International Journal of

Environmental Research
and Public Health

Article
Climate Change Impacts on Agricultural Production
and Crop Disaster Area in China
Zhen Shi 1 , Huinan Huang 1 , Yingju Wu 1 , Yung-Ho Chiu 2, * and Shijiong Qin 1
1 Business School, Hohai University, Changzhou 213022, China; [email protected] (Z.S.);
[email protected] (H.H.); [email protected] (Y.W.); [email protected] (S.Q.)
2 Department of Economics, Soochow University, 56, Kueiyang St., Sec. 1, Taipei 10048, Taiwan
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +886-2-23111531 (ext. 5201); Fax: +886-2-27976015




Received: 2 June 2020; Accepted: 1 July 2020; Published: 3 July 2020


Abstract: As one of the largest agricultural countries in the world, China has always paid close
attention to the sustainable development of agricultural production efficiency. However, with global
climate change, extreme weather has become an exogenous factor that cannot be ignored, as it affects
agricultural production. Most of the existing studies only consider the domestic natural resources
and economic factors, without fully considering the external climate factors. This paper uses the
super undesirable dynamic Slacks-Based Measures (SBM) under an exogenous variable model to
simulate the external environmental factors by adding extreme weather days. The Dagum Gini
coefficient and kernel density estimation are used to explore the regional differences in agricultural
production in China. The results show that the agricultural production efficiency is higher in the
eastern region, and the difference in agricultural production efficiency among the provinces in the
middle and western regions is large, showing a trend of polarization. The difference in the Gini
coefficient between the middle and western regions is more significant. The main contribution factor
of the Dagum Gini coefficient is the inter-regional difference. The regional concentration degree of
agriculture in China is decreasing, the regional distribution of agricultural water resources is more
balanced, and the national regional difference gradually decreases. Finally, some suggestions are put
forward, such as extreme weather control, agricultural water supply, and water-saving measures.

Keywords: super undesirable dynamic SBM; agricultural production efficiency; spatial effect; Dagum
Gini coefficient; kernel density

1. Introduction
The efficiency of agricultural production is related to the total output value of agriculture and the
foundation of national economic development. However, there is a complex standard to measure the
efficiency of agricultural production. Therefore, the efficiency of agricultural production cannot be
judged simply on the basis of the output value, nor only on the basis of how much production input
can be measured. For this reason, the academic community has launched many significant explorations
and produced highly effective research results. Based on the different boundary conditions from
the perspective of research, scholars consider the efficiency of agricultural production in different
regions from the perspective of time and spatial differences, climate disasters on crop production
intervention, and other aspects. In this process, scholars have also explored many evaluation
methods for agricultural production efficiency, including the Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) model;
the Slacks-Based Measures (SBM) model under undesirable output, derived from the DEA model;
and the production function model. Some scholars also discussed the spatial differences in agricultural
production, and have explored the balanced and high-quality development of agriculture by analyzing
the differences in agricultural efficiency between different regions.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4792; doi:10.3390/ijerph17134792 www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4792 2 of 23

Among them, the lack of water resources has always been one of the important limiting factors
for the sustainable development of agriculture in China. China is a large agricultural country,
with agricultural water consumption accounting for more than 60% of the total water consumption,
and irrigation water consumption accounting for 90% of the total agricultural water consumption.
However, there is an uneven space–time distribution of water resources in our country and an
unbalanced supply and demand between regions. The sdudy of water resources management
also existed in agricultural irrigation, but there is still an unreasonable lack of water conservancy
facilities and management mechanisms, which is a serious obstacle to the improvement of agricultural
production efficiency. Therefore, this paper focuses on the agricultural production efficiency and put
forward relevant solutions.
In the next part, we summarize the relevant literature published on the spatial differences in
agricultural production efficiency and the impact of climate conditions on agricultural production
efficiency, and describe the issue of agricultural production efficiency in China.

1.1. Literature Review

Based on the review of the previous literature, this paper summarizes the current literature in
different aspects, as follows:

1.1.1. Research on the Effect of Climate on Agricultural Production

Elias et al. [1] studied the changes in agricultural production caused by extreme temperature in
the southwest of the United States, and described the agricultural pressure and adaptive response
of the United States by analyzing the changes in variable elements. The results showed that the
water shortage in the semi-arid areas of the southwest of the United States was becoming more and
more serious, resulting in the reduction of crop production. Olen et al. [2] assessed the impact of
water scarcity and climate on agricultural crop producers’ irrigation decisions in the United States.
The results showed that the lack of water and extreme weather have a significant impact on the
irrigation decision-making of producers. The use of sprinkler irrigation technology or extra water by
producers should be used to reduce the risk of damage to crops caused by extreme weather, and then
increase water consumption. Markovic et al. [3] studied the efficiency of irrigation scheduling for
maize production in Croatia and found that the main factors affecting the irrigation efficiency under
extreme weather conditions were determining the optimum water level for the soil water sensor and
the relationship between the water table and root depth. Eggen et al. [4] studied the development of
sorghum crop models under El Niño. The results showed that the incidence of sub seasonal failures in
precipitation increased in the early rainy season, which had a side effect on sorghum yield. Olesen and
Bindi [5] studied the impact of global warming on agricultural production in Europe, and the results
showed that in the south, adverse factors will dominate, including water shortages and the possibility
of increasing extreme weather events, which will lead to reduced harvests and a reduction in suitable
agricultural planting area. Mishra et al. [6] studied the climate sensitivity of agricultural production in
the state of Odisha, on the east coast of India. By studying the temperature and rainfall in the process
of agricultural production, the Ricardo method was used to evaluate the impact of climate change on
the net income of the agricultural production of Odisha. Wang et al. [7] selected the trend yield of
each crop, and then constructed and calculated the probability density function curve and distribution
function of the relative meteorological yield.
The probabilities of different production decline intervals have been estimated. Alboghdady and
El-Hendawy [8] used panel data from 20 countries in the Middle East and North Africa from 1961 to
2009 to assess the impact of climate change and variability on agricultural production. The results
showed that the increase in temperature in winter is 1%, which leads to the decrease of agricultural
production by 1.12%. Olayide et al. [9] investigated the different effects of rainfall and irrigation on
agricultural production in Nigeria, which provided reference for climate-smart agriculture (CSA)
in Nigeria. Alboghdady and El-Hendawy [8] used a production function model and fixed effect
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4792 3 of 23

regression analysis to evaluate and analyze the impact of climate change on variable agricultural
production. The results showed that the increase in temperature in the winter was 1%, which led to a
1.12% reduction in agricultural production.
Barrios et al. [10] discussed the impact of climate change on total agricultural production in
sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and non-sub-Saharan Africa (NSSA). The results showed that climate change,
measured by rainfall and temperature changes in the country, had become a major determinant of
agricultural production in South Sudan. On the basis of the original Cobb–Douglas (C-D) production
function, Kaimakamis et al. [11] built a new economic climate model by adding climate factors,
and made an empirical analysis of the impact of climate change on food production, explaining the
regional differences. Mardero et al. [12] utilized climate trend analysis and generalized additive models
(gams) to analyze precipitation and temperature data from 1980 to 2010, proving the relationship
between yield and climate variability. In order to clarify the temporal and spatial distribution of climate
disasters and the response of wheat yield to disasters in the past 30 years, Shi and Tao [13] defined
and calculated disaster indexes, such as the impact of climate disasters, the sensitivity of climate
disasters, and the response index of wheat yield loss to the climate disasters. Based on the statistical
data of agricultural disasters in the Heilongjiang Province from 1983 to 2013, Xing et al. [14] analyzed
the occurrence area and change characteristics of different types of disasters. Finally, the degree
of agricultural loss caused by these disasters was analyzed by a fuzzy comprehensive evaluation
method. Xie et al. [15] used information diffusion technology and an information matrix to determine
the distribution of drought risk in China’s main grain producing areas, and quantitatively analyzed
the relationship between the annual drought rate and grain production loss. Xu et al. [16] used
the production function model to demonstrate the quantitative relationship between the disaster
area and the final yield of grain from the input factors of agricultural production and the disaster
resistance ability. Zhang [17] used the methods of crop yield–climate analysis and regression analysis to
analyze and quantify the relationship between corn yield fluctuation and agrometeorological disasters.
Lesk et al. [18] estimated the global loss of grain production caused by extreme weather disasters
reported during the period 1964–2007. The results showed that drought and extreme high temperature
reduced grain yield by 9–10%.

