Determinants of Farmers’ Confidence in Agricultural Production Recovery during the Early Phases of the COVID-19 Pandemic in China
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Background Analysis and Hypothesis Development
2.1.1. The Impact of Risk Expectation on Farmers’ Confidence in Agricultural Production Recovery
2.1.2. The Impact of Social Support on Farmers’ Confidence in Agricultural Production Recovery
2.1.3. Moderating Effects of Social Support
2.1.4. Analysis of Confidence in Agricultural Production Recovery among Different Generations of Farmers
2.2. Data Source
2.3. Variable Measurements
2.3.1. Farmers’ Confidence in Agricultural Production Recovery
2.3.2. Risk Expectation
2.3.3. Social Support
2.3.4. Control Variables
2.3.5. Instrumental Variables
2.4. Common Method Bias Test
2.5. Econometric Model
2.5.1. Ordered Probit Model
2.5.2. Conditional Mixed Process Estimation of Instrumental Variables
2.6. Basic Steps of the Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Basic Regression
3.2. The Impact of Social Support on Farmers’ Confidence in Agricultural Production Recovery
3.3. Analysis of Confidence in Agricultural Production Recovery among Different Generations of Farmers
3.4. Endogeneity Test
3.5. Robustness Check
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Song, L.; Zhou, Y. The COVID-19 Pandemic and Its Impact on the Global Economy: What Does It Take to Turn Crisis into Opportunity? China World Econ. 2020, 28, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ibn-Mohammed, T.; Mustapha, K.B.; Godsell, J.; Adamu, Z.; Babat, K.A.; Akintade, D.D.; Acquaye, A.; Fujii, H.; Ndiaye, M.M.; Yamoah, F.A.; et al. A Critical Analysis of the Impacts of COVID-19 on the Global Economy and Ecosystems and Opportunities for Circular Economy Strategies. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 164, 105169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Štreimikienė, D.; Baležentis, T.; Volkov, A.; Ribašauskienė, E.; Morkūnas, M.; Žičkienė, A. Negative Effects of Covid-19 Pandemic on Agriculture: Systematic Literature Review in the Frameworks of Vulnerability, Resilience and Risks Involved. Econ. Res. -Ekon. Istraživanja 2021, 18, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gruère, G.; Brooks, J. Viewpoint: Characterising Early Agricultural and Food Policy Responses to the Outbreak of COVID-19. Food Policy 2021, 100, 102017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shirsath, P.B.; Jat, M.L.; McDonald, A.J.; Srivastava, A.K.; Craufurd, P.; Rana, D.S.; Singh, A.K.; Chaudhari, S.K.; Sharma, P.C.; Singh, R.; et al. Agricultural Labor, COVID-19, and Potential Implications for Food Security and Air Quality in the Breadbasket of India. Agric. Syst. 2020, 185, 102954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huss, M.; Brander, M.; Kassie, M.; Ehlert, U.; Bernauer, T. Improved Storage Mitigates Vulnerability to Food-Supply Shocks in Smallholder Agriculture during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Glob. Food Secur. 2021, 28, 100468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thapa Magar, D.B.; Pun, S.; Pandit, R.; Rola-Rubzen, M.F. Pathways for Building Resilience to COVID-19 Pandemic and Revitalizing the Nepalese Agriculture Sector. Agric. Syst. 2021, 187, 103022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blazy, J.M.; Causeret, F.; Guyader, S. Immediate Impacts of COVID-19 Crisis on Agricultural and Food Systems in the Caribbean. Agric. Syst. 2021, 190, 103106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pu, M.; Zhong, Y. Rising Concerns over Agricultural Production as COVID-19 Spreads: Lessons from China. Glob. Food Secur. 2020, 26, 100409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mahajan, K.; Tomar, S. COVID-19 and Supply Chain Disruption: Evidence from Food Markets in India†. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2021, 103, 35–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Barrett, C.B. Actions Now Can Curb Food Systems Fallout from COVID-19. Nat. Food 2020, 1, 319–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tavares, F.F.; Betti, G. The Pandemic of Poverty, Vulnerability, and COVID-19: Evidence from a Fuzzy Multidimensional Analysis of Deprivations in Brazil. World Dev. 2021, 139, 105307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, B.; Zhang, Y.Y. Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Agricultural Exports. J. Integr. Agric. 2020, 19, 2937–2945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coluccia, B.; Agnusdei, G.P.; Miglietta, P.P.; De Leo, F. Effects of COVID-19 on the Italian Agri-Food Supply and Value Chains. Food Control. 2021, 123, 107839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Torero, M. Without Food, There Can Be No Exit from the Pandemic. Nature 2020, 580, 588–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Boughton, D.; Goeb, J.; Lambrecht, I.; Headey, D.; Takeshima, H.; Mahrt, K.; Masias, I.; Goudet, S.; Ragasa, C.; Maredia, M.K.; et al. Impacts of COVID-19 on Agricultural Production and Food Systems in Late Transforming Southeast Asia: The Case of Myanmar. Agric. Syst. 2021, 188, 103026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adewopo, J.B.; Solano-Hermosilla, G.; Colen, L.; Micale, F. Using Crowd-Sourced Data for Real-Time Monitoring of Food Prices during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Insights from a Pilot Project in Northern Nigeria. Glob. Food Secur. 2021, 29, 100523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Umar, Z.; Gubareva, M.; Teplova, T. The Impact of Covid-19 on Commodity Markets Volatility: Analyzing Time-Frequency Relations between Commodity Prices and Coronavirus Panic Levels. Resour. Policy 2021, 73, 102164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kola, L.; Kohrt, B.A.; Hanlon, C.; Naslund, J.A.; Sikander, S.; Balaji, M.; Benjet, C.; Cheung, E.Y.L.; Eaton, J.; Gonsalves, P.; et al. COVID-19 Mental Health Impact and Responses in Low-Income and Middle-Income Countries: Reimagining Global Mental Health. Lancet Psychiatry 2021, 8, 535–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gray, R.S. Agriculture, Transportation, and the COVID-19 Crisis. Can. J. Agric. Econ. Rev. Can. D’agroeconomie 2020, 68, 239–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bao, Y.; Sun, Y.; Meng, S.; Shi, J.; Lu, L. 2019-NCoV Epidemic: Address Mental Health Care to Empower society. Lancet 2020, 395, e37–e38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wang, C.; Pan, R.; Wan, X.; Tan, Y.; Xu, L.; Ho, C.S.; Ho, R.C. Immediate Psychological Responses and Associated Factors during the Initial Stage of the 2019 Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Epidemic among the General Population in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ker, A.P. Risk Management in Canada’s Agricultural Sector in Light of COVID-19. Can. J. Agric. Econ. Rev. Can. D’agroeconomie 2020, 68, 251–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Terpstra, T.; Lindell, M.K.; Gutteling, J.M. Does Communicating (Flood) Risk Affect (Flood) Risk Perceptions? Results of a Quasi-Experimental Study. Risk Anal. 2009, 29, 1141–1155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zheng, C.; Zhang, J.; Guo, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Qian, L. Disruption and Reestablishment of Place Attachment after Large-Scale Disasters: The Role of Perceived Risk, Negative Emotions, and Coping. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2019, 40, 101273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Naylor, R.L.; Liska, A.J.; Burke, M.B.; Falcon, W.P.; Gaskell, J.C.; Rozelle, S.D.; Cassman, K.G. The Ripple Effect: Biofuels, Food Security, and the Environment. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 2007, 49, 30–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Botzen, W.W.; van den Bergh, J.C. Risk Attitudes to Low-Probability Climate Change Risks: WTP for Flood Insurance. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2012, 82, 151–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farrell, P.; Thow, A.M.; Wate, J.T.; Nonga, N.; Vatucawaqa, P.; Brewer, T.; Sharp, M.K.; Farmery, A.; Trevena, H.; Reeve, E.; et al. COVID-19 and Pacific Food System Resilience: Opportunities to Build a Robust Response. Food Sec. 2020, 12, 783–791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Carter, M.R.; Little, P.D.; Mogues, T.; Negatu, W. Poverty Traps and Natural Disasters in Ethiopia and Honduras. In Social Protection for the Poor and Poorest: Concepts, Policies and Politics; Barrientos, A., Hulme, D., Eds.; Palgrave Studies in Development; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2008; pp. 85–118. ISBN 978-0-230-58309-2. [Google Scholar]
