Impact and Mechanism of Digital Information Selection on Farmers’ Ecological Production Technology Adoption: A Study on Wheat Farmers in China
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Analysis and Research Hypotheses
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Data Collection
3.2. Methodology
3.2.1. Endogenous Switching Probit (ESP) Model
3.2.2. Average Treatment Effect
3.2.3. Mediating Effect Model
3.3. Variable Definition and Description
3.3.1. Dependent Variable
3.3.2. Independent Variable
3.3.3. Control Variable
3.3.4. Instrumental Variable
3.3.5. Mediating Variable
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Probit Regression Results
4.2. Average Treatment Effects
4.3. Mediating Effects
4.4. Robustness Tests
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- 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, 5–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, B.; Huang, T. Study on Agricultural Green Production Efficiency in the Main Grain Production Areas under the “Double Carbon” Goal—Taking Anhui Province as an Example. J. North. Agric. 2023, 51, 118–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, H.; Zou, K.; Yuan, Z. Capital Endowments and Adoption of Agricultural Green Production Technologies in China: A Meta-Regression Analysis Review. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 897, 165175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mathew, S.; Soans, J.C.; Rachitha, R.; Shilpalekha, M.S.; Gowda, S.G.S.; Juvvi, P.; Chakka, A.K. Green Technology Approach for Heavy Metal Adsorption by Agricultural and Food Industry Solid Wastes as Bio-Adsorbents: A Review. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2023, 60, 1923–1932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mao, H.; Zhou, L.; Ying, R.Y.; Pan, D. Time Preferences and Green Agricultural Technology Adoption: Field Evidence from Rice Farmers in China. Land Use Policy 2021, 109, 105627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benitez-Altuna, F.; Trienekens, J.; Materia, V.C.; Bijman, J. Factors Affecting the Adoption of Ecological Intensification Practices: A Case Study in Vegetable Production in Chile. Agric. Syst. 2021, 194, 103283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lun, R.; Liu, W.; Li, G.; Luo, Q. Does Digital Agricultural Technology Extension Service Enhance Sustainable Food Production? Evidence from Maize Farmers in China. Agriculture 2024, 14, 292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mgomezulu, W.R.; Machira, K.; Edriss, A.-K.; Pangapanga-Phiri, I. Modelling Farmers’ Adoption Decisions of Sustainable Agricultural Practices under Varying Agro-Ecological Conditions: A New Perspective. Innov. Green Dev. 2023, 2, 100036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zou, Q.; Zhang, Z.; Yi, X.; Yin, C. The Direction of Promoting Smallholders’ Adoption of Agricultural Green Production Technologies in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 415, 137734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qi, X.; Liang, F.; Yuan, W.; Zhang, T.; Li, J. Factors Influencing Farmers’ Adoption of Eco-Friendly Fertilization Technology in Grain Production: An Integrated Spatial–Econometric Analysis in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 310, 127536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Valizadeh, N.; Jalilian, S.; Hallaj, Z.; Esfandyari Bayat, S.; Hayati, D.; Bazrafkan, K.; Kianmehr, N.; Akbari, M. Encouraging Adoption of Green Manure Technology to Produce Clean Rice Product. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 8690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Campenhout, B. The Role of Information in Agricultural Technology Adoption: Experimental Evidence from Rice Farmers in Uganda. Econ. Dev. Cult. Chang. 