Empirical Study on the Effects of Technology Training on the Forest-Related Income of Rural Poverty-Stricken Households—Based on the PSM Method
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Econometric Model
2.2. Data Source
2.3. Descriptive Statistics of Main Variables
3. Results
3.1. Estimation of Propensity Score by Using Logit Model
3.2. Analysis of the Impact of Technology Training on Forest-Related Income of Poverty-Stricken Rural Households
3.3. Balance Test of Matching Results
4. Conclusions and Reflection
4.1. Conclusions
4.2. Discussion
4.3. Policy Recommendations
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Zebo, M. Farmers’ endowment, regional environment and the willingness to participate in e-commerce poverty alleviation based on the empirical analysis of 630 farmers in frontier minority areas. China Bus. Mark. 2017, 31, 47–54. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Singh, M.; Tambe, S.B. Impact of training on the agriculture technology knowledge (adoption) of farmers. Bhartiya Krishi Anusandhan Patrika 2014, 29, 101–104. [Google Scholar]
- Bayissa, D.D. Factors inhibiting farmers’ willingness to participate in agricultural research. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2016, 28, 11–19. [Google Scholar]
- Pan, Y.; Smith, S.C.; Sulaiman, M. Agricultural extension and technology adoption for food security: Evidence from Uganda. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2018, 100, 1012–1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- He, X.; Sakurai, T. Transferability of green revolution in Sub-Saharan Africa: Impact assessment of rice production technology training in Northern Ghana. Agric. Econ. Soc. Jpn. 2019, 2, 74–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhou, Y. Cultivation of English ability of agricultural science and technology talents—Based on the perspective of agricultural international cooperation. Rural Econ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 29, 245–247. [Google Scholar]
- Outlooks on Pest Management Group. Focus on Africa: Using science and technology to improve agriculture and alleviate poverty. Outlooks Pest Manag. 2005, 16, 221. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Fonta, W.M.; Sanfo, S.; Ibrahim, B.; Barry, B. Farmers awareness, perception of climate hazards and their willingness to participate in crop insurance schemes in Southwestern Burkina Faso. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2015, 29, 7–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schreinemachers, P.; Wu, M.H.; Uddin, M.N.; Shahabuddin, A.; Hanson, P. Farmer training in off-season vegetables: Effects on income and pesticide use in Bangladesh. Food Policy 2016, 61, 132–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chen, H. Analysis of scientific and technological training on chinese farmers. Agric. Econ. Issues 2007, 1, 19–22. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Qiao, H.; Cheng, Y.; Zeng, Q.; Zheng, F. Empirical research on the impact of agricultural technical training on farmers’ agricultural income—Based on the investigation of 1123 households. Investig. World 2016, 5, 13–17. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Pan, D. The impact of agricultural technology training on rural residents’ income: A study based on the propensity score matching method. J. Nanjing Agric. Univ. 2014, 5, 62–69. [Google Scholar]
- Zhao, Z.; Wang, P.; Yang, D.; Yu, B. On the connotation, structure and characteristics of the farmer training model in our country. Chin. Vocat. Tech. Educ. 2005, 6, 29–31. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Giannoccaro, G.; Castillo, M.; Berbel, J. Factors influencing farmers’ willingness to participate in water allocation trading. A case study in Southern Spain. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2016, 14, 101–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zemo, K.H.; Termansen, M. Farmers’ willingness to participate in collective biogas investment: A discrete choice experiment study. Resour. Energy Econ. 2018, 52, 87–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, J.; Jiang, N.; Qin, W. An empirical study on the demand and performance of farmers’ agricultural science and technology training services: A case study of Jiangsu Province. Agric. Econ. Issues 2011, 12, 66–72. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, F.; Zheng, L.; Wang, H. Analysis of factors affecting farmers’ training willingness in the development of camellia tea industry. J. S. China Agric. Univ. 2011, 10, 59–66. [Google Scholar]
