Impact of Labor Migration on Chemical Fertilizer Application of Citrus Growers: Empirical Evidence from China
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Analysis
2.1. Off-Farm Income from Labor Migration Affects Chemical Fertilizer Application by Citrus Farmers
2.2. Labor Migration Allows Growers to Reduce the Use of Chemical Fertilizers by Gaining Knowledge and Techniques for Green Production
3. Data and Methodology
3.1. Data
3.2. Variable Definition and Measurement
3.2.1. Dependent Variable
3.2.2. Independent Variables
3.2.3. Intermediary Variables
3.2.4. Controlled Variables
3.3. Methodology
3.3.1. Propensity Score Matching Method
3.3.2. Mediating Effect
3.4. The Mean Value Comparison of Characteristics among the Two Groups of Citrus Growers
4. Results
4.1. Impact of Labor Migration on the Amount of Chemical Fertilizer Applied
4.1.1. Results of the Logit Model Estimation
4.1.2. Common Support Domain
4.1.3. Balance Test
4.1.4. Analysis of Average Treatment Effects
4.1.5. Robustness Test
4.2. Heterogeneity Test
4.2.1. Distinguishing between Farmers of Different Ages
4.2.2. Distinguishing between Farmers with Different Agricultural Incomes
4.3. Mechanism Analysis of the Influence of Labor Migration on the Amount of Chemical Fertilizer Applied by Citrus Growers
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Nguyen, D.L.; Grote, U.; Nguyen, T.T. Migration, crop production and non-farm labor diversification in rural Vietnam. Econ. Anal. Policy 2019, 63, 175–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Y. Introduction to land use and rural sustainability in China. Land Use Policy 2018, 74, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reardon, T.; Stamoulis, K.; Pingali, P. Rural nonfarm employment in developing countries in an era of globalization. Agric. Econ. 2007, 37, 173–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Y.; Li, Y. Revitalize the world’s countryside. Nature 2017, 548, 275–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- NBSC. National Bureau of Statistics of China (National Data). 2020. Available online: http://data.stats.gov.cn/ (accessed on 12 June 2022).
- Long, H.; Qu, Y.; Tu, S.; Zhang, Y.; Jiang, Y. Development of land use transitions research in China. Geogr. Sci. 2020, 30, 1195–1214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Damon, A.L. Agricultural Land Use and Asset Accumulation in Migrant Households: The Case of El Salvador. J. Dev. Stud. 2010, 46, 162–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiodi, V.; Jaimovich, E.; Montes-Rojas, G. Migration, Remittances and Capital Accumulation: Evidence from Rural Mexico. J. Dev. Stud. 2012, 48, 1139–1155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Conway, D.; Cohen, J.H. Consequences of migration and remittances for Mexican transnational communities. Econ. Geogr. 1998, 74, 26–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tong, Y.; Shu, B.; Piotrowski, M. Migration, Livelihood Strategies, and Agricultural Outcomes: A Gender Study in Rural China. Rural Sociol. 2019, 84, 591–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Haas, H. Migration and Development: A Theoretical Perspective. Int. Migr. Rev. 2010, 44, 227–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dedehouanou, S.F.A.; Araar, A.; Ousseini, A.; Harouna, A.L.; Jabir, M. Spillovers from off-farm self-employment opportunities in rural Niger. World Dev. 2018, 105, 428–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Martin, P.; Taylor, J.E. Farm Employment, Immigration, and Poverty: A Structural Analysis. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2013, 28, 349–363. [Google Scholar]
