Rice Yield and the Shrinking Farm Population in a Mountain Village
Toyama Village (fictional) sits in a mountain basin. In 1995 it had 2,400 residents and 410 farm households; by 2020 it had 1,350 residents and 180 farm households, of which 120 are headed by someone aged 65 or older. Total rice paddy area fell from 620 ha to 480 ha over the same period, yet total rice output fell only slightly, from 3,100 t to 2,850 t. The village cooperative reports that many paddies are now rented and consolidated into large blocks worked by a few operators using machinery, while small household plots on slopes have been abandoned. A prefectural official proposes either (A) subsidizing the remaining large operators to expand further, or (B) paying small elderly households to keep their plots cultivated.
1. Using the numbers, explain how output could stay nearly constant while both farmland and farm households declined sharply.
Read the worked answer
Output = area × yield per hectare. Area fell from 620 to 480 ha (about −23%), but output fell only from 3,100 to 2,850 t (about −8%). So yield per hectare rose: 3,100/620 ≈ 5.0 t/ha in 1995 versus 2,850/480 ≈ 5.9 t/ha in 2020. The mechanism is consolidation: rented paddies merged into large blocks let a few operators use machinery efficiently, raising productivity per hectare and per worker. Meanwhile the number of farm households fell from 410 to 180, so output per household rose sharply even as total output dipped. The key judgement is that 'fewer farmers' does not mean 'less food' when land is transferred to efficient operators - the binding constraint shifted from labor to land and capital.
2. Compare options A and B on efficiency and on non-economic goals (landscape, disaster prevention, community), and recommend a combined policy.
Read the worked answer
A raises efficiency: larger blocks suit machinery and keep unit costs low. But it concentrates risk and may leave steep, fragmented plots abandoned, which harms scenery, invites encroachment, and weakens maintenance of terraces and waterways that protect against landslides and floods. B preserves cultivation on small plots and keeps elderly residents active and attached to the land, but it is costly per unit and cannot reverse aging. Judgement: neither alone is adequate. Recommend A for the flat consolidated core (scale, stable supply) plus B reframed as payment for 'multifunctional' services - landscape, water retention, community - targeted at plots A cannot absorb, with a time limit and transfer plan. This separates the food-production goal from the land-conservation goal instead of forcing one instrument to do both.