sustainability
Article
Sustainable Path of Food Security in China under the
Background of Green Agricultural Development
Yinglei Deng * and Fusheng Zeng
Citation: Deng, Y.; Zeng, F.
Sustainable Path of Food Security in
China under the Background of
Green Agricultural Development.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 2538. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su15032538
Academic Editor: Hossein Azadi
Received: 28 December 2022
Revised: 23 January 2023
Accepted: 28 January 2023
Published: 31 January 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Sustainability 2023, 15, 2538. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032538
Economic College, Hunan Agricultural University, Changsha 410128, China
* Correspondence: yingld0908@stu.hunau.edu.cn; Tel.: +86-134-0731-0246
Abstract: In light of the increasing global food crisis, this study concentrated on the complex causality
of sustainable food security in China. In the context of the agricultural green transformation, a
comprehensive evaluation system of agricultural green development is constructed on China Year-
books’ economic data and agricultural greening indices from 2012 to 2020. In addition, the coupling
coordination degree model and fuzzy-set quantitative analysis are used to describe the path evolution
of sustainable food security development in China. The results revealed that: (1) the comprehensive
assessments were increased in recent years, and high score regions changed apparently, from the
periphery to midland; (2) China’s green development and agricultural economic potential are cur-
rently in a transitional phase from basic to moderate synergy, and the higher coordinated degree is
allocating to mid and southern areas during this period, and all of them keeps growing as well; and
(3) under modern food security framework, the emphasis of China has gradually shifted from grain
output and subsidy policies to high resources utilisation and human capital accumulation. Thus,
China’s agricultural green transformation and sustainable food security are mutually reinforcing.
Keywords: agricultural green transformation; food security; sustainable development; qualitative
comparative analysis
1. Introduction
The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the balance between interna-
tional food production and trade, resulting in a global food crisis. The Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) reported that the proportion of agricultural grains in Asia’s total sown
area has decreased in recent decades, whereas cash crops and aquaculture have increased [1].
Moreover, the agricultural growth rate in developing countries is significantly higher than
that in other regions. In addition, they discovered that the incidence of food insecurity in
the Asia-Pacific region reached 25.7% in 2020, a 7% increase from 2014, with the greatest
increase in South Asia, and the least increase in East Asia. Despite the unstable supply and
demand chain of grain on a global scale, China is still able to increase grain production
annually. In addition, China manages to maintain a long-term grain self-sufficiency rate of
over 90%, thereby preserving agriculture’s resilience [2]. The problem of how China can
achieve sustainable food security is gaining increasing international attention. Coordinated
agricultural green development (AGD) and economic growth is not only an urgent goal for
China’s green economy, but also a crucial factor in achieving the country’s sustainable food
security [3]. Therefore, focusing on the pathways to achieving sustainable food security in
China has practical significance.
Food security has always been a major strategic issue in terms of national security
and livelihood, and it is also the foundation of stability. Previous studies have extensively
discussed the current issues concerning China’s food security. For example, analysing the
security status of different countries on the basis of availability, utilisation, and stability
level of grain supply. It indicates a long-term increase in food production of China, which
has effectively reduced the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on food security in East Asia.
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2023, 15, 2538 2 of 17

Moreover, The Global Report on Food Crises (GRFC) has noted that levels of sudden food
insecurity reached a new high, and the number of people suffering from such misery, has
increased every year since 2018, particularly in Ethiopia, South Sudan, and Yemen. It not
only raises major concerns from worldwide, but also exposes the interconnected nature
of the global food system and its vulnerability [4]. Meanwhile, scholars have discussed
food security and its evaluation system’s innovation from multiple perspectives, such as
market supply and demand and food sovereignty [5,6]. Some of them focused on the
constraints and policy effects of grain security on the basis of externalities and spatial
effects field [7–11]. However, China’s food security assessment is primarily quantitative
from the perspectives of soil bearing capacity, agricultural green total factor productivity
(TFP), and ecological welfare, and lacks pertinent qualitative analysis [12–14]. Moreover,
sustainable food security in China cannot be separated from processing the agricultural
green transformation, as green development is the goal, concept, and initiative of devel-
oping agriculture. High levels of input, consumption, and pollution are the prominent
features of early agricultural production in China; thus, the transformation of agricultural
economic growth cannot be delayed. As a result, agricultural green development (AGD),
a new model of agricultural modernisation unique to China, was created, and current
research indicates that AGD positively contributes to reducing food shortages [15–18]. In
fact, solving the problem of greening agriculture and economy is pertinent not only in
China, but also in South Africa, the European Union and other regions [19,20]. However,
there still exist few articles on China’s AGD, whereas previous research has focused more
on ecological security, agricultural modernisation, and high-quality growth.
Coupled human and natural systems will influence agricultural production activities
with a lag, thereby indirectly affecting food security [21–24]. Meanwhile, Rees (1996) and
Wackernagel (2006) [25,26] proposed that the ecological footprint model can be used to
measure ecological sustainability level, which not only accelerates the change of agricultural
production methods but also addresses food ecological conflicts. Currently, prevalent
methods for evaluating comprehensive systems are based on the entropy value method,
the analysis hierarchy process (AHP), and so on, and then analyse the influence of single
or multiple factors and the time-series change characteristics of such systems using the
coupling framework, entropy variation equation, grey correlation method, and interval
judgment method [2,3,18]. However, despite the fact that quantitative studies can always
explain the direct or indirect relationship between factors within systems, they are only
substitution or accumulation relationships of independent variables to state the variation
of dependent variables, not complete equivalence relationships [27–29]. The qualitative
comparative analysis (QCA) approach was first proposed by Ragin (1987) [29] in the 1980s,
mainly to address cross-case qualitative comparisons of small samples in sociology, political
science, and it has become a burgeoning tool to solve the complexity of causality in the
fields of management, economics, and management information systems.
This study contributes to the literature by adapting fsQCA to analyse China’s food
security configuration qualitatively. This study offers a novel approach, as previous studies
focused more on the direct or indirect effects of multiple variables on grain yield or pro-
duction potential [13,30,31]. Then, a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods
is used to further analyse grain sustainability in China within the realistic framework of
green agricultural development and modern grain security evaluation, a topic that has been
neglected despite the fact that the aforementioned literature indicates that food security is
strongly linked to the green economy.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 presents the research
methods. Section 3 discusses the results and analysis. Section 4 summarises the conclusion
and discussion.
 Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 19

Sustainability 2023, 15, 2538 3 of 17

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 presents the research
methods. Section 3 discusses the results and analysis. Section 4 summarises the conclu‐
sion and discussion.
2. Materials and Methods
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Framework of Assessment Systems
2.1. Framework of Assessment Systems
First of all, measuring the coupling coordination degree of China’s AGD, especially
First of all, measuring the coupling coordination degree of China’s AGD, especially
the economic potential, consists of the basement of whole study. With the release of
the economic potential, consists of the basement of whole study. With the release of the
the ‘14th Five-Year Plan for National AGD’ issue [32] the evaluation system was further
‘14th Five‐Year Plan for National AGD’ issue [32] the evaluation system was further de‐
developed, including indicator selection and calculation, on the basis of data availability.
veloped, including indicator selection and calculation, on the basis of data availability.
Then, assessment models
Then, were models
assessment used towere
quantify thequantify
used to changestheinchanges
the final integrated
in the AGD AGD
final integrated
degree with economic growth,
degree with and qualitative
economic analysis
growth, and was analysis
qualitative applied was
to configurations that
applied to configurations
are transforming food
that aresecurity and sustainability.
transforming The
food security and framework of
sustainability. Thewhole paperofiswhole
framework shownpaper is
in Figure 1. shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Framework of the paper.