- Taylor, J.E.; Rozelle, S.; de Brauw, A. Migration and Incomes in Source Communities: A New Economics of Migration Perspective from China. Econ. Dev. Cult. Change 2003, 52, 75–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhang, Y.; Long, H.; Tu, S.; Ge, D.; Ma, L.; Wang, L. Spatial identification of land use functions and their tradeoffs/synergies in China: Implications for sustainable land management. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 107, 105550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, R.; Ye, C.; Cai, Y.; Xing, X.; Chen, Q. The impact of rural out-migration on land use transition in China: Past, present and trend. Land Use Policy 2014, 40, 101–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, W.; Zhou, X.; Renwick, A. Impact of off-farm income on household energy expenditures in China: Implications for rural energy transition. Energy Policy 2019, 127, 248–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, J.; Lopez-Carr, D. Migration, remittances and smallholder decision-making: Implications for land use and livelihood change in Central America. Land Use Policy 2014, 36, 319–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Zhang, H.; Zhang, Y.; Wu, S.; Cai, R. The Effect of Labor Migration on Farmers’ Cultivated Land Quality Protection. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ma, W.; Abdulai, A.; Ma, C. The effects of off-farm work on fertilizer and pesticide expenditures in China. Rev. Dev. Econ. 2018, 22, 573–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, Q.; Li, X.P.; Xie, X.X.; Zhao, M.J. The Impact of Non-agricultural Employment on Farmers’ Ecological Production Behavior: Based on the Mediating Effect of Agricultural Production and Operation Characteristics and the Regulating Effect of the Family Life Cycle. China Rural Obs. 2020, 1, 76–93. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, C.; Sun, Y.; Hu, R.; Yang, F.; Shen, X. The impact of rural-urban migration experience on fertilizer use: Evidence from rice production in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 280, 124429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Du, S.; Luo, X.F.; Huang, Y.Z.; Tang, L. Does labor migration promote farmers to adopt green control techniques. China Popul. Resour. Environ. 2021, 3, 167–176. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Liu, J.; Lian, Y.Y. The effect of the adjustment of planting structure on the application of fertilizer. J. Agric. Environ. Sci. 2019, 38, 2544–2552. [Google Scholar]
- Wen, Z.L.; Chang, L.; Hau, K.T.; Liu, H.Y. Testing and application of the mediating effects. Acta Psychol. Sin. 2004, 36, 614–620. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Zhong, F.; Lu, W.; Xu, Z. Does rural off-farm employment go against grain production? Analysis of the substitution of household elements and the adjustment of grain-crop structure and constraint conditions. Chin. Rural Econ. 2016, 22, 36–47. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Stark, O.; Bloom, D.E. The new economics of labor migration. Am. Econ. Rev. 1985, 75, 173–178. [Google Scholar]
- De Brauw, A.; Rozelle, S. Migration and household investment in rural China. China Econ. Rev. 2008, 19, 320–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caulfield, M.; Bouniol, J.; Fonte, S.J.; Kessler, A. How rural out-migrations drive changes to farm and land management: A case study from the rural Andes. Land Use Policy 2019, 81, 594–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, H.; Mishra, A.K. Chemical usage in production agriculture: Do crop insurance and off-farm work play a part? J. Environ. Manag. 2012, 105, 76–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Liu, N.Q.; Liu, X.H. Labor Mobility, Planting Structure Adjustment and Food Security—Based on the Climate of Basic Farmland Tree Planting. South China J. Econ. 2009, 6, 15–24. [Google Scholar]
