown area per capita、non- grain crops sown area per capita and output of grain per capita” is heavy. Factor 2 (F2) is named as “capital investment and aquatic products factor” because its weight on “expenditure for agriculture, forestry and water conservancy per capita, agricultural machinery power per capita, aquatic products per capita and value-added of primary industry per capita” is heavy. Factor 3 (F3) is named as “Non-food crop yields factor” because its weight on the indicator of output of non-grain crops per capita is heavy. Factor 4 (F4) is named as “Meat production factor” because its weight on “output of meat per capita” is heavy. Table 3. Rotated factor loading matrix. Factor Indicator 1 2 3 4 employed persons of agriculture, forestry, animal husbandry and fishery 0.532 0.534 0.178 0.127 grain crops sown area per capita 0.971 -0.001 -0.006 0.059 non- grain crops sown area per capita 0.819 0.103 0.437 -0.049 agricultural machinery power per capita 0.017 0.852 -0.087 -0.091 expenditure for agriculture, forestry and water conservancy per capita 0.274 0.866 0.004 0.042 value-added of primary industry per capita 0.036 0.689 0.498 0.300 output of grain per capita 0.966 -0.013 -0.004 0.076 output of non-grain crops per capita 0.134 -0.070 0.958 -0.057 output of meat per capita 0.078 -0.001 -0.030 0.983 aquatic products per capita -0.463 0.805 -0.105 -0.072

Calculate Factor Scores The purpose of calculating factors scores is to observe characteristics of each unit of analysis and

69 the relationship inter-unit of analysis. By observing the scores of each county on various main factors, we can find which aspects are high level of development and which are still inadequate. By observing the total factor score, we can learn the scale level of agricultural management in each county and compare the level inter-county. The total factor score is used weighted summation of common factors. The weights are variance contribution rate. The calculation is:

F = (31.433*F1+29.001*F2+14.071*F3+11.015*F4)/85.520 (3) The calculating results of total factor scores about 58 counties in Fujian province in 2014 are listed in Table 4. If the value of a county’s total factor score is more than zero, it indicates that the county’s scale level of agricultural management is above average. If the value is less than zero, it indicates that the county’s level is below the average. Table 4. Factor score and sequence. Total score County F1 F2 F3 F4 Sequence F Shaowu 2.3536 0.7841 -0.7053 -0.1260 0.9987 1 Mingxi 2.2587 0.6565 -0.3700 -0.3405 0.9481 2 Qingliu 2.0045 0.7335 0.1339 -0.4815 0.9455 3 Jianning 1.7791 0.5054 0.8050 -0.6258 0.8771 4 Dongshan -1.4378 3.8550 0.4267 -0.0601 0.8413 5 Guangze -0.0648 0.1971 -0.7771 7.1459 0.8356 6 Shishi -1.5246 4.8213 -1.0627 -0.6763 0.8126 7 Changtai 0.3007 0.8338 2.1429 0.2001 0.7716 8 Shaxian 0.8219 0.3674 1.6874 0.3337 0.7473 9 Yongtai 0.6696 -0.1038 2.4803 0.2524 0.6515 10 Taining 1.2133 0.7268 -0.4096 -0.1063 0.6113 11 Fuan 0.3590 0.5847 1.2986 0.0089 0.5450 12 Wuping 1.3980 -0.2076 -0.1732 0.5679 0.4881 13 Ninghua 1.5689 -0.1099 -0.5686 -0.3870 0.3960 14 Pucheng 1.4597 -0.2759 -0.6461 0.0019 0.3369 15 Liancheng 0.9850 -0.2231 -0.0745 0.2621 0.3079 16 Yongan 0.1848 0.1920 1.0690 -0.1348 0.2916 17 Changting 1.1588 -0.1995 -0.6163 0.2541 0.2896 18 Youxi 0.5085 -0.3684 1.2395 -0.2274 0.2366 19 Jianyang 0.8804 0.0377 -0.5172 -0.3903 0.2010 20 Changle -0.3970 0.2918 1.0262 0.2070 0.1485 21 Zherong 0.7339 0.0359 -0.6297 -0.2904 0.1409 22 Jiangle 0.5471 0.0199 -0.4688 -0.2191 0.1025 23 Wuyishan 0.5846 0.0439 -0.6398 -0.2631 0.0906 24 Minhou -0.4480 -0.2519 1.9841 -0.0532 0.0695 25 Luoyuan -0.7974 0.5499 0.5547 0.4426 0.0417 26 Minqing -0.1026 -0.4199 1.4666 -0.3036 0.0221 27 Huaan -0.8165 0.8535 -0.0485 -0.1915 -0.0433 28 Nanjing -1.0310 -0.2927 2.2365 0.5068 -0.0449 29 Datian 0.2477 -0.6679 0.8319 -0.3785 -0.0473 30 Shanghang 0.3782 -0.5665 -0.4673 0.4890 -0.0670 31 Jianou 0.1209 -0.5913 0.6141 -0.3821 -0.1043 32 Songxi 0.2013 -0.1383 -0.5510 -0.3413 -0.1076 33 Nanan 0.2950 -0.2026 -0.8890 -0.0846 -0.1175 34 Dehua 0.2405 -0.4519 -0.6152 -0.0305 -0.1700 35 Zhouning -0.0832 -0.3006 -0.6202 -0.2024 -0.2606 36 Jinjiang -0.6268 0.5961 -1.0108 -0.5854 -0.2699 37 Lianjiang -1.6839 0.9119 0.0232 0.2621 -0.2721 38 Yongding -0.1632 -0.6583 -0.4140 0.4715 -0.2906 39 Shunchang -0.3197 -0.1904 -0.4669 -0.3504 -0.3040 40 Zhangping -0.3812 -0.4733 -0.0641 -0.0080 -0.3122 41 Pingnan -0.1359 -0.4420 -0.5480 -0.2512 -0.3224 42