Figure 1. Framework of the paper.

Given that many evaluation index systems exist that involve AGD and AEP systems,
the secondary indicator was selected by considering the data availability, the national five-
year plan, and previous studies [11,15,17,20]. In our research, the entropy method and AHP
must be combined with the advantages of the two systems to create a comprehensive index
system for evaluating China’s progress. In the process of adjusting AHP variables, three
domestic agricultural economics and management professors were consulted in succession,
and weight and index adjustments are made on the basis of their input.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 2538 4 of 17

Finally, two target layers, eight criterion layers, and 16 indices were constructed, as
shown in Table 1. The comprehensive index measurement and evaluation of China’s AGD
and AEP systems from 2012 to 2020 will be conducted in the next part.
Table 1. Comprehensive evaluation index of China’s AGD and economic potential system.

Target Layer Criterion Layer Index Layer Property

Conserving resource
High quality and efficiency
Agricultural Green Development
(AGD) Layer
Eco-friendly
Conservation ecology
Urban-rural integration
Agricultural Economic Potential
R&D input
(AEP) Layer
Infrastructure
Climate
Note: ‘+’ means a positive indicator and ‘−’ indicates a negative indicator. Index selecting is referenced from cited
references and a government document.
Multiple cropping index of land (x1) −
Percent of water-saving irrigated area (x2) +
Number of green food labels per unit area (x3) +
Average agricultural labour productivity (x4) +
Emission intensity of agricultural chemical oxygen
−
demand (COD) (x5)
Fertilizer intensity (x6) −
Forest coverage rate (x7) +
Soil erosion control area (x8) +
Rate of urbanization (x9) +
Added value of agriculture, forestry, animal husbandry
+
and fisher (x10)
Rural network coverage (x11) +
Agricultural mechanical power per land (x12) +
Proportion of effective irrigated area (x13) +
Percentage of highway mileage (x14) +
Occurrence rate of agricultural natural disasters (x15) −
Annual rainfall in the area (x16) +

Target layer comes from the official documents, which focus more on the relationship
between greening agriculture and economy. Under target layer, it contains four main
connotations, including conserving resource, high quality and efficiency, eco-friendly, and
conservation ecology, which have accelerated agricultural green transformation of China
in the recent decade. The majority of them are positive indicators. Contrarily, multiple
cropping indexes of land (x1), emission intensity of agricultural COD (x5), fertilizer intensity
(x6), and occurrence rate of agricultural natural disasters (x15) are negative indices, given
that they reduced the farmland fertility significantly [2,8,11,16,31].

2.2. Data Standardisation and Weight Measure

The data used in this study came from the China Statistical Yearbook, the China Envi-
ronmental Statistical Yearbook, the China Rural Statistical Yearbook, and the China Water
Resources Statistical Yearbook, as well as the online data collection on the official website
of the National Bureau of Statistics among 2012–2020 (the data of Taiwan, Hong Kong, and
Macao are uncounted, which cannot be calculated). Missing data were treated with mean
correction. Firstly, China’s AGD and its economic potential (AEP) systems were subjected
to a systematised, exhaustive evaluation and coordinated coupling analysis. Secondly, it
examined how China achieved the sustainable goal of food security under the dual pres-
sure of agricultural and ecological economic growth from a holistic perspective, thereby
contributing to the relevant literature. The green economy, characterised by green agricul-
ture and ecological transformation, has evolved into a global phenomenon [33–36]. Our
findings can provide important implications for policy makers and developing countries to
achieve sustainable food security.
Typically, the extreme value method was used to eliminate the impact of dimension on
positive and negative standard processing for data [2,31] (as shown in Appendix A, part 1).
After calculating AHP and entropy weights, the square roots of the two were divided by
their sum to obtain the combined weight (as shown in Appendix A, part 2 and Table A1).
Consequently, the bias of the two methods was reduced, which can reflect key points clearly.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 2538 5 of 17

Then, the standardised data can be weighted and allocated to the integrated AGD degree
in connotations and economic scale, as illustrated below:
q q
Wj0 = γj × δj /∑m j=1 γj × δj (1)

In Formula (1), γj represents the weight of AHP; δj indicates that of the entropy
method. W’j means the combined one; j for the jth index and m is the number of indications.
Meanwhile, we deal with the added value of agriculture, forestry, animal husbandry, and
fishery in a logarithmic manner and with standardisation in the next step to eliminate the
variable impact of inflation. In addition, Shanghai’s soil erosion control area is 0, which
is significantly lower than other provinces. Shanghai was assigned the maximum value
amongst the groups, with narrowing differences, and was also standardised.

2.3. Index Calculation and Coupling Coordination Degree Model

The comprehensive evaluation indexes of AGD and AEP can be calculated using
specific indicators and combined weights, as shown below:
0
Uj = ∑m
j=1 Wj × Yij (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ) (2)

In Formula (2), Uj is the evaluation index in the ith year; the higher the level is, the
better the system score is; m is the number of indicators; n is the number of research year;
W’j is the combined weight of indicators; Yij is the standardised value of the jth index in the
ith year.
Then, on the basis of the comprehensive system evaluation, the coupling coordination
degree (CCD) model is introduced to judge the stage changes of such development between
AGD, AEP, agricultural green transformation, and ecological civilization construction in
China. Various coupling coordination stages are analysed in the following text. The formula
is as follows: q
C = 2 × (U1 × U2 )/(U1 + U2 )2 (3)
T = αU1 + βU2 (4)

D = (C × T )1/2 (5)
In Equation (3), C represents the coupling degree; U1 and U2 represent the compre-
hensive evaluation indexes of the two systems, respectively. T is the participants of the two
systems, α and β are the weights of the two, respectively. Moreover, both two systems are
considered equally important in this period, so they are made to be α = β = 0.5, α + β = 1. D
is the coupled coordination degree, D ∈ [0, 1], the greater it is, the better coupled coordina-
tion amongst such systems. With the relevant literature [35,36], the results are divided into
5 levels to demonstrate the differences in the two systems (as shown in Table 2).
Table 2. Stage features of coordination in the CCD model.

Value Interval of D Types of Coordination Meaning

With rapid development of agricultural economy, the ecological environment is
0 < D ≤ 0.2 Serious dissonance
overloaded, and ecological pollution occurs frequently.
Agricultural economic function occupies absolute superiority, the negative impact of
0.2 < D ≤ 0.4 Moderate dissonance
ecological pollution is increasingly serious, which is of concern by the government.
The progress of agricultural economic construction has slowed down, gradually shifting to
0.4 < D ≤ 0.5 Basic coordination
green production methods that improve quality and efficiency.
The transformation of AGD has been achieved initially, and with the increase in financial
0.5 < D ≤ 0.8 Moderate coordination
investment in environmental governance, ecological restoration has achieved some results.
Agricultural green transformation and economic development are going to adapt with
0.8 < D ≤ 1.0 High coordination.
each other, and achieve sustainable and orderly development.
 The transformation of AGD has been achieved initially, and with the in‐
Moderate coor‐
0.5 < D ≤ 0.8 crease in financial investment in environmental governance, ecological res‐
dination
toration has achieved some results.
High coordina‐ Agricultural green transformation and economic development are going to
0.8 < D ≤ 1.0
Sustainability 2023, 15, 2538 tion. adapt with each other, and achieve sustainable and orderly development.6 of 17