- Shikuku, K.M. Information exchange links, knowledge exposure, and adoption of agricultural technologies in northern Uganda. World Dev. 2019, 115, 94–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Huang, J.; Huang, Z.; Jia, X.; Hu, R.; Xiang, C. Long-term reduction of nitrogen fertilizer use through knowledge training in rice production in China. Agric. Syst. 2015, 135, 105–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, W.; Dou, Z.; He, P.; Ju, X.; Powlson, D.; Chadwick, D.; Norse, D.; Lu, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Wu, L.; et al. New technologies reduce greenhouse gas emissions from nitrogenous fertilizer in China. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 8375–8380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pan, D.; Kong, F.; Zhang, N.; Ying, R. Knowledge training and the change of fertilizer use intensity: Evidence from wheat farmers in China. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 197, 130–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, Z.; Yang, Y. Effect of outward employment on ability development of rural labor forces and its policy implications. Manag. World 2011, 12, 40–54. (in Chinese). [Google Scholar]
- Abebaw, D.; Haile, M.G. The impact of cooperatives on agricultural technology adoption: Empirical evidence from Ethiopia. Food Policy 2013, 38, 82–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tran, D.; Goto, D. Impacts of sustainability certification on farm income: Evidence from small-scale specialty green tea farmers in Vietnam. Food Policy 2019, 83, 70–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qi, C.J.; Gu, Y.M.; Zeng, Y. Research progress of citrus industry economy in China. J. Huazhong Agric. Univ. 2021, 40, 58–69. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Kousar, R.; Abdulai, A. Off-farm work, land tenancy contracts and investment in soil conservation measures in rural Pakistan. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2016, 60, 307–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Y.; Ruiz-Menjivar, J.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, J.; Swisher, M.E. Technical training and rice farmers’ adoption of low-carbon management practices: The case of soil testing and formulated fertilization technologies in Hubei, China. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 226, 454–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, T.Z.; Yan, T.W.; He, K. The influence of capital endowment on farmers’ willingness to invest in green production—The example of straw returning to field. China Popul.·Resour. Environ. 2017, 27, 78–89. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Tian, Y.; Zhang, J.B.; He, K. Analysis of farmers’ agricultural low-carbon production behavior and its influencing factors—Fertilizer application and pesticide use as an exampl. China Rural Obs. 2015, 4, 61–70. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Yang, X.J.; Qi, Z.H.; Chen, X.T.; Yang, C.Y. The influence of social capital on Farmers’ decision-making behavior of adopting eco agricultural technology—Taking rice shrimp co culture technology as an example. J. China Agric. Univ. 2020, 25, 183–198. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Li, X.; Mu, Y.Y. The correlation effect of farmers adopting sustainable production technologies and their influencing factors. Nanjing Agric. Univ. 2013, 13, 62–68. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Li, X.J.; Chen, Z.; Liu, F.; Xia, X.L. Will participating in e-commerce promote the adoption of green production technology for kiwi fruit growers?—Anti fact estimation based on tendency score matching. China Rural Econ. 2020, 3, 118–135. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Rubin, D.B. Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Educ. Psychol. 1974, 66, 688–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Atamanov, A.; Van den Berg, M. Participation and returns in rural nonfarm activities: Evidence from the Kyrgyz Republic. Agric. Econ. 2012, 43, 459–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robins, J.M.; Rotnitzky, A. Semiparametric efficiency in multivariate regression models with missing Data. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1995, 90, 122–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schultz, T.W. Transforming Traditional Agriculture; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA, 1964. [Google Scholar]