70 Yongchun -0.1279 -0.4993 -0.4690 -0.2902 -0.3309 43 Zhenghe -0.0177 -0.4201 -0.9811 -0.3343 -0.3535 44 Xiapu -0.8397 0.1454 -0.5476 -0.2008 -0.3753 45 Huian -0.3579 -0.2591 -1.0376 -0.0844 -0.4010 46 Longhai -1.0660 -0.0868 0.0363 -0.0716 -0.4245 47 Shouning -0.2399 -0.6958 -0.6375 -0.2403 -0.4600 48 Pinghe -1.3222 -1.2782 2.8730 -0.2387 -0.4774 49 Fuding -0.6558 -0.3579 -0.5205 -0.2519 -0.4805 50 Yunxiao -0.6563 -0.4274 -0.3842 -0.3202 -0.4906 51 Gutian -0.5682 -0.8785 -0.7998 -0.1464 -0.6572 52 Pingtan -1.3952 -0.2656 -0.8776 -0.1852 -0.7711 53 Anxi -1.0668 -0.7068 -1.1972 -0.4989 -0.8930 54 Fuqing -1.4358 -1.0741 -0.1943 0.1347 -0.9066 55 Zhangpu -1.1960 -1.2213 -0.3737 -0.4330 -0.9710 56 Zhaoan -1.1989 -1.1438 -0.6612 -0.3657 -0.9844 57 Xianyou -1.0959 -1.2933 -0.8946 -0.3877 -1.0385 58

By analyzing the frequency distribution characteristics of total factors score (Table 5 and Figure 1), we can find: (1) The distribution of total factors score is approximately normal distribution. (2) The value of kurtosis is -0.674. It indicates that there are more counties which score is above average. (3) The median is just a little bit less than the average. It tells us there are no extremes. (4) The standard deviation is 0.5420. It means that the gap of agricultural scale is not big between most of the counties in Fujian province. (5) The full range is 2.0372. It means the gap of agricultural scale is great between the top county and the bottom one. Table 5. Descriptive statistics of total factor score. Range Std. Dev. Maximum Minimum Median Skewness Kurtosis Total factor score 2.0372 0.5420 0.9987 -1.0385 -0.0461 0.099 -0.674

Figure 1. Frequency distribution of total factor score.

Evaluation Results Analysis Analysis on Scores of the Common Factors 1. Crop planting area and grain yield factor (F1). Shaowu, Mingxi and Qingliu are in the top three for F1 score. They have the best performance on the indicators of grain crops sown area per capita, non- grain crops sown area per capita and output of grain per capita. F1 plays the most important role in the evaluation system because crop planting area and grain yield have the heaviest weight. One can predict the three counties will rank among the best on the factor total score due to their excellent performance on F1. Pingtan, Fuqing, Dongshan, Shishi, and Lianjiang are in the lowest