1.1.2. Study on the Spatial Difference of Agricultural Production

Han and Wu [19] explored the impact of changes in China’s agricultural structure on factors
such as energy intensity of agricultural production (EIAP). The results showed that the results of six
vegetable production regions show great regional heterogeneity, which is mainly due to the scale
economy effect and incremental effect of vegetable mechanization. On the basis of analyzing the
heterogeneity of agricultural technology, Fei and Lin [20] used meta-frontier DEA to measure the
agricultural energy efficiency. The results showed that the energy efficiency of the eastern region of
China was significantly higher than that of the western region. Based on the provincial panel data of
1995–2014, Diao et al. [21] analyzed the agricultural productivity and its regional differences in China.
The results showed that TFP growth in the central and western regions was much higher than that in
the eastern regions. In 2014, the most effective decision-making unit was the western region. Ito [22]
measured the regional differences of agricultural productivity in China, and then tested the validity of
the hypothesis related to agricultural technology. Zhang et al. [23] compared the agricultural disasters
in the north and south of China, and the results showed that the losses in the north increased by about
0.6% every ten years, close to twice that in the south of China. In addition, agriculture in northern China
was more sensitive to precipitation change, while agriculture in southern China was more sensitive
to temperature change. Wagan et al. [24] compared the agricultural production efficiency of China
and Pakistan, and the results showed that the overall efficiency of China’s agricultural production
was higher than that of Pakistan. Although Pakistan’s agricultural production had increased, China’s
agricultural production had higher efficiency because of its strong dependence on technology; Pakistan
needed to apply new agricultural technology. Based on the panel data of the Songnen Plain in the
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4792 4 of 23

Heilongjiang Province, Yang et al. [25] used quantitative and spatial analysis methods to explore
the problem of agricultural production efficiency in this area. The results showed that agricultural
production showed a growth trend from “high in the southwest and low in the northeast” to “high in
the middle and low in the surrounding areas”, with obvious regional differences.
According to the agricultural production data of 31 provinces in 2014, Li et al. [26] used the
DEA method to evaluate the comprehensive efficiency of agricultural production investment in
China. The results showed that there was a big gap among the eastern, central, and western regions.
Xue et al. [27] used the econometric model to classify the agricultural water environment efficiency
of China in 2013, and analyzed the spatial effect and influencing factors of the agricultural water
environmental efficiency of China using a spatial econometric model. The results showed that the
spatial distribution of the agricultural water environmental efficiency is uneven, showing a gradual
decrease from east to west. Li et al. [28] studied the theoretical and practical productivity of farmland
in Zhejiang. The results show that the productivity in the north of the middle plain is the highest,
while that in the southwest mountainous area is the lowest. Zhang and Zhu [29] evaluated the efficiency
of agricultural water use in the Heilongjiang province, and guided the scientific water-use strategy of
Heilongjiang Province according to the results. Sun et al. [30] studied the agricultural water footprint
in the Hetao irrigation area, and the results showed that the water footprint of five counties in the
Hetao irrigation area was significantly different. Neumann et al. [31] used econometric methods and
spatial analysis to explore the maximum yield, yield gap, and the efficiency of wheat and other crops.
The results show that the actual grain output in some areas is close to its maximum, while there is still
a large gap in other areas. Crain et al. [32] studied the spatial variability of agricultural crops, and the
results showed that significant differences in winter wheat yield were found in the adjacent 1 m ×
1 m plot.
In order to study the actual agricultural production process more scientifically, this paper creatively
adds extreme weather as exogenous variables to build a super undesirable dynamic SBM model.
Based on the eastern, middle, and western regions of China, this paper also uses the kernel density
estimation method and Dagum Gini coefficient to explore the dynamic evolution law of agricultural
production efficiency, as well as the regional differences.

1.2. Issue of Agricultural Production Efficiency in China

In 2017, the opinions of the CPC Central Committee and the State Council on deepening the
structural reform of agricultural supply side and accelerating the cultivation of new driving forces
for agricultural and rural development were released. The document clearly points out that it is
necessary to further promote the agricultural supply around the change of market demand, improve
the quality and efficiency of the agricultural supply system, and promote the high-quality development
of rural areas through the rational use of agricultural resources. It can be seen that improving
the efficiency of agricultural production has become an important problem to be solved. The key
link for improving agricultural production efficiency is to optimize agricultural water-use efficiency
and improve agricultural productivity through effective input of agricultural water. The national
agricultural water-saving program (2012–2020) issued by the general office of the state council in
2012 clearly emphasizes the use of comprehensive measures, including economic, administrative,
legal, scientific, technological, and engineering measures, to promote the construction of agricultural
water-saving systems with Chinese characteristics. Improving the efficiency of regional agricultural
production is an important measure to save the scarce agricultural water resources, which requires the
promotion and coordination of national policies. With the completion of the middle route and the
eastern route of the south-to-north water diversion project, as well as the commissioning of the Three
Gorges and Gezhou dams and other water conservancy facilities, the uneven distribution of water
resources in China has been alleviated. However, the problem of regional agricultural production
efficiency remains to be solved. Therefore, studying the trend of agricultural production efficiency
over time and exploring the differences in agricultural production efficiency between regions can
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4792 5 of 23

further explore the problems existing in agricultural production in various regions, so as to formulate
relevant policies for regional governments and provide a relevant basis for the healthy development of
agricultural production.
Agricultural production input and agricultural output constitute a relatively complex system.
Extreme weather conditions as external factors have a great impact on agricultural production. China
is one of the countries with the most severe climatic disasters. Due to the wide latitude in the north
and south of China’s territory, all regions are faced with extreme weather, including drought, frost,
flooding, and other disasters. In 2018, 19,260 hectares of crops were affected, posing a serious threat
to China’s agricultural water and production security. Under extremely high temperature weather,
land surface moisture evaporates quickly, reducing soil moisture and thus badly affecting the growth
of the crops. Extreme weather conditions of low temperatures, and especially when co-occurring
with continuous rainfall, may reduce agricultural water; however, the cold frost can lead to winter
crop output, of which the winter wheat in the north is the main representative crop. Thus, the cold
weather there has an important intervention effect on the wheat growth cycle, which will affect the
whole crop production schedule for farming. Therefore, the crop output will be highly affected by
future warmer temperatures. Therefore, as an external influence variable, the number of extreme
weather events has an intervention effect on the water-use efficiency (WUE) of crops. On the premise
of ensuring agricultural production efficiency, China should consider the impact of climate disasters
on agricultural production. Therefore, based on the existing extreme weather disasters in China, it is of
great practical significance to explore the issue of agricultural production efficiency in China.
Through studying the relevant literature on agricultural production efficiency, most scholars
have started their discussion from river basins or grass-roots agricultural water facilities in China,
while few studies have considered the agricultural production efficiency in China under extreme weather
conditions. Unlike industry and some services, the impact of climate on agriculture should be taken into
account in its input–output models. At present, existing research on agricultural production efficiency
mainly include regional agricultural production efficiency or agricultural water-saving measures,
and their research and analysis methods mainly include the DEA model, the empirical analysis method,
and the stochastic frontier production function model. Since Gini [33] put forward the Gini coefficient,
it is widely used to investigate the degree of regional income difference. Therefore, many scholars have
carried out calculations of the Gini coefficient to explore the degree of agricultural regional differences
given various factors.
In this context, this paper uses the SBM model to explore and analyze 30 provinces and regions in
China. Then, the Dagum Gini coefficient calculation and kernel density estimation analysis method
are used to explore the dynamic evolution law of agricultural production efficiency and regional
differences in China. Furthermore, according to the change in regional differences, the paper puts
forward relevant solutions to make a certain contribution to the efficiency of agricultural production
in China. The innovation of this paper is as follows: (1) From a national level, we explore China’s
agricultural production efficiency, through the selection of those input and output variables related to
helping explore the defects and problems of agricultural production in China, from the macro-level
controls of China’s agricultural production; (2) the Dagum Gini coefficient is used to calculate the
differences between the eastern, middle, and western China regions. The evolution of the Dagum Gini
coefficient from 2010 to 2017 is analyzed and the important contribution objects of the Dagum Gini
coefficient is analyzed and explored in connection with the differences in agricultural production in
China; (3) the concentration degree of agricultural production efficiency in different regions of China
and the evolution of their dynamic differences are explored by using the kernel density estimation
method; and (4) based on the SBM model, extreme weather days in various regions are added as
external variables into the model analysis, which makes the model closer to the actual situation of
agricultural production.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4792 6 of 23

2. Methods

2.1. Super Undesirable Dynamic SBM Under an Exogenous Model

Compared with the traditional ratio method and absolute efficiency analysis method, Data
Envelopment Analysis (DEA) is a non-parametric, technical efficiency analysis method, based on the
relative comparison between evaluation objects. It was first proposed by Charnes et al. [34] in the
United States. DEA has many advantages. Firstly, it can deal with the problem of multi input and multi
output without building a production function to construct the parameters. Secondly, it can evaluate
the efficiency of the comprehensive index of the studied elements and describe the production status of
all elements. Thirdly, it is not affected by human subjective factors. The required weight is generated
by mathematical programming and does not need to be given a weight in advance. Fourthly, the DEA
model is not affected by the dimension of the input–output index. Finally, the DEA model can put
forward an improvement direction for the inefficient decision-making units (DMUs) through the
analysis of slack variables. Therefore, for this study we chose the “super undesirable dynamic SBM
model under an exogenous variable”, one of the latest DEA models, as the research method.
When evaluating the efficiency of each evaluation unit, sometimes the efficiency value of multiple
evaluation units is 1, especially when there are many input and output indicators, meaning the number
of effective DMUs will increase, which leads to the problem of insufficient judgment in the DEA.
Andersen and Petersen [35] first proposed a method to further distinguish the effective degree of the
DMU, which solved the problem that the efficiency value of the evaluation unit was too large. This new
model was called the Super DEA model. In this model, the evaluated decision-making units (DMUs)
are removed from the reference set; that is to say, the efficiency of the evaluated DMU is obtained by
referring to the frontier of other DMUs, and the efficiency value of the effective DMU is generally
greater than 1, so the effective DMU can be distinguished. By evaluating the efficiency value of one
unit in the selected set separately, on the basis of the remaining evaluation unit, the efficiency of the
evaluation unit is recalculated, and the efficiency boundary of the evaluation unit is sorted, so that the
excess of the rejection efficiency value (efficiency value) may be greater than or equal to 1.
In the radial DEA model, the measurement of the degree of inefficiency only includes the proportion
of increase and decrease of all inputs and outputs. For the invalid DMU, the gap between the current
state and the effective target value includes not only the parts of equal proportion improvement,
but also the parts of relaxation improvement. However, the part of relaxation improvement is not
reflected in the calculation of the efficiency value. Therefore, Tone [36] first proposed an efficiency value
estimation model based on margin variables. This model adopts the non-radial estimation method
and considers slacks of input and output at the same time. The estimated efficiency value is between 0
and 1, which is called the SBM model. However, under this model, the same SBM efficiency value of
multiple decision-making units would still be 1, so Tone [37] proposed a slashed-based measure of a
super-efficiency model.
Klopp [38] first proposed window analysis for dynamic analysis, followed by the Malmquist index
of Färe et al. [39], divided into catch up and innovation effects; however, these analyses did not analyze
the influence of “the effect of carry-over activities” in these two periods, while Färe and Grosskopf [40]
first put inter-connecting activities into the dynamic. After Färe et al., Tone and Tsutsui [41] extended
the model to the dynamic analysis of a slacks-based measure. Due to Tone and Tsutsui’s dynamic DEA
model not considering the undesirable, exogenous variables, the entire unit’s efficiency value with ‘1’
was too much in the results. Therefore, the dynamic DEA was combined with Tone’s [37] super SBM,
as well as with that of Tone and Tsutsui [41].
Considering the exogenous variables, the super undesirable dynamic SBM model assesses the
efficiency of agricultural water use, to avoid the efficiency value and improve the undervalued or
overvalued spaces. Considering the exogenous variables, the following proposes the model structure
of the super undesirable dynamic SBM model.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4792 7 of 23