2.4. Measurement of the fsQCA Method

On the basisofoftheprevious
2.4. Measurement research, fsQCA configuration evaluations will be utilised
fsQCA Method
to assess the complex causalities underlying China’s food security. Fuzzy‐set QCA
On the basis of previous research, fsQCA configuration evaluations will be utilised to
(fsQCA) is one of the most widely used methods in application, which can handle degree
assess the complex causalities underlying China’s food security. Fuzzy-set QCA (fsQCA)
changes of continuous variables and fully reflects the causal complexity and multiple
is one of the most widely used methods in application, which can handle degree changes
concurrency
of mechanisms
continuous variables between
and fully conditions
reflects the causalcompared
complexitywith regression
and multiple analysis
concurrency
[24,27,37]. The fsQCA method is more appropriate for further research
mechanisms between conditions compared with regression analysis [24,27,37]. The fsQCA on China’s food
security configuration by identifying various antecedent configurations
method is more appropriate for further research on China’s food security configuration by and interpreted
results, which
identifying demonstrate
various antecedent a complete equivalence
configurations amongst the
and interpreted whole
results, process
which variables
demonstrate
a[28]. The variation
complete equivalencereflects the impact
amongst of quantitative,
the whole ecological,
process variables [28].and
Theeconomic
variation security
reflects
the impact of quantitative, ecological, and economic security on the regionimpact
on the region of interest and also indicates which index had the greatest on grain
of interest and
safety.
also As a result,
indicates whichthe modern
index grain
had the security
greatest evaluation
impact on grainframework
safety. As of China the
a result, wasmodern
chosen
for this
grain study’s
security path analysis.
evaluation As shown
framework in Figure
of China 2, the for
was chosen fsQCA methodpath
this study’s illuminates
analysis.con‐
As
figurations for 6 given conditions under 3 dimensions of quantity,
shown in Figure 2, the fsQCA method illuminates configurations for 6 given conditionsecological, and eco‐
nomic3security
under [10,21,33,34,38].
dimensions of quantity, ecological, and economic security [10,21,33,34,38].

Figure 2.
Figure 2. Food
Food security
security framework
framework of
of fsQCA.
fsQCA.

Given that the data of 31 provinces is a small sample, only 6 antecedent conditions
can be selected in this research [26,27]. On the basis of the ecological footprint model,
food security index (set for F) was chosen as result variable [10,33]. Firstly, land used per
unit grain output (set for P) and percent of primary industry employment (set for J) were
utilised to present quantity security, as the two positively impact grain production [9,39].
Next, fertilizer intensity of unit area (set for C) and agricultural labour productivity (set for
A) have contrasting effects on ecological security, the former results in serious non-point
source pollution, which poses a long-term threat to grain safety [14,30]. Finally, agricultural
production price index (set for G) and fiscal expenditures on grain production (set for E)
were chosen to represent economic security, which also has conflicts, such as the greater
volatility of G, the greater the grain shortage [8,11]. Negative indexes P, C, and G should be
standardised as a pre-process (as shown in Appendix A, part 1). In addition, the specific
calculation formulas of F and E are provided below.

F = (Y − D )/Y × 100% (6)

E = S × G f /G (7)
Index F is constructed by grain yield and demand, that is, the difference, between the
grain yield (Y) and the grain demand (D) of the province, accounts for the percentage of Y
Sustainability 2023, 15, 2538 7 of 17

in Formula (6). Given that China implements extensive grain subsidies and policies, there
are no data regarding specific financial subsidies for grain production. Therefore, index
E in Formula (7) comprises government expenditures for agriculture, forestry, and water
resources (S) and the proportion of grain sown area (G).
According to previous studies, the intersection point of the three calibration anchors
was located as 0.5, the full non-membership was 0.05, and 0.95 for full membership [24,26,27].
Considering the obvious lag effect during the agricultural process, a lag period of a year
was chosen. For example, all configuration analysis of the 2019 were based on calibration
and modelling of 2018. Finally, the following will analyse the food security path and
regional differentiation of 2019, as shown in Table 3. However, if all the data are included
in the same fsQCA model, the relative ranking of various regions will be affected, and its
objectivity will be greatly reduced [39–41]. Therefore, fsQCA models were calibrated and
established separately for each year.
Table 3. Calibration points of conditions and results in 2019.

Conditions and Results Full Membership Point Intersection Point Full Non-Membership Point
Outcome variable Food security index 0.89 0.66 −0.98
Land used per unit grain output 0.99 0.76 0.21
Quantity security index Percent of primary
42.23 31.49 5.18
industry employment
Fertilizer intensity of unit area 0.97 0.63 0.03
Ecology security index Agricultural labour productivity 6.41 5.71 5.19
Agricultural production
0.89 0.47 0.12
price index
Economic security index
Fiscal expenditures on grain
570.31 408.08 262.22
production

3. Results and Analysis

3.1. Quantity Analysis
By measuring comprehensive evaluation and the CCD model, the comprehensive
index of integrated AGD degree shows significant growth (from 0.062 to 0.526), and both
indices of subsystems exhibit an upward trend in period. The comprehensive assessment
index seems to have increased more than the subsystems’ indices. Given the AEP system
scores increased in the majority of regions, particularly in agriculturally developed region,
such as Guangxi, Hainan, and Hunan. However, the results of the two systems did not
always change in the same direction, especially amongst developed regions. Although
the opposite result was observed in the central and western regions, with the exception
of Qinghai, this may be due. Even though coupling degrees are between 0.8 and 1.0 in
the majority of regions, with the exception of Hei Longjiang (0.738) and Hainan (0.733),
coordination degree’ sections are increasing from [0.174, 0.291] to [0.410, 0.512] from 2012
to 2020.
The trend of comprehensive evaluation in China between 2012, 2016, and 2020, as
shown in Figure 3, indicates that the green transformation range is shifting from economi-
cally backward to developed regions. In Figure 3a, high AGD areas can be found amongst
north and west regions, which decline in Figure 3b, except for Xizang, and then switch to
mid and south lands in Figure 3c. It indicates that agriculture-developed regions, particu-
larly major grain-producing regions, such as Henan, Sichuan, and Wuhan, have begun to
place a premium on AGD comprehensive construction, including economic potential and
policy guidance. Obviously, such indexes reached or exceeded 0.5 in agriculture provinces,
especially Guangxi and Hunan, in 2020.
 nomically backward to developed regions. In Figure 3a, high AGD areas can be found
agriculture provinces,amongst
especially Guangxi
north and and Hunan,
west regions, in 2020.
which decline in Figure 3b, except for Xizang, and then
switch to mid and south lands in Figure 3c. It indicates that agriculture‐developed re‐
gions, particularly major grain‐producing regions, such as Henan, Sichuan, and Wuhan,
have begun to place a premium on AGD comprehensive construction, including eco‐
Sustainability 2023, 15, 2538 8 of 17
nomic potential and policy guidance. Obviously, such indexes reached or exceeded 0.5 in
agriculture provinces, especially Guangxi and Hunan, in 2020.

