Impacts of Green Production Behaviors on the Income Effect of Rice Farmers from the Perspective of Outsourcing Services: Evidence from the Rice Region in Northwest China
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Analysis Framework
2.1. Theoretical Analysis of the Impact of Outsourcing Services on AGP Behaviors of Rice Farmers
2.2. Mechanism of the Effect of AGP Behaviors on Rice Farmers’ Income from the Perspective of Outsourcing Services
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Study Area and Data Source
3.2. Variable Selection
3.3. Data Collection and Analysis
3.4. Research Method
3.4.1. Econometric Model
3.4.2. Average Treatment Effect
4. Results
4.1. Sample Descriptive Statistics
4.1.1. Descriptive Statistics and Average Difference of Characteristic Variables of Pesticide Reduction Behaviors
4.1.2. Descriptive Statistics and Average Difference of Characteristic Variables of Safety Interval
4.1.3. Descriptive Statistics and Average Difference of Characteristic Variables of Physical Control Behaviors
4.2. Estimation Results of AGP Effect on Rice Farmers Behavior
4.2.1. Analysis of Estimation Results of Behaviors Effect of Reduced Pesticide Application
4.2.2. Analysis of Estimation Results of Rice Harvest Behaviors Effect in Safe Interval Period
4.2.3. Analysis of Estimation Results of Physical Control Behaviors Effect
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions and Policy Enlightenment
- (1)
- Outsourcing services had a positive and significant impact on AGP behaviors and the income of rice farmers. Outsourcing of pesticide application had the most significant promotion effect followed by weeding and harvesting outsourcing, which can promote rice farmers’ behaviors of reducing pesticide application, harvesting rice at safe intervals after pesticide application, and increase income. Because pesticide application outsourcing can reduce chemical input and improve the utilization rate of agricultural resources through the division of labor and cooperation and knowledge resources advantages and increase environmental and economic benefits by reducing pesticide input costs, rice farmers’ production costs are reduced and their AGP behaviors promoted.
- (2)
- The AGP behaviors of rice farmers had a significant impact on their income. The behaviors of reducing pesticide application, harvesting rice at safe intervals after pesticide application and physical control played a positive role in promoting the income of rice farmers. Among them, if rice farmers who did not implement physical control behaviors did so, their income increased the most, which was 23.110%. The behaviors of reducing pesticide application was second, and the income of rice farmers who had not implemented reducing pesticide application will increase by 5.970% if they did so. If rice farmers who had not implemented safe interval rice harvesting behaviors did so, their income will increase by 4.505%.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs of China. Ten-Year Development Plan of National Rice Production Mechanization of Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs of China: Beijing, China, 2006. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Song, Y.; Wang, C.; Linderholm, H.W.; Fu, Y.; Cai, W.; Xu, J.; Zhuang, L.; Wu, M.; Shi, Y.; Wang, G.; et al. The Negative Impact of Increasing Temperatures on Rice Yields in Southern China. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 820, 153262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jin, J.; Wang, W.; He, R.; Gong, H. Pesticide Use and Risk Perceptions among Small-Scale Farmers in Anqiu County, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 14, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Huang, Y.; Luo, X.; Liu, D.; Du, S.; Yan, A.; Tang, L. Pest Control Ability, Technical Guidance, and Pesticide Overuse: Evidence from Rice Farmers in Rural China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 39587–39597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chi, Y.; Zhou, W.; Wang, Z.; Hu, Y.; Han, X. The Influence Paths of Agricultural Mechanization on Green Agricultural Development. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, B.; Chen, W.; Zhang, G.; Wang, J.; Ping, W.; Luo, L.; Chen, J. How to Achieve Green Growth in China’s Agricultural Sector. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 271, 122770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, H.T.; Le, H.T. The Effect of Agricultural Product Eco-Labelling on Green Purchase Intention. Manag. Sci. Lett. 2020, 10, 2813–2820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, J.; Zhu, Q.; Jiao, X.; Ying, H.; Wang, H.; Wen, X.; Xu, W.; Li, T.; Cong, W.; Liu, X.; et al. Agriculture Green Development: A Model for China and the World. Front. Agric. Sci. Eng. 2020, 7, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Deng, H.; Jing, X.; Shen, Z. Internet Technology and Green Productivity in Agriculture. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 6, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, M.; Zhao, P.; Wu, L.; Chen, K. Effects of Value Perception, Environmental Regulation and Their Interaction on the Improvement of Herdsmen’s Grassland Ecological Policy Satisfaction. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 3078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, H.; Liu, Y.; Zhao, X.; Zhang, L.; Yuan, K. Estimating Effects of Cooperative Membership on Farmers’ Safe Production Behaviors: Evidence from the Rice Sector in China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 25400–25418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodrik, D. Green Industrial Policy. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 2014, 30, 469–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhu, Y.; Huo, C. The Impact of Agricultural Production Efficiency on Agricultural Carbon Emissions in China. Energies 2022, 15, 4464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, D.; Rickaille, M.; Xu, Z. Determinants and Impacts of Outsourcing Pest and Disease Management. China Agric. Econ. Rev. 2018, 10, 443–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Belton, B.; Win, M.T.; Zhang, X.; Filipski, M. The Rapid Rise of Agricultural Mechanization in Myanmar. Food Policy 2021, 101, 102095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qu, X.; Kojima, D.; Nishihara, Y.; Wu, L.; Ando, M. Can Harvest Outsourcing Services Reduce Field Harvest Losses of Rice in China? J. Integr. Agric. 2021, 20, 1396–1406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, Y.; Zhao, D.; Yu, L.; Yang, H. Influence of a New Agricultural Technology Extension Mode on Farmers’ Technology Adoption Behavior in China. J. Rural Stud. 2020, 76, 173–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, M.; Liu, Y.; Huang, Y.; Wu, L.; Chen, K. Impacts of Risk Perception and Environmental Regulation on Farmers’ Sustainable Behaviors of Agricultural Green Production in China. Agriculture 2022, 12, 831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martin-Guay, M.-O.; Paquette, A.; Dupras, J.; Rivest, D. The New Green Revolution: Sustainable Intensification of Agriculture by Intercropping. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 615, 767–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Biru, W.D.; Zeller, M.; Loos, T.K. The Impact of Agricultural Technologies on Poverty and Vulnerability of Smallholders in Ethiopia: A Panel Data Analysis. Soc. Indic. Res. 2020, 147, 517–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pratama, M.F.; Rauf, R.A.; Antara, M.; Basir-Cyio, M.; Mahfudz, M. Factors Influencing the Efficiency of Cocoa Farms: A Study to Increase Income in Rural Indonesia. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0214569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Reganold, J.P.; Wachter, J.M. Organic Agriculture in the Twenty-First Century. Nat. Plants 2016, 2, 15221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rahman, S.; Norton, G.W.; Rashid, M.H.