Suppose the observations make up a J (J = 1 . . . n) dimension DMU set in which the DMU under
evaluation is represented by DMU0 and is subject to DMU0 ∈J. The input and output used to compute
the efficiency are labeled as m inputs Xijt (I = 1 . . . m) and s outputs Yijt , respectively. Let output Y
be divided into (Yg , Yb ), where Yg is a desirable output, Yb is an undesirable output, and Zinput is
carried over from period t to period t + 1. Eajt (a = 1 . . . u) is an exogenous variable that is outside of
a given economic model. It often has an impact on the outcome of the model. The following is the
non-oriented model:
" " ##
1 PT t 1
m s−
P it
P sinput
nbad
rt
T t=1 W 1 − m+ninput xiot + input
i=1 r=1 zrot
θ∗0 = min " s +g (1)
s2 s−b
" ##
1 s
1 PT t 1 P jt P jt
T t=1 W 1 + s1 +s2 g + b ylot ylot
l=1 l=1

Equation (1) is the connection equation between t and t + 1.

 n n
zaijt λtj = zajit λtj+1 (∀i; t = 1, . . . , T − 1)
 P P





 j=1,,0 j=1,,0

 n
xljt λtj + s− (i = 1, . . . , m; t = 1, . . . , T )
P
xiot =



 it
j=1,,0



n


+g +g
yljt − sIt (I = 1, . . . , s1; t = 1, . . . , T )
 P
ylot =






 j=1,,0

 n
y−b λt + s−b (I = 1, . . . , s2; t = 1, . . . , T )
 P


 ylot = ljt j It
j=1,,0 (2)


 n
input input input

zrjt λtj (r = 1, . . . , ninput; t = 1, . . . , T )
 P



 zrot = + srt


 j=1,,0
 n
Eajt λtj (a = 1, . . . , u; t = 1, . . . , T )
 P
Eaot =




j=1,,0




 n
λtj = 1 (t = 1, . . . , T )

 P





 j=1,,0
+ +g
λtj ≥ 0, s− ≥ 0, s−b

≥ 0, sIt ≥ 0, srt ≥ 0


it It

The super-efficient solution is

" #
1
m
P S−it
P Sinput
nbad
rt
1− m+ninput xiot + input
i=1 r=1 Zrot
ρ0t = +g i = (1, . . . , T) (3)
S−b
" #
S1 S jt S2
1 P P jt
1+ S1+S2 g +
ylot yblot
l=1 l=1

2.2. Dagum Gini Coefficient

Considering the subgroup sample distribution, Dagum [42] proposed a new method of Gini
coefficient decomposition, which solved the overlapping between sample data and the source of
regional overall difference. This paper uses the Dagum Gini coefficient and its subgroup decomposition
method to study the climate’s impact on the water-use efficiency in agriculture in our country, to study
any regional differences. According to the Gini coefficient and its subgroup decomposition method
proposed by Dagum, China is divided into three regions, namely, k = 3, and j and h are, respectively,
k regions (different regions in the eastern, middle, and western region; j = 1,2..., k; H = 1,2...K, and j , h);
n is the number of provinces (cities) in the country, n = 30; n is the agricultural production efficiency of
province i (r) (city) in region j (h) under the influence of climatic factors; and y is the arithmetic average
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4792 8 of 23

of the national agricultural production efficiency under the influence of climatic factors. The calculation
formula of the Dagum Gini coefficient and its subgroup decomposition method is

k P n j nh 
k P 
P P
 y ji − yhr 
j=1 h=1 i=1 r=1
G= −
(4)
2n2 y

Dagum decomposed the overall Dagum Gini coefficient G into three parts: intra-regional
difference contribution (Gw ), inter-regional net value difference contribution (Gnb ), and intensity of
transvariation (Gt ), which met G = Gw + Gnb + Gt .

2.3. Kernel Density Analysis

As a non-parametric estimation method, kernel density estimation is mainly used to obtain the
distribution pattern of random variables by smoothing the probability density of the random variables
based on the kernel function, which is widely used in the analysis of regional differences. X1, X2..., Xn
is the sample of a unary continuous population, and Formula (5) is the kernel density estimation of the
density function f(x) at any point x. Where f(x) is defined as the density function, K(·) is the kernel
function, and h is the bandwidth.
n
1 X x − Xi
fh ( x ) = K( ) (5)
nh h
i=1

In this paper, the commonly used Gaussian kernel function was selected to estimate the kernel
density curve of the distribution pattern of agricultural production efficiency under the influence of
climatic factors in China. Based on the sample data, the dynamic evolution law of the distribution
of agricultural production efficiency under the influence of climatic factors was described from the
time dimension.

3. Results

3.1. Data Description

3.1.1. Explanation of Variables

This paper takes 30 provincial administrative units in China as research objects, and analyzes the
agricultural production efficiency of the research objects based on the one-stage dynamic super-efficiency
SBM model. As the study’s focus is on the provinces of the Chinese mainland, Taiwan, Hong Kong,
and the Macao special administrative regions were not analyzed. In addition, due to limited data of
the Tibet autonomous region, it was also not included.
According to the seventh five-year plan of the fourth session of the sixth National People’s
Congress, the Chinese mainland is divided into eastern, middle, and western regions. Inner Mongolia
and Guangxi are classified as the western region because their per capita gross domestic product (GDP)
is comparable to the average of the 10 provinces in the western region. See Table 1 for details.

Table 1. Regional division of China.

Region Provinces (Autonomous Regions and Municipalities)

Beijing, Tianjin, Shanghai, Liaoning, Hebei, Shandong, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Fujian,
East
Guangdong, Hainan
Middle Heilongjiang, Jilin, Henan, Shanxi, Anhui, Hubei, Hunan, Jiangxi
Gansu, Guizhou, Ningxia, Qinghai, Shaanxi, Yunnan, Xinjiang, Sichuan, Guangxi,
West
Chongqing, Inner Mongolia
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4792 9 of 23

Considering the availability of data, this paper analyzed the variables’ efficiency for 30 provinces
in China from 2010 to 2017. In the first stage of the input process, agricultural water consumption,
agricultural employees, cultivated irrigated area, and fixed assets were used as the input indicators,
while gross output value of agriculture was taken as the desired output, and the disaster area for crops
is taken as the undesired output. Extreme weather is taken as the exogenous variable of the model,
and fixed assets is taken as the carry-over variable. See Table 2 for details.

Table 2. The input and output variables.

Stage Variable Unit

Agricultural Water Consumption (AWC) million cubic meters
Agricultural Employees (AE) 10,000 people
Input
Agricultural Cultivated Irrigated Area (CIA) 1000 hectares
production Fixed Assets (FA) 100 million CNY
Gross Output Value of Agriculture (GOVA) 100 million CNY
Output
Crop Disaster Area (CDA) 1000 hectares
Climate
Extreme Weather Days (EWD) day
variables

Details of the specific variables are explained as follows:

O
1 Agricultural water consumption (AWC). It refers to the sum of the irrigation water for farmland,
forest fruit land, grassland, fish ponds, and livestock.
O
2 Agricultural employees (AE). It refers to the total number of people who work in a
primary industry and are paid for their labor in the first industry, including on-the-job worker,
re-employment of the retired personnel, the foreign staff working in the various units, Hong Kong,
Macao and Taiwan personnel, part-time staff, personnel from other units on loan, and the second unit
outside professionals, etc., but excluding the employees who leave the primary industry but retain
labor relations.
O
3 Cultivated irrigated area (CIA). It refers to the cultivated land area with a certain water source:
a relatively flat plot with supporting irrigation projects or equipment, which can be irrigated normally
in normal years. It is an important index reflecting the construction of farmland water conservancy
in China.
O
4 Gross output value of agriculture (GOVA). It refers to the total value of all agricultural, forestry,
animal husbandry, and fishery products, expressed in monetary terms and various supporting service
activities for agricultural, forestry, animal husbandry, and fishery production activities, which reflects
the total scale and total results of agricultural, forestry, animal husbandry, and fishery production in a
certain period.
O
5 Crop disaster area (CDA). It refers to the sown areas affected by floods and drought, which results
in a lower crop yield than in normal years. It includes the disaster area and dead area.
O
6 Extreme weather days (EWD). It refers to the total number of days with temperatures below
5 degrees Celsius and above 32 degrees Celsius in each province.
O
7 Fixed assets (FA). Is refers to the volume of construction and the acquisition of primary industry
fixed assets in monetary terms. According to the depreciation of China’s fixed assets, the depreciation
rate of physical capital is 0.096. The formula of permanent inventory method is as follows:

Kit = Ki,t−1 (1 − δ) + Iit (6)

In the formula, kit and ki,t−1 are, respectively, the investment stock of this year and the investment
stock of last year, and δ stands for the depreciation rate.
Figure 1 is the process analysis diagram of the SBM dynamic model, which shows the process
thinking of this paper by using flow chart. See Figure 1 for details.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4792 10 of 23
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 22

Figure 1. The Slacks-Based Measures (SBM) dynamic model.