(b) (c)
Figure 3. Changes
(a) of comprehensive integrated (b)AGD degree in China from 2012–2020; (c) (a) is the
spatial distribution of comprehensive
Figure 3. Changes of assessment degree
comprehensive in 2012;
integrated (b) isinthat
AGD degree Chinadegree in 2016;(a)(c)
from 2012–2020; is
is the
Figure 3. Changes of comprehensive integrated AGD degree in China from 2012–2020; (a) is the
that degree in 2020. spatial distribution of comprehensive assessment degree in 2012; (b) is that degree in 2016; (c) is
spatial distribution of comprehensive assessment degree in 2012; (b) is that degree in 2016; (c) is that
that degree in 2020.
degree in 2020.
Next, the changes ofNext,
CCD themodel
changesamongst 2012–2020
of CCD model are revealed
amongst 2012–2020 in Figure
are revealed 4. 4.
in Figure
Next, the changes of CCD model amongst 2012–2020 are revealed in Figure 4.

(a) (b)
Figure 4. China’s coordinated degree variations amongst 2012–2020; (a) is the spatial distribution
maps of coordinated degree in 2012; (b) is that degree in 2020.
(a) (b)
From 2012 to 2020, China made significant progress in establishing a moderately
prosperous
Figure 4. China’s coordinated society
Figure 4. degree
China’s and eradicated
variations
coordinated all poverty.
amongst
degree During2012–2020;
2012–2020;
variations amongst thisis
(a) time
theperiod,
(a) is the China
spatial underwent
distribution
spatial distribution
two
mapssignificant
maps of coordinated degree of development
incoordinated
2012; (b) phases,
is thatindegree
degree 2012; (b) in the ‘12th Five‐Year
2020.
is that degree in 2020. Plan’ and the ‘13th Five‐Year
Plan’. Within the remarkable stage that characterises China’s coordinated degree, a sim‐
From 2012 to 2020, China made significant progress in establishing a moderately
From 2012 to 2020, China
prosperous made
society andsignificant
eradicated all progress
poverty. Duringin establishing
this time period,aChinamoderately
underwent
prosperous society and eradicated all poverty. During this time period, China underwent
two significant development phases, the ‘12th Five-Year Plan’ and the ‘13th Five-Year Plan’.
Within the remarkable stage that characterises China’s coordinated degree, a similar ten-
two significant development phases, the ‘12th Five‐Year Plan’ and the ‘13th Five‐Year
dency in time and space appears (as shown in Figure 4.). It was relocating to the midland
Plan’. Within the remarkable
and southern stage thatwhich
regions, characterises
showed collectiveChina’s coordinated
growth in the previous degree,
decade.aParticu-
sim‐
larly, the majority of provinces gradually increased from (0, 0.2] to (0.4, 0.5], experiencing
three stages of serious dissonance, moderate dissonance, and basic coordination. Thus,
agricultural economic function dominated the period 2012–2017, and its rapid expansion
caused the ecological environment to become overloaded, and a number of pollution issues
became prominent. In addition, the agricultural economy slowed until 2018 and began
to transition to a green economy characterised by improved quality and efficiency, with
only a few eastern regions falling behind. Only two provinces, Hunan and Guangxi, ex-
perienced a rapid growth rate of 0.5 or above from 2019 to 2020, entering the moderate
coordination stage. In the end, ecological restoration measures were effective in a number
of locations, as were the increase in financial investment in environmental governance and
the strengthening of relevant policies.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 2538 9 of 17

Generally, the green transformation of agriculture and its development potential is

significantly greater in the central and western regions than in the eastern, as their economic
diffusing effects are likely more direct.

3.2. Qualitative Analysis

Since 2018, China has worked diligently to accelerate the green transformation of
agriculture. In this context, ranking and categorising 31 provinces for the years 2013,
2015, 2017, and 2019 (the rest of the results are presented in Appendix A, Table A2). The
higher the index, the more secure the food supply. Following that, each year, the top 15
provinces are designated as having high food security, whereas the remaining provinces
are designated as absence of high food security, named non-food security areas. Finally, the
model results are estimated using the fsQCA software package by year and region.
The ‘necessity’ test of a single condition is a prerequisite for configuration analysis.
When results occur, a condition always exists, which must be a necessary condition [27,37].
Thus, the test standard is that the consistency of any conditional variable should be greater
than 0.9. Using fsQCA3.0 software, this paper analysed the necessary condition test results
of high food security and low food security areas in 2019, as shown in Table 4.
Table 4. Consistency and coverage of model in 2019.

High Food Security Areas Non-Food Security Ares

Condition Variables
Consistency Coverage Consistency Coverage
Land used per unit grain output(P) 0.470 0.801 0.784 0.795
~Land used per unit grain output(~P) 0.693 0.970 0.492 1.000
Percent of primary industry employment(J) 0.802 0.904 0.454 0.941
~Percent of primary industry employment(~J) 0.382 0.923 0.811 0.815
Fertilizer intensity of unit area(C) 0.775 0.906 0.684 0.889
~Fertilizer intensity of unit area(~C) 0.397 0.891 0.657 0.928
Agricultural labour productivity(G) 0.356 0.898 0.689 0.845
~Agricultural labour productivity(~G) 0.845 0.934 0.542 0.817
Agricultural production price index(A) 0.517 0.915 0.658 0.756
~Agricultural production price index(~A) 0.688 0.935 0.553 0.911
Fiscal expenditures on grain production(E) 0.463 0.939 0.746 0.762
~Fiscal expenditures on grain production(~E) 0.756 0.935 0.406 0.813
Note: ~means the absence of. For instance: ~Land used per unit grain output = absence of high P.

Given all the consistencies are lower than 0.9, so it does not constitute any necessary
condition. Next, the sufficient analysis of conditional configuration must be measured by
consistency. As Marx et al. (2012) [28] pointed out, the consistency of samples belonging to
the same result should be at least higher than 0.75. Thus, considering the number of cases
below 20 and their distribution in the truth table, the consistency threshold determined in
this study is 0.8, frequency threshold is 1, and the proportional reduction in inconsistency
(PRI) threshold is 0.7 [27–29]. Thus, there were 15 and 16 cases of provinces with high and
non-food security, respectively. Finally, the consistency threshold of 0.85 was used as the
robustness test of the estimated results. Table 5 presents the configuration analysis results
of six conditions on China grain security index in 2019.
Table 5 exhibits the four groups of configurations with high food security index and
four groups with low security index. All of them achieve a consistency greater than 0.9,
which is a sufficient condition for corresponding outcomes. The solution coverage for
high food security and non-configuration are explained separately at 71% and 67%. The
configuration described above assigned robust explanatory values to the result variables.
This paper raises the consistency threshold to 0.85 in order to confirm the robustness of the
empirical results. Nonetheless, the configuration result does not change, indicating that the
interpretation of the result variables by the configuration holds certain rationality.
The analysis of each configuration is shown as below.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 2538 10 of 17

Table 5. Configuration results of high and non-food security index in 2019.

Solutions of High Areas Solutions of Non-High Areas

Configuration
H1 H2 H3a H3b H4 N1 N2a N2b N3a N3b N4
P ⊗ • ⊗ ⊗ • • ⊗ • • ⊗ ⊗
J • • • • ⊗ ⊗ • ⊗ ⊗ •
C • • • • ⊗ ⊗ • • •
A • • • ⊗ ⊗ • ⊗ ⊗ ⊗ ⊗ •
G ⊗ ⊗ ⊗ ⊗ • • • ⊗ • •
E ⊗ ⊗ ⊗ • • ⊗ • ⊗ • •
Consistency 1 1 1 1 1 0.991 1 1 1 1 1
Raw coverage 0.308 0.240 0.260 0.437 0.214 0.329 0.147 0.272 0.205 0.203 0.243
Unique coverage 0.048 0.044 0.007 0.041 0.019 0.088 0.035 0.064 0.083 0.034 0.081
Solution consistency 1 0.996
Solution coverage 0.714 0.667
Note: • = core conditions exist; • = edge conditions exist; ⊗ = lack of core condition; ⊗ = edge conditions is absence,
blank sheet says ‘do not care’ [27], the same below.