-A. Economic Impacts of Integrated Pest Management on Vegetables Production in Bangladesh. Crop Prot. 2018, 113, 6–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malacrinò, A.; Seng, K.H.; An, C.; Ong, S.; O’Rourke, M.E. Integrated Pest Management for Yard-Long Bean (Vigna unguiculata subsp. Sesquipedalis) in Cambodia. Crop Prot. 2020, 135, 104811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Midingoyi, S.G.; Kassie, M.; Muriithi, B.; Diiro, G.; Ekesi, S. Do Farmers and the Environment Benefit from Adopting Integrated Pest Management Practices? Evidence from Kenya. J. Agric. Econ. 2019, 70, 452–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Githiomi, C.; Muriithi, B.; Irungu, P.; Mwungu, C.M.; Diiro, G.; Affognon, H.; Mburu, J.; Ekesi, S. Economic Analysis of Spillover Effects of an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Strategy for Suppression of Mango Fruit Fly in Kenya. Food Policy 2019, 84, 121–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baiyegunhi, L.J.S.; Majokweni, Z.P.; Ferrer, S.R.D. Impact of Outsourced Agricultural Extension Program on Smallholder Farmers’ Net Farm Income in Msinga, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Technol. Soc. 2019, 57, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mi, Q.; Li, X.; Gao, J. How to Improve the Welfare of Smallholders through Agricultural Production Outsourcing: Evidence from Cotton Farmers in Xinjiang, Northwest China. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 256, 120636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cai, L.; Wang, L. Analysis on Outsourcing Service Behavior of Rice Pest and Disease Control Based on Heckman Selection Model—A Case Study of Ten Counties in Fujian Province. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0254819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Xue, P.; Han, X.; Wang, Y.; Wang, X. Can Agricultural Machinery Harvesting Services Reduce Cropland Abandonment? Evidence from Rural China. Agriculture 2022, 12, 901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ji, C.; Guo, H.; Jin, S.; Yang, J. Outsourcing Agricultural Production: Evidence from Rice Farmers in Zhejiang Province. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0170861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yekimov, S.; Nianko, V.; Harkusha, S.; Burlitska, O.; Gavrilko, T. The Use of Accounting Outsourcing in Small Agricultural Enterprises. E3S Web Conf. 2021, 285, 1002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fang, C.; Xu, Y.; Ji, Y. Part-Time Farming, Diseases and Pest Control Delay and Its External Influence on Pesticide Use in China’s Rice Production. Front. Environ. Sci. 2022, 10, 414–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, X.; Yang, J.; Thomas, R. Mechanization Outsourcing Clusters and Division of Labor in Chinese Agriculture. China Econ. Rev. 2017, 43, 184–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qian, L.; Lu, H.; Gao, Q.; Lu, H. Household-Owned Farm Machinery vs. Outsourced Machinery Services: The Impact of Agricultural Mechanization on the Land Leasing Behavior of Relatively Large-Scale Farmers in China. Land Use Policy 2022, 115, 106008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, J.; Wang, W.; Li, M.; Li, Q.; Liu, Z.; Chen, W.; Wang, Y. Impact of Land Management Scale on the Carbon Emissions of the Planting Industry in China. Land 2022, 11, 816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Z.; Li, X.; Xia, X. Measurement and Spatial Convergence Analysis of China’s Agricultural Green Development Index. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 19694–19709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rebelo, J.; Lourenço-Gomes, L.; Gonçalves, T.; Caldas, J. A Hedonic Price Analysis for the Portuguese Wine Market: Does the Distribution Channel Matter? J. Appl. Econ. 2019, 22, 40–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Liu, R.; Gao, Z.; Nayga, R.M.; Shi, L.; Oxley, L.; Ma, H. Can “Green Food” Certification Achieve Both Sustainable Practices and Economic Benefits in a Transitional Economy? The Case of Kiwifruit Growers in Henan Province, China. Agribusiness 2020, 36, 675–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, Y.; Guo, S.; Zhang, M. Assessing Customers’ Perceived Value of the Anti-Haze Cosmetics under Haze Pollution. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 685, 753–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, L.; Qiao, D.; Zhang, R.; Luo, C.; Fu, X.; Liu, Y. Research on the Influence of Education of Farmers’ Cooperatives on the Adoption of Green Prevention and Control Technologies by Members: Evidence from Rural China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 6255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, Y.; Zhan, L.; Yang, H.; Qin, M.; Chai, S.; Cao, Z.; Mou, R.; Chen, M. Dissipation of Two Field-incurred Pesticides and Three Degradation Products in Rice (Oryza sativa L.) from Harvest to Dining Table. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2019, 99, 4602–4608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hu, X.; Li, X.; Zhu, R.; Sun, Y.; Wang, Q. The Relationship Network within Spatial Situation: Embeddedness and Spatial Constraints of Farmers’ Behaviors. Land 2022, 11, 485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, Q.; Pan, Y.; Xia, X. Internet Can Do Help in the Reduction of Pesticide Use by Farmers: Evidence from Rural China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 2063–2073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Adnan, K.M.M.; Ying, L.; Ayoub, Z.; Sarker, S.A.; Menhas, R.; Chen, F.; Yu, M. Risk Management Strategies to Cope Catastrophic Risks in Agriculture: The Case of Contract Farming, Diversification and Precautionary Savings. Agriculture 2020, 10, 351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dai, J.; Li, X.; Cai, H. Market Power, Scale Economy and Productivity: The Case of China’s Food and Tobacco Industry. China Agric. Econ. Rev. 2018, 10, 313–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Inacio, M.C.; Didy, O.O.; Titki, D.T.; Idris, I.A.; Bily, A.B. Redefining Conservation Agriculture through Appropriate Use of Herbicides and Fertilisers to Improve Crop Production in Mozambique. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2022, 18, 136–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmad, M.; Bhowmick, K.; Quddoos, M.U.; Beraich, M.; Lahlimi, A.E. A Productivity and Profitability Analysis of Agriculture Practice in Coastal Areas of Punjab. Int. J. Manag. 2020, 11, 1403–1419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- China National Bureau of Statistics. China Statistical Yearbook 2019. In China Rural Statistical Yearbook-2019; China National Bureau of Statistics: Beijing, China, 2019. (In chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Alemán, F. Common Bean Response to Tillage Intensity and Weed Control Strategies. Agron. J. 2001, 93, 556–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, Y.; Liu, B.; Yu, L.; Yang, H.; Yin, S. Social Capital, Land Tenure and the Adoption of Green Control Techniques by Family Farms: Evidence from Shandong and Henan Provinces of China. Land Use Policy 2019, 89, 104250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, X.; Qu, Y.; Sun, P.; Yu, W.; Peng, W. Green Transition of Cultivated Land Use in the Yellow River Basin: A Perspective of Green Utilization Efficiency Evaluation. Land 2020, 9, 475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kabir, M.H.; Rainis, R.; Azad, J. Are Spatial Factors Important in the Adoption of Eco-Friendly Agricultural Technologies? Evidence on Integrated Pest Management (IPM). J. Geogr. Inf. Syst. 2017, 9, 98–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Farani, A.Y.; Mohammadi, Y.; Ghahremani, F. Modeling Farmers’ Responsible Environmental Attitude and Behaviour: A Case from Iran. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 28146–28161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Muñoz-Quezada, M.T.; Lucero, B.; Bradman, A.; Baumert, B.; Iglesias, V.; Muñoz, M.P.; Concha, C. Reliability and Factorial Validity of a Questionnaire to Assess Organophosphate Pesticide Exposure to Agricultural Workers in Maule, Chile. Int. J. Environ. Health Res. 2019, 29, 45–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Lee, L.-F. Unionism and Wage Rates: A Simultaneous Equations Model with Qualitative and Limited Dependent Variables. Int. Econ. Rev. 1978, 19, 415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maddala, G.S. Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1983; ISBN 9780511810176. [Google Scholar]
- Gao, Y.; Li, P.; Wu, L.; Lu, J.; Yu, L.; Yin, S. Support Policy Preferences of For-Profit Pest Control Firms in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 181, 809–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, Y.; Dong, J.; Zhang, X.; Yu, L. Enabling For-Profit Pest Control Firms to Meet Farmers’ Preferences for Cleaner Production: Evidence from Grain Family Farms in the Huang-Huai-Hai Plain, China. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 227, 141–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, L.; Cai, S. Farmers’IPM Technology Adoption: Based on Empirical Analysis on Wuhu, Anhui Province. Agric. Econ. Probl. 2012, 3, 50–56. [Google Scholar]