Figure 1. The Slacks-Based Measures (SBM) dynamic model.
3.1.2. Data Description
3.1.2. Data Description
In this paper, the agricultural input–output data of the whole country, the east, the middle,
and the western In this paper,from
regions the agricultural
2010 to 2017 input–output data oftothe
were selected whole country,
measure the mean the east,
value,themaximum
middle, andvalue,
the western regions from 2010 to 2017 were selected to measure the mean value, maximum value,
minimum value, and standard deviation of agricultural water consumption, agricultural employees,
minimum value, and standard deviation of agricultural water consumption, agricultural employees,
cultivatedcultivated
irrigated irrigated
area, fixed assets,
area, fixed gross
assets,output value of
gross output agriculture,
value crop crop
of agriculture, disaster area,area,
disaster andandextreme
weather days.
extreme The data days.
weather for agricultural water consumption,
The data for agricultural cultivated
water consumption, irrigated
cultivated area,
irrigated fixed
area, fixedassets,
the gross assets,
outputthe value
grossofoutput
agriculture,
value of and the crop
agriculture, anddisaster
the croparea were
disaster taken
area werefrom
takenChina’s statistical
from China’s
statistical yearbooks [43] from 2011 to 2018. The data regarding agricultural
yearbooks [43] from 2011 to 2018. The data regarding agricultural employees were from the employees were from the local
local statistical yearbooks [44] of the provinces. The data of the extreme weather days were from
statistical yearbooks [44] of the provinces. The data of the extreme weather days were from online
online sources [45]. See Table 3 for details.
sources [45]. See Table 3 for details.
Table 3. Descriptive statistics of the inputs and outputs.
Table 3. Descriptive statistics of the inputs and outputs.
Region Variables Mean Median Max Min SD
Region Nation
Variables AWCMean126.200 98.200
Median 561.700
Max 5.100 Min 107.240 SD
AE 929.200 783.010 2712.000 37.090 653.090
Nation AWC 126.200 98.200 561.700 5.100 107.240
AE CIA 2133.050
929.200 1631.300
783.010 6031.000
2712.000 115.50037.0901601.800 653.090
CIA GOVA 1694.390
2133.050 1442.400
1631.300 4929.900
6031.000 92.100
115.5001179.740 1601.800
GOVA CDA1694.390909.790 734.300
1442.400 4223.700
4929.900 3.10092.100784.790 1179.740
CDA EWD909.790153.460 158.000
734.300 240.000
4223.700 42.0003.100 50.350 784.790
EWD FA 153.460
2454.170 158.000
1983.300 240.000
10,663.630 93.45042.0001926.860 50.350
FA
East AWC 2454.170103.676 1983.300
91.000 10,663.630 5.10093.450 88.209
307.600 1926.860
East AWC AE 103.676733.044 616.915
91.000 2273.100
307.600 37.0905.100 642.804 88.209
AE CIA733.0441834.947 1438.450
616.915 5191.100
2273.100 115.500 37.0901729.697 642.804
CIA GOVA1834.947
1687.623 1438.450
1464.600 5191.100 129.800
4929.900 115.5001403.601 1729.697
GOVA CDA1687.623555.800 1464.600
405.200 4929.900
2582.300 129.800589.529
3.100 1403.601
CDA EWD555.800148.159 405.200
149.000 2582.300
219.000 74.0003.100 41.016 589.529
EWD 148.159 149.000 219.000 74.000 41.016
FA 2099.322 1336.964 8782.641 93.451 2098.056
FA 2099.322 1336.964 8782.641 93.451 2098.056
Middle AWC 152.210 154.950 316.400 37.980 71.885
Middle AWC AE 152.210
1251.662 154.950
1083.300 316.400
2712.000 491.40037.980659.540 71.885
AE CIA1251.662
3148.032 1083.300
2877.200 2712.000 1274.150
6031.000 491.4001437.446 659.540
CIA 3148.032 2877.200 6031.000 1274.150 1437.446
GOVA 2153.923 2089.400 4610.700 669.000 1098.482
GOVA 2153.923 2089.400 4610.700 669.000 1098.482
CDA 1343.639 1174.400 4223.700 225.100 767.538
CDA 1343.639 1174.400 4223.700 225.100 767.538
EWD EWD164.750164.750 168.500
168.500 224.000
224.000 87.00087.000 38.431 38.431
FA FA3426.860
3426.860 2981.287
2981.287 10,663.634
10,663.634 1086.916
1086.9161934.765 1934.765
West AWC 129.816 94.900 561.700 19.200 138.005
West AWC 129.816 94.900 561.700 19.200 138.005
AE 890.826 790.500 2083.200 114.790 571.502
CIA 1692.973 1297.350 4982.000 182.500 1231.581
GOVA 1366.955 1333.850 4004.200 92.100 846.001
CDA 948.256 753.400 3917.300 70.800 806.888
EWD 150.557 169.500 240.000 42.000 63.897
FA 2101.599 1835.162 6343.983 336.971 1462.148
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4792 11 of 23

3.2. Agricultural Production Efficiency Analysis

The overall efficiency level of the eastern region is the best among the three regions, and the overall
efficiency level of most provinces is greater than 1, including Shanghai, Shandong, Tianjin, Beijing,
Jiangsu, and other provinces. Zhejiang has the lowest efficiency level, with the overall efficiency level
of 0.857. The overall efficiency shows a downward trend, from 1 to 0.804 in the period of 2010–2017,
but still at a high level of efficiency.
Among the middle regions, Henan and Heilongjiang have higher efficiency levels of 1.11 and
1.107, respectively; however, the overall efficiency level is around 0.5 in most provinces, such as Shanxi,
Jilin, Anhui, and Jiangxi. The overall efficiency of Hubei and Hunan is around 0.7, but the overall
efficiency level shows a downward trend, falling to 0.541 and 0.403, respectively, in 2017.
In the western region, its overall efficiency shows a trend of polarization. The efficiency level of
Sichuan, Chongqing, Guizhou, and Shaanxi is above 1, while the efficiency level of Yunnan, Gansu,
Ningxia, and Inner Mongolia is below 0.4. Among them, Ningxia has the lowest efficiency level,
with the overall efficiency value fluctuating around 0.3 from 2010 to 2017.
It can be seen from the above situations that the efficiency levels of the three regions are different,
and the internal differences between the western region and the middle region are also large. Table 4
summarizes the overall efficiency levels of the studied provinces in China from 2010 to 2017.

Table 4. Overall efficiency by provinces from 2010 to 2017 (China).

Region DMU Overall 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
East Shanghai 1.200 1.291 1.321 1.276 1.087 1.118 1.091 1.622 1.000
Shandong 1.093 1.082 1.096 1.061 1.106 1.229 1.099 1.084 1.011
Tianjin 1.218 1.207 1.781 1.144 1.628 1.201 1.086 1.068 1.000
Beijing 1.249 3.706 1.285 1.209 1.205 1.087 1.199 1.057 1.000
Jiangsu 1.272 1.198 1.214 1.231 1.332 1.291 1.304 1.317 1.307
Hebei 1.012 1.000 1.016 1.041 1.037 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Hainan 1.217 1.190 1.190 1.200 1.163 1.198 1.233 1.214 1.372
Zhejiang 0.857 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.707 0.912 0.731 0.806 0.804
Fujian 1.137 1.069 1.373 1.184 1.093 1.342 1.071 1.072 1.000
Guangdong 0.967 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.745
Liaoning 0.910 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.469
Middle Shanxi 0.448 0.527 0.536 0.507 0.466 0.468 0.407 0.376 0.310
Jilin 0.546 0.579 0.621 0.620 0.681 0.593 0.562 0.466 0.292
Anhui 0.421 0.477 0.447 0.443 0.418 0.458 0.395 0.365 0.366
Jiangxi 0.353 0.338 0.344 0.347 0.312 0.354 0.378 0.380 0.368
Henan 1.110 1.188 1.109 1.107 1.075 1.089 1.288 1.064 1.010
Hubei 0.690 1.000 1.000 0.686 0.649 0.656 0.577 0.583 0.541
Hunan 0.707 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.596 0.632 0.675 0.592 0.403
Heilongjiang 1.007 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.031 1.022 1.000 1.000 1.000
West Yunnan 0.563 0.463 0.420 0.518 1.000 0.651 0.556 0.515 0.503
Sichuan 1.104 1.110 1.052 1.083 1.044 1.091 1.096 1.127 1.248
Gansu 0.397 0.462 0.406 0.411 0.421 0.400 0.384 0.410 0.295
Ningxia 0.321 0.336 0.300 0.327 0.314 0.310 0.321 0.341 0.323
Qinghai 0.893 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.474
Chongqing 1.137 1.108 1.108 1.108 1.117 1.113 1.172 1.127 1.243
Xinjiang 0.776 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.478 0.506 0.448
Inner Mongolia 0.392 0.398 0.429 0.405 0.433 0.408 0.388 0.349 0.338
Guangxi 0.741 0.561 0.583 0.731 0.677 0.523 1.000 1.000 1.000
Guizhou 1.181 1.032 1.022 1.123 1.172 1.264 1.339 1.281 1.308
Shaanxi 1.070 1.022 1.119 1.102 1.085 1.083 1.055 1.050 1.047
 Xinjiang 0.776 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.478 0.506 0.448
Inner Mongolia 0.392 0.398 0.429 0.405 0.433 0.408 0.388 0.349 0.338
Guangxi 0.741 0.561 0.583 0.731 0.677 0.523 1.000 1.000 1.000
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4792
Guizhou 1.181 1.032 1.022 1.123 1.172 1.264 1.339 1.28112 of1.308
23