1. The configuration of high food security index regions

There are four main configurations. In H1, J is the core condition, stating that rural
areas always enhance labour productivity through capital deepening, and also compensate
for the shortage of land utilisation, especially in areas with a relatively perfect agricultural
industry chain. It brings a labour force compensation-type configuration, and typical
regions include Jiangsu and Heilongjiang, which have a strong agricultural foundation
and a high demand for agricultural talent. Next, C plays the core rule in H2, indicating
that labour is replaced by capital, which increases the fertilizer input, forming the factor
promotion configuration. Configuration H3 lacks a central condition P, namely, in 3a and
3b. In the context of the dual structure of urban and rural areas, agriculturally developed
districts always attract the return of rural population through the development of distinctive
agriculture and the enlargement of the integration of primary, secondary, and tertiary
industries. The Xinjiang Autonomous Region and Shandong Province are the representative
regions, due to their national-characteristic agriculture and stable grain production capacity.
Ultimately, a traditional factor-promoted type is shaped in configuration H4 indicates that
ever-increasing grain output still depends on devoting basic factors of agriculture activities,
particularly in areas with low added value of agricultural products. For example, it is
primarily located in the labour-intensive and agriculture-oriented provinces of Henan
and Yunnan.
2. The configuration of non-high regions
Four different sets of core conditions are presented as following. Firstly, N1 shows
that production capacity cannot be stabilised without sufficient labour, which will disrupt
agricultural markets’ prices. Then, ~A is the key condition of N2a and N2b. Raw coverage
means that the path explains 14.7% and 27.2% of cases separately, whereas unique coverage
means 3.5% and 6.4% of cases can only be interpreted by this path. The fertilizer input,
labour force, and policy factors in these configurations are at a relative low level, indicating
that basic elements of agricultural production are missing, which are not conducive to
ensuring grain security. Thirdly, the absence of vital condition in N3a and N3b is the same
as previous configuration. Different from N2, Factor C has occupied an important position.
Furthermore, farmers are the main body of agricultural production. Under the continuous
rural labour outflow, the growth of market price becomes a general trend. Meanwhile, even
if sufficient agricultural production factors are invested, the food security index will remain
low. Finally, N4 shows the influence of location disadvantage. As for remote regions,
particularly in Xizang and Fujian, even if there is only a problem with insufficient land
utilisation and all other conditions are normal, the locational disadvantage will still result
in poor performance.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 2538 11 of 17

3. Difference between eastern and mid-western areas

In addition, due to China’s vast landmass, the resource endowment, financial policy,
scientific and technological level, economic development, employment ratio, and market
demand of China’s 31 provinces vary greatly. Then, they are divided into east and mid-west
regions for calibration modelling, and the configuration results are shown in Table 6.
Table 6. Configuration results of different areas in 2019.

Eastern Areas Mid-Western Areas

Configuration
E1 E2 E3 W1a W1b W2a W2b W3
P • • ⊗ ⊗ ⊗ • • •
J • ⊗ • • • • ⊗ •
C ⊗ ⊗ • ⊗ • • • ⊗
A ⊗ • • • • ⊗ • •
G • • • ⊗ • • • •
E • • • ⊗ • ⊗ • ⊗
Consistency 0.968 0.918 0.963 1 1 0.996 1 1
Raw coverage 0.284 0.387 0.238 0.229 0.190 0.270 0.219 0.201
Unique coverage 0.036 0.123 0.069 0.089 0.051 0.053 0.030 0.009
Solution consistency 0.935 0.998
Solution coverage 0.493 0.459
Note: • = core conditions exist; • = edge conditions exist; ⊗ = edge conditions is absence.

According to the following table, the core conditions of two regions differ significantly,
with the eastern regions emphasising economic security and the midwestern regions
favouring quantity security. The deficiency of edge conditions, in the two groups of
configurations, such as utilisation rate of land and fertilizer input appears, but they will be
replaced by core and other conditions to some extent. Meanwhile, the key points of stabling
food security in the eastern region lie in G and E indexes. Given that a developed economy
creates a favourable policy environment and a high level of agricultural mechanisation,
their grain production capacity is assured. In other words, the support from positive
policy environment and technical part are desiderated in rural practice, which is consistent
with the research results of Shen Jianbo et al. (2020) and Guo Chaoyi et al. (2021) [3,19].
Currently, there are two patterns for remote and central regions. Xinjiang and Nei Monggol
Autonomous Regions are expected to be major cases of the J and A indices, as their
relatively high agricultural productivity is based on the rising number of workers in
the primary industry [32,39]. Regarding midland, the emphasis has shifted to P and G
factors, as regional advantages have optimised the agricultural market in recent years,
thereby enhancing their grain yield capability, which are in line with the findings of
Lu Yonglong et al. (2015) and Huang Jikun et al. (2017) [15,34].
Conclusively, the problems of agricultural non-point source pollution and the declining
capability of land in rural China are becoming increasingly serious in recent decades, and
they have formed double constrains on the future development of food security and
sustainable. Therefore, the overall model estimated results are consistent with the reality of
grain production in the eastern and mid-west regions.
As for time perspective, the relative importance of each condition to sustainable grain
safety will also change, as shown in Table 7. To reflect the path evolution process of China’s
food security index in different periods, we calibrate and model the data of 2013, 2015,
and 2017, conducting qualitative comparative analysis in multiple periods [24,27]. Firstly,
this study classifies and names the configuration of each year according to key factors;
dimensions and conditional completeness (see Table 6 for details). Secondly, the key factors
are divided into three levels: production subject, production environment, and production
factors, in which indexes P, J, and C are the factor inputs at the micro level, and that of A, G,
and E are the environmental impacts from the macro level. Finally, configurations are split
Sustainability 2023, 15, 2538 12 of 17

into four types, namely, promoting, dominant, substituting, and softening, by examining
the conditional characteristics of each state.
Table 7. Types of high food security configurations.

Configuration Name Dominant Type Promotion Type Substitute Type Softening Type
Core conditions are
The edge conditions missed. With other
are missed, and the conditions is
Multiple conditions are at high levels and key
Features key factors have relatively better,
factors can consolidate favourable conditions.
obvious substitution forming strong
for such condition. substitution of such
key conditions.
Subjects — — — —
Environmental Environmental Environmental
Factors of grain Environment —
enabler substitution softening
production Basic input — Factors promoting Factors substitution Factors softening
Synthetic Synthetic
Comprehensive — Synthetic softening
development substitution