- Parvin, G.A.; Shaw, R. Microfinance Institutions and a Coastal Community’s Disaster Risk Reduction, Response, and Recovery Process: A Case Study of Hatiya, Bangladesh. Disasters 2013, 37, 165–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kaniasty, K.; de Terte, I.; Guilaran, J.; Bennett, S. A Scoping Review of Post-Disaster Social Support Investigations Conducted after Disasters That Struck the Australia and Oceania Continent. Disasters 2020, 44, 336–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Nguyen-Trung, K.; Forbes-Mewett, H.; Arunachalam, D. Social Support from Bonding and Bridging Relationships in Disaster Recovery: Findings from a Slow-Onset Disaster. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2020, 46, 101501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arouri, M.; Nguyen, C.; Youssef, A.B. Natural Disasters, Household Welfare, and Resilience: Evidence from Rural Vietnam. World Dev. 2015, 70, 59–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cariappa, A.A.; Acharya, K.K.; Adhav, C.A.; Sendhil, R.; Ramasundaram, P. Impact of COVID-19 on the Indian Agricultural System: A 10-Point Strategy for Post-Pandemic Recovery. Outlook Agric. 2021, 50, 26–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharma, R.; Shishodia, A.; Kamble, S.; Gunasekaran, A.; Belhadi, A. Agriculture Supply Chain Risks and COVID-19: Mitigation Strategies and Implications for the Practitioners. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 2020, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luckstead, J.; Nayga, R.M., Jr.; Snell, H.A. Labor Issues in the Food Supply Chain Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 2021, 43, 382–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gong, H.; Hassink, R.; Tan, J.; Huang, D. Regional Resilience in Times of a Pandemic Crisis: The Case of COVID-19 in China. Tijdschr. Voor Econ. En Soc. Geogr. 2020, 111, 497–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Su, Y.; Le Dé, L. Whose Views Matter in Post-Disaster Recovery? A Case Study of “Build Back Better” in Tacloban City after Typhoon Haiyan. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2020, 51, 101786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, Z.; Wang, J. Contract Farming, Area Differences and Farmer Rebound in Breeding Confidence after a H7N9 Avian Influenza Event. Resour. Sci. 2017, 39, 4. [Google Scholar]
- Wauters, E.; Van Winsen, F.; De Mey, Y.; Lauwers, L. Risk Perception, Attitudes towards Risk and Risk Management: Evidence and Implications. Agric. Econ. 2014, 60, 389–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ricome, A.; Reynaud, A. Marketing Contract Choices in Agriculture: The Role of Price Expectation and Price Risk Management. Agric. Econ. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Slovic, P.; Peters, E.; Finucane, M.L.; MacGregor, D.G. Affect, Risk, and Decision Making. Health Psychol. 2005, 24, S35–S40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiao, C. A Novel Approach of Consultation on 2019 Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19)-Related Psychological and Mental Problems: Structured Letter Therapy. Psychiatry Investig. 2020, 17, 175–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Gu, H.; Wang, C. Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Vegetable Production and Countermeasures from an Agricultural Insurance Perspective. J. Integr. Agric. 2020, 19, 2866–2876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, Z.; Elomri, A.; El Omri, A.; Kerbache, L.; Liu, H. The Compounded Effects of COVID-19 Pandemic and Desert Locust Outbreak on Food Security and Food Supply Chain. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perkins, R.; Repper, J. Recovery versus Risk? From Managing Risk to the Co-Production of Safety and Opportunity. Ment. Health Soc. Incl. 2016, 20, 101–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarason, I.G.; Levine, H.M.; Basham, R.B.; Sarason, B.R. Assessing Social Support: The Social Support Questionnaire. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1983, 44, 127–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, S.; Wills, T.A. Stress, Social Support, and the Buffering Hypothesis. Psychol. Bull. 1985, 98, 310–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tan, Y.; Qian, L.; Sarkar, A.; Nurgazina, Z.; Ali, U. Farmer’s Adoption Tendency towards Drought Shock, Risk-Taking Networks and Modern Irrigation Technology: Evidence from Zhangye, Gansu, PRC. Int. J. Clim. Chang. Strateg. Manag. ahead-of-print. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zimet, G.D.; Dahlem, N.W.; Zimet, S.G.; Farley, G.K. The Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support. J. Personal. Assess. 1988, 52, 30–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gottlieb, B.H.; Bergen, A.E. Social Support Concepts and Measures. J. Psychosom. Res. 2010, 69, 511–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, Y.; Findlay, C. Farmers’ Constraints, Governmental Support and Climate Change Adaptation: Evidence from Guangdong Province, China. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2019, 63, 866–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wei, H.; Lu, Q.W. Impact of COVID-19 on “Agriculture, Countryside and Farmers” and Countermeasures. Econ. Rev. J. 2020, 5, 36–45. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, W.; Shukla, P.; Shi, G. Digitalized Social Support in the Healthcare Environment: Effects of the Types and Sources of Social Support on Psychological Well-Being. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2021, 164, 120503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hellin, J.; Lundy, M.; Meijer, M. Farmer Organization, Collective Action and Market Access in Meso-America. Food Policy 2009, 34, 16–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Agussabti, A.; Romano, R.; Rahmaddiansyah, R.; Isa, R.M. Factors Affecting Risk Tolerance among Small-Scale Seasonal Commodity Farmers and Strategies for Its Improvement. Heliyon 2020, 6, e05847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sulewski, P.; Wąs, A.; Kobus, P.; Pogodzińska, K.; Szymańska, M.; Sosulski, T. Farmers’ Attitudes towards Risk—An Empirical Study from Poland. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fafchamps, M.; Gubert, F. The Formation of Risk Sharing Networks. J. Dev. Econ. 2007, 83, 326–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hardaker, J.B.; Lien, G.; Anderson, J.R.; Huirne, R.B. Coping with Risk in Agriculture: Applied Decision Analysis; Cabi: Wallingford, UK, 2015; ISBN 1-78064-574-0. [Google Scholar]
- Xu, J.; Ou, J.; Luo, S.; Wang, Z.; Chang, E.; Novak, C.; Shen, J.; Zheng, S.; Wang, Y. Perceived Social Support Protects Lonely People Against COVID-19 Anxiety: A Three-Wave Longitudinal Study in China. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 566965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ye, B.; Wu, D.; Im, H.; Liu, M.; Wang, X.; Yang, Q. Stressors of COVID-19 and Stress Consequences: The Mediating Role of Rumination and the Moderating Role of Psychological Support. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2020, 118, 105466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wilhite, D.A. Drought Monitoring as a Component of Drought Preparedness Planning. In Coping with Drought Risk in Agriculture and Water Supply Systems: Drought Management and Policy Development in the Mediterranean; Advances in Natural and Technological Hazards Research; Iglesias, A., Cancelliere, A., Wilhite, D.A., Garrote, L., Cubillo, F., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2009; pp. 3–19. ISBN 978-1-4020-9045-5. [Google Scholar]
- Kahn, R.L.; Antonucci, T.C. Convoys over the Life Course: Attachment, Roles, and Social Support. Life-Span Dev. Behav. 1980, 3, 253–286. [Google Scholar]
- Bai, H.; Ba, S.; Huang, W.; Hu, W. Expected Government Support and Bank Risk-Taking: Evidence from China. Financ. Res. Lett. 2020, 36, 101328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mannheim, K. The Problem of Generations. Psychoanal. Rev. 1970, 57, 378–404. [Google Scholar]