Shaanxi 1.070 1.022 1.119 1.102 1.085 1.083 1.055 1.050 1.047
In the eastern region of China, Hebei, Beijing, Tianjin, Shandong, and Jiangsu have maintained
In the eastern region of China, Hebei, Beijing, Tianjin, Shandong, and Jiangsu have maintained
high efficiency levels, indicating that the eastern route of China’s south-to-north water diversion project
high efficiency levels, indicating that the eastern route of China's south-to-north water diversion
has played an important role in the eastern part of the country. As the Yellow River flows through
project has played an important role in the eastern part of the country. As the Yellow River flows
Inner Mongolia, Ningxia, and Gansu, the agricultural production efficiency fluctuates between 0 and
through Inner Mongolia, Ningxia, and Gansu, the agricultural production efficiency fluctuates
0.4, which means the efficiency level is relatively low. In the middle region, the efficiencies of Hubei,
between 0 and 0.4, which means the efficiency level is relatively low. In the middle region, the
Hunan, Jiangxi, and other provinces are relatively low. Jiangxi has the lowest agricultural production
efficiencies of Hubei, Hunan, Jiangxi, and other provinces are relatively low. Jiangxi has the lowest
efficiency. It can be seen that there are still problems in agricultural production efficiency in the middle
agricultural
region whereproduction efficiency.
the Yangtze River flows. It can be seen that there are still problems in agricultural
production
Figure 2efficiency
shows theinlevel
the middle regionproduction
of agricultural where the efficiency
Yangtze River
in theflows.
different regions of China by
usingFigure 2 shows the level of agricultural production efficiency in the different regions of China
the bitmap.
by using the bitmap.

Figure 2. Geographical distribution of the overall agricultural production efficiency (China).

By calculating the efficiency values of the east, middle, west, and the whole nation in 2010–2017,
Figure 2. Geographical distribution of the overall agricultural production efficiency (China).
the average efficiency values of each region show a downward trend. In 2010–2012, the national
average efficiency dropped the most significantly, from 1.34 to 1.12. The rest of the year also showed a
By calculating the efficiency values of the east, middle, west, and the whole nation in 2010–2017,
downward trend, falling to 0.97 in 2017. Among them, the average efficiency of the eastern region
the average efficiency values of each region show a downward trend. In 2010–2012, the national
is the highest, and the middle region is the lowest. In 2015–2016, the efficiency of the eastern region
average
shows a efficiency
temporarydropped the most
upward trend, but significantly,
in 2017 it droppedfromto1.34 to 1.12.
about 1. The rest of the year also showed
a downward trend,the
In 2010–2011, falling to 0.97
average in 2017.values
efficiency Among in them, the average
the middle efficiency
and western of the
regions eastern
were region
similar.
is the highest, and the middle region is the lowest. In 2015–2016, the efficiency of the
However, in the following years, the efficiency level of the middle and western regions is higher than eastern region
shows
that of athe
temporary upward
middle region, andtrend,
the gap but in 2017the
between it dropped
two regionsto about 1. widens to about 0.3 in 2017.
gradually
In 2010–2011,
In general, the average
all regions shouldefficiency
strengthenvalues in the middle
the improvement and western
of agricultural regions were
production similar.
efficiency
However, in thecurb
and effectively following years,inthe
the decline efficiency production
agricultural level of the efficiency.
middle andFigure
western regions
3 shows theisaverage
higher than
that of theof
efficiency middle region,production
agricultural and the gap betweenmiddle,
in eastern, the twoand regions gradually
western China inwidens to about 0.3 in 2017.
2010–2017.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 22

In general, all regions should strengthen the improvement of agricultural production efficiency
and effectively curb the decline in agricultural production efficiency. Figure 3 shows the average
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4792 13 of 23
efficiency of agricultural production in eastern, middle, and western China in 2010–2017.

Figure 3. Average efficiency from 2013–2016 for the east, middle, west, and nationwide (China).

3.3. Figure
Spatial 3.
Difference
AverageAnalysis
efficiency from 2013–2016 for the east, middle, west, and nationwide (China).
In general, the overall Dagum Gini coefficient of China’s agricultural production efficiency
3.3.fluctuates
Spatial Difference
betweenAnalysis
0.18 and 0.26, and shows a continuous decline from 0.2445 to 0.1810 during
2010–2012.
In general, Subsequently,
the overallit shows
Dagum an Gini
upward trend, reaching
coefficient a peakagricultural
of China's of 0.2604 in 2017. It can be seen
production efficiency
that the overall regional differences in China show a U-shaped fluctuation within the research period,
fluctuates between 0.18 and 0.26, and shows a continuous decline from 0.2445 to 0.1810 during 2010–
and the overall regional differences show a growing trend.
2012. Subsequently, it shows an upward trend, reaching a peak of 0.2604 in 2017. It can be seen that
From the perspective of intra-regional differences, the differences in the eastern regions are the
the overall regional differences in China show a U-shaped fluctuation within the research period, and
lowest, while the difference between the middle and western regions fluctuates around 0.2, showing a
the high
overall regional
level differences
of intra-regional show a growing
differences. trend.
In the eastern regions, the level of intra-regional differences
From the perspective of intra-regional differences,
generally shows a downward trend but shows a slight upward the trend
differences
from 2014 in the eastern
to 2017, risingregions
to 0.1254 are the
lowest, while
in 2017. themiddle
In the difference between
regions, the middle
the overall trend isandthat western regions
of a rise, from fluctuates
0.2130 in 2010 to around
0.2634 0.2, showing
in 2017,
a high level of intra-regional differences. In the eastern regions, the level of
a significant increase of 23.7%. The western regions show the most significant increase, from 0.2136 in intra-regional differences
generally
2010 to shows
0.2919 ina 2017,
downward trend
an increase but shows
of 36.7%, a slight
indicating upward
greater trend from
intra-regional 2014 to 2017, rising to
differences.
0.1254 in 2017. In the middle regions, the overall trend is that of a rise, from 0.2130differences
From the perspective of the evolution trend among regions, the level of inter-regional in 2010 toin0.2634
agricultural
in 2017, production
a significant efficiency
increase in China
of 23.7%. Thetends to riseregions
western within the
show research scope,
the most but the levels
significant of the from
increase,
east–west regions tend to decline. In 2010, the level of the east–west and east–middle
0.2136 in 2010 to 0.2919 in 2017, an increase of 36.7%, indicating greater intra-regional differences. regions fluctuated
around 0.28, while the level of the east–west regions was relatively low, only 0.217. From 2011 to 2017,
From the perspective of the evolution trend among regions, the level of inter-regional differences
the level of the east–west regions is significantly lower than that of the middle–east regions, while the
in agricultural production efficiency in China tends to rise within the research scope, but the levels
level of the east–middle and middle–west regions shows an alternating rise, rising to more than 0.31
of the east–west regions tend to decline. In 2010, the level of the east–west and east–middle regions
in 2017.
fluctuatedFromaround 0.28, whileofthe
the perspective thelevel of the trend
evolution east–westof theregions was relatively
inter-regional low, sources
differences’ only 0.217. and From
2011 to 2017, the
contribution level
rates, the of the east–west
contribution rate ofregions is significantly
the inter-regional lower
differences wasthan that offrom
the highest the middle–east
2010 to
regions,
2017, while
with anthe level of
average the east–middle
annual rate of over 46% and in middle–west
8 years, and regions
the overall shows an alternating
fluctuation rise, rising
was relatively
to more
smooth.thanThe0.31 in 2017. rate of intra-regional differences is second only to that of inter-regional
contribution
differences,
From theand the evolution
perspective is flatevolution
of the from 2010trend to 2017, offluctuating at around 26%.
the inter-regional The intensity
differences’ sourcesof and
transvariation
contribution is the
rates, theone with the lowest
contribution rate ofcontribution rate. From
the inter-regional 2010 to 2017,
differences wasit fluctuated
the highest at from
around 2010 to
20%. However, it showed an upward trend from 2015 to 2017 and increased
2017, with an average annual rate of over 46% in 8 years, and the overall fluctuation was to 25.77% in 2017. It can be
relatively
seen that China’s inter-regional differences are the main source of China’s overall regional differences.
smooth. The contribution rate of intra-regional differences is second only to that of inter-regional
differences, and the evolution is flat from 2010 to 2017, fluctuating at around 26%. The intensity of
transvariation is the one with the lowest contribution rate. From 2010 to 2017, it fluctuated at around
20%. However, it showed an upward trend from 2015 to 2017 and increased to 25.77% in 2017. It can
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4792 14 of 23

Table 5 summarizes the regional differences of China’s agricultural production, including

the Dagum Gini coefficient within and between regions, as well as the contribution rate of the
overall differences.

Table 5. The Dagum Gini coefficient and its decomposition results.