71 five for F1 score. Lianjiang is the worst of all counties on F1 because people in Lianjiang have small planting areas. 2. Capital investment and aquatic products factor (F2). Shishi, Dongshan, Lianjiang, Huaan and Changtai are in the top five for F2 score. Shishi and Dongshan have the most aquatic products and good performance on the indicators of “agricultural machinery power per capita” and “expenditure for agriculture, forestry and water conservancy per capita”. Fuqing, Zhaoan, Zhangpu, Pinghe and Xianyou are in the lowest five for F2 score. Fuqing, Zhaoan and Zhangpu have poor performance on the indicator of “expenditure for agriculture, forestry and water conservancy per capita”, and Pinghe and Xianyou have low aquatic products. 3. Non-food crop yields factor (F3). Pinghe, Yongtai, Nanjing, Changtai and Minhou are in the top five for F3 score. They have the most productive non-food crops yields thanks to developed famous brands with region characteristics of agricultural products such as sweet pomelos in Pinghe, dried plums in Yongtai, gold lotus and orchids in Nanjing and mandarin oranges in Changtai. Brand enhances the value of agricultural products which stimulates the enthusiasm and desire of scale production of the farmers. For example, most of the farmers in Pinghe urgently want to expand their sweet pomelos planting scale, but it is difficult to rent more land because everybody wants to expand the scale and the land is finite. Zhenghe, Jinjiang, Huian, Shishi and Anxi are in the lowest five for F3 score. Most of them have low non-food crop yields. 4. Meat production factor (F4). Guangze, Wuping, Nanjing, Shanghang and Yongding are in the top five for F4 score. It is worth noting that Guangze, the top of the list on F4, scored over 7. That is far beyond the other areas on the common factor. The reason is that an agricultural leading enterprise named Sunner is located in the territory of Guangze, which greatly increases meat production of the county. Qingliu, Anxi, Jinjiang, Jianning and Shishi are in the lowest five for F4 score. Most of them have low meat production.

Results Analysis of Total Factor Score According to the total factor score on agricultural scale management in Fujian province in 2014, all the 58 counties are classified appropriately. When total factor score and common factors score are considered together—the 58 counties are divided into 5 types. The specific classification criteria and results are shown in Table 6. Type 1 has three counties: Shaowu, Mingxi and Qingliu. The three counties have the highest level of agricultural scale management because the planting crop area per capita is relatively large and the production of grain per capita is high in the three counties. The planting grain crops area of the three counties were 0.6945 ha, 0.6268 ha and 0.5190 ha respectively in 2014, while the average level of the 58 counties was 0.2488 ha. The planting non-food crops area is 0.3720 ha, 0.4160 ha and 0.5642 ha respectively, and the average level of the 58 counties was only 0.2280 ha. The total grain output per capita of the three counties was 3.7064 tons, 3.3105 tons and 2.7432 tons respectively in 2014. That was well above average (1.3856 tons). In addition, they have good performances on the indicators of agricultural machinery power per capita and expenditure for agriculture, forestry and water conservancy per capita. That consolidates their lead position. The agricultural scale management level of type 2 is above the middle. Some counties in type 2 have sharp performance on one certain common factor, such as Meat Production Factor of Guangze, Capital Investment and Aquatic Products Factor of Shishi. Some counties have good comprehensive performance on two or three common factors, such as Jianning, Dongshan and Yongtai. Changtai, Shaxian and Fuan earn good total factor scores because all four common factors score just above average. The agricultural scale management level of type 3 is in the middle. A common feature of the counties of type 3 is that one or two common factors scores are high but the others scores are low. For example, Wuping has high score on F1, but only gets minus scores on F2 and F3. It indicates the county has large planting crop area per capita and high grain production per capita but it has low agricultural capital investment and non-food crops production. The agricultural scale management level of type 4 is below the middle. Even though some

72 counties in this type perform well on the score of a common factor, the overall score is below zero due to the lower scores of the other common factors. For example, Nanjing earns good score that is in the top three on the factor of non-food crops yield factor, but it gets poor scores on F1 and F2 that leads to the total factor score is negative. Pinghe, Huaan and Dehua are similar to Nanjiang. Some counties of type 2 get minus scores on all four common factors such as Yongding, Shunchang, Zhangping, Pingnan, Yongchun, Zhenghe, Huian, Shouning, Fuding and Yunxiao. It indicates their performance on each aspect is comparatively poor. The agricultural scale management level of type 5 is low. One common feature of the counties in type 5 is that these counties have minus scores on all four common factors, the other is that they get very low score on F1 and F2 which are heavy weight factors in the evaluation index system of agricultural scale management. For these counties, there is still a long way to improve the level of agricultural scale management. Table 6. Results of classification about level of agricultural scale management. Type and Results of classification criteria Type 1： Three counties：Shaowu、Mingxi、Qingliu F≥0.9 Type 2： Nine counties：Jianning, Dongshan, Guangze, Shishi, Changtai, Shaxian, Yongtai, 0.5≤F＜ Taining, Fuan 0.9 Type 3： Fifteen counties: Wuping, Ninghua, Pucheng, Liancheng, Yongan, Changting, Youxi, 0≤F＜0.5 Jianyang, Changle, Zherong, Jiangle, Wuyishan, Minhou, Luoyuan, Minqing Twenty-four counties：Huaan, Nanjing, Datian, Shanghang, Jianou, Songxi, Nanan, Type 4： Dehua, Zhouning, Jinjiang, Lianjiang, Yongding, Shunchang, Zhangping, Pingnan, -0.5≤F＜0 Yongchun, Zhenghe, Xianpu, Huian, Longhai, Shouning, Pinghe, Fuding,Yunxiao Type 5：F Seven counties：Gutian, Pingtan, Anxi, Fuqing, Zhangpu, Zhaoan, Xianyou ＜-0.5

