More Land, Less Pollution? How Land Transfer Affects Fertilizer Application
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Analysis
3. Research Design
3.1. Data
3.2. Variables
3.2.1. Dependent Variable
3.2.2. Independent Variable
3.2.3. Control Variables
3.3. Model
3.3.1. Fixed Effects Model
3.3.2. Mediating Effect Model
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Baseline Regression
4.2. Mediating Effect Analysis
4.3. Heterogeneity Analysis
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Li, Y.; Zhang, W.; Ma, L.; Huang, G.; Oenema, O.; Zhang, F.; Dou, Z. An analysis of China’s fertilizer policies: Impacts on the industry, food security, and the environment. J. Environ. Qual. 2013, 42, 972–981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhu, P.; Su, M.; Yan, J. Impact of farmland scale and stability on fertilizer input: Taking rice production of four counties of jiangsu province as example. J. Nanjing Agric. Univ. (Soc. Sci. Ed.). 2017, 17, 85–94. [Google Scholar]
- Xiang, T.; Qi, Y. Food security and agricultural non-point source pollution: Taking the impact of agricultural land endowment on the intensity of fertilizer input as an example. J. Financ. Econ. 2015, 41, 132–144. [Google Scholar]
- Fischer, G.; Winiwarter, W.; Ermolieva, T.; Cao, G.-Y.; Qui, H.; Klimont, Z.; Wiberg, D.; Wagner, F. Integrated modeling framework for assessment and mitigation of nitrogen pollution from agriculture: Concept and case study for China. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2010, 136, 116–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Zhu, Y.; Zhang, S.; Wang, Y. What could promote farmers to replace chemical fertilizers with organic fertilizers? J. Cleaner Prod. 2018, 199, 882–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vitousek, P.M.; Naylor, R.; Crews, T.; David, M.B.; Drinkwater, L.E.; Holland, E.; Johnes, P.J.; Katzenberger, J.; Martinelli, L.A.; Matson, P.A.; et al. Nutrient Imbalances in Agricultural Development. Science 2009, 324, 1519–1520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, L.; Siciliano, G. A comprehensive review of constraints to improved management of fertilizers in China and mitigation of diffuse water pollution from agriculture. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2015, 209, 15–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gao, J.; Peng, C.; Shi, Q. Research on China’s high fertilizer consumption and fertilization behavior of small farmers: Based on the findings of the national rural fixed observation point data from 1995 to 2016. Chin. Rural. Econ. 2019, 10, 120. [Google Scholar]
- He, Y.; Wu, S. Connection as empowerment: The practices of linking small-scale farm households with modern agriculture in China and their implications. Chin. Rural. Econ. 2019, 6, 28–37. [Google Scholar]
- Qian, Z.; Wang, X. How the circulation of farmland promotes the increase of farmers’ income: An empirical analysis based on the survey data of farmers in the four provinces (regions) of Jiangsu, Guangxi, Hubei and Heilongjiang. Chin. Rural. Econ. 2016, 10, 39–50. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, Z.; Wang, J.; Chen, Z. The impact of non-agricultural employment, land transfer and land fragmentation on the technical efficiency of rice farmers. Chin. Rural. Econ. 2014, 11, 4–16. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, X.; Hou, L.; Zhang, Y.; Sun, J. The development of China’s rural land transfer market and its impact on agricultural production. J. Agrotech. Econ. 2011, 10, 40–45. [Google Scholar]