Intra-Regional Difference Inter-Regional Difference Contribution Rates (%)

Year Overall
East Middle West East–Middle East–West Middle–West Gw Gnb Gt
2010 0.2445 0.1952 0.2130 0.2136 0.2847 0.2786 0.2170 28.81% 55.87% 15.32%
2011 0.2040 0.0960 0.2042 0.2240 0.2340 0.2325 0.2181 26.31% 55.11% 18.58%
2012 0.1810 0.0497 0.2113 0.2119 0.2279 0.1816 0.2238 25.32% 56.59% 18.10%
2013 0.1978 0.1004 0.2176 0.1917 0.2765 0.1758 0.2430 26.54% 57.74% 15.72%
2014 0.2001 0.0663 0.2032 0.2290 0.2692 0.1943 0.2450 25.07% 58.26% 16.67%
2015 0.2124 0.0710 0.2417 0.2475 0.2732 0.1992 0.2706 26.29% 49.67% 24.04%
2016 0.2227 0.0917 0.2270 0.2410 0.3055 0.2110 0.2706 25.67% 58.24% 16.09%
2017 0.2604 0.1254 0.2634 0.2919 0.3216 0.2513 0.3195 27.69% 46.53% 25.77%
Notes: Gw refers to intra-regional differences; Gnb refers to inter-regional differences; Gt refers to intensity
of transvariation.

3.4. Kernel Density Estimation

On the whole, there are differences in the kernel density curves of the national, eastern, middle,
and western regions. However, the peak value of each region gradually moves to the left, and the
efficiency level tends to decline. The density distribution in the eastern region fluctuates greatly.
From 2010 to 2017, the peak value of the kernel density estimation curve showed a downward
trend, indicating that the concentration degree of agricultural production efficiency shows a downward
trend. From 2016 to 2017, the estimated curve shape of the national kernel density changes from
a multi-peak shape to a single-peak shape, with the peak value decreasing and kurtosis widening.
It shows that the differentiation degree of the whole country reduces.
The kernel density estimation curve of agricultural production efficiency in the eastern region
moves slightly to the left, and the overall efficiency level shows a downward trend. From 2015 to
2017, the peak in the eastern region gradually increases, especially in 2017. It can be seen that the
differentiation of the eastern region has increased. Moreover, in 2017, the peak in the eastern region
increased significantly, and the concentration in the eastern region also increased.
In the middle region, the right tail of the kernel density estimation curve moves slightly to the left,
and the level of agricultural production efficiency decreases. In addition, the kernel density estimation
curve changed from a single-peak shape to a multi-peak shape, and the regional difference increased as
well. In 2017, the peak density curve showed an obvious upward trend, with increasing concentration
and polarization in the middle region.
From 2010 to 2013, the peak value of the kernel density estimation curve in the western region
gradually decreased, and the regional concentration also decreased. From 2014 to 2017, the kernel
density curve changes from multi-peak shape to single-peak shape, indicating that there is a “spillover
effect” between provinces in the western region and the regional gap was narrowed. However, in 2017,
the kernel density curve in the western region changed to a multi-peak shape again, and the regional
gap further increased.
Figure 4 summarizes the distribution of the kernel density curves in the national, east, middle,
and western regions.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 23
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4792 15 of 23

Figure 4. Kernel density curve of the (a) national region; (b) eastern region; (c) middle region;
(d) western region (China).

3.5.Figure
Climate
4. to Agricultural
Kernel densityProduction
curve of theand(a)Crop Disaster
national Area (b) eastern region; (c) middle region; (d)
region;
In terms of extreme weather days,western region (China).
most provinces have fewer than 200 days. The province with
the lowest number of extreme weather is Yunnan, with 56.375 days. The province with the most
3.5. Climate to Agricultural
extreme weather is Qinghai,Production
with 230.375 and Crop
days, DisasterforArea
accounting about 63% of the year’s total. In terms
of gross output value of agricultural, regional differences are also large, with a maximum difference
In terms of extreme weather days, most provinces have fewer than 200 days. The province with
of 4208.3625 billion CNY. Qinghai has the lowest total output value, which is 132.1875 billion CNY.
the lowest number
The highest of extreme
is Shandong weather
at 4340.55 is CNY.
billion Yunnan,This with 56.375
is because days.weather
extreme The province with
has a huge the most
impact
extreme weather
on agriculture. is Qinghai, with 230.375 days, accounting for about 63% of the year’s total. In terms
of gross output
There is value of agricultural,
a negative regional
correlation between the differences
gross output are also
value large, withand
of agricultural a maximum difference
extreme weather
of 4208.3625 billion
days. Qinghai, forCNY. Qinghai
example, has
has the the lowest
highest number total outputweather
of extreme value, which
and theislowest
132.1875
grossbillion
outputCNY.
The highest is Shandong at 4340.55 billion CNY. This is because extreme weather has a hugeand
value for agriculture. The same is true of Beijing, which has relatively higher extreme weather days impact
a low agricultural output value (154.8625 billion CNY). In contrast, Sichuan has less extreme weather
on agriculture.
(95 days),
There is and its gross output
a negative value of
correlation agricultural
between the isgross
high (3040.1625
output valuebillion
ofCNY), which shows
agricultural and that
extreme
extreme weather has a significant impact on agricultural economy. In turn,
weather days. Qinghai, for example, has the highest number of extreme weather and the lowest gross Shandong and Henan
are special. Shandong, in particular, is China’s vegetable base, featuring a large shed for farming;
output value for agriculture. The same is true of Beijing, which has relatively higher extreme weather
its modern farming methods are also less vulnerable to extreme weather.
days and a low agricultural output value (154.8625 billion CNY). In contrast, Sichuan has less extreme
weather (95 days), and its gross output value of agricultural is high (3040.1625 billion CNY), which
shows that extreme weather has a significant impact on agricultural economy. In turn, Shandong and
Henan are special. Shandong, in particular, is China’s vegetable base, featuring a large shed for
farming; its modern farming methods are also less vulnerable to extreme weather.
 Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4792 16 of 23
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 22

CropCrop disaster
disaster areaarea is positivelycorrelated
is positively correlated with
with extreme
extremeweather
weatherdays.
days.For example,
For example,there are are
there
more extreme weather in Inner Mongolia (198.75 days); its crop disaster area is 2498.675
more extreme weather in Inner Mongolia (198.75 days); its crop disaster area is 2498.675 thousand thousand
hectares, the largest in China. Zhejiang experiences less extreme weather (87.375 days) and its crop
hectares, the largest in China. Zhejiang experiences less extreme weather (87.375 days) and its crop
disaster area is smaller (469.4 thousand hectares). See Figure 5 for details.
disaster area is smaller (469.4 thousand hectares). See Figure 5 for details.

(a) (b)

(c)

Figure 5. Radar maps of the following variables for each province over 8 years (China). (a) Extreme
Figure 5. Radar maps of the following variables for each province over 8 years (China). (a) Extreme
weather days (EWD); (b) gross output value of agriculture (GOVA); (c) crop disaster area (CDA).
weather days (EWD); (b) gross output value of agriculture (GOVA); (c) crop disaster area (CDA).
In general, there is a negative correlation between extreme weather days and the overall agricultural
In general, efficiency.
production there is aAsnegative
far as the correlation between
eastern region extreme Fujian,
is concerned, weather days andLiaoning,
Guangdong, the overall
and Shanghai
agricultural show an
production obvious negative
efficiency. As far ascorrelation.
the easternTheregion
more extreme the weather
is concerned, days,
Fujian, the less
Guangdong,
efficient the province’s agricultural production. In the middle region, the negative
Liaoning, and Shanghai show an obvious negative correlation. The more extreme the weather correlation is weak,
days,
but an inverse relationship can still be seen. In the western region, the negative correlation
the less efficient the province's agricultural production. In the middle region, the negative correlation is obvious,
especially in Inner Mongolia, Ningxia, Qinghai, and Shaanxi, with a large longitudinal wheelbase
is weak, but an inverse relationship can still be seen. In the western region, the negative correlation
distance. It can be seen that extreme weather also has a huge impact on agricultural production.
is obvious, especially in Inner Mongolia, Ningxia, Qinghai, and Shaanxi, with a large longitudinal
See Figure 6 for details.
wheelbase distance. It can be seen that extreme weather also has a huge impact on agricultural
production. See Figure 6 for details.
 Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4792 17 of 23
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 22

Eastern Region

250 1.5
200
150 1
100 0.5
50
0 0

EWD Overall

(a)

Middle Region

250 2
200 1.5
150
1
100
50 0.5
0 0

EWD Overall

(b)

Western Region

250 1.4
1.2
200
1
150 0.8
100 0.6
0.4
50
0.2
0 0

EWD Overall

(c)

Figure 6. Line charts of EWD and overall agricultural production efficiency (China). (a) East; (b) Middle;
Figure 6. Line charts of EWD and overall agricultural production efficiency (China). (a) East; (b)
(c) West.
Middle; (c) West.

3.6. Efficiency Analysis of Input-Output Index

In the input–output variables of agricultural production, the improvement value of GOVA is
almost 0, and the improvement range is small. However, in some provinces, especially in the middle
and western regions, the improvement values of AWC, CIA, and CDA are relatively large.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4792 18 of 23

3.6. Efficiency Analysis of Input-Output Index

In the input–output variables of agricultural production, the improvement value of GOVA is
almost 0, and the improvement range is small. However, in some provinces, especially in the middle
and western regions, the improvement values of AWC, CIA, and CDA are relatively large.
In the central region, the improvement values of Anhui and Jiangxi are higher, among which the CIA
improvement value of Jiangxi is 1113.739, with a larger improvement range. Secondly, the improvement
value of CDA in Hubei, Jilin, Jiangxi, and Shanxi is more than 500, and the highest improvement value
is 968.968 in Hubei. In the western region, the improvement values of AWC, CIA, and CDA are higher
in Inner Mongolia and Ningxia, and the highest CDA value is 2059.016 in Inner Mongolia. In addition,
the average CIA improvement value in Inner Mongolia is 2043.147, with a large improvement range.
To sum up, among the input–output variables in China, the improvement range of GOVA in each
region is relatively small, and each region maintains a high level of output. The improvement value of
the CDA in input–output variables is the largest, which needs to be improved. Table 6 calculates the
improvement values of the input–output variables in the abovementioned provinces over the past
eight years. See Table 6 for details.