- Parry, E.; Urwin, P. Generational Differences in Work Values: A Review of Theory and Evidence. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2011, 13, 79–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lyons, S.; Kuron, L. Generational Differences in the Workplace: A Review of the Evidence and Directions for Future Research. J. Organ. Behav. 2014, 35, S139–S157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Glass, A. Understanding Generational Differences for Competitive Success. Ind. Commer. Train. 2007, 39, 98–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kupperschmidt, B.R. Multigeneration Employees: Strategies for Effective Management. Health Care Manag. 2000, 19, 65–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Iglesias, A.; Cancelliere, A.; Wilhite, D.A.; Garrote, L.; Cubillo, F. Coping with Drought Risk in Agriculture and Water Supply Systems: Drought Management and Policy Development in the Mediterranean; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2009; Volume 26. [Google Scholar]
- Begho, T. Using Farmers’ Risk Tolerance to Explain Variations in Adoption of Improved Rice Varieties in Nepal. J. South. Asian Dev. 2021, 16, 171–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milone, P.; Ventura, F. New Generation Farmers: Rediscovering the Peasantry. J. Rural Stud. 2019, 65, 43–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Supermarkets, New-Generation Wholesalers, Tomato Farmers, and NGOs in Nicaragua; Department of Agricultural Economics Staff Paper 2006-03; Balsevich, F.; Berdegue, J.A.; Reardon, T. (Eds.) Michigan State University: East Lansing, MI, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carolan, M. Lands Changing Hands: Experiences of Succession and Farm (Knowledge) Acquisition among First-Generation, Multigenerational, and Aspiring Farmers. Land Use Policy 2018, 79, 179–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, Y.; Xi, J.; Rosenberg, M.W.; Gao, S. Intergenerational Differences in Social Support for the Community-Living Elderly in Beijing, China. Health Sci. Rep. 2018, 1, e96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Zheng, L.; He, X.; Cao, L.; Xu, H. Making Modernity in China: Employment and Entrepreneurship among the New Generation of Peasant Workers. Int. J. Jpn. Sociol. 2018, 27, 26–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, L.; Liu, S.; Zhang, W. New Trends in Internal Migration in China: Profiles of the New-Generation Migrants. China World Econ. 2018, 26, 18–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Safi, A.S.; Smith, W.J.; Liu, Z. Rural Nevada and Climate Change: Vulnerability, Beliefs, and Risk Perception. Risk Anal. 2012, 32, 1041–1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mueller, C.E. Examining the Inter-Relationships between Procedural Fairness, Trust in Actors, Risk Expectations, Perceived Benefits, and Attitudes towards Power Grid Expansion Projects. Energy Policy 2020, 141, 111465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, M.; Gan, C.; Ma, W.; Jiang, W. Impact of Cash Crop Cultivation on Household Income and Migration Decisions: Evidence from Low-Income Regions in China. J. Integr. Agric. 2020, 19, 2571–2581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiao, W.; Zhao, G. Who Is Affected: Influence of Agricultural Land on Occupational Choices of Peasants in China. Land Use Policy 2020, 99, 104827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, T.; Zhang, Y.; Liang, D. Can Ownership Structure Improve Environmental Performance in Chinese Manufacturing Firms? The Moderating Effect of Financial Performance. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 225, 58–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bonanno, G.A.; Brewin, C.R.; Kaniasty, K.; Greca, A.M.L. Weighing the Costs of Disaster: Consequences, Risks, and Resilience in Individuals, Families, and Communities. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 2010, 11, 1–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Wang, H.; Wang, X.; Sarkar, A.; Qian, L. Evaluating the Impacts of Smallholder Farmer’s Participation in Modern Agricultural Value Chain Tactics for Facilitating Poverty Alleviation—A Case Study of Kiwifruit Industry in Shaanxi, China. Agriculture 2021, 11, 462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Finch, C.; Emrich, C.T.; Cutter, S.L. Disaster Disparities and Differential Recovery in New Orleans. Popul. Environ. 2010, 31, 179–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.-Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roodman, D. Fitting Fully Observed Recursive Mixed-Process Models with Cmp. Stata J. 2011, 11, 159–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- McGinley, S.P.; Wei, W. Emotional Labor and Sleep: The Moderating Effect of Life Satisfaction. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2020, 43, 278–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cariappa, A.A.; Acharya, K.K.; Adhav, C.A.; Sendhil, R.; Ramasundaram, P. COVID-19 Induced Lockdown Effects on Agricultural Commodity Prices and Consumer Behaviour in India—Implications for Food Loss and Waste Management. Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci. 2021, 101160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hong, W.; Luo, B.; Hu, X. Land Titling, Land Reallocation Experience, and Investment Incentives: Evidence from Rural China. Land Use Policy 2020, 90, 104271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lange, K.W. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and Global Mental Health. Glob. Health J. 2021, 5, 31–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Barman, A.; Das, R. PK Impact of COVID-19 in Food Supply Chain: Disruptions and Recovery Strategy. Curr. Res. Behav. Sci. 2021, 2, 100017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fountain, J.; Cradock-Henry, N.A. Recovery, Risk and Resilience: Post-Disaster Tourism Experiences in Kaikōura, New Zealand. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2020, 35, 100695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Nammari, F.; Alzaghal, M.; Al-Nammari, F.; Alzaghal, M. Towards Local Disaster Risk Reduction in Developing Countries: Challenges from Jordan. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2015, 12, 34–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murakami, M.; Hirosaki, M.; Suzuki, Y.; Maeda, M.; Yabe, H.; Yasumura, S.; Ohira, T. Reduction of Radiation-Related Anxiety Promoted Wellbeing after the 2011 Disaster: ‘Fukushima Health Management Survey’. J. Radiol. Prot. 2018, 38, 1428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hsueh, H.-Y. The Role of Household Social Capital in Post-Disaster Recovery: An Empirical Study in Japan. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2019, 39, 101199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shimada, G. The Role of Social Capital after Disasters: An Empirical Study of Japan Based on Time-Series-Cross-Section (TSCS) Data from 1981 to 2012. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2015, 14, 388–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zeng, X.; Guo, S.; Deng, X.; Zhou, W.; Xu, D. Livelihood Risk and Adaptation Strategies of Farmers in Earthquake Hazard Threatened Areas: Evidence from Sichuan Province, China. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2021, 53, 101971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woodward, M.J.; Eddinger, J.; Henschel, A.V.; Dodson, T.S.; Tran, H.N.; Beck, J.G. Social Support, Posttraumatic Cognitions, and PTSD: The Influence of Family, Friends, and a Close Other in an Interpersonal and Non-Interpersonal Trauma Group. J. Anxiety Disord. 2015, 35, 60–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kusiak, A.; Zhang, Z.; Verma, A. Prediction, Operations, and Condition Monitoring in Wind Energy. Energy 2013, 60, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zuo, B.; Yang, K.; Yao, Y.; Han, S.; Nie, S.; Wen, F. The Relationship of Perceived Social Support to Feelings of Hopelessness under COVID-19 Pandemic: The Effects of Epidemic Risk and Meaning in Life. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2021, 183, 111110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sarkar, A.; Azim, J.A.; Al Asif, A.; Qian, L.; Peau, A.K. Structural Equation Modeling for Indicators of Sustainable Agriculture: Prospective of a Developing Country’s Agriculture. Land Use Policy 2021, 109, 105638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variables and Dimensions | N | % | Variables and Dimensions | N | % |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | Education level | ||||
Male | 382 | 83.41 | Illiterate | 52 | 11.35 |
Female | 76 | 16.59 | Primary | 109 | 23.80 |
Age | Junior secondary | 170 | 37.12 | ||
Under 45 | 75 | 16.38 | High school/technical secondary school | 102 | 22.27 |
46–55 | 202 | 44.10 | Junior college and above | 25 | 5.46 |