- Yanggen, D.; Kelly, V.A.; Reardon, T.; Naseem, A. Incentives for fertilizer use in Sub-Saharan Africa: A review of empirical evidence on fertilizer response and profitability. Food Secur. Int. Dev. Work. Pap. 1998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brunelle, T.; Dumas, P.; Souty, F.; Dorina, B.; Nadaud, F. Evaluating the impact of rising fertilizer prices on crop yields. Agric. Econ. 2015, 46, 653–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Takeshima, H.; Liverpool-Tasie, L.S.O. Fertilizer subsidies, political influence and local food prices in sub-Saharan Africa: Evidence from Nigeria. Food Policy 2015, 54, 11–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Takeshima, H.; Adhikari, R.P.; Shivakoti, S.; Kaphle, B.D.; Kumar, A. Heterogeneous returns to chemical fertilizer at the intensive margins: Insights from Nepal. Food Policy 2017, 69, 97–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Savari, M.; Gharechaee, H. Application of the extended theory of planned behavior to predict Iranian farmers’ intention for safe use of chemical fertilizers. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 263, 121512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arriagada, R.A.; Sills, E.; Pattanayak, S.K.; Cubbage, F.; González, E. Modeling fertilizer externalities around Palo Verde National Park, Costa Rica. Agric. Econ. 2010, 41, 567–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, X.; Wu, K.; He, Y. The impact of farmland circulation on farmers’ productivity: An empirical analysis based on DEA Method. J. Agrotech. Econ. 2011, 8, 65–71. [Google Scholar]
- Ju, X.; Gu, B.; Wu, Y.; Galloway, J.N. Reducing China’s fertilizer use by increasing farm size. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2016, 41, 26–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, L.-X.; Zhang, X.-H.; Zhou, Y.-H. Farm size and fertilizer sustainable use: An empirical study in Jiangsu, China. J. Integr. Agric. 2019, 18, 2898–2909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wei, X.; Li, S.; Zhang, Z.; Cui, C. Analysis of farmers’ agricultural non-point source pollution behavior based on the perspective of farmland property system. Rural Econ. 2012, 5, 108–112. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, J.; Lian, Y. Effect of planting structure adjustment on chemical fertilizer applications in China. J. Agro-Environ. Sci. 2019, 38, 2544–2552. [Google Scholar]
- Gao, L.; Huang, J.; Scott, R.; Xu, Z. Emerging rental markets and investment in agricultural land in China. China Econ. Q. 2011, 10, 1499–1514. [Google Scholar]
- Gao, L.; Ji, X.; Huang, J. An analysis of the impact of Chinese farmers’ farmland use right expectation on long-term farmland investment. Chin. Rural Econ. 2013, 11, 24–33. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, J.; Ebinstein, A.; Macmillan, M.; Chen, Z. Migration, excessive fertilizer use and environmental consequences. Comp. Econ. Soc. Syst. 2017, 3, 149–160. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, Y.; Xi, X.; Tang, X.; Luo, D.; Gu, B.; Lam, S.K.; Vitousek, P.M.; Chen, D. Policy distortions, farm size, and the overuse of agricultural chemicals in China. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, 7010–7015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sahota, G.S. Agricultural development: An international perspective. In Economic Development and Cultural Change; Yujiro, H., Vernon, W.R., Eds.; John Hopkins Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 1973; Volume 21, pp. 722–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Foster, A.; Rosenzweig, M.R. Are There Too Many Farms in the World? Labor-Market Transaction Costs, Machine Capacities and Optimal Farm Size; Social Science Electronic Publishing: Rochester, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Qiu, H.; Liu, L.; Li, D.; Zhang, C. Farm size, tenure security and land productivity: An empirical study based on plot-level survey data from four provinces in China. Chin. Rural. Econ. 2017, 6, 30–43. [Google Scholar]
- Zhou, J.; Zhou, D. Research on the effect of agricultural machinery input on the reduction of chemical fertilizer. Rural. Econ. Sci. 2019, 30, 15–17. [Google Scholar]
- Otsuka, K.; Suyanto, S.; Sonobe, T.; Tomich, T.P. Evolution of land tenure institutions and development of agroforestry: Evidence from customary land areas of Sumatra. Agric. Econ. 2001, 25, 85–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liang, Z.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, J. Land inward transfer, plot scale and chemical fertilizer reduction: An empirical analysis based on main rice-producing areas in Hubei province. China Rural Surv. 2020, 5, 73–92. [Google Scholar]