2021, 69, 1239–1272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olabisi, L.S.; Wang, R.Q.; Ligmann-Zielinska, A. Why Don’t More Farmers Go Organic? Using A Stakeholder-Informed Exploratory Agent-Based Model to Represent the Dynamics of Farming Practices in the Philippines. Land 2015, 4, 979–1002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hong, X.; Chen, Y.J.; Gong, Y.; Wang, H. Farmers’ Green Technology Adoption: Implications from Government Subsidies and Information Sharing. Nav. Res. Logist. 2024, 71, 286–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, W.; Wang, Q.; Zhou, H. Digital Rural Construction and Farmers’ Income Growth: Theoretical Mechanism and Micro Experience Based on Data from China. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Molinillo, S.; Japutra, A. Organizational Adoption of Digital Information and Technology: A Theoretical Review. Bottom Line 2017, 30, 33–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, N.; Ray, R.L.; Kassem, H.S.; Zhang, S. Mobile Internet Technology Adoption for Sustainable Agriculture: Evidence from Wheat Farmers. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, Y.-Y.; Zhu, T.-H.; Jia, W. Does Internet Use Promote the Adoption of Agricultural Technology? Evidence from 1 449 Farm Households in 14 Chinese Provinces. J. Integr. Agric. 2022, 21, 282–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burbi, S.; Rose, K.H. The Role of Internet and Social Media in the Diffusion of Knowledge and Innovation among Farmers. In Proceedings of the 12th European IFSA Symposium: Social and Technological Transformation of Farming Systems: Diverging and Converging Pathways, Newport, UK, 12–15 July 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peng, H.; Liu, C. Breaking the Information Cocoon: When Do People Actively Seek Conflicting Information? Proc. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2021, 58, 801–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Srinuan, C.; Srinuan, P.; Bohlin, E. An Analysis of Mobile Internet Access in Thailand: Implications for Bridging the Digital Divide. Telemat. Inform. 2012, 29, 254–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, F.; He, Z.; Sayre, K.; Li, S.; Si, J.; Feng, B.; Kong, L. Wheat Cropping Systems and Technologies in China. Field Crop. Res. 2009, 111, 181–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghadiyali, T.; Kayasth, M. Contribution of Green Technology in Sustainable Development of Agriculture Sector. J. Environ. Res. Dev. 2012, 7, 590–596. [Google Scholar]
- Adnan, N.; Nordin, S.M.; Bahruddin, M.A.; Tareq, A.H. A State-of-the-Art Review on Facilitating Sustainable Agriculture through Green Fertilizer Technology Adoption: Assessing Farmers Behavior. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 86, 439–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moschini, G.; Hennessy, D.A. Chapter 2 Uncertainty, Risk Aversion, and Risk Management for Agricultural Producers. Handb. Agric. Econ. 2001, 1, 87–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, Z.; Zhuang, J.; Xiao, S. Impact of Mobile Internet Application on Farmers’ Adoption and Development of Green Technology. Sustainability 2022, 14, 16745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sambodo, L.A.A.T. The Decision Making Processes of Semi-Commercial Farmers: A Case Study of Technology Adoption in Indonesia. Ph.D. Thesis, Lincoln University, Lincoln, New Zealand, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- Javaid, U. Role of Mass Media in Promoting Agricultural Information among Farmers of District Nankana. Pak. J. Agric. Sci. 2017, 54, 711–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, N.K.; Sunitha, N.H.; Tripathi, G.; Saikanth, D.R.K.; Sharma, A.; Jose, A.E.; Mary, M.V.K.J. Impact of Digital Technologies in Agricultural Extension. Asian J. Agric. Extension Econ. Sociol. 2023, 41, 963–970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramirez, A. The Influence of Social Networks on Agricultural Technology Adoption. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2013, 79, 101–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, G.; Lu, Q.; Capared, S.C. Social Network and Extension Service in Farmers’ Agricultural Technology Adoption Efficiency. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0235927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yadav, J.; Yadav, A.; Misra, M.; Zhou, J.; Rana, N.P. Role of Social Media in Technology Adoption for Sustainable Agriculture Practices: Evidence from Twitter Analytics. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2023, 52, 833–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Molin, J.P.; Bazame, H.C.; Maldaner, L.; de Paula Corredo, L.; Martello, M.; Canata, T.F. Precision Agriculture and the Digital Contributions for Site-Specific Management of the Fields. Rev. Ciência Agronômica 2021, 51, e20207720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Finco, A.; Bucci, G.; Belletti, M.; Bentivoglio, D. The Economic Results of Investing in Precision Agriculture in Durum Wheat Production: A Case Study in Central Italy. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sadek, N.; Kamal, N.; Shehata, D. Internet of Things Based Smart Automated Indoor Hydroponics and Aeroponics Greenhouse in Egypt. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2024, 15, 102341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, Z.; Chen, X.; Zhang, Y. Impact of Environmental Regulation Perception on Farmers’ Agricultural Green Production Technology Adoption: A New Perspective of Social Capital. Technol. Soc. 2022, 71, 102085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, F.; Ma, J. Evolution Dynamics of Agricultural Internet of Things Technology Promotion and Adoption in China. Discret. Dyn. Nat. Soc. 2020, 2020, 1854193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, L.; Dabipi, I.K.; Brown, W.L. Internet of Things Applications for Agriculture. Internet Things A Z 2018, 507–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, M.; Wang, J.; Zhao, P.; Chen, K.; Wu, L. Factors Affecting the Willingness of Agricultural Green Production from the Perspective of Farmers’ Perceptions. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 738, 140289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Latino, M.E.; Menegoli, M.; Lazoi, M.; Corallo, A. Voluntary Traceability in Food Supply Chain: A Framework Leading Its Implementation in Agriculture 4.0. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2022, 178, 121564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schulze Schwering, D.; Isabell Sonntag, W.; Kühl, S. Agricultural E-Commerce: Attitude Segmentation of Farmers. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2022, 197, 106942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, Z.; Bai, Y.; Dai, W.; Liu, D.; Hu, Y. Quality of E-Commerce Agricultural Products and the Safety of the Ecological Environment of the Origin Based on 5G Internet of Things Technology. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2021, 22, 101462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gupta, A.; Ponticelli, J.; Tesei, A. Information, Technology Adoption and Productivity: The Role of Mobile Phones in Agriculture. SSRN Electron. J. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Loon, J.; Woltering, L.; Krupnik, T.J.; Baudron, F.; Boa, M.; Govaerts, B. Scaling Agricultural Mechanization Services in Smallholder Farming Systems: Case Studies from Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and Latin America. Agric. Syst. 2020, 180, 102792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Song, B.; Zhao, J.; Zhang, P.; Brugarolas Molla-Bauza, M.M.; Martinez-Carrasco, L.; Song, B.; Zhao, J.; Zhang, P. A Study on Factors Influencing the Efficiency of Rural Agriculture Financial Support in China. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Y.; Liu, C.; Zhou, M. Does Digital Inclusive Finance Promote Agricultural Production for Rural Households in China? Research Based on the Chinese Family Database (CFD). China Agric. Econ. Rev. 2021, 13, 475–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, L.; Zhao, D.; Xue, Z.; Gao, Y. Research on the Use of Digital Finance and the Adoption of Green Control Techniques by Family Farms in China. Technol. Soc. 2020, 62, 101323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lokshin, M.; Glinskaya, E. The Effect of Male Migration on Employment Patterns of Women in Nepal. World Bank Econ. Rev. 2009, 23, 481–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giles, J.; Murtazashvili, I. A Control Function Approach to Estimating Dynamic Probit Models with Endogenous Regressors. J. Econom. Methods 2013, 2, 69–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tesfay, M.G. Does Fertilizer Adoption Enhance Smallholders’ Commercialization? An Endogenous Switching Regression Model from Northern Ethiopia. Agric. Food Secur. 2020, 9, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rucker, D.D.; Preacher, K.J.; Tormala, Z.L.; Petty, R.E. Mediation Analysis in Social Psychology: Current Practices and New Recommendations. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 2011, 5, 359–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huber, M. Mediation Analysis. In Handbook of Labor, Human Resources and Population Economics; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 1–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heckman, J.; Pinto, R.; Savelyev, P. Understanding the Mechanisms through Which an Influential Early Childhood Program Boosted Adult Outcomes. Am. Econ. Rev. 2013, 103, 2052–2086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, N.; Ray, R.L.; Sargani, G.R.; Ihtisham, M.; Khayyam, M.; Ismail, S. Current Progress and Future Prospects of Agriculture Technology: Gateway to Sustainable Agriculture. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, Y. Environmental Regulation, Agricultural Green Technology Innovation, and Agricultural Green Total Factor Productivity. Front. Environ. Sci. 2022, 10, 955954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, T.; Peng, L.; Jing, B.; Wu, C.; Yang, J.; Cong, G. The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on User Experience with Online Education Platforms in China. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, G.; Zhao, B.; Wu, B.; Zhang, C.; Liu, W. Intelligent Prediction of Slope Stability Based on Visual Exploratory Data Analysis of 77 in Situ Cases. Int. J. Min. Sci. Technol. 2023, 33, 47–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rocha, A.; Gonçalves, E.; Almeida, E. Agricultural Technology Adoption and Land Use: Evidence for Brazilian Municipalities. J. Land Use Sci. 2019, 14, 320–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, W.; He, J.; Liu, S.; Xu, D. How Does Trust Influence Farmers’ Low-Carbon Agricultural Technology Adoption? Evidence from Rural Southwest, China. Land 2023, 12, 466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, W.; Qing, C.; Deng, X.; Song, J.; Xu, D. How Does Internet Use Affect Farmers’ Low-Carbon Agricultural Technologies in Southern China? Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2023, 30, 16476–16487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Michels, M.; Fecke, W.; Feil, J.H.; Musshoff, O.; Pigisch, J.; Krone, S. Smartphone Adoption and Use in Agriculture: Empirical Evidence from Germany. Precis. Agric. 2020, 21, 403–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, W.; Owusu-Sekyere, E. Factors Influencing Smartphone Usage of Rural Farmers: Empirical Analysis of Five Selected Provinces in China. Inf. Dev. 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chandio, A.A.; Gokmenoglu, K.K.; Khan, I.; Ahmad, F.; Jiang, Y.; Chandio, A.A.; Gokmenoglu, K.K.; Khan, I.; Ahmad, F.; Jiang, Y. Does Internet Technology Usage Improve Food Production? Recent Evidence from Major Rice-Producing Provinces of China. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2023, 211, 108053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, H.; Huang, D.; Ma, Q.; Qi, W.; Li, H. Factors Influencing the Technology Adoption Behaviours of Litchi Farmers in China. Sustainability 2019, 12, 271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dadzie, S.K.N.; Ndebugri, J.; Inkoom, E.W.; Akuamoah-Boateng, S. Social Networking and Risk Attitudes Nexus: Implication for Technology Adoption among Smallholder Cassava Farmers in Ghana. Agric. Food Secur. 2022, 11, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oluwatoyin, B.C. Factors Influencing Adoption of Improved Maize Seed Varieties among Smallholder Farmers in Kaduna State, Nigeria. J. Agric. Ext. Rural Dev. 2021, 13, 107–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wachenheim, C.; Fan, L.; Zheng, S. Adoption of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles for Pesticide Application: Role of Social Network, Resource Endowment, and Perceptions. Technol. Soc. 2021, 64, 101470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, C.; Zheng, H. How Social Capital Affects Willingness of Farmers to Accept Low-Carbon Agricultural Technology (LAT)? A Case Study of Jiangsu, China. Int. J. Clim. Chang. Strateg. Manag. 2021, 13, 286–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akudugu, M.; Guo, E.; Dadzie, S. Adoption of Modern Agricultural Production Technologies by Farm Households in Ghana: What Factors Influence Their Decisions? J. Biol. Agric. Healthc. 2012, 2, 1–14. [Google Scholar]
- Cui, S.; Li, Y.; Jiao, X.; Zhang, D. Hierarchical Linkage between the Basic Characteristics of Smallholders and Technology Awareness Determines Small-Holders’ Willingness to Adopt Green Production Technology. Agriculture 2022, 12, 1275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, D.; Zhou, H.; Isabel, S.; Pereira, A.; Castro, P.H. Livelihoods, Technological Constraints, and Low-Carbon Agricultural Technology Preferences of Farmers: Analytical Frameworks of Technology Adoption and Farmer Livelihoods. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 13364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wiseman, L.; Sanderson, J.; Zhang, A.; Jakku, E. Farmers and Their Data: An Examination of Farmers’ Reluctance to Share Their Data through the Lens of the Laws Impacting Smart Farming. NJAS—Wagening. J. Life Sci. 2019, 90–91, 100301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nuttavuthisit, K.; Thøgersen, J. The Importance of Consumer Trust for the Emergence of a Market for Green Products: The Case of Organic Food. J. Bus. Ethics 2017, 140, 323–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.; He, G. Digital Financial Inclusion and Farmers’ Vulnerability to Poverty: Evidence from Rural China. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Primary Indicator | Secondary Indicator | Coefficient of Variation | Weight of Secondary Indicator | Weight of Primary Indicator |
---|---|---|---|---|
Superior species selecting and breeding | Yield increase per unit area | 0.645 | 0.126 | 0.257 |
Improvement in land quality | 0.346 | 0.065 | ||
Enhancement of ecological environment | 0.328 | 0.064 | ||
Subsoilling and tillage | Yield increase per unit area | 0.275 | 0.054 | 0.189 |
Improvement in land quality | 0.358 | 0.070 | ||
Enhancement of ecological environment | 0.337 | 0.066 | ||
Water-saving irrigation | Yield increase per unit area | 0.267 | 0.052 | 0.204 |
Improvement in land quality | 0.233 | 0.045 | ||
Enhancement of ecological environment | 0.547 | 0.107 | ||
Soil testing and formulated fertilization | Yield increase per unit area | 0.279 | 0.054 | 0.191 |
Improvement in land quality | 0.232 | 0.045 | ||
Enhancement of ecological environment | 0.466 | 0.091 | ||
Green control of pests and diseases | Yield increase per unit area | 0.284 | 0.055 | 0.159 |
Improvement in land quality | 0.239 | 0.047 | ||