Table 6. Improvement value of the input–output variables.

AWC AE CIA GOVA CDA

Region DMU
(MCM) (104 P) (103 H) (108 CNY) (103 H)
East Beijing 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Fujian 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Guangdong 15.365 30.405 0.000 0.000 1.947
Hainan 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Hebei 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Jiangsu 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Liaoning 4.839 9.474 84.451 0.000 100.238
Shandong 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Shanghai 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Tianjin 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Zhejiang 0.179 0.000 119.610 0.000 173.353
Middle Anhui 59.818 488.697 2456.613 0.000 808.082
Henan 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Heilongjiang 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Hubei 16.606 171.319 428.170 0.000 968.968
Hunan 34.446 223.382 354.586 0.000 675.631
Jilin 28.329 21.497 770.171 0.000 524.753
Jiangxi 108.350 287.984 1113.739 0.000 598.426
Shanxi 13.498 240.398 687.358 1.160 799.944
West Gansu 40.920 415.942 636.620 0.000 826.647
Guangxi 60.035 335.971 11.894 0.000 297.941
Guizhou 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Inner Mongolia 91.868 11.348 2043.147 0.000 2059.016
Ningxia 44.304 66.551 250.166 0.616 234.231
Qinghai 0.582 2.986 0.000 12.636 32.681
Shaanxi 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Sichuan 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Xinjiang 141.622 0.000 950.458 0.000 108.955
Yunnan 28.447 610.461 252.999 15.049 844.679
Chongqing 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4792 19 of 23

4. Conclusions
Based on the super-efficiency SBM model, Dagum Gini coefficient, and kernel density estimation
method, this research analyzed the agricultural production efficiency and spatial differences of 30
provinces in China, obtaining the following conclusions and suggestions.
(1) Agricultural production efficiency is unevenly distributed. Among the three regions in China,
the agricultural production efficiency of the eastern region is the best, and the agricultural production
efficiency of the western region is inferior to other regions. As the eastern region is located in the
coastal areas, its climate conditions and agricultural investment environment are better. With the
eastern route of the south-to-north water diversion project entering a stable operation period, the water
shortage in the north of China (Beijing, Tianjin, and Hebei) has been alleviated, and the agricultural
production efficiency level in the north of China has remained above 1. In 2017, the precipitation
in Liaoning reduced by 22%, and disasters such as drought, heavy rain, and strong wind occurred.
Therefore, due to the impact of natural disasters, the agricultural production efficiency in Liaoning has
declined significantly.
However, the middle region is located in the interior of China, dominated by a temperate,
continental climate; so, its agricultural production efficiency level is low. The agricultural production
efficiency decreases from 0.764 to 0.536. In the process of agricultural input and output, the improvement
values of CIA and CDA in the middle region are high. It can be seen that the efficiency value of
the above two variables should be increased in this region to promote the overall efficiency level.
In the middle region, Henan and Heilongjiang, China’s major traditional agricultural provinces, have
the right terrain and environment for crop production. Henan provides investment for agriculture
through agricultural risk subsidy projects, which improves and optimizes the agricultural production
efficiency of Henan. Heilongjiang, on the other hand, has a wide range of black land resources
and water resources, so it has made great efforts to develop agricultural resources and improve its
agricultural production efficiency by taking advantage of the centralized production of state-owned
farms. In addition, the agricultural labor force population in Anhui has been lost due to the “siphoning
effect” in Shanghai, Jiangsu, and Zhejiang, thus promoting the loss of agricultural production efficiency.
It can be seen that the ladder efficiency gap in the middle region is relatively significant. The climatic
features of the western region are mainly drought and little rain, and the agricultural production
conditions are relatively harsh, but agricultural production efficiency fluctuates around 0.75. In the
western region, Sichuan, Chongqing, Guangxi, and other provinces have abundant agricultural water,
and a higher agricultural production efficiency has been achieved through manual development and
mechanical operation. However, Gansu, Ningxia, and Inner Mongolia, due to their climatic features
and topographical environment, have kept their agricultural production efficiency at a low level and
failed to operate efficiently. Among them, the improvement values of the CDA in these three provinces
are high, so the efficiency level of the variable should be effectively improved.
(2) Regional differentiation of agricultural production efficiency is significant. Based on the study
of the Dagum Gini coefficient, it can be seen that the intra-regional Gini coefficient in the middle
region and the western region is more differentiated, which is consistent with the above exploration of
agricultural production efficiency. Under the intervention of the intra-regional environment, climatic
differences, and economic factors, the intra-regional differences between the middle and western
regions are larger than those between the eastern regions, and there is a ladder efficiency gap within
the regions. As for the inter-regional Gini coefficient, it can be seen that the efficiency between regions
fluctuates around 0.2. Due to the frequent population mobility and agricultural investment resources
in the eastern and middle regions, which mainly flow from the middle region to the eastern region,
the regional gap of the east–middle regions has increased significantly. The analysis of agricultural
production efficiency between regions shows that the difference between the regions is the main source
of regional development inequality. By using the kernel density estimation method, it is found that the
concentration degree of the agricultural areas in the country decreases, the distribution of agricultural
water resources in the regions is more balanced, and the differences between the different regions in
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4792 20 of 23

the country gradually decrease. However, from the perspective of various regions, the integration of
agricultural water resources in the eastern region is accelerating, and the distribution of agricultural
resources tends to be concentrated. In 2017, the nuclear density estimation curve in the eastern region
showed multiple peaks and the peak value increased. In the middle region, the right tail of the kernel
density estimation curve moved slightly to the left, and the agricultural production efficiency showed
a downward trend.
(3) All regions should strengthen the prevention and control of meteorological disasters. In recent
years, as the global climate continues to warm, extreme weather events between regions have become
more frequent, causing increasing losses and impacts. Among them, northeast China is most affected
by low temperatures in winter, while hot weather in summer prevails throughout the country. In the
face of severe high temperatures, local governments should organize the formulation of emergency
plans. Under the premise of ensuring daily cultivation, local governments should reasonably improve
the agricultural structure and layout and reform the farming system. By measuring the range of
temperature changes in local areas, reasonable crops and water consumption can be used to improve
the water-use efficiency. In addition, the relationship between crop growth and development, yield
formation, and climatic conditions should be clarified in the reform of planting systems, so as to
rationally utilize agro-climatic resources, prevent agro-climatic disasters, and improve the ability to
cope with climate change. In the face of the low temperature disaster in some agricultural areas,
each region should promote the improvement of crop insulation measures, by spraying warm water
measures, supplement crop water, inhibit the evaporation of frozen tissue water, and promote tissue
water absorption. Under the guarantee of early warning measures, farmers can build greenhouses and
control light, temperature, and humidity in the sheds.
(4) All regions should ensure the supply of water for agriculture. As most of China’s agricultural
areas are located in rural and suburban areas, their investment in facilities and the penetration rate
of agricultural application technology are worse than those in urban areas. In the eastern region,
the eastern route of the south-to-north water diversion project alleviates the disadvantages caused
by the uneven distribution of water resources in the region, but it does not solve the “last kilometer”
problem of agricultural irrigation. According to the distribution of local farmland and surrounding
waters, the local township government and the county government should strengthen the construction
of the last-stage water transmission channel, so as to make the south-to-north water diversion project
truly benefit the majority of farmers to get rid of the vicious circle of agricultural water caused by
long-term over-extraction of groundwater. However, the middle and western regions that the Yellow
River flows through, such as Shaanxi, Ningxia, and Gansu, despite its rich resources for irrigation,
produced “the river” problem because of the sediment deposition in the Yellow River, a faltering
tributary, and the downstream riverbed elevation in the lower provinces. Furthermore, during the
summer rainstorm, there is the danger of bursting the dike. Based on this situation, the provinces and
regions in the Yellow River basin should set up unified and efficient regional remediation departments,
with the support and guidance of the middle government. Based on the overall situation of the Yellow
River basin, the governance problem of the Yellow River basin is planned. The safe supply of irrigation
water and the smooth development of agricultural production in the agricultural areas of the river
basin can be guaranteed by carrying out comprehensive control of soil and water conservation, “curve
cut-off”, and other measures. In addition, according to the unified planning and arrangement of
the Yellow River basin, the differences between regions and provinces should be weakened, and the
differences in inter-region agricultural water use should be reduced through coordinated development.
Through the above measures, China would be able to promote development within the region and
reduce the differences between regions and within regions.
(5) All regions should promote the spread of water-saving measures in agriculture.
In China, the main target of agricultural water-saving technology popularization is the farmers.
However, the popularization of water-saving technology in China has been hindered to some extent
due to the low educational level of agricultural employees, the deep-rooted thinking of traditional
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4792 21 of 23