In this part, the evaluation process of configuration types between 2012 and 2019 is
exhibited in Table 8. China has long been known for its high food self-sufficiency, ranking
amongst the top 5% of all countries worldwide. However, international risks have crossed
physical barriers and deeply affected domestic food safety, which is manifested as follows:
in the early stage, China pursued grain quantity security and paid more attention to im-
proving the yield per unit area of rice, wheat, and corn, as well as the multiple cropping
of land. Meanwhile, Huang Jikun (2017) [36] indicated the hidden dangers of food and
ecological security caused by the continuous reduction in sown area and cultivated land
fertility, and such phenomena were coexisted with the abnormal situations of ‘three simul-
taneous increases’ of high yield, imports, and inventory. Northeastern areas and central
provinces are typical regions. As for the medium term, foreign grain prices have significant
transmission and extrusion effects on domestic market prices. In addition, an increasing
number of foreign grain enterprises have established a foothold in China’s grain and oil
markets, necessitating reforms of economic security dominated by agricultural subsidies.
As pointed out by Chi Mingjia et al. (2022) [11], China must expand the implementation
scale and scope of ‘green box’ support policies under the WTO framework to release the
new efficiency of agricultural subsidy policies. Thus, in 2016, China combined subsidies
from superior seed varieties, grain planting, and general subsidies into agricultural support
and protection subsidies, and distributed corresponding subsidies to actual grain farm-
ers. The regions with prominent impact of reform above were mainly amongst north and
eastern coastal places. In the later period, the domestic grain consumption structure contin-
uously improved, resulting in the optimisation of the crop pattern. Moreover, residents’
consumption demand for personalised, diversified, and green required that environmental
protection and high-quality development should be considered by the government. Thus,
China shifted to a new green production system that improves overall process quality and
efficiency. For example, the use of fertilizers had achieved ‘negative’ growth, and its use
ratio was 40.2%, a 5% growth from 2015. Meanwhile, primary industry labour structure
was featured obviously. On the one hand, the majority of farmers entered the aging stage,
with more than 25% of them over 60 years old [36]. This aging brought a practical problem
of ‘who will grow grain’, which had become increasingly prominent. On the other hand,
the ‘rural revitalization’ strategy created development opportunities for rural areas in
various forms since 2017, attracting citizens and rural populations to the countryside for
employment. Since then, the number of professional farmers and family farms increased
significantly, and the greenness of agricultural production subjects’ behaviour were con-
stantly improved. Establishing agricultural talent teams, however, necessitates long-term
investment to truly realise agricultural production ‘overtaking on the curve’ as a result of
technological progress [15,33]. The typical regions are the northern regions and the eastern
coastal areas.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 2538 13 of 17

Table 8. High food security configurations during 2012–2019.

Completeness of
Year Configuration Key Points Dimension Types Typical Regions
Condition
Jiangsu, Hubei, Hunan,
Missing edge
2013 P×J×~C×~A×E Land used per unit grain output Basic input Factors substitution Shandong, Xinjiang,
conditions
Inner Mongolia
Land used per unit grain output, Missing edge Synthetic Heilongjiang, Hebei,
P×~J×~C×A×~G×E Comprehensive
agricultural labour productivity conditions substitution Henan
Missing edge Environmental
~P×J×C×A×G×E Agricultural labour productivity Environment Anhui, Jilin
conditions substitution
Land used per unit grain output,
Complete Synthetic
2015 P×C×A×G×E fiscal expenditures on Comprehensive Anhui, Shandong
conditions development
grain production
Land used per unit grain output,
Missing edge Synthetic Jiangsu, Hebei, Henan,
P×~J×C×A×G×E fiscal expenditures on Comprehensive
conditions substitution Jiangxi, Hubei, Xinjiang
grain production
Fiscal expenditures on Missing edge Environmental
~P×C×A×~G×E Environment Jilin, Inner Mongolia
grain production conditions substitution
Percent of primary Hebei, Henan, Anhui,
2017 P×~J×A×E Basic input Lacking core points Factors softening
industry employment Hubei, Inner Mongolia
~P×J×C×A×G×E Land used per unit grain output Basic input Lacking core points Factors softening Jilin
Agricultural labour productivity,
P×J×C×~A×G×~E fiscal expenditures on Comprehensive Lacking core points Synthetic softening Jiangsu, Jiangxi, Xinjiang
grain production
Land used per unit grain output,
2019 ~P×J×A×~G×~E percent of primary Basic input Lacking core points Factors softening Jiangsu, Heilongjiang
industry employment
Missing edge
P×C×A×~G×~E Fertilizer intensity of unit area Basic input Factors substitution Hubei, Hunan
conditions
Percent of primary industry Shandong, Anhui,
~P×J×C×A×~G×~E employment, fertilizer intensity of Basic input Lacking core points Factors softening Jiangxi, Xinjiang, Inner
unit area Mongolia
Percent of primary industry
Missing edge
P×J×C×~A×~G×E employment, fertilizer intensity of Basic input Factors substitution Henan, Liaoning
conditions
unit area
Note: The letter denotes to edge condition, while the tilde before it means its absence. Also, the bold and underline
indicates core conditions exist, and the tilde before it means lacking of such condition.

In conclude, this study presents five recommendations to achieve a high food security
index in China. Firstly, the subjective initiative of agricultural labour force and scientific
input of grain production factors recommended by policies should be utilised to its max-
imum potential. The index of agricultural product prices should always be flexible and
manageable under government and market supervision. In addition, promoting green
agriculture in Chinese way should continue to be incorporated into national strategy. Fi-
nally, the ‘green box’ agricultural subsidies policy must be wild used to strengthen the
production enthusiasm of grain farmers.

4. Conclusions and Discussion

Agricultural green development (AGD) and China’s economic potential play a sig-
nificant role in stabilising long-term grain security during the transition from traditional
to modern agriculture. Consequentially, policymakers and agricultural economists are
continually interested in comprehending the factors that may influence such a sustainable
process in China and their effects. Under the green agriculture background and method-
ology of these indexes, the purpose of this study was to investigate a new perspective on
sustainable grain safety. Firstly, the systematic evaluation can aid in determining the inter-
action between elements. Given the indices of comprehensive assessment are increasing
in all provinces, with obvious variation of the spatial and temporal trend. In particular,
the high AGD areas are moving from surrounding to central and southern regions. In
addition, these provinces apparently owed more economic potential by comparing two
subsystems. Secondly, the results of CCD model showed that China’s AGD is trying to
compatible with economic potential constructions, as transferring from basic to moderate
synergy stage. Further analysis based on CCD model can also reveal the temporal and
spatial evolution trend. Thus, the diffusing effect of agricultural economic potential on
the green development has obvious lag and regional differences. Thirdly, the qualitative
method presented the variation in the configurations of realising grain sustainable goal
from a holistic perspective. Consequently, this paper’s marginal contribution consists
Sustainability 2023, 15, 2538 14 of 17

primarily of two points. On the one hand, quantitative and qualitative methods are used to
investigate the coupling development stage and spatial-temporal variation characteristics
of agriculture and the economic system. On the other hand, the focus of food security
in China has gradually shifted from grain output and subsidy policies to high resource
utilisation and human capital accumulation, according to the configuration framework
of the linkage of production subjects, factors, and environment. Although this study has
enriched the field of sustainable grain security, it still has the following limitations. Due
to China’s vast size and complex terrain, the country’s regions can be divided into those
that primarily produce and sell goods and those with a balance between production and
marketing for regional analysis. In addition, in-depth research can focus on country-level
data derived from the aforementioned results.
Overall, our findings can not only assist policymakers and agricultural economists in
China’s current agricultural green transformation, but also serve as a resource for other
agricultural nations, particularly those that are promoting agricultural green processes.
This study offers three strategic suggestions as follows. At first, green transformation of
agriculture is a long-term and sustainable process, which must be included in the national
strategic development framework. Then, the cultivation of agricultural talents, such as
professional farmers and family farms, are supposed to be accelerated, which are the key
body and vital trend of developing national agriculture in the future. Finally, technological
advancement has always been a key factor in stabilising food production, and a new mode
of modern, high quality and greening should be formed as soon as possible to balance
the dual goals of food security and economic development. In conclusion, our empirical
findings demonstrate that China’s sustainable food security policy focuses on enhancing the
quality and efficiency of agricultural production and attracting talent in the primary indus-
try, which is precisely in line with the objective of coupling and coordinated development of
domestic agricultural green and economic potential development, indicating that China’s
agricultural green transformation and sustainable food security are mutually reinforcing.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, methodology, software, formal analysis, resources, data

curation, writing—original draft preparation, writing—review and editing, validation, Y.D.; super-
vision, project administration, F.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China: 72073043.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A
1. The steps of extreme value method
(1) Data standardisation.
Direct index is standardized by Formula (A1), and those that are negative can use
Formula (A2); both formulas are applied for eliminating the dimensional influence.