- Verhaegen, P.; Salthouse, T.A. Meta-analyses of Age-cognition Relations in Adulthood: Estimates of Linear and Nonlinear Age Effects and Structural Models. Psychol. Bull. 1997, 122, 231–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variable | Variable Name | Symbol | Assignment Description | Mean Value | Standard Deviation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dependent variable | Chemical fertilizer application | The logarithm of chemical fertilizer input per mu 1 mu = 1/15 ha | 6.824 | 0.854 | |
Independent variable | Labor migration | With labor migration in the family: yes = 1, no = 0 | 0.321 | 0.467 | |
Intermediate variable | Accessibility to information and technology of green production | Ease of access to green production information and technologies (1 = very easy; 2 = easy; 3 = general; 4 = difficult; 5 = very difficult) | 3.415 | 0.870 | |
Non-agricultural income | The logarithm of household non-agricultural income | 1.759 | 1.211 | ||
Controlled variable | |||||
Economic capital | Total household income | The logarithm of total household income in 2018 | 2.552 | 1.031 | |
Citrus sales revenue | Citrus sales revenue in 2018 (unit: ten thousand yuan) | 10.951 | 55.831 | ||
Human capital | Age | Age of planter | 55.247 | 10.277 | |
Health | Health of planter (1 = very poor; 2 = poor; 3 = fair; 4 = good; 5 = very good) | 3.890 | 0.793 | ||
Labor force | Number of citrus-growing laborers in family | 2.051 | 1.028 | ||
Social capital | Village officials | Whether served as village officials: yes = 1, no = 0 | 0.097 | 0.296 | |
Trust in neighbors | Level of trust in neighbors (1 = very distrustful; 2 = relatively distrustful; 3 = fair; 4 = relatively trustful; 5 = very trustful) | 3.785 | 0.827 | ||
Natural capital | Market distance | Distance to the nearest market (km) | 3.509 | 2.971 | |
Planting experience | Citrus planting period (years) | 13.981 | 10.709 | ||
Material capital | Cold chain logistics | Availability of local cold chain logistics: yes = 1, no = 0 | 3.219 | 1.14 | |
Processing plant | Is there a citrus processing plant in this township: yes = 1, no = 0 | 0.445 | 0.497 | ||
Regional characteristics | Sample source | 1 = Chengdu City; 2 = Meishan City; 3 = Nanchong City; 4 = Ziyang City; 5 = Neijiang City; 6 = Yibin City | 3.187 | 1.530 |
Families with and without Labor Migration | |||
---|---|---|---|
Variable Name | with Labor Migration | without Labor Migration | Difference |
Chemical fertilizer application | 6.746 (0.062) | 6.861 (0.033) | −0.115 * |
Non-agricultural income | 2.431 (0.064) | 1.442 (0.050) | −0.989 *** |
Accessibility of information and technology of green production | 3.241 (0.049) | 3.496 (0.038) | −0.255 *** |
Total household income | 2.919 (0.052) | 2.379 (0.045) | 0.540 *** |
Citrus sales revenue | 8.824 (1.207) | 11.954 (2.834) | −3.130 |
Age | 54.085 (0.447) | 57.709 (0.578) | −3.624 *** |
Health | 3.926 (0.033) | 3.816 (0.052) | 0.110 * |
Labor force | 0.516 (0.333) | 2.134 (0.022) | −1.618 |
Village officials | 0.096 (0.018) | 0.097 (0.012) | −0.001 |
Trust in neighbors | 3.812 (0.052) | 3.772 (0.035) | 0.040 |
Market distance | 3.690 (0.186) | 3.423 (0.126) | 0.267 |
Planting experience | 14.613 (0.714) | 13.685 (0.436) | 0.928 ** |
Cold chain logistics | 3.268 (0.069) | 3.197 (0.049) | 0.089 |
Processing plant | 0.475 (0.031) | 0.432 (0.021) | 0.043 |
Sample source | 3.065 (0.096) | 3.244 (0.065) | 0.179 |
Variable Name | Coefficient | Standard Error | Z Statistics | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Economic capital | Total household income | 1.038 *** | 0.125 | 8.31 |
Citrus sales revenue | −0.023 *** | 0.007 | −3.27 | |
Human capital | Age | −0.174 | 0.110 | −1.58 |
Health | 0.052 *** | 0.009 | 5.32 | |
Labor force | 0.196 | 0.179 | 1.09 | |
Social capital | Village officials | −0.281 | 0.294 | −0.96 |
Trust in neighbors | 0.080 | 0.106 | 0.76 | |
Natural capital | Market distance | 0.022 | 0.029 | 0.77 |
Planting experience | −0.153 | 0.127 | −1.20 | |