Enhancement of ecological environment | 0.292 | 0.057 |
Observation | Percentage (%) | Low Adoption of Ecological Technologies | High Adoption of Ecological Technologies | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Observation | Percentage (%) | Observation | Percentage (%) | |||
Using digital information | 434 | 47.12 | 136 | 33.66 | 298 | 57.64 |
Not using digital information | 487 | 52.88 | 268 | 66.34 | 219 | 42.36 |
Total | 921 | 404 | 43.87 | 517 | 56.13 |
Variable | Definition | Mean | Standard Variation |
---|---|---|---|
Ecological production technology adoption | Calculate by the coefficient of variation method: 1 = High adoption; 0 = Low adoption. | 0.561 | 0.496 |
Digital information utilization | Do you use the Internet to access information on wheat ecological production technologies such as variety selection, scientific fertilization, water-saving irrigation, farmland management, and pest control? 1 = Yes; 0 = No. | 0.471 | 0.499 |
Perceived importance of digital information | Perception of the importance of digital information: 1 = Not important; 2 = Average; 3 = Very important. | 1.543 | 0.666 |
Gender | Female = 0; Male = 1. | 0.713 | 0.452 |
Age | Age of farmers. | 60.98 | 8.259 |
Educational level | 1 = No formal education; 2 = Elementary school graduate; 3 = Junior high school graduate; 4 = High school graduate or above. | 2.828 | 0.878 |
Engagement in other work | 1 = Only engaged in grain production; 2 = Migrant work; 3 = Self-employed in grain production; 4 = Other non-agricultural work. | 1.550 | 0.742 |
Serving as village cadres | 0 = No; 1 = Yes. | 0.137 | 0.344 |
Household population | Number of household members. | 4.543 | 2.245 |
Household agricultural labor ratio | Number of household members engaged in farming/Total household labor force (%). | 0.778 | 0.388 |
Proportion of non-agricultural income | Household non-farm income/Total household income. | 0.674 | 0.331 |
Cultivated land area | Hectares of managed land (including leased land). | 1.938 | 4.322 |
Number of cultivated land plots | Number of managed land plots (including leased land). | 3.837 | 2.333 |
Receipt of government subsidies | If receives government subsidies or compensation after a disaster: Yes = 1; No = 0. | 0.128 | 0.334 |
Technological cognition | Do you think the Internet, such as Apps, WeChat, Douyin, Kuaishou, etc., helps you master the relevant skills of wheat ecological production and management? 1 = Absolutely not capable; 2 = Not very capable; 3 = Hard to say; 4 = Comparatively capable; 5 = Extremely capable. | 2.817 | 0.918 |
Information sharing | Do you think the Internet, such as interactive learning communities, expedites the sharing of wheat ecological production experience? 1 = Absolutely not; 2 = No; 3 = Hard to say; 4 = Yes; 5 = Absolutely Yes. | 2.084 | 0.762 |
Production monitoring | Do you think the Internet, such as smart agriculture platforms, helps to monitor pests and disease, soil moisture, and other ecological production information? 1 = Absolutely not; 2 = No; 3 = Hard to say; 4 = Yes; 5 = Absolutely Yes. | 2.870 | 0.710 |
Market channels | Do you think the Internet provides you with information about wheat demand and prices and online sales channels? 1 = Absolutely not; 2 = No; 3 = Hard to say; 4 = Yes; 5 = Absolutely Yes. | 2.870 | 1.010 |
Product traceability | Do you think the Internet helps to promote the process and quality of wheat ecological production through green agricultural product traceability platforms? 1 = Absolutely not; 2 = No; 3 = Hard to say; 4 = Yes; 5 = Absolutely Yes. | 2.031 | 0.800 |
Financial services | Do you think the Internet provides you with online lending, agricultural insurance, and other financial services? 1 = Absolutely not; 2 = No; 3 = Hard to say; 4 = Yes; 5 = Absolutely Yes. | 3.054 | 2.031 |
Variable | Digital Information Utilization | Ecological Production Technology Adoption | |
---|---|---|---|