farming methods, and the poor operation and acceptance ability of agricultural water technology.
In this context, village committees in different regions of China should make full use of agricultural
assistance funds, guide local government departments to provide capital assistance for asset investment,
and promote the popularization of water-saving agricultural facilities in rural areas and other remote
areas. Moreover, advanced farmers should take the lead to improve the thinking of agricultural
workers and reduce the obstacles to the popularization of water-saving technologies in agriculture.
The coordinated planning and development of certain measures, such as the improvement of crop
varieties, the overall arrangement of irrigation management modes, the change in thoughts about
agricultural employees, and the use of the “spillover effect” to promote the spillover of agricultural
water-saving technologies, would be conducive to the improvement of regional and inter-regional
differences and thus promote a balanced development of agricultural water-use areas in China.
These measures can effectively reduce the regional agricultural water concentration and promote the
balanced development of the three regions in China.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Z.S., Y.-H.C. and Y.W.; methodology, H.H. and S.Q.; software, H.H.;
validation, Y.W., S.Q. and H.H.; formal analysis, Z.S.; investigation, Z.S., Y.-H.C. and H.H.; project administration,
Y.-H.C., Y.W. and S.Q.; funding acquisition, Z.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This paper is supported by the Ministry of Education Humanistic and Social Science Research Youth
Funds (19YJC790112), and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (2020QG1206).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Elias, E.H.; Flynn, R.; Idowu, O.J.; Reyes, J.; Sanogo, S.; Schutte, B.J.; Smith, R.; Steele, C.; Sutherland, C.
Crop vulnerability to weather and climate risk: Analysis of interacting systems and adaptation efficacy for
sustainable crop production. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6619. [CrossRef]
2. Olen, B.; Wu, J.; Langpap, C. Irrigation Decisions for Major West Coast Crops: Water Scarcity and Climatic
Determinants. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2015, 98, 254–275. [CrossRef]
3. Markovic, M.; Tadić, V.; Josipovic, M.; ZebeC, V.; Filipović, L. Efficiency of maize irrigation scheduling in
climate variability and extreme weather events in eastern Croatia. J. Water Clim. Chang. 2015, 6, 586–595.
[CrossRef]
4. Eggen, M.; Ozdogan, M.; Zaitchik, B.F.; Ademe, D.; Foltz, J.; Simane, B. Vulnerability of sorghum production
to extreme, sub-seasonal weather under climate change. Env. Res. Lett. 2019, 14, 045005. [CrossRef]
5. Olesen, J.E.; Bindi, M. Consequences of climate change for European agricultural productivity, land use and
policy. Eur. J. Agron. 2002, 16, 239–262. [CrossRef]
6. Mishra, D.; Sahu, N.C.; Sahoo, D. Impact of climate change on agricultural production of Odisha (India):
A Ricardian analysis. Reg. Env. Chang. 2015, 16, 575–584. [CrossRef]
7. Wang, J.; Fang, F.; Zhang, Q.; Yao, Y. Risk evaluation of agricultural disaster impacts on food production in
southern China by probability density method. Nat. Hazards 2016, 83, 1605–1634. [CrossRef]
8. Alboghdady, M.; El-Hendawy, S. Economic impacts of climate change and variability on agricultural
production in the Middle East and North Africa region. Int. J. Clim. Chang. Strat. Manag. 2016, 8, 463–472.
[CrossRef]
9. Olayide, O.E.; Tetteh, I.K.; Popoola, L. Differential impacts of rainfall and irrigation on agricultural production
in Nigeria: Any lessons for climate-smart agriculture? Agric. Water Manag. 2016, 178, 30–36. [CrossRef]
10. Barrios, S.; Ouattara, B.; Strobl, E. The impact of climatic change on agricultural production: Is it different for
Africa? Food Policy 2008, 33, 287–298. [CrossRef]
11. Kaimakamis, I.; Aggelopoulos, S.; Pavloudi, A. Agricultural production and climate changes. A case of
Greece. J. Environ. Prot. Ecol. 2013, 14, 693–698.
12. Márdero, S.; Schmook, B.; López-Martínez, J.O.; Cicero, L.; Radel, C.; Christman, Z. The uneven influence of
climate trends and agricultural policies on maize production in the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. Land 2018,
7, 80. [CrossRef]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4792 22 of 23

13. Shi, W.; Tao, F. Spatio-temporal distributions of climate disasters and the response of wheat yields in China
from 1983 to 2008. Nat. Hazards 2014, 74, 569–583. [CrossRef]
14. Zhenxiang, X.; Zhaorui, Y.; Qiang, F.; Heng, L.; Xinglong, G.; Jingyan, W. Characteristics and risk assessment
of agricultural meteorological disasters based on 30 years’ disaster data from Heilongjiang Province of China.
Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 2017, 10, 144–154. [CrossRef]
15. Xie, Z.; Xu, J.; Deng, Y. Risk analysis and evaluation of agricultural drought disaster in the major
grain-producing areas, China. Geomat. Nat. Hazards Risk 2015, 7, 1691–1706. [CrossRef]
16. Xu, L.; Zhang, Q.; Zhang, J.; Zhao, L.; Sun, W.; Jin, Y.-X. Extreme meteorological disaster effects on grain
production in Jilin Province, China. J. Integr. Agric. 2017, 16, 486–496. [CrossRef]
17. Zhang, J. Risk assessment of drought disaster in the maize-growing region of Songliao Plain, China.
Agric. Ecosyst. Env. 2004, 102, 133–153. [CrossRef]
18. Lesk, C.; Rowhani, P.; Ramankutty, N. Influence of extreme weather disasters on global crop production.
Nature 2016, 529, 84–87. [CrossRef]
19. Han, H.; Wu, S. Structural change and its impact on the energy intensity of agricultural sector in China.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 4591. [CrossRef]
20. Fei, R.; Lin, B. Energy efficiency and production technology heterogeneity in China’s agricultural sector:
A meta-frontier approach. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2016, 109, 25–34. [CrossRef]
21. Diao, P.; Zhang, Z.; Jin, Z. Dynamic and static analysis of agricultural productivity in China. China Agric.
Econ. Rev. 2018, 10, 293–312. [CrossRef]
22. Ito, J. Inter-regional difference of agricultural productivity in China: Distinction between biochemical and
machinery technology. China Econ. Rev. 2010, 21, 394–410. [CrossRef]
23. Zhang, Q.; Lanying, H.; Jingjing, L.; Qingyan, C. North–south differences in Chinese agricultural losses due
to climate-change-influenced droughts. Appl. Clim. 2016, 131, 719–732.
24. Wagan, S.A.; Memon, Q.U.A.; Chunyu, D.; Jingdong, L. A comparative study on agricultural production
efficiency between China and Pakistan using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA). Custos E Agronegocio Line
2018, 14, 169–190.
25. Yang, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Yang, Q.; Liu, J.; Huang, F. Coupling relationship between agricultural labor and
agricultural production against the background of rural shrinkage: A case study of Songnen Plain, China.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5804.
26. Li, X.; Zhang, Y.; Liang, L. Measure of agricultural production input/output efficiency and the spatial disparity
analysis in China. Custos E Agronegocio Line 2017, 13, 408–420.
27. Xue, S.; Yang, T.; Zhang, K.; Feng, J. Spatial effect and influencing factors of agricultural water environmental
efficiency in China. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2018, 16, 4491–4504. [CrossRef]
28. Li, Y.; Wu, H.-X.; Shi, Z. Farmland productivity and its application in spatial zoning of agricultural production:
A case study in Zhejiang province, China. Env. Earth Sci. 2016, 75, 17. [CrossRef]
29. Xiangda, Z.; Shuai, Z. Spatial differences and influencing factors of regional agricultural water use efficiency
in Heilongjiang Province, China. Water Sci. Technol. Water Supply 2019, 19, 545–552. [CrossRef]
30. Sun, S.K.; Wu, P.T.; Wang, Y.B.; Zhao, X.N.; Liu, J.; Zhang, X.H. The temporal and spatial variability of water
footprint of grain: A case study of an irrigation district in China from 1960 to 2008. J. Food Agric. Environ.
2012, 10, 1246–1251.
31. Neumann, K.; Verburg, P.; Stehfest, E.; Müller, C. The yield gap of global grain production: A spatial analysis.
Agric. Syst. 2010, 103, 316–326. [CrossRef]
32. Crain, J.L.; Waldschmidt, K.M.; Raun, W. Small-scale spatial variability in winter wheat production.
Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2013, 44, 2830–2838. [CrossRef]
33. Gini, C. Variabilità e Mutabilità; Reprinted in Memorie di Metodologica Statistica; Pizetti, E., Salvemini, T., Eds.;
Libreria Eredi Virgilio Veschi: Rome, Italy, 1912; pp. 211–384.
34. Charnes, A.; Cooper, W.; Rhodes, E. Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur. J. Oper. Res.
1978, 2, 429–444. [CrossRef]
35. Andersen, P.; Petersen, N.C. A procedure for ranking efficient units in data envelopment analysis. Manag. Sci.
1993, 39, 1261–1264. [CrossRef]
36. Tone, K. A slacks-based measure of efficiency in data envelopment analysis. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2001,
130, 498–509. [CrossRef]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4792 23 of 23

37. Tone, K. A slacks-based measure of super-efficiency in data envelopment analysis. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2002,
143, 32–41. [CrossRef]
38. Klopp, G.A. The Analysis of the Efficiency of Production System with Multiple Inputs and Outputs. Ph.D.
Dissertation, Industrial and Systems Engineering College, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL,
USA, 1985.
39. Färe, R.; Grosskopf, S.; Norris, M.; Zhang, Z. Productivity growth, technical progress, and efficiency change
in industrialized countries. Am. Econ. Rev. 1994, 84, 66–83.
40. Färe, R.; Grosskopf, S. Productivity and intermediate products: A frontier approach. Econ. Lett. 1996,
50, 65–70. [CrossRef]
41. Tone, K.; Tsutsui, M. Dynamic DEA: A slacks-based measure approach. Omega 2010, 38, 145–156. [CrossRef]
42. Dagum, C. A new approach to the decomposition of the Gini income inequality ratio. Empir. Econ. 1997,
22, 515–531. [CrossRef]
43. China Statistical Yearbook. Available online: http://www.stats.gov.cn (accessed on 2 April 2020).
44. Local Statistical Yearbook. Available online: http://www.tongjinianjian.com (accessed on 2 April 2020).
45. Historical Weather of Domestic Cities. Available online: http://www.lishi.tianqi.com (accessed on
2 April 2020).

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).