56–65 | 147 | 32.10 | Household income level | ||
66 and above | 34 | 7.42 | Under RMB 50,000 | 95 | 20.74 |
Farm size | RMB 50,000–10,000 | 186 | 40.61 | ||
Under 3 mu | 24 | 5.24 | RMB 100,000–200,000 | 142 | 31.00 |
Above RMB 2,000,000 | 35 | 7.64 | |||
3–10 mu | 334 | 72.93 | |||
Above 10 mu | 100 | 21.83 |
Variables | Definition (Unit) | Mean | Std. Dev |
---|---|---|---|
Farmers’ confidence in agricultural production recovery | Are you confident that agricultural incomes will recover from the COVID-19 pandemic shock? (1 = only a little, 5 = a great deal) | 3.214 | 1.022 |
Risk expectation | Principal component analysis | 0.506 | 0.198 |
How much do you think the COVID-19 pandemic will negatively impact your family’s future agricultural production scale? (1 = suffer little influence, 5 = suffer large impact) | 3.048 | 1.102 | |
How much do you think the COVID-19 pandemic will negatively impact your family’s future agricultural production costs? (1 = suffer little influence, 5 = suffer large impact) | 3.242 | 1.031 | |
How much do you think the COVID-19 pandemic will negatively impact your future market judgment? (1 = suffer little influence, 5 = suffer large impact) | 2.799 | 1.066 | |
Social support | Principal component analysis | 0.466 | 0.199 |
Government support | How much help could you receive from the government during the COVID-19 pandemic shock? (1 = only a little, 5 = a great deal) | 2.963 | 1.04 |
Support from relatives and friends | How much help could you receive from relatives and friends during the COVID-19 pandemic shock? (1 = only a little, 5 = a great deal) | 2.419 | 1.06 |
Financial support | How much help could you receive from financial institutions during the COVID-19 pandemic shock? (1 = only a little, 5 = a great deal) | 2.784 | 1.001 |
Gender | Male = 1; Female = 0 | 0.834 | 0.372 |
Age | The household head’s age in years | 53.048 | 8.604 |
Education | Education level of the household head: illiterate = 1; primary = 2; junior secondary = 3; high school/technical secondary school = 4; junior college and above = 5 | 2.867 | 1.057 |
Farm size | Farm size: under 3 mu = 1; 3–5 mu = 2; 6–8 mu = 3; 8–10 mu = 4; Above 10 mu = 5 | 3.489 | 1.135 |
Agricultural labor force | Household agricultural labor force (number) | 2.234 | 0.829 |
Household income level | Total household income in 2019: under RMB 50,000 = 1; RMB 50,000–100,000 = 2; RMB 100,000–200,000 = 3; above RMB 2,000,000 = 4 | 2.255 | 0.872 |
Proportion of agricultural income | The proportion of agricultural income in total household income: 0–20 = 1; 21–40 = 2; 41–60 = 3; 61–80 = 4; 81–100 = 5 | 2.338 | 1.100 |
Household size | The population of household families (number) | 6.544 | 1.802 |
Household grows food crops | Yes = 1; No = 0 | 0.677 | 0.468 |
Household grows cash crops | Yes = 1; No = 0 | 0.236 | 0.425 |
Province dummy variables | Hubei Province = 1; Elsewhere = 0 | 0.400 | 0.490 |
Instrumental variable | The proportion of medium-risk areas and high-risk areas in the city where the farmers live (%): 0–20 = 1; 21–40 = 2; 41–60 = 3; 61–80 = 4; 81–100 = 5 | 3.948 | 1.000 |
Variables | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 |
---|---|---|---|
Risk expectation | −1.706 *** (0.330) | −1.733 *** (0.326) | |
Control variables | |||
Gender | 0.152 (0.128) | 0.188 (0.127) | 0.197 (0.127) |
Age | 0.017 *** (0.006) | 0.012 ** (0.006) | 0.015 ** (0.006) |
Education | 0.160 *** (0.059) | 0.154 *** (0.059) | 0.152 ** (0.060) |
Farm size | −0.103 * (0.054) | −0.044 (0.056) | −0.048 (0.055) |
Agricultural labor force | 0.067 (0.084) | 0.084 (0.082) | 0.077 (0.082) |
Household income level | 0.176 *** (0.067) | 0.141 ** (0.069) | 0.151 ** (0.070) |
Proportion of agricultural income | −0.048 (0.060) | −0.098 * (0.055) | −0.103 * (0.056) |
Household size | 0.039 (0.040) | 0.010 (0.041) | 0.013 (0.041) |
Household grows food crops | −0.145 (0.121) | −0.164 (0.118) | −0.175 (0.119) |
Household grows cash crops | −0.373 ** (0.146) | −0.343 ** (0.145) | −0.363 ** (0.146) |
Province dummy variables | - | - | Yes |
Pseudo R2 | 0.054 | 0.081 | 0.084 |
Wald chi2 | 69.09 *** | 130.37 *** | 134.33 *** |
Log pseudo likelihood | −604.965 | −587.729 | −586.210 |
Variables | Model 4 | Model 5 | Model 6 | Model 7 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Risk expectation | −0.923 *** | −1.387 *** | −1.140 *** | −1.467 *** |