- Zhao, Z.; Han, C.; Lv, J. Analysis on the influential factors of returning rural migrant workers to participate in vocational skills training—Based on a survey of 35 cities/counties from 3 provinces in the North and South of Rao Lake in Henan Province. Educ. Econ. 2012, 4, 26–29. [Google Scholar]
- Zhu, Q.; Mi, S.; Huang, L.; Huang, H. Study on the willingness and influencing factors of new professional farmers in participation of vocational skills training—An empirical analysis based on large-scale farming farmers. Zhejiang Agric. J. 2014, 26, 1361. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Yuan, C.; Wu, W. Analysis of farmers’ demand for forestry production technology and its determinants in collective forest areas. J. Zhejiang Agric. For. Univ. 2016, 33, 369–376. [Google Scholar]
- Tawiah, S.; Setlhodi, I.I. Introducing information and communication technology training for rural women in South Africa: Innovative strategies for the advancement of livelihoods. Int. J. Adult Educ. Technol. 2020, 11, 45–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, W. Analysis on vocational skills training of Chinese farmers. China Rural Watch 2013, 2, 21–28. [Google Scholar]
- Li, X.; Li, R.; Luo, B. Impact of agricultural technical training and non-agricultural vocational training on rural residents’ income. Math. Stat. Manag. 2015, 34, 867–877. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, Y.; Zhai, Y. Analysis of forest farmers’ application of forestry technology and its influencing factors—taking semi-Arid Regions in Liaoning Province as an example. Resour. Environ. Arid Areas 2017, 31, 101–106. [Google Scholar]
- Jiang, X.; Zheng, X.; Liu, W. Analysis of the effect of technical training on camellia tea farmers’ income increase—Estimation based on the propensity score matching method. For. Econ. 2017, 93–99, 107. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Rosenbaum, P.R.; Rubin, D.B. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983, 70, 41–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heckman, J.; Ichimura, H.; Smith, J.; Todd, P. Characterizing selection bias using experimental data. Econometrica 1998, 66, 1017–1098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, J.A.; Todd, P.E. Does matching overcome LaLonde’s critique of non-experimental estimators. J. Econom. 2005, 125, 305–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chen, Q. Advanced Econometrics and Stata Applications; Higher Education Press: Beijing, China, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Fernandez-Cornejo, J.; Hendricks, C.; Mishra, A. Technology adoption and off-farm household income: The case of herbicide-tolerant soybeans. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 2005, 37, 549–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, B.; Yu, L. The impact of agricultural technology application on farmers’ income: A case study of farmers in Jiangxi. Chin. Rural Econ. 2011, 1, 49–57. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, Q.; He, J. An analysis of the action of professional cooperatives participating in poverty alleviation and development—A case study from QZB tea cooperatives. J. Fujian Prov. Comm. Party Sch. 2015, 3, 46–51. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, T. Viability, external support and service functions of farmer cooperatives. Agric. Econ. Issues 2017, 5, 14–27. [Google Scholar]
Variable Name | Variable Description | All Samples (444) | Training Group (191) | Untrained Group (253) | Difference | t Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dependent variable | ||||||