- Ya-Hui, W.; Xiu-Bin, L.; Liang-Jie, X. Characteristics of cropland fragmentation and its impact on agricultural production costs in mountainous areas. J. Nat. Resour. 2019, 34, 2658–2672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bungau, S.; Behl, T.; Aleya, L.; Bourgeade, P.; Aloui-Sossé, B.; Purza, A.L.; Abid, A.; Samuel, A.D. Expatiating the impact of anthropogenic aspects and climatic factors on long-term soil monitoring and management. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, L.; Huang, J. Analysis on the relationship between different types of circulated farmland and farmer household investment. Chin. Rural Econ. 2011, 4, 9–17. [Google Scholar]
- Ke, S.; Zhao, Y.; Wang, L. The effect of urban infrastructure construction on land productivity and the regional disparities. China Land Sci. 2014, 28, 59–67. [Google Scholar]
- Wooldridge, J.M. Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach; South-Western College Publishing: Cincinnati, OH, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Baron, R.M.; Kenny, D.A. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1986, 51, 1173–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kenny, D.A.; Korchmaros, J.D.; Bolger, N. Lower level mediation in multilevel models. Psychol. Methods 2003, 8, 115–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- MacKinnon, D.P.; Fairchild, A.J. Current directions in mediation analysis. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2009, 18, 16–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zou, W.; Cui, Y.; Zhou, J. The impact of farmland transfer on farmers’ fertilizer reduction: An analysis of transferability and security of land rights. China Land Sci. 2020, 34, 48–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, M.; Zhao, C.; Li, T.; Jia, X.; Wu, J. Driving forces analysis for China’s recent fertilizer use reduction under the “Zero growth” action plan: Estimation based on the LMDI approach and panel regression analysis. J. Agrotech. Econ. 2019, 12, 118–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Year | Total Sample Size | Number of Samples without Transferred Land | Number of Samples with Transferred Land | Sample Size at Different Transfer Levels | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | ||||
2011 | 12,697 | 9270 | 3427 | 2746 | 586 | 93 | 2 |
2012 | 12,607 | 9362 | 3245 | 2497 | 641 | 103 | 4 |
2013 | 12,298 | 9135 | 3163 | 2435 | 615 | 112 | 1 |
2014 | 10,646 | 7837 | 3809 | 2087 | 595 | 120 | 7 |
Total | 48,248 | 35,604 | 12,644 | 9765 | 2437 | 428 | 14 |
Variables | Measurement |
---|---|
Age of head of household (Age) | years old |
The educational level of head of household (Edu) | years of education |
Household income (Income) | ln (total annual household income) |
Number of plots (Plotsnum) | piece |
Percentage of agricultural labor time (Agrilabor) | household agricultural labor time/household total labor time |
Operating land area at the end of the year (Endland) | mu |
Fertilizer price (Fprice) | yuan/kg |
Different Levels of Land Transfer | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
IFA (kilogram/mu) | 111.2891 | 125.3711 | 67.74267 | 40.34565 | 38.08799 |
Age (years old) | 53.75862 | 54.654 | 50.88796 | 49.53735 | 50.14286 |
Edu (years) | 6.876702 | 6.868949 | 6.830148 | 7.317191 | 6.769231 |
Train | 0.1522199 | 0.1332561 | 0.2139554 | 0.2330097 | 0.1428571 |
Plotsnum (piece) | 7.599885 | 7.093539 | 9.209711 | 9.509434 | 14.85714 |
Agrilabor (%) | 0.5637367 | 0.5233744 | 0.6823874 | 0.8184432 | 0.7476762 |
Endland (mu) | 17.17683 | 8.269872 | 35.16028 | 109.4857 | 277.3643 |
(1) | (2) | (3) | |
---|---|---|---|
IFA | IFA | IFA | |
RTL | −61.69 *** | ||
(15.23) | |||
RTL1 | −28.64 *** | ||
(5.833) | |||
RTL2 | −22.56 *** | ||
(3.521) | |||
Age | −0.0611 | −0.102 | −0.0645 |
(0.474) | (0.371) | (0.473) | |
Edu | 1.768 | 0.323 | 1.622 |
(1.678) | (1.792) | (1.675) | |
Train | 5.572 | 9.653 | 5.215 |
(7.626) | (8.600) | (7.611) | |
Income | 37.34 *** | 51.38 *** | 39.46 *** |
(4.528) | (4.309) | (4.539) | |
Plotsnum | 2.753 *** | −3.490 *** | 3.496 *** |