Used Digital Information | Did Not Use Digital Information | ||
Perceived importance of digital information | 1.7694 *** (0.1221) | ||
Gender | −0.8674 *** (0.1678) | 1.5037 *** (0.4485) | 0.1435 (0.1693) |
Age | −0.1719 *** (0.0138) | −0.1750 *** (0.0468) | 0.0042 (0.0113) |
Educational level | 0.5967 (0.0822) | 0.2161 (0.2484) | 0.1470 (0.0942) |
Engagement in other work | 0.4690 *** (0.1202) | −1.6713 *** (0.5870) | −0.0686 (0.1211) |
Serving as village cadres | 0.0009 (0.2250) | −0.9409 (0.8014) | 0.5799 *** (0.2444) |
Household population | 0.0404 (0.0333) | 0.0700 (0.0969) | −0.0219 (0.0340) |
Household agricultural labor ratio | 0.4067 *** (0.1538) | 0.3017 (0.4422) | 0.8954 *** (0.2828) |
Proportion of non-agricultural income | −0.0502 (0.2602) | −3.7049 *** (0.9923) | 1.0139 *** (0.2669) |
Cultivated land area | 0.2146 *** (0.0418) | 9.5217 *** (1.5370) | 0.4469 *** (0.0591) |
Number of cultivated land plots | −0.1490 *** (0.0322) | −0.0322 (0.1008) | −0.0367 (0.0375) |
Receipt of government subsidies | −0.1195 (0.2041) | 1.7679 *** (0.5732) | 0.3639 (0.2114) |
Constant | −12.7713 *** (1.0016) | 6.9450 ** (3.4780) | 1.1541 (0.7946) |
0.6409 ** (0.2279) | |||
1 (6.00 × 10−11) | |||
Log-likelihood = −500.9205 | |||
Wald chi2(12) = 314.83 *** | |||
LR test of indep. eqns. (rho1 = rho0 = 0):chi2(2) = 32.63 Prob > chi2 = 0.0000 |
Ecological Production Information Acquisition | Used Digital Information | Did Not Use Digital Information | Average Treatment Effect on the Treated (ATT) |
---|---|---|---|
Ecological production technology adoption | 0.8854 | 0.7857 | 0.0997 *** |
Technological Cognition | Information Sharing | Production Monitoring | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Regression (1) Ecological Production Technology Adoption | Regression (2) Technological Cognition | Regression (3) Ecological Production Technology Adoption | Regression (4) Ecological Production Technology Adoption | Regression (5) Information Sharing | Regression (6) Ecological Production Technology Adoption | Regression (7) Ecological Production Technology Adoption | Regression (8) Production Monitoring | Regression (9) Ecological Production Technology Adoption | |
Digital information utilization | 0.1373 *** (0.0383) | 0.3146 *** (0.0734) | 0.0737 (0.0357) | 0.1373 *** (0.0383) | 0.8621 *** (0.0499) | 0.1065 (0.0442) | 0.1373 *** (0.0383) | 0.2533 *** (0.0600) | 0.0734 (0.0356) |
Technological cognition | 0.2023 *** (0.0160) | ||||||||
Information sharing | 0.0357 (0.0255) | ||||||||
Production monitoring | 0.2521 *** (0.0195) |
Market Channels | Product Traceability | Financial Services | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Regression (10) Ecological Production Technology Adoption | Regression (11) Market Channels | Regression (12) Ecological Production Technology Adoption | Regression (13) Ecological Production Technology Adoption | Regression (14) Product Traceability | Regression (15) Ecological Production Technology Adoption | Regression (16) Ecological Production Technology Adoption | Regression (17) Financial Services | Regression (18) Ecological Production Technology Adoption | |
Digital information utilization | 0.1373 *** (0.0383) | 0.2789 *** (0.0825) | 0.0897 (0.0358) | 0.1373 *** (0.0383) | 0.8871 *** (0.0540) | 0.1123 (0.0436) | 0.1373 *** (0.0383) | 0.3581 (0.2197) | 0.1332 *** (0.0383) |
Market channels | 0.1742 *** (0.0143) | ||||||||
Product traceability | 0.02815 (0.0235) | ||||||||
Financial services | 0.0116 (0.0058) |
Variable | Digital Information Utilization | Ecological Production Technology Adoption | |
---|---|---|---|
Used Digital Information | Did Not Use Digital Information | ||
Perceived importance of digital information | 1.6484 *** (0.1280) | ||
Gender | −0.8022 *** (0.1706) | 1.0842 *** (0.3617) | 0.1716 (0.1603) |
Age | −0.1661 *** (0.0137) | −0.1473 *** (0.0384) | 0.0076 (0.0134) |
Educational level | 0.1129 (0.0811) | 0.1272 (0.2039) | 0.08836 (0.0863) |