Total forest-related family income (thfi) | Unit: CNY | 4752.446 | 8780.639 | 1711.400 | 7069.239 | 9.457 *** |
Household forestry production and operation income (hfpi) | Unit: CNY | 2065.861 | 3783.222 | 767.536 | 3015.686 | 4.764 *** |
Independent variable | ||||||
Gender (g) | 1 = male; 0 = female | 0.795 | 0.869 | 0.739 | 0.130 | 3.395 *** |
Age (a) | Unit: years old | 49.890 | 47.895 | 51.395 | −3.500 | −3.346 *** |
Education level (edu) | 1 = illiterate or semi-literate; 2 = primary school; 3 = elementary school; 4 = high school; 5 = college and above. | 2.333 | 2.414 | 2.273 | 0.141 | 2.380 ** |
Health status (h) | 1 = healthy; 2 = Long-term chronic disease; 3 = major illness; 4 = disable | 1.356 | 1.346 | 1.364 | −0.018 | −0.227 |
Employment status (l) | 1 = working within the county; 2 = working within the province but outside the county; 3 = working outside of the province; 4 = Other | 3.061 | 2.979 | 3.123 | −0.143 | −1.135 |
Family size (fs) | Unit: person | 3.809 | 4.000 | 3.664 | 0.336 | 2.469 ** |
Managed forestland area (fa) | Unit: mu | 28.950 | 36.098 | 23.553 | 12.545 | 3.006 *** |
Whether held forest tenure certificate/equity certificate (frc) | 1 = Yes; 0 = No | 0.273 | 0.346 | 0.217 | 0.128 | 3.027 *** |
Whether joined the forestry cooperatives (fpco) | 1 = Yes; 0 = No | 0.099 | 0.141 | 0.067 | 0.074 | 2.604 *** |
Whether cooperated with forestry enterprises (cfc) | 1 = Yes; 0 = No | 0.025 | 0.042 | 0.012 | 0.030 | 2.020 ** |
Whether They Participated in Forestry Technology Training (Ftt) | Coefficient | Standard Error | z Value | p > |z| | 95% Confidence Interval | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender (g) | 0.978 *** | 0.276 | 3.54 | 0.000 | 0.437 | 1.519 |
Age (a) | −0.030 *** | 0.010 | −2.86 | 0.004 | −0.050 | −0.009 |
Education level (edu) | 0.176 | 0.173 | 1.02 | 0.308 | −0.162 | 0.514 |
Health status (h) | 0.024 | 0.132 | 0.18 | 0.854 | −0.234 | 0.283 |
Employment status (l) | −0.053 | 0.083 | −0.64 | 0.525 | −0.216 | 0.110 |
Family size (fs) | 0.215 *** | 0.074 | 2.89 | 0.004 | 0.069 | 0.361 |
Managed forestland area (fa) | 0.005 * | 0.003 | 1.74 | 0.082 | −0.001 | 0.011 |
Whether they held forest tenure/equity certificate (frc) | 0.478 * | 0.248 | 1.93 | 0.054 | −0.009 | 0.965 |
Whether they joined the forestry cooperatives (fpco) | 0.963 *** | 0.349 | 2.76 | 0.006 | 0.279 | 1.646 |
Whether they cooperated with forestry enterprises (cfc) | 1.326 * | 0.749 | 1.77 | 0.077 | −0.143 | 2.795 |
Constant term | −1.118 | 0.782 | −1.43 | 0.153 | −2.650 | 0.414 |
Variable Name | Matching Method | Trained Group | Untrained Group | ATT | Standard Error | t Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total forest-related family income (thfi) | Radius matching (R = 0.04) | 8792.291 | 2167.043 | 6625.248 (3.06) | 819.683 | 8.08 *** |
Kernel matching | 8792.292 | 2133.811 | 6658.481 (3.12) | 810.563 | 8.21 *** | |
Forestry production and operation household income(hfpi) | Radius matching (R = 0.04) | 3779.920 | 1019.875 | 2760.045 (2.71) | 747.653 | 3.69 *** |
Kernel matching | 3779.920 | 962.203 | 2817.717 (2.93) | 743.954 | 3.79 *** |
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
Zhao, R.; Qiu, X.; Chen, S. Empirical Study on the Effects of Technology Training on the Forest-Related Income of Rural Poverty-Stricken Households—Based on the PSM Method. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7143. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137143
Zhao R, Qiu X, Chen S. Empirical Study on the Effects of Technology Training on the Forest-Related Income of Rural Poverty-Stricken Households—Based on the PSM Method. Sustainability. 2021; 13(13):7143. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137143
Chicago/Turabian StyleZhao, Rong, Xiaolu Qiu, and Shaozhi Chen. 2021. "Empirical Study on the Effects of Technology Training on the Forest-Related Income of Rural Poverty-Stricken Households—Based on the PSM Method" Sustainability 13, no. 13: 7143. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137143