- Doanh, N.; Thuong, N.; Heo, Y. Impact of Conversion to Organic Tea Cultivation on Household Income in the Mountainous Areas of Northern Vietnam. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qiao, Y.; Martin, F.; Cook, S.; He, X.; Halberg, N.; Scott, S.; Pan, X. Certified Organic Agriculture as an Alternative Livelihood Strategy for Small-Scale Farmers in China: A Case Study in Wanzai County, Jiangxi Province. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 145, 301–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, D.-C.; Ma, Y.-L.; Li, Z.-Z.; Zhong, C.-S.; Cheng, Z.-B.; Zhan, J. Crop Rotation Enhances Agricultural Sustainability: From an Empirical Evaluation of Eco-Economic Benefits in Rice Production. Agriculture 2021, 11, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adnan, N.; Nordin, S.M. How COVID-19 Effect Malaysian Paddy Industry? Adoption of Green Fertilizer a Potential Resolution. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 8089–8129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martey, E.; Kuwornu, J.K.M.; Adjebeng-Danquah, J. Estimating the Effect of Mineral Fertilizer Use on Land Productivity and Income: Evidence from Ghana. Land Use Policy 2019, 85, 463–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chau, N.T.; Ahamed, T. Analyzing Factors that Affect Rice Production Efficiency and Organic Fertilizer Choices in Vietnam. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, H.; Chen, C.; Liao, X.; Wang, L. Analysis of Outsourcing Behavior of Rice Farmers in Production Links: Based on the Investigation of 21 Counties in 7 Provinces. China’s Rural. Econ. 2015, 5, 44–57. [Google Scholar]
- Li, D.; Zhou, H.; Xia, Q. Why is There a Structural Imbalance in the Adoption of Agricultural Productive Services? A Discussion on Heterogeneity of Link Risks. Collect. Essays Financ. Econ. 2021, 4, 3–11. [Google Scholar]
- Guo, L.; Duan, X.; Li, H.; Yang, W.; Ren, Y.; Guo, Y. Does a Higher Minimum Wage Accelerate Labour Division in Agricultural Production? Evidence from the Main Rice-Planting Area in China. Econ. Res. Ekon. Istraživanja 2021, 35, 2984–3010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Madhukar, A.; Kumar, V.; Dashora, K. Spatial and Temporal Trends in the Yields of Three Major Crops: Wheat, Rice and Maize in India. Int. J. Plant Prod. 2020, 14, 187–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghosh, D.; Rathore, M.; Brahmachari, K.; Singh, R.; Kumar, B. Impact of Burial and Flooding Depths on Indian Weedy Rice. Crop Prot. 2017, 100, 106–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, J.; Zhang, C.; Hu, R.; Zhu, X.; Cai, J. Aging of Agricultural Labor Force and Technical Efficiency in Tea Production: Evidence from Meitan County, China. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- van den Berg, M.M.; Hengsdijk, H.; Wolf, J.; van Ittersum, M.K.; Guanghuo, W.; Roetter, R.P. The Impact of Increasing Farm Size and Mechanization on Rural Income and Rice Production in Zhejiang Province, China. Agric. Syst. 2007, 94, 841–850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, H.; Xie, H.; He, Y.; Wu, Z.; Zhang, X. Assessing the Impacts of Land Fragmentation and Plot Size on Yields and Costs: A Translog Production Model and Cost Function Approach. Agric. Syst. 2018, 161, 81–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kenmore, P.E.; Litsinger, J.A.; Bandong, J.P.; Santiago, A.C.; Salac, M.M. Philippine Rice Farmers And Insecticides: Thirty Years Of Growing Dependency and New Options For Change. In Management of Pests and Pesticides; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2019; pp. 98–108. [Google Scholar]
Variables | Definition and Assignment | Mean | Standard Deviation | Min | Max | Coefficient of Variation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Explained variables | ||||||
Rice net income | How much is your family’s net income from selling rice in 2020? | 8.9917 | 1.6536 | 5.2983 | 13.4150 | 0.1839 |
Reduced pesticide application behaviors | Do you use less chemicals in your rice fields than before? Yes = 1; No = 0 | 0.2769 | 0.5005 | 0 | 1 | 1.8075 |
Rice harvesting behaviors at safe intervals | Is your rice harvested at safe intervals? Yes = 1; No = 0 | 0.6418 | 0.4800 | 0 | 1 | 0.7479 |