Xij − minXij
Yij = (A1)
maxXij − minXij

maxXij − Xij
Yij = (A2)
maxXij − minXij
As in these equations, Yij is the ith year (i = 1, 2, . . . , n), number of j(j = 1, 2, . . . , m)
the initial value and standardized value of the index. While (maxXij − minXij ) means
the difference between the maximum and the minimum value of the index in number of
j column.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 2538 15 of 17

(2) Translation of index

Since 0 value appeared in the data after standardized processing above, in order to
avoid meaningless calculation of comprehensive evaluation and CCD model, the range
interval was translated, that is, the intercept term was added as following.

Y 0ij = Yij × 0.99 + 0.01 (A3)

2. The process of entropy evaluation method

(1) Calculating index proportions
The specific gravity Pij of the index in row i and column j can be computed by Formula (A4).

Pij = Yij /∑in=1 Yij (A4)

(2) Calculating information entropy

The information entropy e j of column j can be calculated by Formula (A5).

e j = −∑in=1 Pj lnPj /K (A5)

In the Formula (A6), K = ln(n), n means the total years of evaluation. In addition, there
is 0 ≤ e j ≤ 1. In addition, when Pj = 0, Pj lnPj = 0.
(3) Calculating diversity factor
The diversity factor g j of column j can be calculated by Formula (A6).

g j = 1 − e j /∑m


j =1 e j (A6)

(4) Calculating weights

The weights Wj of each index can be computed by Formula (A7).

Wj = g j /∑m
j =1 g j (A7)

3. The extra tables

(1) The combination weights

Table A1. Combination weights of two methods.

AHP Entropy Combination

Index Layer
Weights Weights Weights
Multiple cropping index of land (x1) 0.235 0.101 0.161
Percent of water-saving irrigated area (x2) 0.235 0.152 0.197
Number of green food labels per unit area (x3) 0.209 0.173 0.199
Average agricultural labour productivity (x4) 0.110 0.137 0.128
Emission intensity of agricultural chemical oxygen
0.078 0.114 0.099
demand (COD) (x5)
Fertilizer intensity (x6) 0.070 0.149 0.107
Forest coverage rate (x7) 0.037 0.086 0.059
Soil erosion control area (x8) 0.026 0.087 0.050
Rate of urbanization (x9) 0.365 0.181 0.251
Added value of agriculture, forestry, animal husbandry
0.231 0.125 0.166
and fisher (x10)
Rural network coverage (x11) 0.122 0.166 0.139
Agricultural mechanical power per land (x12) 0.091 0.203 0.132
Proportion of effective irrigated area (x13) 0.077 0.239 0.132
Percentage of highway mileage (x14) 0.064 0.119 0.085
Occurrence rate of agricultural natural disasters (x15) 0.030 0.072 0.045
Annual rainfall in the area (x16) 0.020 0.134 0.050
Sustainability 2023, 15, 2538 16 of 17

(2) The calibration points of conditions and results for 2013–2017 years

Table A2. Calibration points of conditions and results during 2013–2017 years.

2013 2015 2017

Full Full
Conditions and Results Full Non- Full Mem- Full Non- Full Non-
Member- Intersection Intersection Member- Intersection
Membership bership Membership membership
ship Point Point ship Point
Point Point Point Point
Point Point
Outcome
Food security index 0.89 0.62 −0.58 0.9 0.64 -0.61 0.9 0.65 −0.84
variable
Quantity Land used per unit
1 0.77 0.24 0.99 0.7 0.23 0.98 0.78 0.18
security grain output
index Percent of primary
industry 58.62 37.02 6.88 53.72 36.62 6.04 49.57 32.68 5.51
employment
Ecology Fertilizer intensity of
0.98 0.64 0.22 0.99 0.67 0.22 0.97 0.67 0.2
security unit area
index Agricultural labour
5.83 5.28 4.48 6.05 5.46 4.82 6.25 5.6 5.01
productivity
Agricultural
Economic production 0.91 0.63 0.3 0.9 0.55 0.2 0.98 0.48 0.09
security price index
index Fiscal expenditures
508.98 384.81 259.52 520.72 395.62 267.66 561.09 406.68 272.59
on grain production

4. Acronyms AGD for agricultural green development. SD for serious dissonance stage.
MD for moderate dissonance stage. BC for basic coordination stage. QCA for the
qualitative comparative analysis. The fsQCA for fuzzy-set QCA. AEP for China’s
economic potential system CCD model for the coupling coordination degree model

References
1. FAO. Crop Prospects and Food Situation; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2022.
2. Liu, Y.; Sun, D.; Wang, H.; Wang, X.; Yu, G.; Zhao, X. An evaluation of China’s agricultural green production: 1978–2017. China
Agric. Econ. Rev. 2018, 10, 78–92. [CrossRef]
3. Shen, J.; Zhu, Q.; Jiao, X.; Ying, H.; Wang, H.; Wen, X.; Xu, W.; Li, T.; Cong, W.; Liu, X.; et al. Agriculture Green Development: A
model for China and the world. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. 2020, 7, 5. [CrossRef]
4. The Global Network Against Food Crises Global Report on Food Crises. 2022. Available online: https://reliefweb.int/report/
world/global-report-food-crises-2022 (accessed on 20 January 2023).
5. Barrett, C.B. Measuring food insecurity. Science 2010, 327, 825–828. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Coates, J. Build it back better: Deconstructing food security for improved measurement and action. Glob. Food Secur. 2013,
2, 188–194. [CrossRef]
7. Norse, D.; Ju, X. Environmental costs of China’s food security. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2015, 209, 5–14. [CrossRef]
8. Jiao, X.; Lyu, Y.; Wu, X.; Li, H.; Cheng, L.; Zhang, C.; Yuan, L.; Jiang, R.; Jiang, B.; Rengel, Z.; et al. Grain production versus
resource and environmental costs: Towards increasing sustainability of nutrient use in China. EXBOTJ 2016, 67, 4935–4949.
[CrossRef]
9. Svensson, J.; Wang, Y.; Garrick, D.; Dai, X. How does hybrid environmental governance work? Examining water rights trading in
China (2000–2019). J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 288, 112333. [CrossRef]
10. Alola, A.A.; Adebayo, T.S.; Onifade, S.T. Examining the dynamics of ecological footprint in China with spectral Granger causality
and quantile-on-quantile approaches. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2022, 29, 263–276. [CrossRef]
11. Chi, M.; Guo, Q.; Mi, L.; Wang, G.; Song, W. Spatial Distribution of Agricultural Eco-Efficiency and Agriculture High-Quality
Development in China. Land 2022, 11, 722. [CrossRef]
12. Fan, M.; Shen, J.; Yuan, L.; Jiang, R.; Chen, X.; Davies, W.J.; Zhang, F. Improving crop productivity and resource use efficiency to
ensure food security and environmental quality in China. J. Exp. Bot. 2012, 63, 13–24. [CrossRef]
13. Schindler, J.; Graef, F.; König, H.J. Methods to assess farming sustainability in developing countries. A review. Agron. Sustain.
Dev. 2015, 35, 1043–1057. [CrossRef]
14. Jiang, Z.; Wu, H.; Lin, A.; Shariff, A.R.M.; Hu, Q.; Song, D.; Zhu, W. Optimizing the spatial pattern of land use in a prominent
grain-producing area: A sustainable development perspective. Sci. Total Env. 2022, 843, 156971. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15. Liu, J.; Dong, C.; Liu, S.; Rahman, S.; Sriboonchitta, S. Sources of Total-Factor Productivity and Efficiency Changes in China’s
Agriculture. Agriculture 2020, 10, 279. [CrossRef]
16. Lu, Y.; Jenkins, A.; Ferrier, R.C.; Bailey, M.; Gordon, I.J.; Song, S.; Huang, J.; Jia, S.; Zhang, F.; Liu, X.; et al. Addressing China’s
grand challenge of achieving food security while ensuring environmental sustainability. Sci. Adv. 2015, 1, e1400039. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 2538 17 of 17