Material capital | Cold chain logistics | −0.002 | 0.082 | −0.02 |
Processing plant | 0.137 | 0.201 | 0.68 | |
Regional features | Sample source | −0.120 * | 0.067 | −1.80 |
Constant term | −5.269 *** | 1.044 | −5.05 | |
LR statistics | 127.26 *** | |||
Pseudo R2 Sample size | 0.126 | |||
807 |
Matching Method | Pseudo R2 | lr Value | p-Value | Mean Deviation | Median Deviation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Before matching | 0.125 | 126.79 | 0.000 | 13.5 | 7.3 |
K-nearest neighbor matching | 0.006 | 3.96 | 0.984 | 4.3 | 2.5 |
Caliper matching | 0.004 | 2.96 | 0.996 | 4.3 | 3.6 |
Kernel matching | 0.003 | 1.98 | 0.999 | 3.7 | 3.1 |
Matching Method | Mean of Treatment Group | Mean of the Control Group | ATT | t Value |
---|---|---|---|---|
K-nearest neighbor matching | 6.741 | 6.953 | −0.213 ** | −2.53 |
Caliper matching | 6.741 | 6.947 | −0.206 ** | −2.55 |
Kernel matching | 6.746 | 6.935 | −0.212 *** | −2.43 |
Average value | 6.743 | 6.945 | −0.210 ** | −2.50 |
Method | RA | IPW | IPWRA |
---|---|---|---|
ATT | 6.893 *** (0.043) | 6.844 *** (0.086) | 6.871 *** (0.032) |
Matching Method | Younger Farmers | Older Farmers | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Treatment Group | Control Group | ATT | Treatment Group | Control Group | ATT | |
K-nearest neighbor matching | 6.858 | 7.091 | −0.232 ** | 6.512 | 6.468 | 0.043 |
Caliper matching | 6.858 | 7.075 | −0.216 *** | 6.512 | 6.479 | 0.032 |
Kernel matching | 6.849 | 7.076 | −0.226 *** | 6.509 | 6.585 | 0.036 |
Average value | 6.855 | 7.081 | −0.224 *** | 6.511 | 6.511 | 0.037 |
Matching Method | High Agricultural Income | Low Agricultural Income | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Treatment Group | Control Group | ATT | Treatment Group | Control Group | ATT | |
K-nearest neighbor matching | 6.941 | 7.157 | −0.215 * | 6.604 | 6.745 | −0.140 |
Caliper matching | 6.668 | 6.741 | −0.073 * | 6.950 | 7.114 | −0.163 |
Kernel matching | 6.950 | 7.115 | −0.164 * | 6.617 | 6.715 | −0.097 |
Average value | 6.853 | 7.004 | −0.151 * | 6.724 | 6.858 | −0.133 |
Variable | Model 5 Chemical Fertilizer Application Rate | Model 6 Off-Farm Income | Model 7 Information and Technology of Green Production | Model 8 Chemical Fertilizer Application Rate | Model 9 Chemical Fertilizer Application Rate |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Labor migration | −0.147 ** (0.060) | 0.465 *** (0.065) | −0.293 *** (0.056) | −0.094 * (0.062) | −0.095 * (0.057) |
Non-agricultural income | — | — | — | −0.123 *** (0.028) | — |
Information and technology of green production | — | — | — | — | 0.178 *** (0.048) |
Controlled variable | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
F | 82.98 | 32.98 | 25.18 | 22.73 | |
Prob > chi (2) | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
R2 | 0.563 | 0.329 | 0.251 | 0.262 |
Total Effect | Mediating Effect | Proportion | BootSE | LLCI | ULCI | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Information and technology of green production | −0.147 | −0.052 | 0.353 | 0.017 | −0.086 | −0.017 |
Labor migration income | −0.147 | −0.057 | 0.387 | 0.015 | −0.088 | −0.026 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 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
Zhang, R.; Luo, L.; Liu, Y.; Fu, X. Impact of Labor Migration on Chemical Fertilizer Application of Citrus Growers: Empirical Evidence from China. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7526. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137526
Zhang R, Luo L, Liu Y, Fu X. Impact of Labor Migration on Chemical Fertilizer Application of Citrus Growers: Empirical Evidence from China. Sustainability. 2022; 14(13):7526. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137526
Chicago/Turabian StyleZhang, Ruixin, Lei Luo, Yuying Liu, and Xinhong Fu. 2022. "Impact of Labor Migration on Chemical Fertilizer Application of Citrus Growers: Empirical Evidence from China" Sustainability 14, no. 13: 7526. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137526