In order to observe the differences between administrative cities in Fujian province the 58 counties are divided into two types according to the total factor score – below or above zero (Table 7). Sanming and Fuzhou are the best administrative cities on the level of agricultural scale management. Many counties in these two cities have promoted the level of agricultural scale management by supporting regional agriculture. Relatively speaking, the level of agricultural scale management is low in Quanzhou, Zhangzhou and Ningde. It indicates that the government in the cities need to adjust the agricultural policy appropriately and pay more attention to the agricultural development. Table 7. Comparison of agricultural scale management between administrative cities in Fujian. The number of Percentage of total The number of Percentage of Administrative Total counties in counties total counties in the city counties total total counties in city the city factor above zero （％） factor under zero the city（％） Fuzhou 8 5 62.5 3 37.5 Xiamen －－－－－ Putian 1 －－ 1 100.0 Sanming 10 9 90.0 1 10.0 Quanzhou 7 1 14.3 6 84.7 Zhangzhou 9 2 22.2 7 77.8 Nanping 9 5 54.6 4 44.4 Longyan 6 3 50.0 3 50.0 Ningde 8 2 24.0 6 74.0

Summary and Discussion Based on the concept of agricultural scale management, the evaluation index system of agricultural scale management on the county level is constructed. The index system includes three dimensions: 73 the total amount of agricultural labor force, the input of means of production and the agricultural output and 10 specific indicators. Based on the index system, the level of agricultural scale management of 58 counties in Fujian province is evaluated with factor analysis. Then the results of evaluation are classified into five types and analyzed according to the sequence of factor scores. From the evaluation results it is determined that many counties in Fujian province have a low level of agricultural scale management and Fujian province is still in the middle minus levels. Feasibility is an important consideration when choosing indicators in order to get empirical research data. This impacts the accuracy of the results. The other problem is about “per capita”. "Per capita" should refer to the exact amount of labor force engaged in some type of agriculture, such as farming, forestry, animal husbandry and fishery industry, but we cannot get the data. It is suggested that statistics division in China collects and publishes more specific classification data about agriculture.

Acknowledgement This study was financially supported by the project of the Education Department of Fujian Province (the project number: JAS170153), the project of Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University (the project number: 2016JDZ044) and the Program of Fujian Province Government’s Scholarship to Study Abroad.

References [1] Q. Xu and R. Yin. Literature Review on the Issues of Proper Scale Management of Farmland in China, China Land Science, Vol. 24, No. 4, Apr. 2010, pp. 75-80. [2] M. Yang. Simply Discuss Measurement Indexes and Constrains about Agricultural Scale Management, Chinese Rural Economy, Apr. 1985, pp. 59-62. [3] X. Wen. A Study on the Impact of Farmland Circulation on Moderate Scale -management, Doctorial dissertation of Hunan Agricultural University, 2011, pp. 28. [4] S. Zhang, M. Zhang and G. Chi. The Science and Technology Evaluation Model Based on Entropy Weight and Empirical Research During the 10th Five-Year of China, Chinese Journal of Management, Vol. 7, No. 1, Jan. 2010, pp. 34-42. [5] T. Du, X. Xie, H. Liang, A. Huang and Q. Han. County Economy Comprehensive Evaluation and Spatial Analysis in Chongqing City Based on Entropy Weight-TOPSIS and GIS, Economic Geography, Vol. 34, No. 6, Jul., 2014, pp.40-47. [6] A.J. Yong and S. Pearce. A Beginner’s Guide to Factor Analysis: Focusing on Exploratory Factor Analysis, Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, October 2013, Vol. 9(2), pp. 79-94. [7] D. Child. The Essentials of Factor Analysis, third ed., Continuum International Publishing Group, New York, 2006. [8] X. He. The Methods and Application of Modern Statistics Analysis, second ed., China Renmin University Press, Beijing, 2007.