(0.343) | (0.341) | (0.333) | (0.338) | |
Social support | 2.392 *** | |||
(0.319) | ||||
Government support | 0.192 *** | |||
(0.058) | ||||
Relatives and friends support | 0.417 *** | |||
(0.055) | ||||
Financial support | 0.255 *** | |||
(0.059) | ||||
Risk expectation × social support | 4.711 *** | |||
(1.435) | ||||
Risk expectation × government support | 0.730 *** | |||
(0.283) | ||||
Risk expectation× relatives and friends support | 0.790 *** | |||
(0.270) | ||||
Risk expectation × financial support | 0.598 ** | |||
(0.299) | ||||
Other controls | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Province dummy variables | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Pseudo R2 | 0.145 | 0.102 | 0.134 | 0.107 |
Wald chi2 | 205.95 *** | 165.84 *** | 213.99 *** | 164.09 *** |
Log pseudo likelihood | −546.711 | −574.355 | −554.174 | −571.182 |
Variables | The New Generation | The First Generation | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Oprobit | OLS | Oprobit | OLS | |
Risk expectation | −2.349 *** (0.893) | −1.443 ** (0.559) | −0.795 ** (0.390) | −0.678 ** (0.301) |
Social support | 2.061 ** (0.958) | 1.201 * (0.711) | 2.379 *** (0.346) | 1.875 *** (0.251) |
Risk expectation× social support | 8.474 ** (3.477) | 4.380 ** (2.023) | 4.396 *** (1.604) | 3.139 *** (1.157) |
Other controls | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Province dummy variables | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Number of obs | 383 | 383 | 383 | 383 |
Pseudo R2 | 0.251 | - | 0.140 | - |
R2 | - | 0.490 | - | 0.340 |
Wald chi2 | 79.58 *** | - | 161.24 *** | - |
Log pseudo-likelihood | −77.113 | - | −456.817 | - |
Variables | First Stage | Second Stage |
---|---|---|
Risk expectation | - | −4.736 *** (0.966) |
Proportion of medium–high-risk areas | 0.036 *** (0.010) | - |
Other controls | Yes | Yes |
lnsig_2 | - | −1.758 *** (0.032) |
atanhrho_12 | - | 0.672 ** (0.324) |
Wald chi2 | 231.07 *** | |
Log pseudo-likelihood | −429.546 |
Variables | Probit | IV-Probit | Probit | IV-Probit | Probit | IV-Probit | Probit | IV-Probit |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Risk expectation | −2.263 *** (0.429) | −5.578 *** (0.746) | −2.448 *** (0.397) | −5.677 *** (0.703) | −2.185 *** (0.402) | −5.580 ** (0.666) | −2.594 ** (0.412) | −5.902 *** (0.574) |
Social support | 3.174 *** (0.464) | 2.292 *** (0.659) | ||||||
Government support | 0.224 *** (0.068) | 0.162 ** (0.064) | ||||||
Support from relatives and friends | 0.510 *** (0.075) | 0.360 *** (0.107) | ||||||
Financial support | 0.272 *** (0.073) | 0.195 ** (0.070) | ||||||
Risk expectation × social support | 9.196 *** (2.654) | 6.235 ** (2.590) | ||||||
Risk expectation × government support | 0.777 ** (0.360) | 0.493 ** (0.293) | ||||||
Risk expectation × relatives and friends support | 0.762 * (0.407) | 0.482 (0.314) | ||||||
Risk expectation × financial support | 1.103 *** (0.421) | 0.769 * (0.364) | ||||||
Other controls | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Province dummy variables | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Wald chi2 | 128.28 *** | 370.21 *** | 125.85 *** | 387.52 *** | 146.23 *** | 466.65 *** | 124.62 *** | 405.44 *** |
Log pseudo-likelihood | −222.131 | −64.368 | −244.758 | −86.870 | −225.483 | −67.436 | −241.923 | −83.422 |
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
Xie, Y.; Sarkar, A.; Hossain, M.S.; Hasan, A.K.; Xia, X. Determinants of Farmers’ Confidence in Agricultural Production Recovery during the Early Phases of the COVID-19 Pandemic in China. Agriculture 2021, 11, 1075. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11111075
Xie Y, Sarkar A, Hossain MS, Hasan AK, Xia X. Determinants of Farmers’ Confidence in Agricultural Production Recovery during the Early Phases of the COVID-19 Pandemic in China. Agriculture. 2021; 11(11):1075. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11111075
Chicago/Turabian StyleXie, Yanqi, Apurbo Sarkar, Md. Shakhawat Hossain, Ahmed Khairul Hasan, and Xianli Xia. 2021. "Determinants of Farmers’ Confidence in Agricultural Production Recovery during the Early Phases of the COVID-19 Pandemic in China" Agriculture 11, no. 11: 1075. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11111075