Physical control behaviors | Do you take physical control measures such as sex traps in your rice fields? Yes = 1; No = 0 | 0.3275 | 0.4698 | 0 | 1 | 1.4345 |
Core explanatory variables | ||||||
Outsourcing of pesticide application | Does your family outsource the pesticide application to the service organizations? Yes = 1; No = 0 | 0.2769 | 0.4480 | 0 | 1 | 1.6179 |
Weeding outsourcing | Does your family outsource weeding to service organizations? Yes = 1; No = 0 | 0.0593 | 0.2365 | 0 | 1 | 3.9882 |
Harvesting outsourcing | Does your family outsource harvesting to service organizations? Yes = 1; No = 0 | 0.6615 | 0.4737 | 0 | 1 | 0.7161 |
Other explanatory variables | ||||||
Age | Actual age of rice farmers interviewed | 57.4506 | 10.5100 | 23 | 85 | 0.1829 |
Gender | Male = 1; Female = 0 | 0.8330 | 0.3734 | 0 | 1 | 0.4482 |
Education | Years of Education of Interviewed Rice Farmers | 6.7297 | 3.4969 | 0 | 16 | 0.5196 |
Party member | Are the interviewed rice farmers party members? Yes = 1; No = 0 | 0.0901 | 0.2867 | 0 | 1 | 3.1820 |
Number of planters | What is the total number of people planting rice fields in your home? | 1.9846 | 0.7638 | 1 | 6 | 0.3849 |
Planting time | By 2020, how many years have you planted rice? | 33.5055 | 30.1064 | 1 | 50 | 0.8986 |
Number of laborers | What is the total number of members with working ability in your family? | 2.4132 | 0.9915 | 1 | 7 | 0.4109 |
Rice planting area | How many acres of rice are planted in your home? | 34.2210 | 65.6057 | 3 | 800 | 1.9171 |
Land fragmentation | Degree of land fragmentation: total planting area/block number | 0.9796 | 1.0886 | 0.1429 | 10 | 1.1113 |
Security risk awareness | Do you understand the safety risks of rice caused by excessive use of pesticides? Completely ignorant = 1; Don’t understand = 2; General = 3; Understand = 4; Fully understood = 5 | 3.2220 | 1.2510 | 1 | 5 | 0.3883 |
Cognition of green production | Do you know the common green pesticide differentiation methods and green production measures? Completely ignorant = 1; Don’t know = 2; General = 3; Know = 4; Fully aware = 5 | 4.4505 | 1.9388 | 1 | 5 | 0.4356 |
Is it Ningxia | Is the rice area where your family grows located in Ningxia? Yes = 1; No = 0 | 0.5231 | 0.5000 | 0 | 1 | 0.9559 |
Instrumental variables | ||||||
Diseases and insect pests | Are there any diseases and insect pests in the rice area where your family grows? Have = 1; None = 0 | 0.8967 | 0.3047 | 0 | 1 | 0.3398 |
Altitude | How many meters above sea level is your planting area? | 788.6584 | 301.4081 | 378 | 1106 | 0.3822 |
Variables | Implement the Behaviors of Reducing Pesticide Application | The Behaviors of Reducing Pesticide Application Was Not Implemented | Diff |
---|---|---|---|
Rice net income | 10.410 | 7.577 | 2.833 *** |
Outsourcing of pesticide application | 0.789 | 0.153 | 0.636 *** |
Weeding outsourcing | 0.372 | 0.074 | 0.297 *** |
Harvesting outsourcing | 0.890 | 0.358 | 0.532 *** |
Age | 3.985 | 4.079 | −0.094 *** |
Gender | 0.697 | 0.961 | −0.263 *** |
Education | 7.211 | 6.218 | 0.993 |
Party member | 0.101 | 0.074 | 0.027 |
Number of planters | 2.183 | 1.794 | 0.390 *** |
Planting time | 28.372 | 22.288 | 6.083 *** |
Number of laborers | 2.468 | 2.367 | 0.101 |
Rice planting area | 64.248 | 3.895 | 60.353 *** |
Land fragmentation | 0.328 | 1.635 | −1.307 *** |
Security risk awareness | 3.651 | 2.799 | 0.852 *** |
Cognition of green production | 4.968 | 3.926 | 1.042 *** |
Is it in Ningxia | 0.939 | 0.106 | 0.833 *** |
Whether there are diseases and insect pests Altitude | 0.838 6.269 | 0.954 6.923 | −0.116 *** −0.654 |
Variables | Implement Safe Interval Rice Harvest | Rice Harvest at Safe Intervals Has Not Been Implemented | Diff |
---|---|---|---|
Rice net income | 9.412 | 8.673 | 0.739 *** |
Outsourcing of pesticide application | 0.318 | 0.202 | 0.116 *** |
Weeding outsourcing | 0.098 | 0.038 | 0.060 *** |
Harvesting outsourcing | 0.818 | 0.380 | 0.438 *** |
Age | 3.995 | 4.054 | −0.059 *** |
Gender | 0.764 | 0.957 | −0.193 *** |
Education | 6.921 | 6.387 | 0.535 |
Party member | 0.092 | 0.086 | 0.007 |
Number of planters | 2.252 | 1.836 | 0.416 |
Planting time | 39.390 | 22.963 | 16.427 *** |
Number of laborers | 2.425 | 2.393 | 0.032 |