(0.630) | (0.873) | (0.645) | |
Agrilabor | −21.88 *** | −12.672 | −23.62 *** |
(8.456) | (8.207) | (8.445) | |
Fprice | −0.904 *** | −1.090 *** | −0.913 *** |
(0.205) | (0.298) | (0.204) | |
Year | control | control | control |
Constant | −271.3 *** | −370.9 *** | −297.1 *** |
(56.23) | (51.34) | (56.20) | |
Obs | 10,801 | 40,127 | 10,801 |
R-squared | 0.022 | 0.010 | 0.026 |
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
IFA | Landsize | IFA | Mechan | IFA | |
RTL | −61.69 *** | 25.80 *** | −48.85 *** | 0.733 *** | −76.18 *** |
(15.23) | (1.009) | (16.04) | (0.0859) | (11.92) | |
Landsize | −0.498 ** | ||||
(0.195) | |||||
Mechan | 3.642 * | ||||
(2.110) | |||||
Age | −0.0611 | −0.0196 | −0.0708 | −0.000991 | −0.269 |
(0.474) | (0.0314) | (0.474) | (0.00283) | (0.390) | |
Edu | 1.768 | −0.154 | 1.692 | 0.0223 ** | 0.277 |
(1.678) | (0.111) | (1.678) | (0.00971) | (1.336) | |
Train | 5.572 | −0.536 | 5.306 | −0.150 *** | 7.454 |
(7.626) | (0.505) | (7.624) | (0.0422) | (5.812) | |
Income | 37.34 *** | 3.796 *** | 39.23 *** | 0.176 *** | 15.05 *** |
(4.528) | (0.300) | (4.586) | (0.0263) | (3.642) | |
Plotsnum | 2.753 *** | 0.811 *** | 3.157 *** | 0.0201 *** | 5.072 *** |
(0.630) | (0.0418) | (0.650) | (0.00336) | (0.464) | |
Agrilabor | −21.88 *** | −2.043 *** | −22.89 *** | −0.0701 | −1.485 |
(8.456) | (0.560) | (8.462) | (0.0476) | (6.545) | |
Fprice | −0.904 *** | −0.0359 *** | −0.922 *** | 0.00470 * | −2.014 *** |
(0.205) | (0.0136) | (0.205) | (0.00268) | (0.369) | |
Year | control | control | control | control | control |
Constant | −271.3 *** | −38.77 *** | −290.6 *** | 4.160 *** | −68.01 |
(56.23) | (3.725) | (56.71) | (0.328) | (46.02) | |
Obs | 10,801 | 10,801 | 10,801 | 8080 | 8080 |
R-squared | 0.022 | 0.232 | 0.023 | 0.109 | 0.044 |
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Food Crops | Cash Crops | Northeast | East | West | Central | |
RTL | −37.04 *** | 1.786 | −21.57 *** | −142.9 | −37.83 ** | −25.64 *** |
(10.42) | (36.61) | (8.033) | (100.5) | (18.10) | (9.776) | |
Age | 0.403 | 0.192 | 0.192 | 3.872 | −0.00614 | −0.428 |
(0.327) | (1.150) | (0.278) | (3.071) | (0.499) | (0.326) | |
Edu | 0.907 | 3.125 | 4.073 *** | −14.13 | 5.214 *** | 0.784 |
(1.213) | (4.263) | (1.208) | (10.07) | (1.596) | (1.371) | |
Train | −0.621 | 48.12 ** | 3.332 | 7.452 | 4.154 | 3.900 |
(5.719) | (20.10) | (3.804) | (59.96) | (7.561) | (7.021) | |
Income | 4.645 | 29.91 *** | 6.212 ** | 169.4 *** | 30.31 *** | −3.217 |
(3.284) | (11.54) | (2.433) | (25.29) | (5.648) | (3.064) | |
Plotsnum | 1.198 *** | 1.387 | −0.313 | 15.29 *** | −2.534 *** | −0.449 |
(0.460) | (1.618) | (0.490) | (3.058) | (0.942) | (0.322) | |
Agrilabor | 6.270 | −63.92 *** | −3.596 | −94.15 * | −16.82 * | −14.55 *** |
(6.042) | (21.23) | (4.137) | (53.31) | (10.15) | (5.597) | |
Fprice | 0.362 ** | −2.017 *** | −0.408 *** | −2.520 *** | −2.272 *** | −21.89 *** |
(0.143) | (0.503) | (0.0624) | (0.886) | (0.651) | (1.572) | |
Year | control | control | control | control | control | control |
Constant | 49.24 | −166.1 | −41.08 | −1713 *** | −180.6 *** | 229.6 *** |
(40.08) | (140.9) | (30.93) | (351.9) | (65.66) | (38.04) | |
Obs | 9587 | 7587 | 2564 | 1620 | 3794 | 2679 |
R-squared | 0.020 | 0.012 | 0.051 | 0.100 | 0.034 | 0.134 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 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/).
Share and Cite
Wu, J.; Wen, X.; Qi, X.; Fang, S.; Xu, C. More Land, Less Pollution? How Land Transfer Affects Fertilizer Application. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 11268. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182111268
Wu J, Wen X, Qi X, Fang S, Xu C. More Land, Less Pollution? How Land Transfer Affects Fertilizer Application. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(21):11268. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182111268
Chicago/Turabian StyleWu, Junqian, Xin Wen, Xiulin Qi, Shile Fang, and Chenxi Xu. 2021. "More Land, Less Pollution? How Land Transfer Affects Fertilizer Application" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 21: 11268. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182111268