Engagement in other work | 0.4551 *** (0.1224) | −0.9298 ** (0.4116) | 0.1628 (0.1115) |
Serving as village cadres | 0.1898 (0.2194) | 0.4237 (0.5311) | 0.4936 ** (0.2313) |
Household population | 0.0220 (0.0311) | 0.0647 (0.0881) | 0.0170 (0.0317) |
Household agricultural labor ratio | 0.3853 *** (0.1506) | 0.2808 (0.4959) | 0.6018 ** (0.2542) |
Proportion of non-agricultural income | −0.1332 (0.2439) | −1.6108 *** (0.6491) | 0.9066 *** (0.2436) |
Cultivated land area | 0.0926 * (0.0565) | 7.6672 *** (1.0829) | 0.1432 *** (0.0206) |
Number of cultivated land plots | −0.1139 *** (0.0328) | −0.1241 (0.0912) | −0.0764 *** (0.0281) |
Receipt of government subsidies | −0.1482 (0.1939) | 1.1854** (0.5165) | 0.1839 (0.2103) |
Constant | −12.2002 *** (1.0016) | 5.8752 * (3.1476) | −1.6972 ** (0.8306) |
0.6749 ** (0.2145) | |||
−0.8792 ** (0.1076) | |||
Log-likelihood = −559.2867 | |||
Wald chi2(12) = 257.04 *** | |||
LR test of indep. eqns. (rho1 = rho0 = 0):chi2(2) = 11.42 Prob > chi2 = 0.0033 |
Ecological Production Information Acquisition | Used Digital Information | Did Not Use Digital Information | Average Treatment Effect on the Treated (ATT) |
---|---|---|---|
Ecological production technology adoption | 0.9028 | 0.7568 | 0.1460 *** |
Variable | Digital Information Utilization | Ecological Production Technology Adoption | |
---|---|---|---|
Used Digital Information | Did Not Use Digital Information | ||
Perceived importance of digital information | 1.6252 *** (0.1296) | ||
Gender | −0.8875 *** (0.1723) | 1.6398 *** (0.3414) | 0.1570 (0.1606) |
Age | −0.1736 *** (0.0135) | −0.1866 *** (0.0405) | 0.0030 (0.0104) |
Educational level | 0.1151 (0.0793) | 0.4019 ** (0.1989) | 0.1047 (0.0872) |
Engagement in other work | 0.4508 *** (0.1302) | −1.2423 *** (0.3923) | 0.1514 (0.1199) |
Serving as village cadres | 0.1336 (0.2111) | 0.6186 (0.5433) | 0.4460 ** (0.2233) |
Household population | 0.0374 (0.0320) | 0.1534 * (0.0824) | 0.0288 (0.0322) |
Household agricultural labor ratio | 0.4190 *** (0.1502) | 0.2510 (0.2250) | 0.5610 ** (0.2584) |
Proportion of non-agricultural income | −0.1495 (0.2554) | −2.7568 *** (0.7780) | 1.0818 *** (0.2439) |
Cultivated land area | 0.1066 *** (0.0337) | 7.9816 *** (1.0841) | 0.1729 *** (0.0231) |
Number of cultivated land plots | −0.1109 *** (0.0330) | −0.0188 (0.0843) | −0.0805 *** (0.0287) |
Receipt of government subsidies | −0.0625 (0.1983) | 1.7000 *** (0.4908) | 0.1687 (0.2008) |
Constant | −12.6561 *** (0.9803) | 8.2567 *** (3.0026) | −1.5671 ** (0.7705) |
0.8280 ** (0.1514) | |||
−0.9998 (0.0116) | |||
Log-likelihood = −550.119 | |||
Wald chi2(12) = 297.26 *** | |||
LR test of indep. eqns. (rho1 = rho0 = 0):chi2(2) = 28.54 Prob > chi2 = 0.0000 |
Ecological Production Information Acquisition | Used Digital Information | Did Not Use Digital Information | Average Treatment Effect on the Treated (ATT) |
---|---|---|---|
Ecological production technology adoption | 0.9166 | 0.7864 | 0.1302 *** |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 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, Y.; Xu, J.; Liu, F.; Zhang, X. Impact and Mechanism of Digital Information Selection on Farmers’ Ecological Production Technology Adoption: A Study on Wheat Farmers in China. Agriculture 2024, 14, 713. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14050713
Li Y, Xu J, Liu F, Zhang X. Impact and Mechanism of Digital Information Selection on Farmers’ Ecological Production Technology Adoption: A Study on Wheat Farmers in China. Agriculture. 2024; 14(5):713. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14050713
Chicago/Turabian StyleLi, Yanzi, Jiahui Xu, Fuqiang Liu, and Xinshi Zhang. 2024. "Impact and Mechanism of Digital Information Selection on Farmers’ Ecological Production Technology Adoption: A Study on Wheat Farmers in China" Agriculture 14, no. 5: 713. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14050713