Rice planting area | 64.248 | 3.895 | 60.353 *** |
Land fragmentation | 0.340 | 1.337 | −0.997 *** |
Security risk awareness | 3.438 | 2.834 | 0.604 *** |
Cognition of green production | 4.688 | 4.025 | 0.663 *** |
Is it in Ningxia | 0.945 | 0.288 | 0.657 *** |
Whether there are diseases and insect pests Altitude | 0.847 6.397 | 0.925 6.936 | −0.078 *** −0.539 |
Variables | Implement Physical Prevention and Control | Physical Control Was Not Implemented | Diff |
---|---|---|---|
Rice net income | 9.856 | 7.216 | 2.640 *** |
Outsourcing of pesticide application | 0.294 | 0.242 | 0.052 *** |
Weeding outsourcing | 0.078 | 0.020 | 0.058 |
Harvesting outsourcing | 0.832 | 0.578 | 0.254 *** |
Age | 4.009 | 4.081 | −0.072 |
Gender | 0.698 | 0.899 | −0.201 |
Education | 7.242 | 6.480 | 0.761 |
Party member | 0.107 | 0.082 | 0.107 |
Number of planters | 2.056 | 1.839 | 0.217 |
Planting time | 54.040 | 23.507 | 30.533 *** |
Number of laborers | 2.477 | 2.382 | 0.095 *** |
Rice planting area | 48.460 | 4.979 | 43.481 *** |
Land fragmentation | 0.609 | 1.742 | −1.133 *** |
Security risk awareness | 3.678 | 3.000 | 0.678 *** |
Cognition of green production | 4.973 | 4.196 | 0.777 ** |
Is it in Ningxia | 0.739 | 0.081 | 0.658 |
Whether there are diseases and insect pests Altitude | 0.953 6.240 | 0.869 6.760 | 0.084 *** −0.520 |
Variables | Green Production Selection Model of Reducing Pesticide Application Behaviors | Income-Output Model of Rice Farmers | |
---|---|---|---|
Reduced Pesticide Application Behaviors for Rice Farmers | Rice Farmers with Unreduced Pesticide Application Behaviors | ||
Outsourcing of pesticide application | 0.7822 *** (0.2045) | 0.3318 ** (0.1415) | 0.1520 (0.1255) |
Weeding outsourcing | 0.7651 ** (0.3740) | 0.0732 (0.1920) | 0.0255 (0.1386) |
Harvesting outsourcing | −0.0369 (0.0987) | 0.0965 (0.1194) | 0.1228 (0.1261) |
Age | −0.0614 ** (0.0217) | −0.4054 (0.4151) | −0.2705 (0.1738) |
Gender | −0.0068 (0.3217) | −0.0046 (0.1289) | −0.1101 (0.2196) |
Education | −0.0448 (0.0306) | −0.0045 (0.0165) | −0.0140 (0.0745) |
Party member | 0.1404 * (0.1217) | −0.0203 (0.1035) | −0.1169 (0.1176) |
Number of planters | −0.0585 (0.0849) | −0.0633 (0.0888) | −0.1017 (0.1162) |
Planting time | −0.0059 (0.0079) | 0.0213 * (0.0104) | 0.0042 (0.0049) |
Number of laborers | 0.0837 (0.1254) | 0.1551 *** (0.0374) | 0.0499 (0.0663) |
Rice planting area | 0.0341 *** (0.0072) | 0.0483 *** (0.0081) | 0.0043 *** (0.0006) |
Land fragmentation | −0.8904 ** (0.4118) | −0.1244 *** (0.0282) | −0.6343 ** (0.2733) |
Security risk awareness | 0.1155 (0.1005) | 0.0035 (0.0490) | 0.0369 (0.0392) |
Cognition of green production | 0.1147 ** (0.0427) | 0.0460 * (0.0282) | 0.0411 * (0.0318) |
Is it Ningxia | 0.1551 (0.1422) | 0.5919 (0.2773) | −0.2118 (0.2452) |
Whether there are diseases and insect pests | −0.7503 * (0.4296) | - | - |
Altitude | 0.0017 (0.0014) | - | - |
Constant | −9.3495 (11.0496) | 9.3955 *** (1.3987) | 9.2098 *** (1.1492) |
−0.8322 ** (0.4233) | 0.8619 ** (0.2177) | ||
Wald-chi2(15) | 91.42 | ||
LR test of indep.eqns | 23.58 *** | ||
Log likelihood | −565.3886 | ||
Observations | 447 |
Groups | Implement the Behaviors of Reducing Pesticide Application | The Behaviors of Reducing Pesticide Application Was Not Implemented | ATT | ATU |
---|---|---|---|---|
Reduced pesticide application behaviors for rice farmers | 8.2338 | 7.7265 | 0.5123 *** | - |
Rice farmers with unreduced pesticide application behaviors | 10.2333 | 9.6223 | - | 0.6110 *** |
Variables | Green Production Selection Model of Safety Interval | Income-Output Model of Rice Farmers | |
---|---|---|---|
Rice Farmers Who Implement Safe Interval Rice Harvesting Behaviors | Rice Farmers Who Have Not Implemented Safe Interval Rice Harvesting Behaviors | ||
Outsourcing of pesticide application | 1.1526 *** (0.1973) | 0.3719 *** (0.1292) | 0.3184 ** (0.1291) |
Weeding outsourcing | 0.1701 (0.3213) | 0.1470 (0.2627) | −0.0158 (0.1501) |
Harvesting outsourcing | 0.6592 *** (0.1983) | 0.4515 *** (0.1627) | −0.0146 (0.1014) |
Age | −1.0386 * (−0.5425) | −0.2885 (0.3011) | −0.0179 (0.2975) |
Gender | 0.1913 (0.2912) | −0.0407 (0.1395) | −0.1269 (0.2447) |
Education | −0.0580 (0.0277) | −0.0014 (0.0167) | −0.0145 (0.0143) |
Party member | −0.1947 (0.3242) | 0.1187 (0.1850) | −0.2027 (0.1573) |