17. Wang, J.; Li, Y.; Huang, J.; Yan, T.; Sun, T. Growing water scarcity, food security and government responses in China. Glob. Food
Secur. 2017, 14, 9–17. [CrossRef]
18. Liu, F.; Xiao, X.; Qin, Y.; Yan, H.; Huang, J.; Wu, X.; Zhang, Y.; Zou, Z.; Doughty, R.B. Large spatial variation and stagnation of
cropland gross primary production increases the challenges of sustainable grain production and food security in China. Sci. Total
Environ. 2022, 811, 151408. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
19. Musvoto, C.; Nortje, K.; De Wet, B.; Mahumani, B.K.; Nahman, A. Imperatives for an agricultural green economy in South Africa.
S. Afr. J. Sci. 2015, 111, 1–8. [CrossRef]
20. Florea, N.V.; Duică, M.C.; Ionescu, C.A.; Duică, A.; Ibinceanu, M.C.O.; Stanescu, S.G. An Analysis of the Influencing Factors of
the Romanian Agricultural Output within the Context of Green Economy. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9649. [CrossRef]
21. Guo, C.; Bai, Z.; Shi, X.; Chen, X.; Chadwick, D.; Strokal, M.; Zhang, F.; Ma, L.; Chen, X. Challenges and strategies for agricultural
green development in the Yangtze River Basin. J. Integr. Environ. Sci. 2021, 18, 37–54. [CrossRef]
22. Vitousek, P.M.; Mooney, H.A.; Lubchenco, J.; Melillo, J.M. Human Domination of Earth’s Ecosystems. Science 1997, 277, 6.
[CrossRef]
23. Liu, J.; Dietz, T.; Carpenter, S.R.; Alberti, M.; Folke, C.; Moran, E.; Pell, A.N.; Deadman, P.; Kratz, T.; Lubchenco, J.; et al.
Complexity of Coupled Human and Natural Systems. Science 2007, 317, 1513–1516. [CrossRef]
24. Carpenter, S.R.; Mooney, H.A.; Agard, J.; Capistrano, D.; DeFries, R.S.; Díaz, S.; Dietz, T.; Duraiappah, A.K.; Oteng-Yeboah, A.;
Pereira, H.M.; et al. Science for managing ecosystem services: Beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proc. Natl. Acad.
Sci. USA 2009, 106, 1305–1312. [CrossRef]
25. Rees, W.; Wackernagel, M. Urban ecological footprints: Why cities cannot be sustainable—And why they are a key to sustainability.
Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 1996, 16, 223–248. [CrossRef]
26. Wackernagel, M.; Kitzes, J.; Moran, D.; Goldfinger, S.; Thomas, M. The Ecological Footprint of cities and regions: Comparing
resource availability with resource demand. Environ. Urban. 2006, 18, 103–112. [CrossRef]
27. Pappas, I.O.; Woodside, A.G. Fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA): Guidelines for research practice in Information
Systems and marketing. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2021, 58, 102310. [CrossRef]
28. Marx, A.; Rihoux, B.; Ragin, C. The origins, development, and application of Qualitative Comparative Analysis: The first 25 years.
Eur. Pol. Sci. Rev. 2014, 6, 115–142. [CrossRef]
29. Ragin, C.C.; Strand, S.I. Using Qualitative Comparative Analysis to Study Causal Order: Comment on Caren and Panofsky (2005).
Sociol. Methods Res. 2008, 36, 431–441. [CrossRef]
30. Kang, S.; Zhang, L.; Trout, T. Special Issue: Improving Agricultural Water Productivity to Ensure Food Security under Changing
Environments. Agric. Water Manag. 2017, 179, 1–4. [CrossRef]
31. Liu, X.; Shi, L.; Qian, H.; Sun, S.; Wu, P.; Zhao, X.; Engel, B.A.; Wang, Y. New problems of food security in Northwest China: A
sustainability perspective. Land Degrad. Dev. 2020, 31, 975–989. [CrossRef]
32. The Xinhua News Agency. China Unveils 5-Year Plan for Agricultural Green Development; The Xinhua News Agency: Beijing, China,
2022. Available online: http://english.www.gov.cn/statecouncil/ministries/202109/08/content_WS61386c3bc6d0df57f98dfddf.
html (accessed on 29 November 2022).
33. Liu, Y.; Cheng, X.; Li, W. Agricultural chemicals and sustainable development: The agricultural environment Kuznets curve
based on spatial panel model. Env. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2021, 28, 51453–51470. [CrossRef]
34. Fiss, P.C. Building Better Causal Theories: A Fuzzy Set Approach to Typologies in Organization Research. AMJ 2011, 54, 393–420.
[CrossRef]
35. Ge, D.; Long, H.; Ma, L.; Zhang, Y.; Tu, S. Analysis Framework of China’s Grain Production System: A Spatial Resilience
Perspective. Sustainability 2017, 9, 2340. [CrossRef]
36. Huang, J.; Wei, W.; Cui, Q.; Xie, W. The prospects for China’s food security and imports: Will China starve the world via imports?
J. Integr. Agric. 2017, 16, 2933–2944. [CrossRef]
37. Qi, Y.; Farnoosh, A.; Lin, L.; Liu, H. Coupling coordination analysis of China’s provincial water-energy-food nexus. Environ. Sci.
Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 23303–23313. [CrossRef]
38. Yang, C.; Zeng, W.; Yang, X. Coupling coordination evaluation and sustainable development pattern of geo-ecological environment
and urbanization in Chongqing municipality, China. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 61, 102271. [CrossRef]
39. Du, Y.; Kim, P.H.; Aldrich, H.E. Configurational Effects of Slack and CEO Narcissism on New Venture Innovation Investment.
Proceedings 2016, 2016, 12479. [CrossRef]
40. Wang, M.; Wang, K. Exploring Water Landscape Adaptability of Urban Spatial Development Base on Coupling Coordination
Degree Model A Case of Caidian District, Wuhan. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1475. [CrossRef]
41. Sigdel, R.; Anand, M.; Bauch, C.T. Convergence of socio-ecological dynamics in disparate ecological systems under strong
coupling to human social systems. Theor. Ecol. 2018, 12, 285–296. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.