Number of planters | −0.2180 (0.1594) | −0.1263 (0.0897) | 0.0304 (0.0717) |
Planting time | −0.0005 (0.0018) | −0.0002 (0.0003) | −0.0510 (0.0052) |
Number of laborers | −0.0881 (0.1240) | 0.1353 (0.0592) | 0.0878 (0.0660) |
Rice planting area | 0.0228 *** (0.0035) | 0.0290 *** (0.0029) | 0.0032 *** (0.0006) |
Land fragmentation | 0.0519 ** (0.0223) | −0.1964 *** (0.0534) | −0.4295 ** (0.2692) |
Security risk awareness | 0.1252 ** (0.0757) | −0.0271 (0.0477) | 0.0196 (0.0397) |
Cognition of green production | 0.0230 (0.0515) | 0.0540 * (0.0279) | 0.0265 * (0.0108) |
Is it Ningxia | 0.7279 (0.6117) | 1.0574 (0.2002) | 2.3944 (0.3754) |
Whether there are diseases and insect pests | −0.4796 * (0.2482) | - | - |
Altitude | −0.8910 (0.2972) | - | - |
Constant | 23.6478 *** (8.2385) | 9.8856 *** (1.3398) | 7.8022 *** (1.3568) |
−1.6181 *** (0.3098) | 0.3647 ** (0.1841) | ||
Wald-chi2(15) | 454.20 | ||
LR test of indep.eqns | 23.58 *** | ||
Log likelihood | −595.09825 | ||
Observations | 447 |
Groups | Implement the Behaviors of Harvesting Rice at Safe Intervals | The Behaviors of Harvesting Rice at Safe Intervals Was Not Implemented | ATT | ATU |
---|---|---|---|---|
Rice farmers who harvest rice at safe intervals | 9.3951 | 7.9377 | 1.4574 *** | - |
Rice farmers who harvest rice at unsafe intervals | 8.7350 | 8.6957 | - | 0.3935 *** |
Variables | Green Production Selection Model of Physical Control | Income-Output Model of Rice Farmers | |
---|---|---|---|
Rice Farmers Who Implement Physical Control Behaviors | Rice Farmers Who Have Not Implemented Physical Control Behaviors | ||
Outsourcing of pesticide application | 0.2657 (0.1862) | 0.1820 (0.1671) | 0.2453 (0.1033) |
Weeding outsourcing | −0.1863 (0.3929) | 0.7078 (0.4670) | 0.0612 (0.1730) |
Harvesting outsourcing | 0.2900 (0.2132) | 0.0450 (0.1797) | 0.2689 (0.1043) |
Age | 0.5227 (0.4542) | −0.5528 * (0.3311) | −0.4842 * (0.2912) |
Gender | −0.1126 (0.1948) | 0.0218 (0.1497) | −0.0062 (0.1584) |
Education | 0.0069 (0.0220) | 0.0012 (0.0182) | 0.0076 (0.1459) |
Party member | 0.0018 (0.2539) | 0.2666 (0.1983) | 0.0464 (0.1653) |
Number of planters | 0.2114 * (0.1272) | −0.0823 (0.0974) | 0.1849 (0.0752) |
Planting time | 0.0007 (0.0008) | 0.0003 (0.0003) | 0.0034 (0.0038) |
Number of laborers | −0.0842 (0.0876) | 0.2010 *** (0.0652) | 0.2033 *** (0.0595) |
Rice planting area | 0.1212 *** (0.0032) | 0.0207 *** (0.0029) | 0.0063 *** (0.0007) |
Land fragmentation | −0.1327 * (0.0793) | −0.0619 (0.0552) | −0.1504 (0.0707) |
Security risk awareness | 0.0713 (0.0686) | 0.0428 (0.0570) | 0.0110 (0.0405) |
Cognition of green production | 0.0016 (0.0394) | 0.0414 (0.0307) | 0.0302 (0.0274) |
Is it Ningxia | 0.1983 (0.0876) | 0.5125 (0.3720) | 0.5382 (0.1962) |
Whether there are diseases and insect pests | −0.0741 (0.2923) | - | - |
Altitude | 0.7397 (0.8919) | - | - |
Constant | −6.4632 (5.3338) | 9.8154 *** (1.4888) | 9.5819 *** (1.2470) |
- | −2.0438 *** (0.5748) | 0.8616 *** (0.2099) | |
Wald-chi2(15) | 250.75 | ||
LR test of indep.eqns | 8.36 *** | ||
Log likelihood | −634.83963 | ||
Observations | 447 |
Groups | Implement Physical Prevention and Control Behaviors | Failure to Implement Physical Prevention and Control Behaviors | ATT | ATU |
---|---|---|---|---|
Physical control behaviors of rice farmers | 10.5076 | 9.4634 | 1.0442 *** | - |
Rice farmers with non-physical control behaviors | 10.2310 | 7.8666 | - | 2.3644 *** |
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
Li, R.; Yu, Y. Impacts of Green Production Behaviors on the Income Effect of Rice Farmers from the Perspective of Outsourcing Services: Evidence from the Rice Region in Northwest China. Agriculture 2022, 12, 1682. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12101682
Li R, Yu Y. Impacts of Green Production Behaviors on the Income Effect of Rice Farmers from the Perspective of Outsourcing Services: Evidence from the Rice Region in Northwest China. Agriculture. 2022; 12(10):1682. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12101682
Chicago/Turabian StyleLi, Ruining, and Yanli Yu. 2022. "Impacts of Green Production Behaviors on the Income Effect of Rice Farmers from the Perspective of Outsourcing Services: Evidence from the Rice Region in Northwest China" Agriculture 12, no. 10: 1682. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12101682